Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[Sherlockknows]

The same look the same man the same woman....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2006/jun/25/features.magazine37

Getting Away with Murder
Sunday 25 June 2006


"JonBenet's death gripped America, Tracey suggests, because it had everything going for it: 'Sex, sleaze, the rich father, the American dream gone bad... It was a combination of voyeurism, resentment, anger, irrationality, a cultural viciousness. It was Greek - a lot of people focused on it as a kind of catharsis.'



..........................
Where is the catharsis, I ask, if the case is unsolved? 'It's in the hate. Hate the Ramseys, you feel better. This was pretty close to a conspiracy.'"- Sk

 

[Sherlockknows]

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2006/jun/25/features.magazine37

Getting Away with Murder
Sunday 25 June 2006


"JonBenet's death gripped America, Tracey suggests, because it had everything going for it: 'Sex, sleaze, the rich father, the American dream gone bad... It was a combination of voyeurism, resentment, anger, irrationality, a cultural viciousness. It was Greek - a lot of people focused on it as a kind of catharsis.'



..........................
Where is the catharsis, I ask, if the case is unsolved? 'It's in the hate. Hate the Ramseys, you feel better. This was pretty close to a conspiracy.'"- Sk

Very good. And there's something else.

They returned home around ten, yet in the letter the blackmailers say 'Tomorrow'. I think it was therefore written before midnight, not during the night after the brother woke up the parents if he had done it. The Pineapple, at least two hours before her passing to reach the small intestine? So she would probably have been hit, for me, maybe not long after her return. It would be interesting to note how the crab was digested, eaten before at the party?

And the date of Death, 25th. As others have said she was so Religious she would never get this wrong. Not for a headstone. It was the last thing she could do for her....but for this to happen the strangulation would have to also take place before midnight.

Son might not have even known anything about it till he heard the commotion the mother made making the call and came out of the room. They said he was asleep to protect him from anything he may have heard going on in the cover up....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

Very good. And there's something else.

They returned home around ten, yet in the letter the blackmailers say 'Tomorrow'. I think it was therefore written before midnight, not during the night after the brother woke up the parents if he had done it. The Pineapple, at least two hours before her passing to reach the small intestine? So she would probably have been hit, for me, maybe not long after her return. It would be interesting to note how the crab was digested, eaten before at the party?

And the date of Death, 25th. As others have said she was so Religious she would never get this wrong. Not for a headstone. It was the last thing she could do for her....but for this to happen the strangulation would have to also take place before midnight.

Son might not have even known anything about it till he heard the commotion the mother made making the call and came out of the room. They said he was asleep to protect him from anything he may have heard going on in the cover up....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I place no significance on the word "tomorrow" in the RN. Even when I worked the night shift, I used that word many times after midnight to apply to the day that was about to come. I'd say at least half of the nurses I worked with did the same thing. Another example is when people are out after midnight, they often say "tomorrow", when they really mean "after the sun comes up".

Regarding transit time of the pineapple into the small intestine - I doubt that it would have taken 2 hours. This is the best info I've found on that:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TQ01C2AUAVTNAV02M

I always thought the date on the headstone was chosen for dramatic effect. But JR said "Well, I gave that a lot of thought, but I wanted to remind everyone that my little girl was killed by an evil person; and she was killed on Christmas night, on silent night." wth? Religious? There's a big difference between religious and spiritual. But, at any rate - don't get me started about what a liar PR was.

 

[TeaTime]

Sherlock - the wording of the RN is just a hot mess of confusion. I tend to think that the writer used 'tomorrow' because it was still night when it was being written.

Your thinking that PR is the culprit is shared by ALL of the detectives on the case from the beginning. Kolar and the release of the GJ indictment changed that thought for many of us. For me, the GJ indictment, on its own, points at BR.

 

[icedtea4me]

We've been told that the reason Counts IV and VII were released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act request is because they were signed. However, there are two signature options - one for No True Bill and one for True Bill. I agree with you that the lower numbered counts were the more serious ones, including the murder charge. If it's true that the foreman did not sign these one way or the other, what possible reason would there be for this? Either the GJ voted to indict on those unreleased counts or they did not. Either way, they should have been signed by the foreman, and therefore releasable under the FOIA. There isn't a third option. Unless there is a third option, and those counts weren't signed off on either because the person or persons named could not legally be indicted for a crime. Or they were signed, but they involved a minor and were therefore invalid. And any such information involving alleged criminal activities of an un-indicated minor generally cannot be released under Freedom of Information.

We need a Colorado criminal attorney to opine here, but this "no signature" thing isn't adding up.

Is it possible that the Grand Jury didn't know exactly who did what, so they decided to charge each John and Patsy with the same thing, like first degree murder and first degree assault?

 

[HarmonyE.]

Is it possible that the Grand Jury didn't know exactly who did what, so they decided to charge each John and Patsy with the same thing, like first degree murder and first degree assault?

We know they didn't charge John and Patsy with anything else. Had they, those indictments would have been signed and later released in 2013. According to the official who released the GJ documents, he was only able to release the signed indictments. However, in the document you posted, you can see there are two signature options,True Bill or No True bill and so they all should have been signed one way or the other - Indicted or Not Indicted. And yet these other indictments were not released under the Freedom of Information Act (called the Open Records Act in Colorado). As all indictments should have been signed, all should have been released as required by law.

I can only come up with two reasons why these other counts signed to indict or not indict where not released. 1)The indictments were never signed because the individual named could not legally be indicted or 2) The indictments in some way mentioned or involved someone who was under 18 at the time and therefore they could (must?) legally be excluded from FOIA disclosure. I lean towards the second one, although it conflicts a bit with the "we only could release the signed indictments" story. If this is the case, however, I'm not sure what else the official could say about the situation without spilling the beans that these counts addressed a minor in some way. And everyone knows there was only one surviving minor so his identity would have been inappropriately disclosed.

I'd be curious to hear if anyone else has any plausible thoughts on this, but all roads seem to lead to Burke with regard to the GJ.

 

[TeaTime]

Is it possible that the Grand Jury didn't know exactly who did what, so they decided to charge each John and Patsy with the same thing, like first degree murder and first degree assault?

There were no indictments of the parents for FDM or FDA, just child abuse by allowing a dangerous condition to exist resulting in her death and assisting the murderer whom they knew to be the murderer. We know this for 2 reasons: the GJ True Bills; and the fact that had there been a True Bill for FDM or FDA for either or both parents, they would have been charged by the DA and they weren't.

If the Grand Jurors believed that one of the parents actually killed JBR and they then both covered it up with staging a fake kidnapping, but could not decide on which one strangled her, they would have indicted them both. This happens all the time when there are two perps involved but the degree of involvement is unknown, i.e., who actually pulled the trigger.

Taken at face value, since neither were charged with murder or assault, but both deemed to be guilty of abuse resulting in death and cover up for the murderer, there is only one option left - BR was the killer. It is no longer a mystery.

 

[buggiegirl]

Taken at face value, since neither were charged with murder or assault, but both deemed to be guilty of abuse resulting in death and cover up for the murderer, there is only one option left - BR was the killer. It is no longer a mystery.

While this IS what I think went down, keep in mind that indictments aren't trial convictions. Just because the grand jury wanted to indict PR and JR for those two items each does not mean that is what happened.

 

[icedtea4me]

We know they didn't charge John and Patsy with anything else. Had they, those indictments would have been signed and later released in 2013. According to the official who released the GJ documents, he was only able to release the signed indictments. However, in the document you posted, you can see there are two signature options,True Bill or No True bill and so they all should have been signed one way or the other - Indicted or Not Indicted. And yet these other indictments were not released under the Freedom of Information Act (called the Open Records Act in Colorado). As all indictments should have been signed, all should have been released as required by law.

I can only come up with two reasons why these other counts signed to indict or not indict where not released. 1)The indictments were never signed because the individual named could not legally be indicted or 2) The indictments in some way mentioned or involved someone who was under 18 at the time and therefore they could (must?) legally be excluded from FOIA disclosure. I lean towards the second one, although it conflicts a bit with the "we only could release the signed indictments" story. If this is the case, however, I'm not sure what else the official could say about the situation without spilling the beans that these counts addressed a minor in some way. And everyone knows there was only one surviving minor so his identity would have been inappropriately disclosed.

I'd be curious to hear if anyone else has any plausible thoughts on this, but all roads seem to lead to Burke with regard to the GJ.

If counts IV (a) and VII were the only counts, then they would have been labeled as counts I and II.

 

[kanzz]

If counts IV (a) and VII were the only counts, then they would have been labeled as counts I and II.

Each count had its own page and the GJ foreman signed only those pages for which the GJ chose to indict. The counts that were presented to the GJ (from which they could choose to charge) were not changed.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...025_092257_John & Patsy Ramsey indictment.pdf

 

[HarmonyE.]

If counts IV (a) and VII were the only counts, then they would have been labeled as counts I and II.

Yes, I know. And that's a big part of the point I am making.

 

[HarmonyE.]

While this IS what I think went down, keep in mind that indictments aren't trial convictions. Just because the grand jury wanted to indict PR and JR for those two items each does not mean that is what happened.

It didn't happen, because the DA didn't sign off on the indictments.

 

[buggiegirl]

To be fair, what a grand jury finds has nothing to do with what really happened. They could be 100% right, they could be 100% wrong, they could get it 50/50. The DA not signing off on them doesn't mean that isn't what happened, it just means he didn't feel confident enough in the evidence to bring it to trial.

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.

 

[HarmonyE.]

To be fair, what a grand jury finds has nothing to do with what really happened. They could be 100% right, they could be 100% wrong, they could get it 50/50. The DA not signing off on them doesn't mean that isn't what happened, it just means he didn't feel confident enough in the evidence to bring it to trial.

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.

You are absolutely right. And my guess is that we don't know the full story as to why Hunter wouldn't go forward. But it's highly unusual for a grand jury to indict and a DA to opt not sign off on those indictments because it is the DA who convened the jury in the first place, looking for indictments! He didn't have to convene a grand jury in the first place. We know what some members of LE think of Hunter and his refusal to try cases, and I'm sure their perceptions are correct, but we don't know the whole story because we've only seen two indictments.

However, it is worth keeping in mind that this GJ investigated for nearly a year and the indictments we have seen are pretty specific as to what they thought about John and Patsy's before behavior (allowing JBR to remain in danger) and after behavior (helping the murderer after the fact). So while we cannot know all they knew, they didn't just pull those counts out of a hat.

 

[andreww]

To be fair, what a grand jury finds has nothing to do with what really happened. They could be 100% right, they could be 100% wrong, they could get it 50/50. The DA not signing off on them doesn't mean that isn't what happened, it just means he didn't feel confident enough in the evidence to bring it to trial.

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.

The DA was simply intimidated. He saw what happened to Gil Garcetti when he lost the OJ trial and didn't relish the idea of putting his career on the line against another legal dream team. The fact that he covered up the GJ findings tells you that he knew he was doing something wrong.

 

[Ambitioned]

Taken at face value, since neither were charged with murder or assault, but both deemed to be guilty of abuse resulting in death and cover up for the murderer, there is only one option left - BR was the killer. It is no longer a mystery.

This is exactly what a few local lawyers said as well when I asked them. I recommend people call a local lawyer if they're still confused or unclear.

 

[kanzz]

Again, concluding that the Grand Jury was correct in its indictment is hardly defamation. Indeed it was in the public interest to learn what evidence had been suppressed. Steep hill; designed to get a go away settlement. CBS needs to fight this in the interest of truth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sparko96 - If you have the time and inclination, there is a discussion in progress regarding the GJ indictments and we could use your input. (I have assumed somewhere along the line that you are an attorney. If I am wrong, I apologize.)

To save you some time, here are a few of the relevant posts:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13078017#post13078017

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13078940#post13078940

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13079446#post13079446

 

[questfortrue]

Sparko96 - If you have the time and inclination, there is a discussion in progress regarding the GJ indictments and we could use your input. (I have assumed somewhere along the line that you are an attorney. If I am wrong, I apologize.)

To save you some time, here are a few of the relevant posts:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13078017#post13078017

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13078940#post13078940

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Lawsuit-Against-CBS&p=13079446#post13079446

In Colorado --
A True Bill requires 9 votes.
A No True Bill also requires 9 votes.

From cynic: Colorado is one of a few states whose GJs vote not only for a True Bill, but they also have to have a majority vote for a No True Bill. So either way (as I understand it), the GJ’s vote is an “official action”.

Since the GJ Foreman did not sign the other charges, one can assume there was not the requisite 9 votes for either No True Bills or additional True Bills.

 

[TeaTime]

While this IS what I think went down, keep in mind that indictments aren't trial convictions. Just because the grand jury wanted to indict PR and JR for those two items each does not mean that is what happened.

I am well aware of the difference, thanks. Since the GJ chose to indict on these charges, it is a fact that the evidence presented to them made them believe that the parents were both guilty of the crimes for which they were indicted. Otherwise, no True Bill.