Burke Burke Burke

[BlueCrab]

Jasmine,

Burke Ramsey has not been cleared. Please provide a source that says Burke was cleared. Thanks.

JMO[/QUOTE

Blue Crab, I already did post it. It was RMN May 21, 1999. But that is ok because I am sure you will disregard the whole article........even though the statements were from the DA's office...

Jasmine,

Where and when did you post it? Please post it again. Thanks. (I can guarantee to you the article did not quote a person of authority in Boulder, such as Hunter, Beckner, a judge, etc., saying Burke was cleared.)

JMO

 

[jasmine]

Blue Crab, It is late here at my busy house! So I am going to go to bed. Now if you want to know where I got my info.......it was from several news sources....One was Rocky Mtn News and the other was CNN I think. I dont know how to do links so I told the source of the RMN and the date and then quoted where Suzanne Laurion or whoever was the spokewoman. Its there, you will dismiss it Im sure. No problem!

 

[BlueCrab]

Jasmine,

Where and when did you post it? Please post it again. Thanks. (I can guarantee to you the article did not quote a person of authority in Boulder, such as Hunter, Beckner, a judge, etc., saying Burke was cleared.)

JMO

Jasmine,

Okay, I found your post. It was from yesterday. The article in the Rocky Mountain News from 1999 does NOT say Burke was cleared. It says Burke is not a suspect.

"Burke is not a suspect, said Suzanne Laurion, a spokeswoman for Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter."

Jasmine, please be informed that NO ONE is an official suspect in the Ramsey case -- not even John and Patsy Ramsey. It's so they don't get sued by the Ramseys. Saying Burke is "not a suspect" is ludicrous, and intended to mislead, because Hunter knows the public will interpret the remark as meaning Burke has been cleared, which he hasn't.

Burke isn't a suspect, but neither is anyone else.

I repeat, NO ONE is a suspect in the Ramsey case. By omiting that little fact in a statement about Burke from his office, Hunter is committing a fraud.

Burke has never been cleared by anyone in a position of authority in Boulder.

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

I suspect Patsy did it.

I clear Burke.

There it's settled.

 

[jasmine]

Jasmine,

Okay, I found your post. It was from yesterday. The article in the Rocky Mountain News from 1999 does NOT say Burke was cleared. It says Burke is not a suspect.

"Burke is not a suspect, said Suzanne Laurion, a spokeswoman for Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter."

Jasmine, please be informed that NO ONE is an official suspect in the Ramsey case -- not even John and Patsy Ramsey. It's so they don't get sued by the Ramseys. Saying Burke is "not a suspect" is ludicrous, and intended to mislead, because Hunter knows the public will interpret the remark as meaning Burke has been cleared, which he hasn't.

Burke isn't a suspect, but neither is anyone else.

I repeat, NO ONE is a suspect in the Ramsey case. By omiting that little fact in a statement about Burke from his office, Hunter is committing a fraud.

Burke has never been cleared by anyone in a position of authority in Boulder.

JMO[/QUOTE

Blue Crab, the what in the heck does "Burke is not a suspect" mean? I personally dont like your theory of BDI and I think that is terribly cruel to an innocent child who had to endure this trauma! Well that is all I am going to say on that..........

 

[twizzler333]

Suspect: 1. To think (a person) guilty without evidence or proof. 2. To have distrust of, doubt, to suspect one's motives. 3. To have a suspicion of; think possible. 4. To have suspicions.

If a person is NOT a suspect does this mean that they did not think the person was guilty because there WAS proof or evidence to conclude this? Did they NOT have a doubt of their motives? Were they NOT suspicious of this person? Or do they just toss this term out loosely?

Are LE officials going to say someone is NOT a suspect even though they think there may be some evidence somewhere, but they haven't found it yet? That would contradict NOT being a suspect, IMO.

They haven't cleared anyone because no one is suspect apparently....???? I would think they suspected a lot of people in the beginning and the ones they have considered "cleared" are not suspects now.

 

[BlueCrab]

They haven't cleared anyone because no one is suspect apparently....????

Twizzler,

Not quite. There are no "suspects" in the Ramsey case because the Ramseys WILL sue and HAVE sued anyone who calls a family member a suspect. For instance, Court TV was sued by the Ramseys because Burke was mentioned as a suspect on one of its programs.

JMO (that's the reason this "Just My Opinion" is added to all of my posts)

 

[twizzler333]

I think if LE suspected anyone of doing this they could all them suspects all day long and there is nothing anyone could do about it. They could sue the LE if they wanted to but if LE had enough reason to believe they should be a suspect, then it would make a hill of beans if they wanted to sue or not. They haven't sued the Governer and he all but called them suspects and really insinuated that they are probably responsible.

Sorry, BlueCrab, I respect you and your theories but I am not buying this one. I think he is not listed as a suspect because he is not suspected.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think if LE suspected anyone of doing this they could all them suspects all day long and there is nothing anyone could do about it. They could sue the LE if they wanted to but if LE had enough reason to believe they should be a suspect, then it would make a hill of beans if they wanted to sue or not. They haven't sued the Governer and he all but called them suspects and really insinuated that they are probably responsible.

Sorry, BlueCrab, I respect you and your theories but I am not buying this one. I think he is not listed as a suspect because he is not suspected.

Twizzler,

Sorry, but you're wrong. There were 11 defamation lawsuits filed in the Ramsey case. Here's the one I referred to in my post:

Burke Ramsey v Court TV (Time Warner Companies, Inc.) was about a November 1999 show on the case titled "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey: Prime Suspects". It was a one-hour special focusing on four potential killers: John, Patsy, Burke, and an intruder.

Host Rikki Klieman spent about 15 minutes on Burke as one of the prime suspects. The Ramseys sued.

If the BPD or the Boulder DA officially call John, or Patsy, or especially Burke, a suspect, the Ramseys will sue.

I hope you can better appreciate now why Alex Hunter, in his famous but fraudulent affidavit, called Burke a "witness" and not a suspect.


JMO

 

[K777angel]

Twizzler,

Sorry, but you're wrong. There were 11 defamation lawsuits filed in the Ramsey case. Here's the one I referred to in my post:

Burke Ramsey v Court TV (Time Warner Companies, Inc.) was about a November 1999 show on the case titled "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey: Prime Suspects". It was a one-hour special focusing on four potential killers: John, Patsy, Burke, and an intruder.

Host Rikki Klieman spent about 15 minutes on Burke as one of the prime suspects. The Ramseys sued.

If the BPD or the Boulder DA officially call John, or Patsy, or especially Burke, a suspect, the Ramseys will sue.


JMO

Not to mention the fact that in Colorado a child under the age of 10 (Burke was just 3 weeks shy of his 10th birthday) cannot be charged with a crime and therefore cannot be named a "suspect" either.

Like Bluecrab said - NO ONE has been named a "suspect" in the Ramsey case.
The closest they come is to say there are people "under the umbrella of suspicion". Some that come and go. John and Patsy have never been removed from under that umbrella. Burke couldn't be put under there as he was legally under age at the time of the crime to even BE a "suspect" in any crime.

Read the NY Post court order. The judge made a point even of mentioning that the rough draft "affadavit" that Lin Wood wrote up by the way - was rejected by Hunter. He ammended the wording and was very careful and select in his wording. He made it "legally safe" - but publically expedient.
To appease Wood.

Same thing Keenan did after the dumb civil suit where distorted and select facts were given to the court and the judge, given only what she had to go on (Of course only 'facts' favorable - or made to LOOK favorable to the Ramseys) stated that given the facts presented to her it appeared more that an intruder committed the crime than a Ramsey. Well DUH!!! That's what happens when your DEFENSE attorney gives a one-sided, slanted, distored, incomplete presentation of the facts and evidence surrounding the case!!
No one to rebutt it and of course Lin Wood did NOT even have access to all the evidence!

Do not take everything at face value in this case. You must look deeper and weigh ALL the facts and circumstances and very importantly - look at the motivations behind whoever is putting forth this "information" or statement.

The Burke affadavit isn't worth the paper it's written on and neither is the junk document from Judge Carnes.
BOTH were produced at the request of Lin Wood. Go figure.

 

[BlueCrab]

Same thing Keenan did after the dumb civil suit where distorted and select facts were given to the court and the judge, given only what she had to go on (Of course only 'facts' favorable - or made to LOOK favorable to the Ramseys) stated that given the facts presented to her it appeared more that an intruder committed the crime than a Ramsey.

Angel,

I fully agree with your above post except for your description of Judge Julie Carnes' written opinion. Carnes said it was more likely that an intruder killed JonBenet than it was likely that PATSY RAMSEY killed JonBenet. She later commented that the PARENTS didn't do it. That takes care of John and Patsy, but what about Burke?

IOW, Carnes gave John and Patsy a free pass, but not Burke, in the killing of JonBenet. She left Burke to swing in the breeze all by himself without a free pass in the killing of JonBenet.

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

Angel,

I fully agree with your above post except for your description of Judge Julie Carnes' written opinion. Carnes said it was more likely that an intruder killed JonBenet than it was likely that PATSY RAMSEY killed JonBenet. She later commented that the PARENTS didn't do it. That takes care of John and Patsy, but what about Burke?

IOW, Carnes gave John and Patsy a free pass, but not Burke, in the killing of JonBenet. She left Burke to swing in the breeze all by himself without a free pass in the killing of JonBenet.

JMO

Wrong again, BC. She left Burke out because it is absurd to consider him to be involved in the death.

 

[ManInTheBox]

Jasmine,

Okay, I found your post. It was from yesterday. The article in the Rocky Mountain News from 1999 does NOT say Burke was cleared. It says Burke is not a suspect.

"Burke is not a suspect, said Suzanne Laurion, a spokeswoman for Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter."

Jasmine, please be informed that NO ONE is an official suspect in the Ramsey case -- not even John and Patsy Ramsey. It's so they don't get sued by the Ramseys. Saying Burke is "not a suspect" is ludicrous, and intended to mislead, because Hunter knows the public will interpret the remark as meaning Burke has been cleared, which he hasn't.

Burke isn't a suspect, but neither is anyone else.

I repeat, NO ONE is a suspect in the Ramsey case. By omiting that little fact in a statement about Burke from his office, Hunter is committing a fraud.

Burke has never been cleared by anyone in a position of authority in Boulder.

JMO[/QUOTE

Blue Crab, the what in the heck does "Burke is not a suspect" mean? I personally dont like your theory of BDI and I think that is terribly cruel to an innocent child who had to endure this trauma! Well that is all I am going to say on that..........

He doesn't seem to be going through any trauma! He just shrugged his sister's death off and continued to play. He felt secure which must mean he knows something no one knows to give him that security. Burke is being treated like a big wuss in this case. Interview him now about the case if u didn't want to back then. WHat this is saying is it was OK to lie at Michael Crowe and bombard him with questions and almost convict him because he was innocent. Though we shouldn't even question Burke properly because he might accidentaly give up information that leads to evidence bringing a Ramsey to court which the boulder DA are scared to death to do. They're the reason this case isn't getting solved. Or at least some of the reason, The only person I have some respect for in that office at that time was Trip DeMuth and even that respect is minute.

 

[ManInTheBox]

Not to mention the fact that in Colorado a child under the age of 10 (Burke was just 3 weeks shy of his 10th birthday) cannot be charged with a crime and therefore cannot be named a "suspect" either.

That is a rediculous law

 

[BlueCrab]

That is a rediculous law

ManInTheBox,

I agree it's ridiculous -- well intentioned, but nevertheless ridiculous.

Most states in the U.S. have no age limits with respect to bringing charges against juveniles who have committed a crime.

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

It's also ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the Ramsey case.

 

[ManInTheBox]

It's also ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the Ramsey case.

It's pretty stupid that the Boulder Police Dept. won't even consider the fact that Burke did it. The fact is that he very well might have. Whether he did it as an accident or purposly could be debated. As well as the fact if he did it or not. Though to exclude him from the investigation is something so stupid...that the Boulder Police would do it. That should be a new insult. Your so stupid you should apply for the Boulder Investigation team

 

[K777angel]

It's pretty stupid that the Boulder Police Dept. won't even consider the fact that Burke did it. The fact is that he very well might have. Whether he did it as an accident or purposly could be debated. As well as the fact if he did it or not. Though to exclude him from the investigation is something so stupid...that the Boulder Police would do it. That should be a new insult. Your so stupid you should apply for the Boulder Investigation team

I think they DID consider Burke. But the forensic evidence pointed to Patsy so they went in that direction. Trouble is, that forensic evidence may be there only due to staging activites and NOT the actual death causing act.

I still am pondering Linda Arndt's informed theory (due to her training and experience in this area) having to do with incest. She said that EVERYONE in the family where there is incest has a "role." It is a particular dynamic. It is a dangerous dynamic that SETS UP some kind of tradgedy. I remember the ex-Miss America Marilyn - what is her name - Derber Van something. Very beautiful and well spoken. She said that she was being sexually abused by her father for years and she KNEW that he had the capability of killing her if she told. He was a man high placed and well thought of in his community.
They often are. IT HAPPENS.

 

[zencompass]

There are dozens of items of evidence and circumstances that point to Burke as being directly involved in the death of JonBenet. To begin with, for the sake of brevity, I'll single out just three of these items:

1. There was no credible evidence of an intruder. And Burke was one of three known individuals -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- in the house that night. John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor, including DNA analyses, handwriting analyses, and polygraph examination analyses. Burke has no known exculpatory evidence in his favor.

2. JonBenet ate pineapple at the Ramsey's breakfast room table approximately one hour before she died. The bowl of pineapple from which she snacked from was left out all night on the table. It had two sets of fingerprints on it -- Patsy's and Burke's. Patsy's prints were on it because it was she who had to have removed the bowl from the dishwasher and put it away in an overhead kitchen cabinet at an earlier time. Burke's prints were on it because it was he who had to have removed the bowl from the cabinet, spooned out fresh pineapple from a container in the refrigerator, and put the bowl on the breakfast room table. Burke and JonBenet had obviously snuck downstairs together in the middle of the night. JonBenet had pineapple (one of her favorite snacks), and Burke had a glass of tea (he was the resident tea drinker). The glass with a spent tea bag in it was left on the table next to the bowl of pineapple. The bowl of pineapple and the waterglass were at the respective seats at the table where JonBenet and Burke usually sat.

3. All three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- lied about the whereabouts of Burke at 5:52 A.M. when Patsy made the 911 call. In separate police interviews they all had the same story, that Burke was in bed and had never been up, and therefore he knows nothing. The enhanced 911 tape had Burke's voice on it, proving that Burke was up at 5:52 A.M. and was engaged in conversation with his parents. The lies showed a conspiratorial effort to protect Burke by trying to distance him from the murder. The lies also destroyed the Ramseys credibility with regard to whatever else they said took place that morning.

JMO

Bolded by me - Blue Crab's attention to detail is astonishing.


JMO

 

[Gigitmdy]

This Observation is not really relevant to the case, but I noticed Burke's ears gave changed as an adult. I suspect he had cosmetic surgery.