Was Burke involved?

Was Burke involved in JB's death?

  • Burke was involved in the death of JBR

    Votes: 377 59.6%
  • Burke was totally uninvolved in her death

    Votes: 256 40.4%

  • Total voters
    633
Status
Not open for further replies.
no, she's on there.isn't her last name davis?I think I recall that from somewhere.
and I just checked...it's the one w no pic.so she may have just been added? maybe they read here. :D


wow,PP sure does look like Patsy.so does BR,from what I can tell.and John Jr looks like he has a baby now,assuming that one's his.
 
If Burke opens up his account to friend requests again, I'll send him a request and if he rejects me, we'll know he reads here. LOL

John did an interview in 2006 where he said he has a 6-year-old, 4-year-old, and a 2-year-old grandsons. He didn't specify whether they were Melinda or JAR's children, or both. Also, that picture of JAR is a few years old; I saw it back in like 2007/2008.
 
They may all read here, but even if they don't, I doubt they'd accept friend requests from people they don't know. I am sure we have different "hats" here anyway, they'd have no way to know if we were here.
 
I know a few people who are friends with Burke on FB who don't know him in real life. Some of them don't even live in the US. They just follow the case. When you could see Burke's friends list, he had over 1000 friends.
 
I don't think Burke could have done the whole thing from start to finish but I always had a small suspicion he was involved. That would answer a lot of questions about the staging and the obviously fake ransom note, but it opens the door for other questions.

If Burke could not be charged for the death of JBR, why bother to stage the whole ridiculous thing? To protect him from the consequences of what he did? Possible. To keep him from being labeled a murderer? Also possible.

All I know for sure is that 4 people were alive in that house on the 25th and one of them was found dead on the 26th. The Rams did it or they know who did, I've never believed anything else.
 
It is possible that John and Patsy were not aware that Colorado law did not allow children under the age of 10 to be charged with murder. I did not know that until I started following this case. They may have been under the impression that Burke would be sent to Juvenile Detention until he was 18. After they found out that Burke couldn't be prosecuted, they never admitted the truth to protect their son's reputation and their own. The intruder theory still allows the Ramseys to be the "perfect family" but a 9-year-old killing his 6-year-old sister shows dysfunction at the highest degree.
 
While I think the ransom note alone proves there was no intruder, and I tend to lean towards Burke causing JBR's death in some manner, there are real problems with these theories, as well.

The biggest mystery in this case, imho, is the horrific skull wound. If it was indeed some eight inches in length, how can we attribute this to sudden anger on Patsy's part over bed-wetting and/or sexual contact with John? Or to any kind of blow from 9 year old Burke? Wouldn't a wound like that have to be caused by something other than a flashlight, for instance? Would a mother or brother- no matter how angry or jealous- be able to inflict that kind of fierce blow against the little head of JBR? Even more incredibly, would a parent be able to mutilate the head of their already dead child, as part of some bizarre staging? Why would any parent even think of that? Conversely, if the head wound caused her death, would any parent be able to tie a rope around their daughter's little neck afterwards? Unbelievable.

As I stated, I think there is no question that someone in that house caused JBR's death, or knows exactly who did (this would conjure up one of those group pedophile/satanic conspiracy theories). However, the evidence really doesn't lend itself completely to any hypothesis.

I really think this is one of the all time baffling cases.
 
While I think the ransom note alone proves there was no intruder, and I tend to lean towards Burke causing JBR's death in some manner, there are real problems with these theories, as well.

The biggest mystery in this case, imho, is the horrific skull wound. If it was indeed some eight inches in length, how can we attribute this to sudden anger on Patsy's part over bed-wetting and/or sexual contact with John? Or to any kind of blow from 9 year old Burke? Wouldn't a wound like that have to be caused by something other than a flashlight, for instance? Would a mother or brother- no matter how angry or jealous- be able to inflict that kind of fierce blow against the little head of JBR? Even more incredibly, would a parent be able to mutilate the head of their already dead child, as part of some bizarre staging? Why would any parent even think of that? Conversely, if the head wound caused her death, would any parent be able to tie a rope around their daughter's little neck afterwards? Unbelievable.

As I stated, I think there is no question that someone in that house caused JBR's death, or knows exactly who did (this would conjure up one of those group pedophile/satanic conspiracy theories). However, the evidence really doesn't lend itself completely to any hypothesis.

I really think this is one of the all time baffling cases.

Unreals,
Its a humdinger of a case aint it? All your questions are very relevant. The whack on the head: accidental or deliberate staging? The genital injuries: premeditated assault or deliberate staging? The ligature furrow on her neck: intentional strangulation or deliberate staging?

However, the evidence really doesn't lend itself completely to any hypothesis.
Well not the current evidence. There is a lot we do not know about that is locked away in the JonBenet evidence archive e.g. underwear recovered, sizes etc, opened xmas gifts, what was in them, was the gift wrapping dna tested? The full extent of JonBenet's genital injuries including any foreign item left inside her, along with the photographs, and expert opinions relating to them e.g. Holly Smith, head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, what did her written report state?

IMO the one hypothesis the current evidence does lend itself to is one of conspiracy.

Its likely the whole Ramsey family was involved including that of the extended family e.g. the Paugh's, possibly even another third party, either corporate, paralegal or Ramsey associate who advised on a cleanup?

You have the Ramsey's being legally represented prior to the discovery of JonBenet's body, you have a circus of an investigation in which the lead investigator is kept on a leash by the DA, and evidence that patently should have been collected never was and suspects that were, from the start, to be regarded as victims, so were never taken into custody, the list goes on and on, right up to the alleged foreign DNA, being claimed a such and onto J M Karr, oh and I forgot the Ramsey's have been cleared and been offered an apology!

The book I want to read is the one that explains to me how JR fixed it all?


.
 
Don't know if you have read Steve Thomas' book but it gives background and reasons why he, as a detective on that case, believed that Patsy was responsible for JonBenet's death.
 
I don't think Burke could have done the whole thing from start to finish but I always had a small suspicion he was involved. That would answer a lot of questions about the staging and the obviously fake ransom note, but it opens the door for other questions.

If Burke could not be charged for the death of JBR, why bother to stage the whole ridiculous thing? To protect him from the consequences of what he did? Possible. To keep him from being labeled a murderer? Also possible.

All I know for sure is that 4 people were alive in that house on the 25th and one of them was found dead on the 26th. The Rams did it or they know who did, I've never believed anything else.

jaded cat,
Without listing it all again, the evidence tells you Burke was involved. The big question is was it him who assaulted JonBenet?

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death both chronically and acutely. The phrase genital trauma is politically correct phrasing for the likely staging that occured after JonBenet was apparently dead.

This is why reading Holly Smith's opinion would be revealing, she would distinguish between any staging and prior molestation.

.
 
jaded cat,
Without listing it all again, the evidence tells you Burke was involved. The big question is was it him who assaulted JonBenet?

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death both chronically and acutely. The phrase genital trauma is politically correct phrasing for the likely staging that occured after JonBenet was apparently dead.

This is why reading Holly Smith's opinion would be revealing, she would distinguish between any staging and prior molestation.

.

Absolutely right. The changes in cells and tissue that occur after death should allow any coroner or medical examiner to tell whether an injury occurred before or after death, making it obvious as to whether some of her injuries are staging and the staging lends credence to a cover up of abuse, something no intruder would need to do and no pedophile/sexual sadist would WANT to do.
The injuries are noted in the report, but nothing was put in that stated specifically that any are postmortem. We do know there was some bruising and bleeding, both of which can happen only while alive. Blood can ooze in a dead person, though, and it "gels" after death (was this the "semi-liquid" blood noted in the autopsy?). Blood is oxygenated in a living person, but not in a dead one. Coroners can tell (if they test) whether blood was from a living or dead person.
 
The blood in the panties are reported to be from a live donor as proof she was still alive when the injuries occurred. The blood under her skull cannot be determined as the event happened so very close to the time of or shortly after the time of death. I imagine in this case both types were found. The wounds to her neck are bloodless so I see the ME's logic in placing it as the determining cause of provable death.
 
I saw no report stating any blood found was from postmortem leakage. The coroner, when noting the subdural blood, did not say it was postmortem leakage. Nor have I seen where any blood was ever tested to indicate whether it was from a living or dead donor- it was simply noted in the autopsy as "blood" or "semi-liquid blood" or "watery red fluid".
If anyone has a link to any report specifically mentioning testing the blood to prove it was from a living or dead person, please post it if you can.
The tests may have been done, but not made public.

CathyR- do you have information as to whether this testing was done?

The origin of the blood AND urine in her panties is something I have always been uncertain about. We know that JB suffered a vaginal injury severe enough to cause bleeding in sufficient quantity to require wiping off. I believe that AFTER she was wiped, the panties that were found on her (the size 12) were put on her. The stagers were unaware that a few drops of blood had dripped/oozed onto the panty crotch. This poses a problem. There is urine on BOTH these panties and the longjohns. If she was wearing both garments and the urine was postmortem release at death, then the size 12s were put on her when she was still alive. If they were put on her after the wiping but after her death (the wiping could have been done after she died even if the blood was from an injury while she was alive) then the urine got onto the panties from being in contact with the already-wet longjohns.
We STILL have the missing puzzle piece of panties in her usual size that may have blood, urine or both on them.
Evidence of postmortem blood in the panties could lend support to the vaginal injury being staging- forceful enough for some blood to ooze.
To me, the testing of any blood found in JB or on her clothing should have been done to see if it was shed while she was alive or dead. The staging points to a coverup. Postmortem injury points to a coverup. A sexual sadist killer does not need nor want to cover up his act. A parent/family member would.
 
I saw no report stating any blood found was from postmortem leakage. The coroner, when noting the subdural blood, did not say it was postmortem leakage. Nor have I seen where any blood was ever tested to indicate whether it was from a living or dead donor- it was simply noted in the autopsy as "blood" or "semi-liquid blood" or "watery red fluid".
If anyone has a link to any report specifically mentioning testing the blood to prove it was from a living or dead person, please post it if you can.
The tests may have been done, but not made public.

CathyR- do you have information as to whether this testing was done?

The origin of the blood AND urine in her panties is something I have always been uncertain about. We know that JB suffered a vaginal injury severe enough to cause bleeding in sufficient quantity to require wiping off. I believe that AFTER she was wiped, the panties that were found on her (the size 12) were put on her. The stagers were unaware that a few drops of blood had dripped/oozed onto the panty crotch. This poses a problem. There is urine on BOTH these panties and the longjohns. If she was wearing both garments and the urine was postmortem release at death, then the size 12s were put on her when she was still alive. If they were put on her after the wiping but after her death (the wiping could have been done after she died even if the blood was from an injury while she was alive) then the urine got onto the panties from being in contact with the already-wet longjohns.
We STILL have the missing puzzle piece of panties in her usual size that may have blood, urine or both on them.
Evidence of postmortem blood in the panties could lend support to the vaginal injury being staging- forceful enough for some blood to ooze.
To me, the testing of any blood found in JB or on her clothing should have been done to see if it was shed while she was alive or dead. The staging points to a coverup. Postmortem injury points to a coverup. A sexual sadist killer does not need nor want to cover up his act. A parent/family member would.

DeeDee249,
I reckon the urine-staining is postmortem release, and although not conclusive, likely eliminates the bed wetting theory, since JonBenet will have already released urine.

The critical assumption to be considered is: are the size-12's clean on JonBenet? If yes then the blood is probably postmortem since it is coincident with the urine-staining.

Patsy's ignorance about the size-12's suggests someone else redressed JonBenet. So is the discovery of fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt simply coincidental?

It could be that John wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns with Patsy then applying the garrote, not realizing she was still alive?

Under this scenario Patsy does not see the size-12's, only John knows she is wearing them.

.
 
DeeDee249,
I reckon the urine-staining is postmortem release, and although not conclusive, likely eliminates the bed wetting theory, since JonBenet will have already released urine.

The critical assumption to be considered is: are the size-12's clean on JonBenet? If yes then the blood is probably postmortem since it is coincident with the urine-staining.

Patsy's ignorance about the size-12's suggests someone else redressed JonBenet. So is the discovery of fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt simply coincidental?

It could be that John wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns with Patsy then applying the garrote, not realizing she was still alive?

Under this scenario Patsy does not see the size-12's, only John knows she is wearing them.

.

Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties. Her "ignorance" was feigned. Even if she was not the one who put them on JB (I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties), she knew where they were, wrapped up in the basement with Jenny's other gifts. If JR put them on JB, Patsy told him where they were or got them out. This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"? If you mean were they previously worn, the answer is no. They were new from the package. Unlaundered, new clothing can be verified- detergent and fabric softener leave residue in fabrics. II believe LE described the panties as being new. Also, the panties are both blood and urine stained, so how can they be "clean"?
EVERY pair of JB's panties in the house were found (by LE) to have fecal stains. The ones she was wearing did not. Fecal staining will not always come out in the washer- usually chlorine bleach is needed and if used, it will ruin colors and prints on fabric. Most little girls' panties have floral or novelty prints that bleach would ruin, so my guess is that no bleach was added to her laundry. That explains the fecal staining. The stained panted had been washed, but detergent alone did not remove the stains.
So if that's what you mean by "clean" i.e. lack of fecal staining, then the size 12's were clean until they were soiled that night with urine and blood.
 
Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties. Her "ignorance" was feigned. Even if she was not the one who put them on JB (I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties), she knew where they were, wrapped up in the basement with Jenny's other gifts. If JR put them on JB, Patsy told him where they were or got them out. This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"? If you mean were they previously worn, the answer is no. They were new from the package. Unlaundered, new clothing can be verified- detergent and fabric softener leave residue in fabrics. II believe LE described the panties as being new. Also, the panties are both blood and urine stained, so how can they be "clean"?
EVERY pair of JB's panties in the house were found (by LE) to have fecal stains. The ones she was wearing did not. Fecal staining will not always come out in the washer- usually chlorine bleach is needed and if used, it will ruin colors and prints on fabric. Most little girls' panties have floral or novelty prints that bleach would ruin, so my guess is that no bleach was added to her laundry. That explains the fecal staining. The stained panted had been washed, but detergent alone did not remove the stains.
So if that's what you mean by "clean" i.e. lack of fecal staining, then the size 12's were clean until they were soiled that night with urine and blood.

DeeDee249,
Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties.
So why her statement about the size-12's residing in JonBenet's underwear drawer?

(I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties),
This is what I reckon also. The evidence suggests he may have wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's.

This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
This I've assumed for a long time, but were they both present at all phases of the staging or did one do something while the other was upstairs searching for or cleaning up something?

Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"?
Clean on as fresh out of the plastic wrapping. Contrast that with worn on a prior occassion or worn that night, as claimed by some!

Assuming they are clean on firms up the blood arriving in the same time-frame as the urine-voiding.

So an obvious sequence could be, JonBenet alive, has size-12's and longjohn's placed upon her, blood seeps onto the size-12's, JonBenet is asphyxiated, JonBenet voids her bladder, Size-12's and longjohns become urine stained.

Unless you have some curious combination of the above its difficult to construct another sequence that fits so neatly?


.
 
DeeDee249,

So why her statement about the size-12's residing in JonBenet's underwear drawer?


This is what I reckon also. The evidence suggests he may have wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's.


This I've assumed for a long time, but were they both present at all phases of the staging or did one do something while the other was upstairs searching for or cleaning up something?


Clean on as fresh out of the plastic wrapping. Contrast that with worn on a prior occassion or worn that night, as claimed by some!

Assuming they are clean on firms up the blood arriving in the same time-frame as the urine-voiding.

So an obvious sequence could be, JonBenet alive, has size-12's and longjohn's placed upon her, blood seeps onto the size-12's, JonBenet is asphyxiated, JonBenet voids her bladder, Size-12's and longjohns become urine stained.

Unless you have some curious combination of the above its difficult to construct another sequence that fits so neatly?


.

Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.
 
Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.

DeeDee249
Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?

I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.
IA.

.
 
Maybe, at that time, Patsy wanted to distance herself and JR from wine cellar stagery by stating that as far as she knew the size 12's were in the panty drawer in JB's bathroom and not on hand in the WC where JB was wiped down and then the size 12's were frantically grabbed and put on her along with the longjohns, and then leakage occurred. The remaining package of size 12's could have been put in the nearby golf bag that was so important to get out of the house and delivered to a friend in the middle of winter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
2,066
Total visitors
2,266

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,285
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top