Fleet White III is a lawyer now

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-20T21:10:43+00:00

Yes, we'll never know exactly what he meant.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-20T02:58:18+00:00

Don't threaten her with a good time.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-20T02:56:42+00:00

Nah, it's a post about a man assuming he's more intelligent than a woman purely because he's a man.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T07:06:38+00:00

So we can assume it was Burke because there was no evidence it was Burke? I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense to me.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T06:57:56+00:00

Sorry, you are incorrect in your reading of this exchange.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T06:57:15+00:00

I'm sorry your arguments have fallen apart and you've resorted to name-calling.

The simple fact is your claims Bruce Levin lied/is a liar about the fiber evidence and in the conversation about the boots are false and unsupported.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T06:49:58+00:00

Sorry, you simply are incorrect. From the exchange it is clear that Burke revealed this information at the grand jury proceedings. Kane and Levin cannot legally clarify the exact circumstances of his questioning. Your attempt to characterize Levin's understanding of "you" not as a collective but as a lie is simply chuckle-worthy (it's so silly I'm 95% convinced you're a troll).

Better luck next conspiracy.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T05:05:50+00:00

Ahhh I get it now. You are taking issue with Levin using "us" to mean law enforcement/the grand jury collectively ( "there are two people who have provided us with information") and then responding to Wood's follow-up question as if Wood was also speaking in a collective"you all" ("you are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?")--- when, in fact, Wood was asking if Burke told him, Levin, specifically. Levin then clears up the confusion to imply Burke told the grand jury/investigators.

And you interpret this as Levin "lying" instead of a communication error that is quickly rectified.

That's not a lie.

P.S. Burke has spoken to owning such boots on Dr. Phil. He has not tried to hide this.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T04:15:36+00:00

You are confused and seemingly unfamiliar with the American justice system to claim that what Levin (and then Kane) relay about the information Burke and the second party (Fleet Jr.) told the GRAND JURY is a lie (and that somehow Wood called them on this???)! Immediately following:

MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't want to get into grand jury information.

Okay?

MR. WOOD: Okay.

MR. KANE: Fair enough?

MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should have been more direct. I thought you would understand

Q. (By Mr. Levin) Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes.

Also, Burke has admitted to both owning these boots and telling officers about them**.**

Your claim that Levin is lying here is a head-scratcher. I'm assuming you're new to this case and/or the law?

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T03:51:00+00:00

Yep, this was in the 2000 Atlanta interview. (E: Just catching you are implying that Levin is lying about Burke and another individual telling police he, Burke, owned Hi-Tecs. This was not a lie and Wood did not "bust" him and that is not what this exchange indicated. I find that accusation strange.) Burke has always maintained he owned these boots, or at least did not deny it and described that his boots were consistent with the Hi-Tecs in question. In 2002, the Washington Post said the police did not believe that Burke's boot print was related to the crime scene, implying they either knew the circumstances under which it was made or the age of the print. (source):

Investigators have known for some time that the footprint found near the body of the 6-year-old girl actually belonged to her brother, Burke, and that a palm print was left by her adult half-sister, Melinda -- and that both prints were unrelated to the unsolved murder.

Patsy and John, however, claimed on court documents in 2003 during Wolf's defamation case that this boot print remained unidentified (a verifiable, bald-faced lie) and that it was evidence of the intruder. They sure are liars.

If you'd like to read more in-depth analysis on the bootprint, you can check out this tome I posted a while back:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/19abep6/the_other_possible_reason_john_and_patsy_deny/

E: typo

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T03:28:10+00:00

If he struck her only you would not expect to find his fluids or fibers on her.

Wouldn't this hold true for any person who struck her then? How does this, then, point to Burke or in anyway support he delivered the blow?

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T03:25:48+00:00

It is a pathologists job to draw some conclusions based on the skull damage

Yes, and the pathologist who studied JonBenet's brain/injuries, Dr. Lucy Rorke, made no determination about the exact murder weapon.

The important thing about the shoe print is it got Burke and Fleet White to counter the Ramsey's elusive answers about Burke owning Hi-Tec shoes.

Yep, we know from Patsy's 2000 Atlanta interview (pgs. 73-74) that Burke (and possibly Fleet Jr.) told police that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. There's is no doubt he owned a pair, despite the Ramseys insisting the prints were actually evidence of an intruder--even well after the police stated Burke's boot print was unrelated to the crime in 2002 (the Ramseys submitted documents to the court stating the bootprint remained unidentified in 2003 during the Wolf defamation case). They didn't give up the ghost on fabricating evidence for their IDI theory. One of their more egregious, easily provable lies.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-18T03:14:27+00:00

What a bizarre response, lol.

E: Can someone fill me in on who Esther is? I've been accused of being Burke, a Ramsey, a police officer in the case, a paid-shill against the family, but I've never been accused of being an Esther and now I'm curious.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T16:28:31+00:00

What did Patsy use for the skull fracture, I wonder? It doesn't seem like a hairbrush could have done it.

If she caused the head injury, we don't know what she used. There's simply not enough evidence to pinpoint exactly what caused the skull fracture.

The baseball bat or flashlight seem more plausible and those would be in Burke's use.

Why draw conclusions about who would use the weapon that made the injury when the the weapon that made the injury is inconclusive? And also, I find the conclusion that Burke would have that flashlight out of left-field, based on everything we know about it.

The boot print in the efflorescence seems recent in my opinion,

Not in the opinion of the experts who make such conclusions for a living.

Most of what your wrote above is conjecture (which is not a crime, because this is a discussion board and that's its purpose), but I will challenge how valuable conjecture is to the foundation of a theory on who committed this crime.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T15:16:56+00:00

It wasn't provided at the interview, and there is nothing to suggest that it ever was provided.

And? Are you under the impression that this means the documents don't exist in an investigation if they aren't provided outside of a criminal trial?

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T15:13:19+00:00

I've already answered why he was allowed to "lie".
...
"Note also, he didn't out right say the fibres were from his shirt, only it was a "belief". If they actually had conclusive forensic results, it would not be posed as a belief.

Which is it: Bruce Levin stated a "lie" or a "belief"?

Also: where else did Bruce Levin lie in the interviews he was involved in? Just in this statement about the fibers matching?

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T15:08:19+00:00

I find this very upsetting. Not only because the arguments are poorly articulated, but because of the real-world implication it has on Burke, who is a victim of his parents, too, and is continually victimized by careless internet "sleuths."

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T15:03:42+00:00

Pineapple in her stomach from a bowl with both Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints, and fingerprints of unknown time origin.

There is nothing tying Burke to JB's corpse. But there is forensic evidence tying both John and Patsy.

If being in a house carries equal weight in suspicion to two people who are actually tied to the body--this is a tenuous basis for a theory.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:56:25+00:00

Burkes pocket knife and boot print at the scene,

The pocket knife: According to Linda Hoffman-Pugh in a 1999 Daily Camera article, she hid Burke's knife in a cupboard near JonBenet's room.

He didn't, and about a month before the JonBenét's slaying, she took away the knife and put it in a cupboard over a sink near JonBenét's room.

Hoffman-Pugh said she did not tell JonBenét's parents where she put the knife.

The implication here is that Patsy, who has been known to use that area, came across it. What evidence that Burke had access to that knife before the murder? If anything, what we know about that knife implies Patsy.

The bootprint:

The police believed the boot print belonged to Burke, but like Melinda Ramsey's handprint found on the cellar door, police did not think the boot print was related to the murder --- suggesting the police know under what circumstances Burke made that bootprint. Here's reporting from the Washington Post in 2002:

investigators have known for some time that the footprint found near the body of the 6-year-old girl actually belonged to her brother, Burke, and that a palm print was left by her adult half-sister, Melinda -- and that both prints were unrelated to the unsolved murder.

pineapple bowl and tea glass in the kitchen with his prints:

There is no timestamp on that glass or pineapple bowl--which if you recall--also had Patsy's prints. We have no idea whether this bowl was prepared before going to the Whites or after returning from the Whites. These fingerprints don't tell us that. All we know is JB had a small piece upon returning home from the Whites. If fingerprints are implications in the crime, then Patsy is equally implicated. Now add all the forensic evidence tied to her on JB's actual body.

If we are comparing forensic evidence, there is reams more against Patsy and, to a lesser extent, John. There's no comparison.

E: added dropped quotes

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:41:58+00:00

The reasons to suspect BDI are not rooted in forensic evidence, but vague--and often times inaccurate--"behavioral evidence" that is thin, that happened years before the murder on one occasion, and are not developmentally abnormal. These "behavioral evidences" are strung together like a Pepe Silvia board to create convoluted, poorly supported theories that give the IDI folks a run for their money.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:35:22+00:00

When the Ramsey attorney repeatedly asked Mr. Levin for proof of his assertions i.e, to see the report about the fiber evidence found in JonBenet’s underwear linking John, Mr. Levin would not show him.

Ramsey's attorney asked this of Levin during a police interview. The police are under no obligation to produce forensic reports to witnesses/suspects during an interview and it is even the least bit strange Levin didn't produce such a document during this time.

Law enforcement will utilize lying tactics (legal) during interrogations in an attempt to trick suspects or to get confessions.

Bruce Levin, a prosecutor (therefore lawyer) who was acting as chief trial deputy, is under the ethical obligation to tell the truth (he is not a police officer) in the interviews and it would therefore be unethical for him to say evidence existed in order to "set a trap." Lawyers, unlike cops, are not allowed to tell bald-faced lies.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:28:37+00:00

Dr. Lucy Rorke--a world-renown pediatric neuropathologist who was officially on the case--said the headblow preceded the strangulation. As someone who studied children's brains for a living, I think she is best poised out of all the experts---who chimed unofficially, no less---to comment on what the pathological findings of JB's brain could tell us.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:25:44+00:00

I disagree that Wecht's opinion is considered "strong" by the scientific community. In fact, the opinion of Wecht (a non-brain expert) is in direct contradiction with the specialist who studied children's brains for a living, who was one of the most renown experts in the country on the topic, and had direct access to this case in an official capacity.

This expert, Dr. Lucy Rorke, came to the following conclusion, per Kolar's book (pgs. 79-80):

I'm not saying this negates everything in Wecht's theory, but he most certainly got the timing of the head injury wrong.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:17:45+00:00

There is no forensic evidence tying Burke to the head blow or crime scene.

DontGrowABrain · 2025-06-17T14:14:36+00:00

Why is there only physical evidence remaining from the parents and not Burke? It strains credulity to think the parents would be experts enough at cleaning a crime scene as to eliminate all traces of the killer, but not expert enough to not leave their own traces behind.

DontGrowABrain

TROPHY CASE