CATCH THE LATEST WEBSLEUTHS RADIO AS WE LOOK INTO THE TERRIFYING WORLD OF MEDICAL SERIAL KILLERS
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Hunter's changes in Lin Wood's affidavit

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Thorkim, Apr 9, 2004.

  1. Thorkim

    Thorkim Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Tricia is giving permission to link to this thread at FFJ. Thank you to Tricia and Ryan Ross for this. Please go to this link and you will see the changes Hunter made to Lin's affidavit regarding Burke. It is very interesting. I have always thought a male Ramsey was involved in this crime and I am now back (yet again) to my original perp.



    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=55608#post55608
     
  2. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Correct, the changes in the wording of the October 12, 2000 affidavit signed by Alex Hunter but drafted by Lin Wood prove the affidavit to be a fraud. The affidavit tries to make it appear as though Burke has been cleared, but without using the word "cleared". The intent was to mislead, it did mislead, and that is fraud.

    Hunter is no dummy, and the fraudulent wording in that affidavit is exactly what was intended. Not only did Hunter graduate from the CU law school at the top of his class, but he also had a team of attorneys available to him as the district attorney of Boulder County. By having Lin Wood draft the tricky wording in the affidavit, instead of someone on his own staff, it was clear what his intent was -- to make it APPEAR Burke was cleared in the killing of JonBenet when he WASN'T cleared. That would provide deceptive information to be used by Wood in Burke lawsuits. That's fraud.

    JMO
     
  3. Thorkim

    Thorkim Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree Bluecrab, and I thought of you when I saw this at FFJ last night right before I went to bed. I specifically asked Tricia if I might put it here for discussion and she told me yes. I know you have brought this up before and wanted to link to this find. I see the proof now.
     
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On this matter, it would appear that you have been right all along :)
     
  5. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mysteriously, A Certain Forum has suddenly gone missing, though the non-Ramsey-discussion forums remain, showing that the problem is not site-wide or related to the ISP. I would take this to mean the revelation of this paperwork is most distressing to certain Ramsey defenders, who fear the repercussions of being able to watch a civil lawyer in one state tell a District Attorney in another state what to write in an affidavit.
     
  6. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks to Thor, Tricia and FFJ for bringing this to us

    What I don't understand is how the LE officials in Boulder are not behind bars for the stunts they have pulled. So blatant and yet, the Governor turns a blind eye to the corruption in Boulder. How is it possible (shaking my head) that a civil attorney can dictate an affadavit for a District Attorney to sign so as to allow litigation in civil suits????????? Is it just me or is that just part of the corruption going ignored in Boulder?

    Yes, at least now it's on the forums for all to see that Burke is just as viable a suspect as anybody else in this case.
     
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you explain please?
     
  8. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoa why_nutt, WAY to much credit given! These are people who have been tap dancing around the facts of the 911 tape since Keenan botched its release a while back. Nothing in this case will ever wake them up to reality.
     
  9. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. BC. Why not just refuse to sign it? Why play these silly games to help the Ramseys? Vintage Hunter, isn't it?

    Anyway, BCrab, you win the I told you so! award. And thank you to Thorkim and Tricia for bringing this info.

    Fascinating that Hunter X'd out the following, proving that the following things are NOT TRUE:

    All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

    From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.


    Clearly, Burke is a suspect.
     
  10. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wouldn't call it corruption. I call it a superiorist attitude that becomes a law unto itself. I call it infantile retention, adults acting like three year olds. Same thing is going on in San Francisco. We know Boulder as ten square miles of heaven surrounded by reality.

    Just like an aging child that refuses to be humbled to the larger realities of nature and society, Boulder is slowly turning Heaven into Hell.

    What possible political advantage would Owens reap by sticking his hand into that? He like many of the republican leaders in this country are trying to circumvent the Leftists not validate their existence by confronting them. It's the same strategy we have with Cuba, let them rot.
     
  11. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, Thorkim, for posting the link, and thank you, Tricia. I hadn't seen a copy of the actual affidavit, but I'd read about the fiasco in Ryan Ross's Crime Magazine article, which I've referred to, and provided a link to, in many of my posts.

    An aside: I emailed Ross a link to the affidavit containing Patsy's exemplars when Tricia posted the link at FFJ, in case he hadn't seen the actual affidavit. He hadn't. Good work, Tricia.

    imo
     
  12. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

    From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.

    The statement was x'd out because it would have been a LIE to say Burke ,as with everyone in
    that home that night ,wasn't considered.
    The sentence below the x'ing,states Burke Ramsey has never been considered a suspect! This was not X'd out.
    Don't you guys see this?
    IMO
     
  13. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It does not. You are quoting the deleted portion.

    The sentence left in says this:

    From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

    It means exactly what it says: During that time frame (on Hunter's watch), no evidence HAD BEEN DEVELOPED.

    If Hunter intended to say Burke has never been considered a suspect! - your quote - he wouldn't have X'd out the sentence stating Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect...
     
  14. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

    Burke was in the home ,all family members were under consideration,this is what Hunter was trying to make clear. To state he was never a suspect,in the sense all Ramseys were,would have been a lie. He corrected the affidavit by rewriting the sentence as above.
    An intruder kill Jonbenet!
    Burke is not a suspect,nothing within the investigation hinted he was.
    IMO
     
  15. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wake up sissi. Hunter is a *******. The fact that he is conspiring with the lawyer of the prime suspects in a murder/rape case shows just how unprofessional and incompetent the man was. Nothing Hunter says is of any value in this case. The man was nothing but a big-time loser, and his record shows that began WAY before Ramsey case.
     
  16. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that is true, then why did Hunter delete this: All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators...

    Why not just cut the last part of the sentence: ...and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

    Cutting just the last portion would accomplish what you describe. That's not what Hunter did. He cut the whole thing.

    Then why did Hunter delete this whole sentence: From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.

    Why not just cut the "has not been" phrase and leave the rest?

    If Burke wasn't a suspect, then why didn't Hunter just say so?
     
  17. Islander

    Islander New Member

    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In paragraph 5 of the Hunter/Wood affidavit, Hunter states that questions about Burke’s involvement in JB’s death were raised “and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.” Not sure exactly what, if any, the BPD’s standard investigative practices and procedures were at the time, but Hunter’s statement seems to contradict Mike Kane’s statement made on the Dan Abrams Report. Kane stated “the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case.” So was Burke thoroughly investigated or not?
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Burke got a "get out of jail free" card early in the investigation from people like Thomas and Kane. The BPD early-on booted the investigation into Burke's possible involvement in the murder simply because he was a child -- which was a fatal assumption.

    IMO the ridiculous fake ransom note alone, with its threats and silly foreign faction theme, should have told investigators to look for the involvement of a juvenile male.

    JMO
     
  19. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's nothing fraudulent about the affadavit. Like many documents, it underwent some editing before it was finalized.

    It was signed, witnessed, and is an official sworn affadavit.
     
  20. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    24,456
    Likes Received:
    8,573
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LP you are right. It is not fraudulent in any way. Plus it is not unusual for someone from the opposing side to write an affidavit and let the other side edit it.

    HOWEVER.... Let me try and put this situation in the proper perspective.

    Can you imagine O.J. Simpson's civil attorney's asking Marcia Clark to sign a depo to help O.J. out in a civil case? Of course not.

    To me what is appalling is that Hunter willingly help. If I am not mistaken he could have pleaded prosecutorial immunity.

    If Burke was 100 percent in the clear then Hunter would have said so. As it is Hunter left himself about a million square feet of wiggle room.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice