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.
tipper said:
But what normal parent would sexually assault their child as part of a coverup? Drop her down the circular stair or off her balconey would seem more likely to me.

The Ramseys, collectively and individually, are not stupid people (despite their occasional efforts during their interviews to seem like nothing more than ignorant straw-chewing hayseeds from tiny towns who don't know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies, or how the intricacies of signing contracts for various legal services requires a large degree of mental sharpness to make the contract valid). Now, these not-stupid Ramseys know certain common-sense things. One: Dropping 45 pounds of dead weight down a set of stairs onto an uncarpeted wooden floor is going to make a very loud sound, especially when that sound occurs in the silence of night, without the mitigating ambient noise of ordinary outside sound from the activity of daytime comings and goings of the neighbors. Thus, this is likely to attract the attention of Burke, who has already been established earlier in the evening as a child who is not tired in the least despite all the Christmas excitement; who, indeed, may still be awake precisely because it was an exciting Christmas and he had awesome stuff to play with, stuff that he was not going to be allowed to play with for more than a week, what with the trip to Charlevoix followed by the immediate trip on the Disney Big Red Boat. So, there is one reason why dropping JonBenet was not an option. If you are conducting a coverup, the last thing you want is for your victim's brother to witness you doing it.

Dropping JonBenet off her balcony was also not an option. The balcony was pretty obviously never used as a balcony, more like a second-floor open-air bay window, likely with the doors out to it locked to keep a person in the bedroom from getting out onto it.. Just how stupid do you think the Ramseys would be, to let their four-year-old, five-year-old, six-year-old daughter have easy access to a second-floor balcony she could fall from? The balcony's railing was open grillwork and easy for a small child to climb up. So a person of common sense would likely agree that the best thing to do would be to keep the balcony door from the bedroom locked. But this causes a major problem. How would a Ramsey parent credibly stage a scenario where their small daughter got the door unlocked and got out on the balcony without their knowledge? For that matter, if you think about it, a locked door may also explain why John and Patsy are not keen on pushing the idea that an intruder came in through the balcony, since they would have to claim that the intruder either had a key for the balcony (which is unlikely since it would not have had the identical lock as all the other house door keys they gave out, not to mention not likely to have a lock that locks from outside as opposed to inside, given its extremely rare need to be unlocked from the balcony side). And the Ramseys could not credibly claim that the balcony door was broken, because that would require actually breaking it, and yet another last thing a person would do is engage in the very loud process of breaking a wooden door on Christmas night, when the next-door neighbor is so close Burke could have thrown a Little League pitch and hit the neighbor's house.
 
Something was definately happening around midnight since the next-door neighbor saw strange lights in the kitchen as if someone were moving about.

Now, Burke did not want to go to bed and was prompted to do so by John. It's not to say he actually did go to bed. He very well could have been playing his coveted Nintendo64 without his parents knowledge.

Now, Patsy's "usual routine" was to get JonBenet up around midnight to take her to the toilet. Of all nights not to wake her....just seems like an outright lie to me because of the party and JonBenet drinking whatever she was drinking at the White's.

It is still my belief that Patsy zonked JonBenet over the head with the flashlight while in a fit of rage. JonBenet did not like being waken and Patsy was at her wits end. JonBenet put up a good fight and unfortunately lost. Now Burke could have heard something and come running...or he could have stayed in his room...no one knows.
 
Toltec said:
Something was definately happening around midnight since the next-door neighbor saw strange lights in the kitchen as if someone were moving about.

Now, Burke did not want to go to bed and was prompted to do so by John. It's not to say he actually did go to bed. He very well could have been playing his coveted Nintendo64 without his parents knowledge.

Now, Patsy's "usual routine" was to get JonBenet up around midnight to take her to the toilet. Of all nights not to wake her....just seems like an outright lie to me because of the party and JonBenet drinking whatever she was drinking at the White's.

It is still my belief that Patsy zonked JonBenet over the head with the flashlight while in a fit of rage. JonBenet did not like being waken and Patsy was at her wits end. JonBenet put up a good fight and unfortunately lost. Now Burke could have heard something and come running...or he could have stayed in his room...no one knows.
One theory is PR came upon JR abusing Jonbenet and tooka golf club to hit JR but instead hit JonBenet.
The more I read DOI the more I found JR to be a suspect. Some women will cover for their husband over their childen. I got the impression the relationship between the parents and children were not close. PR seemed to think it was perfect. I think there was a great lack of communication with the children and certainly between husband and wife. PR said she did not think JR even knew JonBenet had a bedwetting problem. ???? What kind of marriage was this. PR said she knew nothing about JR having an affair during his first marriage. What the heck did these two marry for? All these secrets. i think there were more secrets we still don't know about.
 
Considering what happened to his sister, (assuming it was at the hands of the parent/parents) Burke could be in danger. The "cover-up" serves a dual purpose- to make it look like a outsider/pervert did it, and to send a message to Burke- "don't ever tell"
 
cherylereed said:
Considering what happened to his sister, (assuming it was at the hands of the parent/parents) Burke could be in danger. The "cover-up" serves a dual purpose- to make it look like a outsider/pervert did it, and to send a message to Burke- "don't ever tell"
I don't think I would go that far. I honestly think it was an accident. I think panic kicked in. I don't think they are evil in that way. At least I hope not. :(
 
I have trouble believing a 9 year old child could dream up, execute, and pull off such a hideous crime.

I'm new here. Could someone update me on the pineapple issue?

Sassi
 
Sassi said:
I have trouble believing a 9 year old child could dream up, execute, and pull off such a hideous crime.

I'm new here. Could someone update me on the pineapple issue?

Sassi
Just my opinoin that the pineapple that JBR had in her system was from earlier in the evening.

I'm willing to bet that there was never any pineapple in the bowl in the kitchen.

It seems so obvious that this was a bold face lie in an attempt to pressure a confession out of PR or JR.
 
Zman said:
Just my opinoin that the pineapple that JBR had in her system was from earlier in the evening.

I'm willing to bet that there was never any pineapple in the bowl in the kitchen.

It seems so obvious that this was a bold face lie in an attempt to pressure a confession out of PR or JR.

Zman, most every bit of evidence of which we have been apprised, you believe to be fabricated by the BPD. Just wondering what evidence you consider to be valid?
 
Nehemiah said:
Zman, most every bit of evidence of which we have been apprised, you believe to be fabricated by the BPD. Just wondering what evidence you consider to be valid?
There is very little except the AR and the R's interviews. Also the pictures we have been able to see through some very dishonest means.

Most likley thats why this case remains unsolved.

It's just that after reading and re-reading the R' interviews a pattern starts to develop.

Confront suspects with misleading questions, hope for breakdown and confessions.

This is not a "rare" LE tactic.

Especially all that nonsense about fibers.
 
Zman said:
It's just that after reading and re-reading the R' interviews a pattern starts to develop.
Yeah, except the pattern I see is of them being as vague as possible when not being outright deceptive.

Why is their version of events to accepted as fact and truth? As far as I can tell, both John and Patsy are lying through their teeth in attempt to cover up what really happened. There are so many holes in their story. It doesn't all add up the way they tell it.

Why are they to be believed but nothing from LE?
 
Zman said:
Just my opinoin that the pineapple that JBR had in her system was from earlier in the evening.

I'm willing to bet that there was never any pineapple in the bowl in the kitchen.

It seems so obvious that this was a bold face lie in an attempt to pressure a confession out of PR or JR.
Patsy was shown a photo of the bowl of pineapple in one of her interviews. Do you reckon the photo was false too? Do you also think Lou Smit was lying when he told John Ramsey that the pineapple was a fact and the "Big Bugaboo"? Do you think that the DA's office and the BPD were in that lie together?
 
Jayelles said:
Patsy was shown a photo of the bowl of pineapple in one of her interviews. Do you reckon the photo was false too? Do you also think Lou Smit was lying when he told John Ramsey that the pineapple was a fact and the "Big Bugaboo"? Do you think that the DA's office and the BPD were in that lie together?
In order.

No, I think the bowl was real. Its what was in it I question and who's fingerprints if any where on it.
No, I think he was told the pineapple was there by the RDI LE nazi's and had no choice but to except it.
Yes, although I'm sure there were some in favor and some not.

In an earlier post I should add the RN has evidence.
 
Zman said:
In order.

No, I think the bowl was real. Its what was in it I question and who's fingerprints if any where on it.
No, I think he was told the pineapple was there by the RDI LE nazi's and had no choice but to except it.
Yes, although I'm sure there were some in favor and some not.

In an earlier post I should add the RN has evidence.
So you are being selective in your interpretation of the evidence? I think it's kind of dodgy to manipulate the evidence to suit a theory.

If you can prove there was no pineapple in that bowl and that police lied about the fingerprints then I'd be interested to listen.

The Ramseys were suspects because:-

a) statistically, they were the most likely perps.
b) they had opportunity
c) they avoided interviews for 4 months and refused polygraphs
d) some of their behaviour was deemed suspicious by observers


NOT because they were rich, not because people were jealous of their lifestyle and social status.
 
Zman said:
There is very little except the AR and the R's interviews. Also the pictures we have been able to see through some very dishonest means.

Do you believe the depositions were truthful, or that they all lied under oath?

I'm not trying to needle you, just trying to get a feel for what you consider to be *evidence*.
 
Jayelles said:
So you are being selective in your interpretation of the evidence? I think it's kind of dodgy to manipulate the evidence to suit a theory.

If you can prove there was no pineapple in that bowl and that police lied about the fingerprints then I'd be interested to listen.

The Ramseys were suspects because:-

a) statistically, they were the most likely perps.
b) they had opportunity
c) they avoided interviews for 4 months and refused polygraphs
d) some of their behaviour was deemed suspicious by observers


NOT because they were rich, not because people were jealous of their lifestyle and social status.
Can you prove there was pineapple in the bowl and police did not lie about the fingerprints?

If the R's took polygraphs the day after the murder and passed would you still suspect them?
 
Nehemiah said:
Do you believe the depositions were truthful, or that they all lied under oath?

I'm not trying to needle you, just trying to get a feel for what you consider to be *evidence*.
All who?
Only the R's would be sworn in at a deposition.
No I don't think the R's lied. I think LE embellished evidence in order to put pressure on their suspects in hopes of a confession.
Also these are often called "interviews" I'm not so sure anyone is under oath.
 
Zman said:
All who?
Only the R's would be sworn in at a deposition.
No I don't think the R's lied. I think LE embellished evidence in order to put pressure on their suspects in hopes of a confession.
Also these are often called "interviews" I'm not so sure anyone is under oath.

Beckner, Arndt, and Thomas were deposed and were sworn in:

"9 MARK R. BECKNER,

10 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

11 testified as follows:..."

"EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. WOOD:

3 Q Great. You have been sworn in so let me

4 ask you for the record...."

"1 PROCEEDINGS

2 Linda Arndt,

3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

4 testified as follows:..."



I know you don't think the Ramseys lied. I was asking do you think LE lied under oath?
 
Nehemiah said:
Beckner, Arndt, and Thomas were deposed and were sworn in:

"9 MARK R. BECKNER,

10 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

11 testified as follows:..."

"EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. WOOD:

3 Q Great. You have been sworn in so let me

4 ask you for the record...."

"1 PROCEEDINGS

2 Linda Arndt,

3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

4 testified as follows:..."



I know you don't think the Ramseys lied. I was asking do you think LE lied under oath?
ST's Depo?
Yes

Cops can lie even under oath.
Remember our friend MF from OJ fame?
 
Zman said:
Can you prove there was pineapple in the bowl and police did not lie about the fingerprints?
No, but it is not I making the accusations of fraudulent behviour in this respect. I don't think the BPD and DA are co-operating in any conspiracies or lies.

If the R's took polygraphs the day after the murder and passed would you still suspect them?
Still suspect them? Where have I ever said I suspected them? I think if they had immediately taken polygraphs and offered to co-operate unconditionally with investigators then it would have gone a long way to making them look less suspicious. Maybe the case would have been solved.
 
wasn't solved?

Hardly.

It's not their fault the stun gun marks were missed at autopsy.

It's not their fault when they sought help after calling 911, that proper police procedures weren't followed.

It's not their fault that outside help such as the state and feds and Denver homicide detectives were turned away by the BPD.....along with the experts the Ramseys hired to help the police.

It's not their fault there was a lot of old baggage between the BPD and the DA's office.

It's not their fault that not one person involved in the case in the beginning had no homicide experience. (DA's office excepted--and even they had a hard time getting through to Ellers)

It's not their fault that at the best one of the lead investigators leaked false and malicious information to the media.

It's not their fault that they have no idea who could have done this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
3,527
Total visitors
3,743

Forum statistics

Threads
593,719
Messages
17,991,416
Members
229,217
Latest member
bgreen63
Back
Top