Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1

    Default Now Finally A Bit of News

    Credit to poster Cottonstar for bringing this article to attention on sister site ws:

    Beyond the DNA evidence in the possession of the BPD, the CBS subpoena of AH is certainly of interest. AH likely thought he’d reached the end of the skirmishes in this case and then comes this:

    “The Hunter subpoena wants all documents relating to an affidavit Hunter gave stating that through the end of his tenure, Burke Ramsey was never a suspect; all his communications with JonBenet's parents, as well as a "all documents relating to (the) death of JonBenet." Hunter has since moved to quash that subpoena.”

    Well . . . .Stay tuned.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

  2. #2


    Just to add to thoughts about the affidavit AH signed -

    Knowing how AH parsed his statement to the public about “the GJ completing its work and no charges would be filed,” I’ve been led to consider that he was also parsing the affidavit composed by attorney LW pertaining to BR. This affidavit has been used in every lawsuit filed by LW when BR has been mentioned in a tabloid or other news vehicle. AH crosses out one sentence and inserts the following: “From December 26 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.”

    In my studies of this case I’ve learned that no one has any certain evidence of what was used to strike JB and no evidence of who struck (or flung) her. It is simply theoretical.

    At the end of this affidavit which AH signed, dated October 12, 2000, LW has written the following admission for AH’s signature: “I am aware that this affidavit may be used by Counsel for Burke Ramsey in connection with libel litigation brought on his behalf in various jurisdictions.”

    One would question why AH would agree to sign this cooperative affidavit if the BPD never really investigated BR. In fact, Beckner stated in his AMA – “However, after a short initial interview that day (before we had many facts) Burke was only interviewed one more time and that was by a social services worker. We of course had many other questions we wanted to ask him as the investigation wore on, but were never given an opportunity to interview him again.”

    It would seem to be a perfectly reasonable idea to subpoena AH.
    My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts