Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2018, 01:01:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: JonBent and Burke Ramsey  (Read 17306 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53273

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #75 on: October 07, 2016, 05:59:08 PM »


Well they really painted Sptiz as a dishonest quack.  Will be interesting to see what happens when they question Burke in this case.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #76 on: October 07, 2016, 06:19:32 PM »

Well they really painted Sptiz as a dishonest quack.  Will be interesting to see what happens when they question Burke in this case.   

After all this time, and things are finally hitting the road.  And I agree, shouldn't be many dull moments.

But it's sort of interesting that Lin Wood's dad killed his mom when Wood was a teenager, and LW was the one who found her beaten to death.  That's a little background story, or at least as the story goes.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2016, 07:57:45 AM »

Lin Wood demands a retraction from CBS and Critical Content, before he picks a fight:









More: https://www.scribd.com/document/327041580/Lin-Wood-Retraction-Demand-to-CBS-and-Critical-Content-Re-Burke-Ramsey#from_embed
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #78 on: October 11, 2016, 08:00:19 AM »

From Q and A with Lin Wood:

There are many observers out there who would dispute your use of the word "exonerated" when it comes to what the district attorney's office said about John and Patsy Ramsey. Tell me why "exonerated" is the right word from your perspective.

LW: Don't make it my word. Go back to what the district attorney's office said. They said going forward, the Ramseys would be treated as victims, because that's what they are. That's their role in this case. An apology was issued to the family for the years of accusations and media coverage they'd had to endure. That 2008 statement by Mary Lacy cannot be reasonably interpreted as anything other than a public and official exoneration.

Now, can people disagree with Mary Lacy? Yes, provided those people are basing their disagreement of an informed review of the accurate evidence.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, though between the Ramsey case and the Jewell case, I sometimes feel as if I was a quasi-criminal lawyer. But what I've learned, which I think is consistent with common sense — and I think most people who rushed to accuse the Ramseys in this case literally checked common sense at the door — but what I can say is that we know as a matter of fact under the actual evidence that DNA, likely saliva, not touch DNA, was found in the blood spot in the crotch of JonBenét's underwear. And that DNA was found under her fingernails. We know that DNA was not Ramsey [DNA]. The police department knew that within a couple weeks of the murder, but didn't bother to report it to the district attorney's office for months. But we know that the markers were sufficient in the underwear to be certified for the CODIS database. And while the fingernail DNA didn't have enough markers for the database, the markers that were discovered were consistent with the DNA found in her underwear.

Then, along in 2008, with the new technology of touch DNA, it was found that there was DNA found on both sides of the waistband of her pajama bottoms. That DNA is tested and guess what: It matches the DNA found in her underwear, which was consistent with the DNA found under her fingernails. No legitimate law enforcement individual would ever look for an innocent explanation of foreign DNA found on the body of a murder victim. The fact that the Boulder Police Department attempted to try to justify the DNA somehow being there from the manufacturing process in Asia is laughable. It defies any legitimate use of DNA evidence connected with a crime.

So what do you have? You have evidence that does not support a charge against the family. You have DNA evidence found in three areas on the body of the victim that matches. You find the person's DNA, you match the DNA to an individual. One and one equals two. You're going to solve this murder. This is a DNA case, and only those people who have a longstanding conviction that the Ramseys were involved, only those people obsessed with Ramsey guilt, will try to explain away the clear, hard evidence that exonerates the family.

Unfortunately, many of the opinions that were shaped in this case were shaped early. And then it becomes what's called confirmation bias, where you view everything through the prism of what belief you had previously formed. The public was deceived in this case, intentionally by the Boulder Police Department leaking false and accusatory information to the media about this family. We know that as a matter of sworn testimony.

So do I understand that there are people who want to twist Mary Lacy's public exoneration into something other than what it clearly was? Yes. Do I understand that people want to continue to defy the evidence and make some accusation against the Ramseys? I understand that, too, because the false information leaked by the police was so overwhelmingly against this family that there were conclusions drawn by the public that are very, very difficult to change. I'm sure there are still people who continue to believe that Richard Jewell bombed the Olympics even though Eric Rudolph pled guilty to the crime. That's what happens, because the whisper of innocence never overcomes the shout of guilt.

I understand it. But when it comes to someone with credibility in the media making the accusation, I'm going to deal with it. And I'm going to teach them a legal lesson they will not forget.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2016, 08:11:11 AM »

Interesting.  More from Lin Wood.

There's been speculation that your comments about a planned lawsuit wouldn't result in an actual filing because of concern that the discovery process would result in the release of material the Ramsey family wouldn't be comfortable putting out in public. Was that ever a consideration?

LW: The idea that there would be any hesitation in suing over this case because of fear of the discovery process is utter nonsense. I have already filed and successfully pursued three cases on behalf of Burke Ramsey, all those years ago. I have also filed defendant cases for John and Patsy Ramsey. They have been deposed. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in engaging fully in the discovery process.

Discovery in this case is going to support my client's position. Because his position is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, discovery is going to expose Dr. Spitz in his case and CBS in its case. It's going to expose the utter lack of evidentiary foundation for the accusations against Burke Ramsey. And it's going to, I believe, prove by clear and convincing evidence that this accusation was manufactured in order to produce big ratings during September sweeps and get the CBS docuseries off to a good start with an intent to avoid CBS's internal standards. That's because they did not allow this broadcast to be produced by 48 Hours. 48 Hours is the arm of CBS that produces true-crime programs in what might be generally described as the entertainment area. 48 Hours has done at least three shows on the JonBenét Ramsey case. They were, in fact, supposed to produce the twentieth-anniversary segment. But it was pulled by CBS Entertainment to give the show to Critical Content. And in so doing, it allowed the show to be produced outside CBS's internal standards. They were allowed to have greater freedom to make this false accusation against Burke, which no other show has made against this young man.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #80 on: October 11, 2016, 08:21:28 AM »

Lin Wood clarifies the timing of events, etc.  Can't wait to see how brutal the fight.

So the only reason you went forward with the current lawsuit against Dr. Spitz but didn't file concurrently against CBS is because of the California law requiring what is essentially a waiting period?

LW: Correct. Michigan law only provides that you must allow a reasonable time period, which has been defined as being as short as five-plus days. So a retraction demand was sent to Werner Spitz. His lawyer did write me and told me that he had no interest in retracting, so we went ahead and prepared the lawsuit against him — and we did not have the time constraints we have in California. That explains why Spitz was filed first. It doesn't mean to give him any greater role in the defamation. But what Spitz did do — Spitz gave an interview to CBS Detroit and explicitly made the accusations, directly as a statement of fact, that Burke killed JonBenét. That's a separate accusation beyond his role in the CBS docuseries. So I was able, under law, to get that lawsuit filed, but I would have sued him separately for that interview anyway. He'll also be a party to the CBS case for defamation arising out of the docuseries itself.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #81 on: October 11, 2016, 08:56:30 AM »

Lin Wood refers to James Kolar, and to Dr. Phil:  

Why have you decided to file suit in this case, particularly given that over the course of twenty years, lots of people have made wild accusations against members of the Ramsey family?

LW: Since 1999 and 2000, when I successfully sued Star magazine, the New York Post and Court TV for falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of the death of JonBenét, no member of the mainstream media or even the tabloid media has dared to make that accusation against this young man again. He was officially and publicly cleared — being described as not being a suspect or a possible suspect by the Boulder Police Department in May of 1998 and the Boulder District Attorney's Office in May of 1999. And there has been no evidence developed in the case since then other than DNA evidence developed in 2008 that was used by then-district attorney Mary Lacy to exonerate the entire family. Burke had already been exonerated. So other than, as you say, wild accusations that have floated around in the Internet world over the last twenty years, no credible attack has ever been made against Burke Ramsey since the foolishness in 1999 and 2000.

Jim Kolar's book was published a few years ago. It was self-published. It had no credibility. No mainstream publisher would touch it. I know for a fact that Jim Kolar approached a number of members of the mainstream media in New York seeking interviews to publicize the book, and they refused to interview him. They refused any attempt to give publicity or credibility to his book, Foreign Faction. And that book is the cornerstone of the CBS docuseries that was recently broadcast. So while Jim Kolar was not worth a lawsuit a few years ago, because I did not feel he had any credibility and I did not want to give him the appearance of credibility that would publicize his book by filing a lawsuit against him, obviously things have changed now, because CBS used this book as part of its script for the docuseries.

You've probably seen me quoted as saying this series was a fraud. There was no new investigation by a new team of experts. This was a scripted show, primarily off of Jim Kolar's book.


Author, James Kolar

Did you know in advance of the CBS docuseries' airing that this was going to be a theme? And did you reach out in any way to producers to try to present a different point of view or to let them know that litigation would be forthcoming if they followed that particular route?

LW: The answer is yes to both questions. I had received information in the early part of the summer that CBS intended to air a docuseries based on true crime, clearly trying to build on the success about the true-crime series about O.J. Simpson and the program The Making of a Murderer. And I understood they were going to be relying on Jim Kolar's theories. So I was relatively confident they were going to make the mistake of using Burke Ramsey. And I did reach out to CBS before the broadcast, and I did inform them that if they did in fact make those accusations against Burke, a lawsuit would be filed. Which should come as no surprise to them.

I had agreed for Burke to be interviewed by Dr. Phil McGraw. And that was because I understood the accusations were likely going to be made, and I felt like it had reached the point where Burke, who has been silent for the last twenty years and has not given any interviews, should exercise what the law refers to as his right of reasonable response. I had also hoped that good judgment would prevail and CBS might even at the last minute reconsider the error of its ways when Burke gave the interview, which also discussed a lot of evidence in the case. I hoped that CBS might reconsider and not make the accusations against Burke.


Dr. Phil with Burke Ramsey
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53273

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #82 on: October 11, 2016, 11:08:42 AM »

After all this time, and things are finally hitting the road.  And I agree, shouldn't be many dull moments.

But it's sort of interesting that Lin Wood's dad killed his mom when Wood was a teenager, and LW was the one who found her beaten to death.  That's a little background story, or at least as the story goes.

 Shocked
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #83 on: October 11, 2016, 01:47:01 PM »

Shocked

Yes.  Makes me wonder what's going through his mind with all this.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53273

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #84 on: October 27, 2016, 03:46:50 PM »

Sneak Peek: Who killed JonBenet? New TV special profiles Patsy Ramsey
By  Carole Glines 
Published October 27, 2016
FoxNews.com

The mysterious unsolved death of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in her Boulder, Colo., home has never lost its power to fascinate the public. And many believe that JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, might have killed the little beauty pageant queen.

Now, after numerous TV specials have already aired to mark the twentieth anniversary of JonBenet's murder on Dec. 26, 1996, Lifetime has produced its own two-hour documentary focusing on Patsy.

Brother of JonBenet Ramsey breaks his silence 20 years after beauty queen's murder

"JonBenet's Mother: Victim or Killer?" airing Nov. 5 on Lifetime follows the network's TV movie "Who Killed JonBenet?" In the second of the two JonBenet specials, viewers will see new interviews with investigators, journalists who followed the case, and friends of Patsy who weigh in on her life before and after her daughter's shocking death.
 
During the show, the talking heads attempt to answer an impossible question: Who was Patsy Ramsey-- a tragic victim or cold-blooded killer?

"Her life was a stage and everything that Patsy did was with purpose," her friend Marcia Shurley says of the wife and mom who died of cancer in June 2006 after almost a decade under suspicion.

TV shows explore shocking new theories on JonBenet Ramsey case

The shocking case gripped the nation right after Christmas 1996. Patsy had made a 911 call to report her daughter kidnapped. After police arrived, Patsy and her wealthy husband John showed them a ransom note they said had been left on their stairs of their home.

Later, John discovered their daughter's body in the wine cellar. Investigators determined JonBenet had suffered a blow to the head and had also been strangled with a garrote.

Quickly, the Ramseys, and especially Patsy, came under the scrutiny of the Boulder police department.

The Lifetime special notes that the public looked askance at Patsy, a former Miss West Virginia, partly because she put her tiny blonde daughter in child beauty pageants.

Video of JonBenet prancing around in teased hair, heavy makeup, and outrageous, some said sexualized, costumes, horrified many, but for the new documentary, Patsy's friend and beauty pageant chaperone Betty Smith tells Lifetime it was an "absolutely normal" look.

And friend Shurley insists, "I would never, in a million years, say that Patsy was a stage mom. She exposed her daughter to it and her daughter really picked up on it and loved it and wanted to do it."

But Patsy's longtime pal Linda McLean confides on the show that her heart sank when she saw the Ramseys' notorious New Year's day, 1997, CNN interview, in which the frenzied mother implied an intruder had killed JonBenet.

Patsy dramatically cried, "I would tell my friends to keep--keep your babies close to you. There's someone out there."

McLean, who maintains Patsy was innocent of any involvement in the crime, didn't like the vibe of the CNN appearance.

Others wonder if Patsy had rehearsed the appearance, as she had acted out dramatic scenes years before in the talent portion of her own beauty pageant competitions.

During the Lifetime show, viewers will see investigators and journalists explore the police theory that Patsy had struck her daughter with a blunt object out of frustration over JonBenet's bed wetting.

The combative mother is also shown in a controversial police interview in which she snaps at a detective who confronts her about the bed wetting theory, "You're going down the wrong path, buddy....Quit screwing around asking me about things that are ridiculous and find the person that did this!"

Although the idea of Patsy being a stage mom who snapped is persuasive to some, other show experts raise the intruder killer theory, especially due to a 2008 test that showed foreign DNA on JonBenet's long johns. It didn't match anyone in the Ramsey family.

There's much more on "JonBenet's Mother: Victim or Killer?" It airs Nov. 5 on Lifetime.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/27/sneak-peek-who-killed-jonbenet-new-tv-special-profiles-patsy-ramsey.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #85 on: October 28, 2016, 01:08:06 PM »

October 28, 2016 (NYP)

DNA evidence in the killing of JonBenét Ramsey does not support a former prosecutor’s decision to clear the girl’s relatives in her death, according to an explosive new report revealing new information to the public for the first time in the 1996 killing.

A joint report by the Boulder Daily Camera and 9NEWS analyzed exclusively obtained lab test results and reports in the homicide that remains Colorado’s most closely followed unsolved murder two decades after the 6-year-old beauty queen was found dead in the basement of her family’s home.

Forensic experts who examined those DNA tests disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy’s conclusion that a DNA profile found in one location on the girl’s underpants and two spots on her long johns necessarily belonged to the killer, which Lacy asserted when clearing the girl’s family of suspicion in 2008.

But the evidence, experts told the Boulder Daily Camera and 9NEWS, revealed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenét. That’s something Lacy’s office was told, according to documents obtained by the news organizations, but a fact that Lacy did not mention when clearing the Ramseys.

The existence of a third person’s genetic markers has never previously been publicly revealed, according to the report, which also raised the possibility that the original DNA sample recovered from JonBenét’s underwear could be a composite and not from a single individual.

“It’s a rather obvious point, but I mean, if you’re looking for someone that doesn’t exist, because actually it’s several people, it’s a problem,” Troy Eid, a former US attorney for Colorado, told reporters Charlie Brennan of the Daily Camera and Kevin Vaughan of 9NEWS.

Furthermore, two of the three samples that prompted Lacy to declare that no one in the Ramsey family could be JonBenét’s killer actually appear to include genetic material from at least three people: JonBenét, the person whose DNA profile originally was located in her underwear during testing beginning in the late 1990s, and at least one additional “as-yet-unidentified person or persons,” the report found.

“Consequently, its meaning is far from clear,” according to the report.

The experts contacted by the news organizations also found that the DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1, which was identified during testing on JonBenét’s panties, may not be the DNA of a single person, but instead a composite of genetic materials from several people, thus making it potentially “worthless” as evidence.

And the presence of that DNA on JonBenét’s undergarments, whether from one or multiple people, may be entirely innocent, the experts concluded, saying they could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people or transferred from another piece of clothing.

“If true, it would contradict the assertions that DNA will be key to finding JonBenét’s killer,” according to the report.

William Thompson, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, said it’s “certainly possible” that an intruder killed JonBenét, but he doesn’t think DNA evidence proves it.

The findings, according to the report, do not implicate or exonerate the Ramseys. An attorney for the family, Lin Wood, said he had “absolute and total” confidence in Lacy’s integrity. Lin did not review the documents or the analysis by the experts consulted by the Camera and 9NEWS.

“I have absolute and total confidence in the integrity of former District Attorney Mary Lacy, and I am also aware of internet comments by former Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner where he, within the last several months, affirmed that the Ramsey case was a DNA case.

“So I know what Chief Beckner has said publicly in recent months, I know what … former District Attorney Mary Lacy has said, and until someone impugns her integrity, or contradicts former Chief Beckner’s statement, I continue to believe, as I have said before, that this is a DNA case and that the best chance for solving the case will be a hit and match on the DNA in the future. I hope that day comes.”

The conclusions reached by the experts in the exclusive report could “dramatically impact” the direction of investigators trying to solve the case, it claims. Boulder County District Attorney Stanley Garnett, who succeeded Lacy, said he was puzzled when Lacy decided to publicly exonerate the Ramseys.

“Our job is not to issue random exonerations of people in cases, and it’s very confusing when that happens,” Garnett said.

The investigation into JonBenét’s death remains a Boulder Police Department case, as Garnett passed it back to detectives in the department when he became district attorney in 2009. Boulder Police Chief Greg Testa declined to comment on the DNA evidence, according to the report, but announced in September that more than 200 DNA samples had been submitted for analysis in the case.

Eid, the former US attorney for Colorado, said he hopes the report’s findings will spur new action in the case, which has not seen new DNA testing since 2008.

“And there ought to be a process to re-evaluate this in light of what you have brought forward. That’s my view,” Eid said. “And you shouldn’t feel locked in because some person who is no longer an elected official made a decision and said something. How many people have said things about this case that turned out to not be very relevant, or very accurate?”

Meanwhile, John Ramsey, the girl’s father, declined a request for an interview, writing in an email that “we have said all that can be said” about the case. JonBenét’s mother, Patsy Ramsey, died at 49 from ovarian cancer in 2006.

JonBenét’s older brother, Burke Ramsey, now 29, filed a defamation lawsuit earlier this month against a forensic pathologist who said that Burke killed JonBenét when he was 9 years old. He’s seeking at least $150 million in damages, according to the Associated Press.

Lacy, the former district attorney, did not respond to repeated requests for comment, including messages sent by email, US mail and some left at her home.

Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said Lacy’s exoneration of the Ramseys made little sense to him eight years ago and is even more concerning now.

“She knew, based on your investigation, that this DNA wasn’t necessarily from one person and that it, in fact, was potentially accumulated DNA,” Owens told the Daily Camera and 9NEWS. “She knew it at the time, and why she used this evidence to clear the Ramsey family … is something I can’t explain. And she should explain.”
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #86 on: October 28, 2016, 02:12:42 PM »

ABC News:

Ex-DA Opens Up About Why She Cleared the Ramsey Family of JonBenet's Murder
October 28, 2016

Mary Lacy was one of a team of four investigators with the Boulder County District Attorney's Office who walked through the home of JonBenet Ramsey just days after the 6-year-old beauty contestant was discovered dead in the house's basement in Boulder, Colorado, on Dec. 26, 1996.

Just around the corner from JonBenet's room on the second floor, Lacy noticed an indentation in the carpet, she told ABC News, and chills ran down her spine. "It was a butt print. We all saw it. The entire area was undisturbed except for that place in the rug," Lacy, who was then the chief deputy DA heading up the Sexual Assault Unit under Boulder County DA Alex Hunter, said. "Whoever did this sat outside of her room and waited until everyone was asleep to kill her."

That day, Lacy said, she started developing a theory that she believes to this day.

The morning after Christmas in 1996, JonBenet was reported missing by her parents after they said a ransom note was found in their home. Her body bound and her mouth covered with duct tape, JonBenet was later discovered in the basement. An autopsy concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation. The coroner's report stated that a blunt object had hit her so hard, there was an 8-inch fracture to her tiny skull. The report also showed some damage to JonBenet's hymen, indicating possible sexual assault.

John and Patsy Ramsey, as well as JonBenet's brother, Burke Ramsey, were the only other people known to be in the house at the time of the slaying, and for years after her death, they were each trailed by a cloud of suspicion. John and Patsy Ramsey were at one point considered persons of interest in the case by authorities.

But in 2008, Lacy -- who by then had been named Boulder County DA and taken over the investigation -- surprised even some of the most seasoned of her fellow prosecutors by exonerating the family.

Now, for the first time in eight years, the former prosecutor is speaking out to ABC News about her decision to clear the Ramsey family as her exoneration letter has now come under scrutiny following a new report in the Boulder Daily Camera published Thursday.



'Trying to Prevent a Horrible Travesty of Justice'

Former Adams County DA Bob Grant, one of a number of consultants on the case brought in early on by the Boulder County DA at the time, Hunter, told ABC News he was confounded by Lacy's 2008 decision. "This is craziness," he said. "This is not what prosecutors do. If prosecutors are going to exonerate someone they do it by charging someone else."

But Lacy didn't charge anyone else in the murder. Instead, armed with newly discovered DNA evidence found on JonBenet's long johns that Lacy said she believes belongs to JonBenet's unknown murderer, she sent the Ramseys a letter of apology. It read, in part, "to the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry." The letter made international news.

The DNA evidence was discovered after Lacy sent the long johns to Bode Cellmark Forensics to be tested for touch DNA. She had attended a seminar in the summer of 2007 that explained the relatively new process. She felt it could advance the seemingly stalled case, she said.

Some Boulder Police Department detectives who had long worked on the investigation and still considered the Ramseys persons of interests were furious.

"Here’s what I was doing with the exoneration letter," Lacy explained. "I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice. I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track."

In the 2008 letter, Lacy hung her hat on newly discovered touch DNA found on JonBenet's long johns, which she said was found to belong to an unknown male. Lacy argued that this unknown male DNA matched DNA found in two spots of blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. The unknown male DNA, reasoned Lacy, was the smoking gun that pointed to JonBenet's killer and that killer was not anyone in her family. Family members and 200 other potential suspects were excluded from the unknown male DNA found on the panties and long johns, she said.

Lacy's theory? When the Ramseys left to have Christmas night dinner with friends, they left the front door unlocked, and a male intruder simply walked inside and waited for hours for the family to come home. During that time, Lacy believes, he wrote the rambling two-and-a-half page ransom note.

That note referenced several lines from movies. "The Boulder police should have checked all of the video stores to see who was renting those movies and they never did," said Lacy.

However, the Boulder Daily Camera's investigation published Thursday found the DNA results in the Bode report are not necessarily as clear cut as Lacy concluded they were. According to the Daily Camera, they showed the Bode report to independent experts who say that the DNA samples from both the underwear and long johns may be composite samples from multiple people: JonBenet, an unknown male and, in one sample, a third unidentified person. To the extent composites were used in the search to identify the killer, the investigation states that the DNA profile "may be worthless as evidence." According to the paper, the possible presence of a third individual's DNA on the long johns has never been publicly revealed.

The experts also stated that the presence of the DNA on JonBenet's undergarments could have an innocent explanation because the "profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people or transferred from another piece of clothing."

According to the paper, these opinions "cut both ways" on the competing theories of the case. They neither disprove the intruder theory nor "implicate or exonerate anyone in the family."

When asked about the impending Daily Camera report ahead of its publication Thursday, Lacy said she has taken criticism for her decision to write the exoneration letter in the past. "I've withstood worse than this," she said. "And it's nothing compared to what the Ramsey family has gone through targeted as suspects in their own daughter's murder." Lacy has not responded to ABC News' request for comment since the Daily Camera report was published.

Is JonBenet's Murder a DNA Case or Not?

There have been conflicting views over whether the mystery of JonBenet's murder can be solved by DNA alone.

Former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, who headed up the department from 1998 to 2014, said in an "Ask Me Anything" session on Reddit last year that the investigation considered the DNA important, but that there was other crucial evidence in the case that couldn't be ignored.

"Mary Lacy, the DA who said the DNA exonerated them, made up her mind years before that a mother could not do that to a child, thus the family was innocent," Beckner wrote.

Stan Garnett, the current Boulder County DA, told ABC News that no case is ever solely reliant on DNA. "DNA is a part of the case," he said. "But you have to account for everything else. There were problems with crime scene, you have the ransom note ... you have debates about the cause of death -- to solve this case we have to account for all of that."

But forensic pathologist Lawrence Kobilinsky with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who has not worked on the case but who reviewed a summary of the Bode report put together by Boulder County investigator Andy Horita prior to the publication of the Daily Camera report, told ABC News that ignoring the unknown male DNA would be a huge mistake. "This is definitely a DNA case," he said. Kobilinsky said the markers found on the long johns are not enough of a profile to "match" those found in the panties, as Lacy wrote in her letter exonerating the Ramseys, but he would describe the markers from both the long johns and the panties as being "consistent" and noted that the DNA does belong to an unknown male. "Lacy did the right thing [in clearing the Ramsey family]," he said.

When questioned about hanging her hat on the DNA in her exoneration letter, Lacy said that she only did that because the DNA was "something tangible people could understand." The truth is, she said, she cleared the Ramseys not just based on the DNA, but also from looking at the totality of the evidence.

"There was no motive [for the parents], and no psychopathy," Lacy said. She added that she is one of only two people who have read the entire transcripts of Patsy Ramsey's psychiatric interviews, in which Lacy said she saw no indication of jealousy toward JonBenet or any violent tendencies. In 2006 when Patsy Ramsey was dying of cancer and even on her deathbed, Lacy said the distraught mother was trying to solve the death of her daughter.

Lacy, who was the Boulder County DA from 2001 until 2009, said the Boulder police investigation had ignored important evidence that pointed away from the Ramseys and instead focused on them while "trying to get the death penalty."

"They were running around the country looking for something negative on that family," Lacy said. But the Ramseys, she said, were clean.

The case is currently cold, but Boulder police say they are continuing to investigate any lead that comes in. It's recently attracted new attention this fall as the 20th anniversary of JonBenet's death approaches, and police have received hundreds of new tips.


Mary Lacy

A Lacy 'Apology Tour'

People who worked with Lacy remember her bringing John Ramsey into the Boulder County prosecutor's office around the time she exonerated the family. "She wanted us all to shake hands with him. We didn't know what to say ... it was like an apology tour," said one of Lacy's former DA investigators, Gordon Coombes.

Coombes, who worked in the Boulder prosecutor's office from 2008 to 2011, said he feels Lacy got too close to the family and lost her objectivity. "It was understood that if you didn't fall in line with the intruder theory, you were out," he said.

Another investigator who worked under Lacy, Ruth Aten-Shearwood, who is now a social worker in England, said that apart from a tight network of advisers, Lacy did not allow other investigators to work on the Ramsey case. Aten-Shearwood said she found out about the exoneration letter from watching the news. Said Aten-Shearwood, "I had to pick my jaw up off the floor."

Garnett, the current Boulder County DA, is running unopposed for his third term. Of Lacy's exoneration letter, he said, "This letter is not legally binding. It's a good-faith opinion and has no legal importance but the opinion of the person who had the job before I did, whom I respect."  

When asked about the Ramseys, he said, "They, like everyone else, are presumed innocent. There's not enough admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to charge anyone with this crime."

The Ramseys have always maintained their innocence. Burke Ramsey, now 29, recently filed a $150 million defamation suit against a forensic pathologist who claimed he was involved in the murder on CBS’ "The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey." Burke's attorney, Lin Wood, told ABC News that Burke was falsely accused of being responsible for the death of his sister.

Wood told ABC News he has tremendous respect for Lacy and the work she did during her time as DA. "This was a one-side, unfounded and brutal attack on Lacy who served well the citizens of Boulder for eight years," he said of the Daily Camera report.

Later, he added that he is encouraged that the DNA is being called into question because "now maybe all of those other suspects who were excluded will have to be reinvestigated."

Lacy told ABC News she stands by her decision to exonerate the Ramseys, insisting that "if the evidence had been there [to prosecute them], I'd have gone for it."

She added that she remembers the day she personally handed the exoneration letter to John Ramsey and asked him, "That's good news, right?"

Lacy said: "He just looked up and replied, 'Why? I still don't know who killed JonBenet.'"
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2016, 07:15:21 PM »

Some signs in this one point to someone 'secretly' going to bat -- Homerun style -- for John  Ramsey.  His business dealings with Access Graphics should be looked at.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #88 on: November 16, 2016, 08:25:22 AM »

More on the DNA

DU Professor Studies JonBenet Ramsey's DNA Tests

DNA tests are focus of new investigative report by Colorado media

This December marks the 20th anniversary of the death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, a child beauty pageant queen found strangled in her family's Boulder, Colo., home on Christmas Day. The resulting investigation was national news for years, as suspicion initially focused on the child’s parents and brother and later shifted to an unknown male. Although Ramsey’s murder remains unsolved, new DNA analysis could reveal previously undiscovered genetic clues. Phil Danielson, a University of Denver forensic genetics and biology professor, is one of three forensic experts who recently examined the results of Ramsey’s DNA tests, exclusively acquired by 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera. The examination of the tests disputes former Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy’s decision to exonerate Ramsey’s family from all connection with the young girl’s death.The DU Newsroom spoke with Danielson about some of the latest developments.

Q: What new information do we now have regarding the JonBenet Ramsey case? 

A: We now know that the results of the DNA testing conducted by Bode Technology were much more complex and nuanced than Mary Lacy had led the public to believe in her letter “exonerating” the Ramsey family on July 9, 2008. Based on an analysis of the actual DNA test results, we know that the scientific data did not support her broad conclusions that DNA not attributable to JonBenet necessarily came from the perpetrator of the crime, could not be accounted for by innocent explanations unrelated to criminal activity, or could not have come (at least in part) from one or more members of the Ramsey family.

Q: What does this mean for the case?

A: The DNA profile that has long been referred to as "Unknown Male No. 1" has been used to search the U.S. national DNA database of DNA from other crimes and from convicted offenders. It may have also been pivotal in excluding other potential suspects in the case. Moving forward, it would be prudent for investigators to view the DNA evidence in this case as less definitive than they may have originally thought.

Q: Is there new DNA testing that can be done?

A: Yes, there is a male-specific DNA test called a Y-STR (Y-chromosome Short Tandem Repeat) test that can be used to selectively detect and profile only the male DNA from JonBenet’s clothing. This test has the potential to demonstrate whether the DNA on JonBenet’s clothing came from one or multiple males. It is also possible to use this test to determine whether or not any male DNA on JonBenet’s long underwear could have come from male members of the Ramsey family. At a minimum, it would be prudent to see this test performed on JonBenet's clothing where DNA — other than JonBenet’s — has been detected.

Q: Would new tests be able to identify a suspect who has never been considered or was possibly cleared?

A: There are some potential mathematical approaches that might be used to develop profiles from the existing DNA data that could be used with the National Database for new leads. Although Y-STR profiles are not searchable through the National DNA Database at the current time, this does not mean that Y-STR testing would be uninformative. On the contrary, the availability of a Y-STR profile would help to reduce some of the uncertainty currently associated with the evidence in this case. A Y-STR profile could be used to more reliably exclude potential male suspects. Now, the ball is in the court of the current Boulder DA who has the responsibility for reviewing these new findings from the 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera investigation and then deciding how best to move forward in with this case.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #89 on: December 03, 2016, 05:04:06 PM »



JonBenet Ramsey Investigator: My Theory Burke Did It Is Just That ... Theory

The famed investigator who strongly suggested JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother ... insists he has every right to say so thanks to the Constitution.

Dr. Werner Spitz filed a response Friday to Burke Ramsey's defamation suit, saying the First Amendment allows him to hypothesize who her killer might have been ... because he's not claiming it's FACT, just his theory.

In the docs, obtained by TMZ, Spitz says defamation claims must be based on a "provably false statement of fact," and insists his statements are not. He even points out the radio show that aired his "opinion" noted Spitz's theory hadn't been proven in court.

As we reported ... Burke Ramsey sued Dr. Spitz for $150 million after openly suggesting Burke killed JonBenet. He made very similar remarks during a CBS special about the unsolved case.

Spitz is asking a judge to dismiss the case.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2016, 01:55:28 PM »

^ Statement from Ramsey ppl about Response:

“The motion to dismiss by Defendant Spitz is a standard media defense tactic. A correct interpretation of First Amendment law requires a denial of the motion. The United States Supreme Court has made it very clear that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection to all statements characterized as opinion,” the statement read.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #91 on: December 16, 2016, 07:21:09 PM »

Grand Juror Who Saw Original Evidence in JonBenet Ramsey Case Speaks Out

(ABC) To this day, the mysterious 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey remains unsolved.

The 6-year-old beauty queen, who lived in Boulder, Colorado, with her parents and brother, was found dead in the family home’s basement on the day after Christmas in 1996. JonBenet had been strangled and hit on the head with enormous force, according to Boulder, Colorado, authorities.

Her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, vehemently denied that they or their son Burke had anything to do with JonBenet’s death.

Many in the Boulder Police Department believed they had enough evidence for the district attorney to charge JonBenet’s parents with her murder.

In late 1998, then-Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter presented the case to a grand jury of eight women and four men. The grand jurors are among the very few people who have seen all the evidence prosecutors presented in the case against John and Patsy Ramsey.

 Grand jury proceedings in Colorado are secret, and the penalties for revealing testimony or evidence can be severe, including jail time.

Despite that threat, one member of the jury agreed to talk to ABC News’ “20/20.” Given the possible repercussions, “20/20” agreed to withhold his name.

The juror said he knew “very little” about the murder of JonBenet before he saw evidence in the case.

“I saw that there was a little girl dressed up with, in my opinion, a sexual persona, and it disgusted me. And I turned off the TV,” the juror told “20/20.”

Over the course of more than a year, the juror said he and the other grand jurors grappled with testimony from dozens of witnesses and even took a field trip to the Ramsey home, where they went down into the basement to see the crime scene with their own eyes.

“In the basement where she was found, it was actually kind of an obscure layout,” the juror said. “You come down the stairwell and you had to go into another room to find a door that was closed. It was a very eerie feeling. It was like, ‘Somebody had been killed here.’”

The juror said he believes that there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime, but he doesn’t think they would have been convicted.

“There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. “And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.”

Still, he says the grand jury did recommend charges against John and Patsy Ramsey, indicating the jurors believed they placed JonBenet in a situation resulting in her death.

But, in an astonishing turn of events, the prosecutor nullified the findings of his own grand jury, saying he and his prosecution task force believed they did not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who had been investigated at that time.

Much later, in 2008, then-Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote a letter saying she was clearing the Ramseys of any involvement in JonBenet’s death. Patsy Ramsey died of ovarian cancer in 2006.

The investigation into JonBenet’s death is still considered open and active.

abc
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2016, 07:23:28 PM »

^ the reporting on the video that accompanied that, is just dumb.  Clueless.  It's from ABC.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2016, 07:44:18 PM »

The guy says he "strongly suspects" (similar) he knows who did it.  That's what they mean in the story.

Crucial JonBenet Ramsey ransom note was ‘written by her MOTHER’, expert claims…as video emerges of beauty queen singing Christmas songs three days before her murder

Ransom note found next to the body of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey was almost certainly written by her mum, a handwriting expert has claimed.

It came as chilling footage emerged of the six-year-old happily singing Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree in front of a crowd just four days before she was found murdered in her family’s basement on Boxing Day 1996.

A member of a grand jury – which looked into whether to indict JonBenet’s parents over her death – has also revealed he has secret evidence about who really killed her.

Detectives plan to conduct new tests on man’s DNA found on the six-year-old beauty queen’s underwear – the owner of which could never be identified.

Nobody has ever been convicted of killing child beauty queen JonBenet, and speculation over the case has peaked on the 20th anniversary of her murder.

More: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2417438/handwriting-expert-claims-jonbenet-ramsey-ransom-note-written-by-mum/
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #94 on: December 16, 2016, 07:59:40 PM »

Uh, yeah.  The whole thing is as "unusual" as it gets.  Someone took the heat off John Ramsey without managing to put it on someone else.

JonBenét Ramsey Case: DA Says Former Prosecutor Erred with Letter Exonerating Parents and Brother

The current prosecutor in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case tells PEOPLE that as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches, he has not wavered from his belief that his predecessor was wrong to publicly clear from suspicion parents John and Patsy Ramsey as well as brother Burke.

“John, Burke, the Ramsey family are totally covered by the presumption of innocence and are entitled to that,” Boulder, Colorado, District Attorney Stan Garnett tells PEOPLE. “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

But “to issue an exoneration is, I think, misleading,” he says.

(As the anniversary approaches, People Magazine Investigates takes a fresh look at the infamous cold case in an episode entitled “JonBenét: The Untold Truth,” which airs Monday night at 10 p.m. ET on Investigation Discovery.)

As he has stated previously, Garnett says then Boulder DA Mary Lacy jumped the gun on July 9, 2008, when, on the basis of DNA analysis from the crime scene, she issued a letter to John Ramsey stating “we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son Burke to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”

The 6-year-old JonBenét’s body was found December 26, 1996, in the basement of the Ramsey family’s Boulder home, beaten and strangled with a garrote tied around her neck and duct tape covering her mouth. An investigation that has considered more than 140 suspects including family members has failed to bring criminal charges.

Garnett says he has “a lot of respect” for Lacy, the prior DA. But he adds, “I didn’t feel the exoneration was warranted based on the state of the evidence and the complexity of the case. And I also thought it was a very unusual thing to do in a case where there had never been any charges filed."

“When any district attorney goes around and starts issuing exonerations based on a particular piece of evidence, that can be very misleading to the public about the nature of the case,” he says.

Recalling the infamously “compromised” crime scene that has created a challenge for all subsequent investigators, Garnett says, “The state of the evidence is not one where you could really say anything definitively.”

(People Magazine)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #95 on: December 20, 2016, 04:14:49 PM »

OK, so now we're talking.



Prosecutor says he knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey

The prosecutor who took on the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, after detectives made a string of errors, claims to know who killed the child beauty queen two decades ago.

Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett last week announced DNA evidence would be retested in the investigation of the unsolved 1996 slaying.

He told news.com.au the investigation was plagued with errors from the beginning and DNA testing contributed to the problems.

“If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world,” Mr Garnett said. However, in the interview he refused to reveal who he thought was responsible.

He added that cracking the case depended on “what the evidence turns into”.

The DNA would be tested with new techniques but in order to put anyone behind bars Mr Garnett needed “several different pieces of evidence to come together”.

JonBenet’s bludgeoned and strangled body was found by her father in the basement of their home in Boulder, Colorado on Boxing Day, 1996.

(Yahoo News Australia)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #96 on: December 20, 2016, 04:42:05 PM »

Mary Lacy's idea is that someone simply walked up the path to enter the house through an unlocked front door.  That person then hid inside the dwelling and waited to commit the crime.  It had been snowing, but with the path it wouldn't be as certain to see signs of trespass compared to new-fallen snow on the yard.  That explains that, according to Mary Lacy.

The claim (after the fact) is that the Ramseys sometimes left the door unlocked.  This goes against a claim JR made during the initial investigation, to say that he'd personally checked locks.

As to the alarm system: John Ramsey (after the fact) tells a story of when JonBenet was a toddler, and she climbed onto a chair and set off the alarm by using the wallbox.  The Ramseys claimed it was "so loud" they couldn't hear themselves communicating with the security company (who monitored the alarm) so they decided to leave it in a disabled state.

This would mean that the Ramseys decided to leave their front door unlocked and their alarm disabled.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #97 on: December 28, 2016, 01:13:17 PM »

Burke Ramsey files $750M suit against CBS, experts in JonBenet special

KUSA - Burke Ramsey filed a $750 million lawsuit Wednesday against CBS, a production company and seven consultants over a TV special that aired in September, accusing him of killing his younger sister, JonBenet Ramsey, in Boulder in 1996.

The show in question, The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey, aired Sept. 18 and 19.

On Wednesday 9 Wants to Know obtained a copy of the suit, which was filed in Michigan.

It names CBS Corp., Critical Content LLC and consultants Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, Jim Kolar, James Fitzgerald, Stanley Burke, Werner Spitz and Henry Lee.

The suit seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

According to a copy of the suit, Burke Ramsey filed it to “redress the permanent damage to his reputation resulting from Defendants’ false accusation that he killed his sister, JonBenét Ramsey.”

It is the second defamation filed by Burke Ramsey since the broadcast of the CBS special, The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey. Investigators involved in that show suggested that Burke had killed JonBenet by hitting her in the head with a flashlight.

On Oct. 6, JonBenet’s brother sued Dr. Werner Spitz, one of those experts involved in the CBS special, for defamation. That suit, also filed in Michigan, seeks $150 million in damages.

That suit was based in part on comments Spitz made during an interview with CBS Detroit on Sept. 19 suggesting that Burke Ramsey killed his younger sister.

According to the suit, during the interview Spitz said, “If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion.”

It also attributed other statements to him – “It’s the boy who did it, whether he was jealous, or mentally unfit or something,” and, “I don’t know the why, I’m not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here.”

The suit labeled Spitz “a publicity seeker with a history of interjecting himself in high profile cases in an effort to make money, exaggerate his resume and claim a level of expertise that he does not possess or deserve.”

The suit noted that in addition to the murder of JonBenet, Burke Ramsey had endured the deaths of his older sister, Beth, in a car crash in 1991 and his mother to cancer in 2006.

“Burke’s life has also for the past 20 years been lived under the cloud of years of false accusations against his parents and periodic media frenzies,” the suit alleges. “Now Defendant Spitz has attacked and permanently harmed the reputation of 29-year-old Burke Ramsey by describing him as a killer since age 9.”

Spitz’s attorneys have asserted that his statements were his opinion and protected by the First Amendment. They have filed a motion to have the suit dismissed.

(9news)
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7239


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #98 on: December 28, 2016, 01:26:39 PM »

More:

Exclusive: Burke Ramsey Files $750 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS For ‘Perpetrating Fraud’ on Public

Burke Ramsey, the brother of JonBenet Ramsey, has filed a $750 million defamation lawsuit against CBS for a special, The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey, that the network aired earlier this year to investigate the murder of the young beauty queen on the 20th Anniversary of her death. The lawsuit, filed by Ramsey’s longtime attorney Lin Wood and an attorney in Michigan, accuses CBS of intentionally ignoring mountains of evidence, including police and District Attorney statements which exonerated the Ramsey family, and instead falsely pointing the finger at Burke, who was 9 at the time, as the one who murdered his sister.  The lawsuit also names several of the experts featured in the two part documentary series, including Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, James Kolar James R Fitzgerald, Stanley Burke, Werner Spitzer, Henry Lee, and Critical Content, the outside production company that helped to produce the documentary.

“CBS perpetrated a fraud upon the public—instead of being a documentary based on a new investigation by a so-called team of experts, The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey was a fictional crime show based primarily on a preconceived storyline scripted in a self-published and commercially unsuccessful book, Foreign Faction, written by Defendant James Kolar (“Kolar”) and published in 2012,” the 108 page lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit claims that while promoting the docuseries that aired in the fall, the experts concluded they may have solved who murdered JonBenet. Six-year-old JonBenet was found in the wine cellar of the Ramsey’s Boulder, Colorado home on Christmas in 1996. She was found strangled with her wrists tied above her head and a garrote embedded in her neck. The CBS Special provided theories as to how Burke may have killed the young girl, including implying that Burke may have been heard on the 911 call made by the Ramseys, that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, and that JonBenet could have been hit over the head by Burke with a flashlight, according to the court filing. Burke says all of the allegations are completely false.  In the lawsuit, he also takes issue with how CBS staged a demonstration of a young boy bludgeoning a pig skin “clad with a blonde wig to create the image of Burke killing his sister,” calling it a “disgusting staged demonstration intended to plant in the viewers’ minds the powerful and incriminating image of Burke killing his sister.”



The lawsuit said that the Boulder PD and the Boulder District Attorney’s office have publicly exonerated Burke before, during, and after the grand jury investigation, and that those facts were not highlighted in the series.  As evidence, they point to a statement from the former Boulder Police Department chief, in which he said that Burke was not involved in the killing.   The lawsuit states:

Quote
On July 9, 2008, former Boulder DA Lacy relied on newly discovered DNA evidence to exonerate the Ramsey Family (including Burke) in an open letter released to the public. DA Lacy declared that:

[N]ew scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

The court documents point out that none of the six experts concluded that Patsy wrote the ransom note.  While they could not rule her out with 100% certainty, the handwriting experts contend the chances of her writing the note were “very low.”

The lawsuit says that as a result of CBS’ defamatory statements against Burke, he has suffered damage and harm including economic damages, damage to his reputation, and mental anguish. The lawsuit requests compensatory damages in the amount of $250 million, and punitive damages in the amount of $500 million.  CBS has previously declined to comment on any pending litigation, but we’ve reached out to them again, and will update this article if we get any further statements from them.

(lawnewz)
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53273

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #99 on: December 28, 2016, 07:34:21 PM »

Chutzpah. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!