Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[HarmonyE.]

Nope. Your definition is too narrow. Someone is "defamed" when their reputation is diminished by someone else, and if you don't recognize that then I'm not sure what to tell you. The law allows an individual to address certain kinds of defamation (which you have focused on), and those lawsuits are in the category of torts concerning defamation, but that does not mean that other non-addressible defamation does not exist, because it does. If you disagree with that fact, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

And to kanzz's question, I choose not to discuss my personal background on the internet in forums. Given what I've seen in this world, I don't think that's wise. Instead I'm willing to offer what I know using my background and experience, and explain, and whether that's satisfactory to someone or not is up to them.

Your definition of "defamation" is incomplete and therefore inaccurate. It seems as though you are pulling stuff off the internet you think sounds good and then posting it here as definitive truth. That's a wrong thing to do. But since you like to rely on Google, from dictionarylaw.com

defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.

My underlining. Because it's critical that statements be untrue in order for them to be considered defamatory. And once again, Burke will surely not be considered a private figure with regard to his sister's murder; his voluntary nationally broadcasted Dr. Phil interview pre-CBS show sealed a deal that was already very likely. Not being a private figure means the burden is on Burke to prove the things CBS concluded about him were lies, were deliberate lies, and were lies made with actual malice.

 

[kanzz]

Ouch. Your comment is very serious and hits upon something I really don't like just because of the subject matter. There are two trends of thought here. The 1st is the person who hit her didn't know the seriousness of the injury so did a wait-and-see. The 2nd is that the person knew how critical the injury was and knew the consequences. Wait-and-see is easier to take, but fully understanding the consequences, having actual knowledge of the seriousness of the head injury, that makes me tense up. I suspect this was somewhere down the middle of the two options--knowing the seriousness of the injury but hoping that it wasn't as bad as it was. This is a question of how cold blooded the killer was or if this was a moment of fear and panic.

I also believe she was barely alive. She may have gone into convulsions, but that stopped and then there was silence. Her heart rate and breathing became almost undetectable. The person who strangled her believed she was dead or so close to death that she'd be dead soon. The problem with that is petechial hemorrhaging. I don't know enough of the medical side to understand if the petechial hemorrhaging was postmortem. My understanding about the autopsy is that the petechial hemorrhaging indicated the heart was beating when she was strangled, but I could be completely wrong. I have no expertise and have to rely on what I've read.

Petechial hemorrhages were found on her neck, eyelids, lungs, and heart - all indicative that her heart was pumping when she was strangled and that she had a decent (if not high) blood pressure.

The reason I mention blood pressure here is because if she had appeared to be dead, she wouldn't have had a significant blood pressure and probably wouldn't have produced all of these petechial hemorrhages. Yes, she was most likely in critical condition; but I don't think she would have appeared to be dead.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

Just a thought regarding the blow to the head: Maybe JB was taking 'too long' to actually die so that's why the perp ended up strangling her.

I'm not an expert so maybe someone else can chime in. Would a blow to the head cause instant death? Perhaps the headblow was meant to kill her instantly, but didn't.

What a horrible thought.

 

[sedndun]

I had previously pitched the idea that if JonBenet wasn't closely scrutinized and had been presented to her parents as having fallen asleep downstairs, then she could have been changed and put to bed all while concussed.

A later part of this theory that I hadn't gone into yet involves a highly scrutinized JonBenet- in particular her head.

As I left it before, Burke as the only one knowing that JonBenet isn't really just sleeping goes into her room to try and get a response from her. This may have begun with shaking and prodding which fails to get her to wake. Perhaps he thinks she's just faking, so he takes it further and drops his soiled pajamas on her floor and smears her candy box. Still nothing. He pokes her with the train tracks. Still nothing. He knows she's not faking and that it's really bad. He's going to be in trouble and perhaps he blames her for that. Things escalate and this finally gets Patsy's attention.

Patsy is at a loss for what she sees and asks what's going on.

Burke maybe says something like she won't wake up.

Why are you trying to wake her? But Patsy senses something isn't right. She turns on the light and notices JonBenet looking off. She tries to wake her to no avail. What happened?

Burke would probably play innocent but maybe says something to the effect of "she hit her head."

Patsy runs her hands over JonBenet's head. While no wound was visible, I do believe if inspected, there were signs of how bad the fracture was beneath. The point of impact would be most obvious as a recess. Perhaps with the interior bleeding the skin about her skull feels spongy. More disturbingly, what if the split in her skull gave any sense of give- like a cracked nut? True horror would have set in. Was she dead? I'm sure she would check for a pulse or breathing.

Things look helpless. She should call for help. She should call for John. But she knows Burke did something, and perhaps there's already been a few too many somethings for this to be explained as another accident. And there are these other marks- around her collar, the prongs from the train tracks, perhaps whatever that mark on her cheek was.

Logic goes out the window.

I have other ideas that might fill in other gaps (and they are just ideas and very much an evolving process) but I thought as some on this forum have considerable medical knowledge they might have a take on what would have been felt if someone that night actually did examine her head.

 

[Tortoise]

The autopsy report says "no scalp trauma is identified"

Perhaps the brain swelling, however minimal, kept the broken skull from being depressed.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I had previously pitched the idea that if JonBenet wasn't closely scrutinized and had been presented to her parents as having fallen asleep downstairs, then she could have been changed and put to bed all while concussed.

A later part of this theory that I hadn't gone into yet involves a highly scrutinized JonBenet- in particular her head.

As I left it before, Burke as the only one knowing that JonBenet isn't really just sleeping goes into her room to try and get a response from her. This may have begun with shaking and prodding which fails to get her to wake. Perhaps he thinks she's just faking, so he takes it further and drops his soiled pajamas on her floor and smears her candy box. Still nothing. He pokes her with the train tracks. Still nothing. He knows she's not faking and that it's really bad. He's going to be in trouble and perhaps he blames her for that. Things escalate and this finally gets Patsy's attention.

Patsy is at a loss for what she sees and asks what's going on.

Burke maybe says something like she won't wake up.

Why are you trying to wake her? But Patsy senses something isn't right. She turns on the light and notices JonBenet looking off. She tries to wake her to no avail. What happened?

Burke would probably play innocent but maybe says something to the effect of "she hit her head."

Patsy runs her hands over JonBenet's head. While no wound was visible, I do believe if inspected, there were signs of how bad the fracture was beneath. The point of impact would be most obvious as a recess. Perhaps with the interior bleeding the skin about her skull feels spongy. More disturbingly, what if the split in her skull gave any sense of give- like a cracked nut? True horror would have set in. Was she dead? I'm sure she would check for a pulse or breathing.

Things look helpless. She should call for help. She should call for John. But she knows Burke did something, and perhaps there's already been a few too many somethings for this to be explained as another accident. And there are these other marks- around her collar, the prongs from the train tracks, perhaps whatever that mark on her cheek was.

Logic goes out the window.

I have other ideas that might fill in other gaps (and they are just ideas and very much an evolving process) but I thought as some on this forum have considerable medical knowledge they might have a take on what would have been felt if someone that night actually did examine her head.

An interesting theory and I can see you've given it a lot of thought.

You haven't mentioned your theory about how she came to be strangled?

 

[SteveS]

Your definition of "defamation" is incomplete and therefore inaccurate. It seems as though you are pulling stuff off the internet you think sounds good and then posting it here as definitive truth. That's a wrong thing to do. But since you like to rely on Google, from dictionarylaw.com

Well no, none of what you said in this post is accurate at all. But I've made my point clear, I'm certain of the accuracy of my terminology in the context in which I used it, and if this distinction in semantics that you raised is all that important to you, I'd suggest you consider checking with an attorney who deals in such things.

In the meantime, I appreciate your invitation to vet what I know with your Google Law School, but I'll pass, and we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Well no, none of what you said in this post is accurate at all. But I've made my point clear, I'm certain of the accuracy of my terminology in the context in which I used it, and if this distinction in semantics that you raised is all that important to you, I'd suggest you consider checking with an attorney who deals in such things.

In the meantime, I appreciate your invitation to vet what I know with your Google Law School, but I'll pass, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, no I can't agree with that. You are posting things that aren't true. And I don't need to check with an attorney who has dealt in such things.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Just a thought regarding the blow to the head: Maybe JB was taking 'too long' to actually die so that's why the perp ended up strangling her.

I'm not an expert so maybe someone else can chime in. Would a blow to the head cause instant death? Perhaps the headblow was meant to kill her instantly, but didn't.

What a horrible thought.

This is one of the biggest mysteries about this case. What was the reason for head blow? Accidental? On purpose? Accidentally on purpose (such as a dispute that triggered a prior fantasy)? Not knowing the answer to this makes speculation about what happened next that much more challenging.

 

[Tadpole12]

Would JBR's face have turned that purplish blue color due to lack of circulation?

 

[Tadpole12]

Nope. Your definition is too narrow. Someone is "defamed" when their reputation is diminished by someone else, and if you don't recognize that then I'm not sure what to tell you. The law allows an individual to address certain kinds of defamation (which you have focused on), and those lawsuits are in the category of torts concerning defamation, but that does not mean that other non-addressible defamation does not exist, because it does. If you disagree with that fact, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

And to kanzz's question, I choose not to discuss my personal background on the internet in forums. Given what I've seen in this world, I don't think that's wise. Instead I'm willing to offer what I know using my background and experience, and explain, and whether that's satisfactory to someone or not is up to them.

TY SS

Will read more re
'non-addressable defamation'

 

[kanzz]

Would JBR's face have turned that purplish blue color due to lack of circulation?

Yes. Due to cyanosis (due lack of oxygen, which is primarily due to lack of circulation). It's actually not that purple compared to some I've seen, especially considering how long after her death those photos were taken.

 

[sedndun]

You haven't mentioned your theory about how she came to be strangled?

Not yet, no. Every time someone mentions how they can't imagine it, that gets me thinking. I may have a different perspective on motivations and justifications for how that step came to be taken, and I'll share when I can make sense of it.
Earlier I had put out the idea that the cord was used as a replacement for something else, something more incriminating (I threw out the idea of a Nintendo controller which has a very long cord, but my reason for mentioning that is mostly because the item (and Burke) is the first evidence we know to have left the house.)

 

[sedndun]

The autopsy report says "no scalp trauma is identified"

Perhaps the brain swelling, however minimal, kept the broken skull from being depressed.

Yes, apparently no one knew or noticed anything that pointed them in the direction of a skull fracture until the scalp had been pushed back (a whole day and a life later.) My question is, if someone inspected her head while she was alive and the wound fresh, how would it have felt? There were no visible signs, but tactile?

 

[kanzz]

Yes, apparently no one knew or noticed anything that pointed them in the direction of a skull fracture until the scalp had been pushed back (a whole day and a life later.) My question is, if someone inspected her head while she was alive and the wound fresh, how would it have felt? There were no visible signs, but tactile?

It's hard to tell, imo. JB had very thick hair. Unless someone were to do a very thorough digital exam of her head, I don't think they would have been able to find anything. And even then, I don't know that a lay person would understand what they were feeling. Also, my guess would be that the only person who would do that would be someone who knew she had been struck on the head.

 

[TeaTime]

Not yet, no. Every time someone mentions how they can't imagine it, that gets me thinking. I may have a different perspective on motivations and justifications for how that step came to be taken, and I'll share when I can make sense of it.
Earlier I had put out the idea that the cord was used as a replacement for something else, something more incriminating (I threw out the idea of a Nintendo controller which has a very long cord, but my reason for mentioning that is mostly because the item (and Burke) is the first evidence we know to have left the house.)

Sedndun - very interesting and not something I ever thought. The cord could have indeed been a replacement for the original strangulation device.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I'm not sure why the killer would replace the original ligature. I can't see a reason for this unless the original ligature was hugely incriminating to them personally, if you know what I mean?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record - but the only scenario that makes sense is if we put BR into having done BOTH parts of the killing, i.e. the head trauma and then the strangulation.

That's how Patsy found her daughter.

For a long time I thought PR had strangled JBR but it never really sat right with me. I couldn't picture that happening. At the time I thought it couldn't be BR because he had been cleared.

Now of course we know that he most probably WAS involved and that, for me, put a whole new slant on things. It all made sense.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I'm not sure why the killer would replace the original ligature. I can't see a reason for this unless the original ligature was hugely incriminating to them personally, if you know what I mean?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record - but the only scenario that makes sense is if we put BR into having done BOTH parts of the killing, i.e. the head trauma and then the strangulation.

That's how Patsy found her daughter.

For a long time I thought PR had strangled JBR but it never really sat right with me. I couldn't picture that happening. At the time I thought it couldn't be BR because he had been cleared.

Now of course we know that he most probably WAS involved and that, for me, put a whole new slant on things. It all made sense.

My journey too. I was on the fence for a long time about the extent of Patsy's (and John's) involvement beyond the ransom note, but now that we have more details about Burke and it's clear that he had the ability, likely motivation and certainly the opportunity, I think Burke did it all with some obvious cover-up help from his mother and probably his father.

 

[andreww]

I'm not sure why the killer would replace the original ligature. I can't see a reason for this unless the original ligature was hugely incriminating to them personally, if you know what I mean?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record - but the only scenario that makes sense is if we put BR into having done BOTH parts of the killing, i.e. the head trauma and then the strangulation.

That's how Patsy found her daughter.

For a long time I thought PR had strangled JBR but it never really sat right with me. I couldn't picture that happening. At the time I thought it couldn't be BR because he had been cleared.

Now of course we know that he most probably WAS involved and that, for me, put a whole new slant on things. It all made sense.

You are ignoring evidence like the fibres from Patsy's sweater on the inside of the duct tape. There is a huge difference between the effectiveness of the hand restraints and the garrotte as well. One is flimsy and child like, the other lethal and effective. Kolar suggests that prior to the garrotte she may have been strangled with a sweater. The marks may have been there already, so she made it look like an outside job. Again, its going to be difficult to prove who pulled that slip not now unless one of the Ramsey's talks. But consider this, we know Patsy for gloves as her prints are absent from the ransom note. The fact that no DNA that we know have has been found on the garrotte handle, that suggests to me that the person that constructed and pulled it wore gloves as well. I don't think Burke would have been that clever.

 

[andreww]

I'm not sure why the killer would replace the original ligature. I can't see a reason for this unless the original ligature was hugely incriminating to them personally, if you know what I mean?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record - but the only scenario that makes sense is if we put BR into having done BOTH parts of the killing, i.e. the head trauma and then the strangulation.

That's how Patsy found her daughter.

For a long time I thought PR had strangled JBR but it never really sat right with me. I couldn't picture that happening. At the time I thought it couldn't be BR because he had been cleared.

Now of course we know that he most probably WAS involved and that, for me, put a whole new slant on things. It all made sense.

You are ignoring evidence like the fibres from Patsy's sweater on the inside of the duct tape. There is a huge difference between the effectiveness of the hand restraints and the garrotte as well. One is flimsy and child like, the other lethal and effective. Kolar suggests that prior to the garrotte she may have been strangled with a sweater. The marks may have been there already, so she made it look like an outside job. Again, its going to be difficult to prove who pulled that slip not now unless one of the Ramsey's talks. But consider this, we know Patsy for gloves as her prints are absent from the ransom note. The fact that no DNA that we know have has been found on the garrotte handle, that suggests to me that the person that constructed and pulled it wore gloves as well. I don't think Burke would have been that clever.