Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[singularity]

I never ever said Patsy did everything.

You leapfrog between scenarios continuously. You say it cant be PDI cause its BDI but all the evidence indicated PDI so that means its BDI! In the next breath, there's nothing to indicate PDI so its BDI but maybe its JDI if its not BDI.

BDI is morphing into "Who's on first?".

Patsy and John in BDI All, are mere crime-scene stagers. They do not kill JonBenet, Burke did that, they just relocate JonBenet from upstairs to the basement, clean her up, wrap her in the blanket and put her in the wine-cellar, then author a ransom note, hoping it explains why JonBenet went from her bedroom to the wine-cellar, e.g. nasty intruder.

The main problem with that scenario is there's literally no evidence that Burke killed her. What little evidence there is linking anyone to actual murder leads us straight to Patsy(her fibers in the garrote, on the tape). The few fibers that exist as far as a potential sexual assault goes don't lead to Burke either....they lead to John.

This is why you now place them in the category of "mere crime scene stagers". Its an attempt to dance around the fact there's no evidence to indicate your suspect is a murderer. This is also why BDI wants to ignore the majority of info in this case now. It needs the spotlight on Burke and doesn't want people to see anything else.....hence the never ending focus on longjohns, pineapple, and size 12s....which may be of minor relevance to actual murder yet have to be the main topic of discussion.

 

[icedtea4me]

I think the biggest reason is because it is the scenario that makes the most sense out of both John & Patsy covering up. Burke also did himself no favors in his Dr. Phil interviews.

I think John has something on Patsy and Patsy has something on John.

 

[Userid]

^ Me too.

 

[Userid]

You leapfrog between scenarios continuously. You say it cant be PDI cause its BDI but all the evidence indicated PDI so that means its BDI! In the next breath, there's nothing to indicate PDI so its BDI but maybe its JDI if its not BDI.

BDI is morphing into "Who's on first?".

The main problem with that scenario is there's literally no evidence that Burke killed her. What little evidence there is linking anyone to actual murder leads us straight to Patsy(her fibers in the garrote, on the tape). The few fibers that exist as far as a potential sexual assault goes don't lead to Burke either....they lead to John.

This is why you now place them in the category of "mere crime scene stagers". Its an attempt to dance around the fact there's no evidence to indicate your suspect is a murderer. This is also why BDI wants to ignore the majority of info in this case now. It needs the spotlight on Burke and doesn't want people to see anything else.....hence the never ending focus on longjohns, pineapple, and size 12s....which may be of minor relevance to actual murder yet have to be the main topic of discussion.

Exactly, especially to the bolded. It not only ignores the actual evidence, but it also relies on the impossible-to-believe scenario that the R's were good-enough stagers to eliminate literally every shred of evidence a nine year old would have left behind, but bad-enough stagers to leave their own evidence behind.

If grown adults left fiber evidence behind, a nine year old would have left even more evidence behind; if those same adults couldn't even cover for themselves, they wouldn't have been able to cover for their son, and they would have missed the same evidence, if not more.

 

[UKGuy]

Exactly, especially to the bolded. It not only ignores the actual evidence, but it also relies on the impossible-to-believe scenario that the R's were good-enough stagers to eliminate literally every shred of evidence a nine year old would have left behind, but bad-enough stagers to leave their own evidence behind.

If grown adults left fiber evidence behind, a nine year old would have left even more evidence behind; if those same adults couldn't even cover for themselves, they wouldn't have been able to cover for their son, and they would have missed the same evidence, if not more.

Userid,
The rationale behind BDI staging is precisely to remove Burke Ramsey from the equation, hence next to no forensic evidence, excepting the few clues the parents probably were unaware of.

Moving JonBenet down to the basement severs the link with any evidence in her bedroom, e.g. bloodstains, Burke's pajama bottoms and any fibers.

Cleaning JonBenet and wiping her down removes more evidence, then the ligature used to kill her was re-used to fashion a garrote or paintbrush handle and ligature and applied to create affect in the staged homicide.

Its nearly possible to see those aspects of the staging done by Burke as they are amateurish in effect, and those by the parents where masking, and deception have been employed, futher embellished by the ransom note.

If BDI then BR leaves evidence, but its all upstairs in the bedroom, excepting the nightgown.

If PDI then Patsy leaves evidence in the wine-cellar and on the RN.

If BDI All then BR leaves minimal evidence as the parents cleanup behind him, and they leave minimal traces, e.g. Patsy and JR's fibers.

So there is nothing about the evidence that excludes BDI All with the parents staging BR out of the case.

Like it or not, BDI is logically possible. It could have happened, the details are lost to us, but the parents covering for their son is understandable.

Instead of running down BDI you should talk up PDI.

.

 

[UKGuy]

You leapfrog between scenarios continuously. You say it cant be PDI cause its BDI but all the evidence indicated PDI so that means its BDI! In the next breath, there's nothing to indicate PDI so its BDI but maybe its JDI if its not BDI.

BDI is morphing into "Who's on first?".

The main problem with that scenario is there's literally no evidence that Burke killed her. What little evidence there is linking anyone to actual murder leads us straight to Patsy(her fibers in the garrote, on the tape). The few fibers that exist as far as a potential sexual assault goes don't lead to Burke either....they lead to John.

This is why you now place them in the category of "mere crime scene stagers". Its an attempt to dance around the fact there's no evidence to indicate your suspect is a murderer. This is also why BDI wants to ignore the majority of info in this case now. It needs the spotlight on Burke and doesn't want people to see anything else.....hence the never ending focus on longjohns, pineapple, and size 12s....which may be of minor relevance to actual murder yet have to be the main topic of discussion.

singularity,
Lots of rhetoric above, and little reasoned discourse.


What you singularly fail to elucidate is that JonBenet's Homicide is a staged homicide where the intention is to mask evidence and hide the killer behind a screen of fake evidence.

So if the stager is Patsy but she is not the killer then her staging has served its purpose, and you have been hoodwinked.

.

 

[singularity]

Oh great...here comes the part where you inform the community that PDI is for suckers. You also act like we're dumb and are unable to realize it's a staged homicide.

Instead of running down BDI you should talk up PDI.

That's impossible now. It's been attempted. There's so few people in this section now and everything has to revolve around what I mentioned in my previous post. If someone were to "talk up" PDI, it immediately gets drowned out in longjohns and poopy pants. THis even happens in Patsy threads too. Try to talk about Patsy and we're informed Burke ate a bowl of pineapple and put the longjohns on her....as if we've never heard that before. Its only been mentioned in every single thread in every other post.

My prediction last year is sadly coming true.

hence next to no forensic evidence,

Next to no forensic evidence? You mean no forensic evidence.

the few clues the parents probably were unaware of.

The few clues? There are no clues. A bowl of pineapple is not evidence of murder. Neither are the longjohns that you admit 50% of the time mean nothing. The size 12s. aren't evidence of murder either.

You're the last person that needs to be telling others they've been hoodwinked.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*So there is nothing about the evidence that excludes BDI All with the parents staging BR out of the case.*snip*

There's the psycholinguistic analysis of the ransom note.

 

[Laughing]

Anything more about the lawsuit specified in our thread title???

TY!

:seeya:

 

[Userid]

Userid,
The rationale behind BDI staging is precisely to remove Burke Ramsey from the equation, hence next to no forensic evidence, excepting the few clues the parents probably were unaware of.

Moving JonBenet down to the basement severs the link with any evidence in her bedroom, e.g. bloodstains, Burke's pajama bottoms and any fibers.

Cleaning JonBenet and wiping her down removes more evidence, then the ligature used to kill her was re-used to fashion a garrote or paintbrush handle and ligature and applied to create affect in the staged homicide.

Its nearly possible to see those aspects of the staging done by Burke as they are amateurish in effect, and those by the parents where masking, and deception have been employed, futher embellished by the ransom note.

If BDI then BR leaves evidence, but its all upstairs in the bedroom, excepting the nightgown.

If PDI then Patsy leaves evidence in the wine-cellar and on the RN.

If BDI All then BR leaves minimal evidence as the parents cleanup behind him, and they leave minimal traces, e.g. Patsy and JR's fibers.

So there is nothing about the evidence that excludes BDI All with the parents staging BR out of the case.

Like it or not, BDI is logically possible. It could have happened, the details are lost to us, but the parents covering for their son is understandable.

Instead of running down BDI you should talk up PDI.

.

BR, a nine year old, would have left evidence on the body itself; just as the parents did, who didn't even commit the actual murder in your scenario, but simply the staging. There's zero way for you to reconcile this.

I've talked up PDI. There's is nothing about the evidence that points to BDI any more than PDI/JDI; much less, actually.

 

[singularity]

There's zero way for you to reconcile this.

Yet he tells everyone else to "follow the evidence". That's what we've been doing. Its why we're not BDI.

There's is nothing about the evidence that points to BDI any more than PDI/JDI; much less, actually.

When you get down to brass tacks, there's actually no evidence for it. I mean literally none. Take away those three minor issues BDI always has to focus on(which probably aren't even BDI related), nothing else in the case points in his direction.

Its why the case now runs in such small circles.


Out of everyone involved in investigating the case, one guy believed Burke killed her. One. He wants us to believe everyone but that one guy got "hoodwinked".

 

[UKGuy]

BR, a nine year old, would have left evidence on the body itself; just as the parents did, who didn't even commit the actual murder in your scenario, but simply the staging. There's zero way for you to reconcile this.

I've talked up PDI. There's is nothing about the evidence that points to BDI any more than PDI/JDI; much less, actually.

BR, a nine year old, would have left evidence on the body itself; just as the parents did, who didn't even commit the actual murder in your scenario, but simply the staging. There's zero way for you to reconcile this.

Maybe he did, but its not been released for public consumption. Regardless of which RDI is correct, JonBenet should have some of her families touch-dna on her person.

They tested JonBenet's clothing and sent body samples for analysis but they only told us about the Intruder dna!

Patsy and John know in advance that their dna should figure since as part of their version of events they put JonBenet to bed.

There is nothing to reconcile, its a straw man argument, since we have no evidence on any of the remaining residents except for the fiber analysis and the dna on her nightgown.

The case could be BDI All, particularly with the GJ levelling charges at the parents ...


.

 

[UKGuy]

Yet he tells everyone else to "follow the evidence". That's what we've been doing. Its why we're not BDI.

When you get down to brass tacks, there's actually no evidence for it. I mean literally none. Take away those three minor issues BDI always has to focus on(which probably aren't even BDI related), nothing else in the case points in his direction.

Its why the case now runs in such small circles.


Out of everyone involved in investigating the case, one guy believed Burke killed her. One. He wants us to believe everyone but that one guy got "hoodwinked".

singularity,
Looks like the case is down to PDI or BDI. Either can be correct, there is just no smoking gun. Bear in mind even the FBI said the case is an outlier, never seen these case circumstances before, so even although BDI appears crazy, as an outlier, a black swan, it could have happened. Patsy might have staged BR out of the case?

I reckon we will find out one day, someone will release critical information, probably after JR leaves us, and folks are no longer scared about litigation. Even then it will likely just point in a particular direction?

The case appears to be PDI, with Patsy's fibers all over the wine-cellar, yet if she was staging BR out of the case then she has so far been successful. Consider JR taking the rap for the flashlight, who is he taking the heat for, definitely not Patsy?

.

 

[Jolamom]

Yet he tells everyone else to "follow the evidence". That's what we've been doing. Its why we're not BDI.

When you get down to brass tacks, there's actually no evidence for it. I mean literally none. Take away those three minor issues BDI always has to focus on(which probably aren't even BDI related), nothing else in the case points in his direction.

Its why the case now runs in such small circles.


Out of everyone involved in investigating the case, one guy believed Burke killed her. One. He wants us to believe everyone but that one guy got "hoodwinked".

I am not as certain as you appear to be that one guy believed Burke killed her and he believes everyone but himself got "hoodwinked". I am also not as certain as you appear to be that Patsy or John could have carried out the strangulation of their own child without already feeling she was beyond all help. Which leads me to thinking that if they, either one individually or together had thought that there was a chance of saving her, I think they would have done everything in their power to do what any other parent would have, call for help. However, I think it was beyond that point when they arrived on the scene. I do not and have not ever been given or read any information that has lead me to believe that either parent lacked the ability to be a loving and caring parent to any of their children. They may not of raised them in the way I would have but I do think they loved them and wanted the best for them. I think you have to have some evidence that either parent was abusing them before you can accuse them of it. The fact that JonBenèt was sexually abused prior to her death can not be linked with any certainty to either parent. Nor can it be linked to Burke. However, JonBenèt's own behavior toward others indicates she was not frightened of strangers, men, or her brother/step brother. It does make you wonder why she didn't show the normal signs a child shows when they are experiencing sexual abuse?

 

[Cottonstar]

The question isn't whether Dr. Phil is a hack. He is.

The question is, does BR smiling prove he murdered his sister when he was nine years old? No. It proves he's socially awkward, like the millions upon millions of Americans in this country.

If JR wanted it "buried," he simply wouldn't have allowed BR to do the interview. It would have stayed buried. BR more than likely acted on his own accord when he accepted the interview, just as he is in his lawsuit against Spitz.

Wow. So, what purpose did it serve Burke, to flat out lie and misdirect during the whole interview. If Burke was innocent why would he have to lie on Dr. Phil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*However, JonBenèt's own behavior toward others indicates she was not frightened of strangers, men, or her brother/step brother. It does make you wonder why she didn't show the normal signs a child shows when they are experiencing sexual abuse?

Let's say she was being sexually molested by her father. And let's say she tells someone and her father is taken away and put in prison. Everything's fine, right? Wrong, because her mother had been very ill and was currently in the five year waiting period of going through scans every few months to see if the cancer was still gone. What if it came back? What if her mother died? Then JonBenet wouldn't have any parent left.

 

[k-mac]

I am not as certain as you appear to be that one guy believed Burke killed her and he believes everyone but himself got "hoodwinked". I am also not as certain as you appear to be that Patsy or John could have carried out the strangulation of their own child without already feeling she was beyond all help. Which leads me to thinking that if they, either one individually or together had thought that there was a chance of saving her, I think they would have done everything in their power to do what any other parent would have, call for help. However, I think it was beyond that point when they arrived on the scene. I do not and have not ever been given or read any information that has lead me to believe that either parent lacked the ability to be a loving and caring parent to any of their children. They may not of raised them in the way I would have but I do think they loved them and wanted the best for them. I think you have to have some evidence that either parent was abusing them before you can accuse them of it. The fact that JonBenèt was sexually abused prior to her death can not be linked with any certainty to either parent. Nor can it be linked to Burke. However, JonBenèt's own behavior toward others indicates she was not frightened of strangers, men, or her brother/step brother. It does make you wonder why she didn't show the normal signs a child shows when they are experiencing sexual abuse?

i agree with your points.
its the totality of all of their behaviours before and after including jonbenet that make me question the sexual abuse allegation.
I don't doubt her physical symptoms I just don't think it can be proven to be sexual assult anymore than patsy aggressively and inappropriately cleaning her being the cause.
please don't bother replying to my post with but YOU just cant see a parent doing such things.
I cant see any of them sexually molesting her. so what???
not being able to visualise something in your own mind is irrelevant and non factual.

the facts here are that little girl had abusive ongoing trauma down stairs but she lacked other red flags to molestation which is why the douching can not be excluded reasoning.

ps this isn't directed at you jolamom! I just related to your post ;-)

 

[UKGuy]

Wow. So, what purpose did it serve Burke, to flat out lie and misdirect during the whole interview. If Burke was innocent why would he have to lie on Dr. Phil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cottonstar,
Yikes Burkie telling lies, never ! What about John telling us, well Dr Phil really, that he took the flashlight upstairs to Burke's Bedroom, what's all that about?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I am not as certain as you appear to be that one guy believed Burke killed her and he believes everyone but himself got "hoodwinked". I am also not as certain as you appear to be that Patsy or John could have carried out the strangulation of their own child without already feeling she was beyond all help. Which leads me to thinking that if they, either one individually or together had thought that there was a chance of saving her, I think they would have done everything in their power to do what any other parent would have, call for help. However, I think it was beyond that point when they arrived on the scene. I do not and have not ever been given or read any information that has lead me to believe that either parent lacked the ability to be a loving and caring parent to any of their children. They may not of raised them in the way I would have but I do think they loved them and wanted the best for them. I think you have to have some evidence that either parent was abusing them before you can accuse them of it. The fact that JonBenèt was sexually abused prior to her death can not be linked with any certainty to either parent. Nor can it be linked to Burke. However, JonBenèt's own behavior toward others indicates she was not frightened of strangers, men, or her brother/step brother. It does make you wonder why she didn't show the normal signs a child shows when they are experiencing sexual abuse?

Jolamom,
In BDI All JonBenet is already dead or appears so. Patsy just fakes a garrote asphyxiation and an abduction via the ransom note.

The parents are faced wih an apparent dead JonBenet. They must know BR is responsible as he is staged out of the case.

The Coroner had JonBenet medically examined twice, once in the official autopsy procedure and later that night with another medical examiner attending and he backed up the Coroner's prior conclusion: Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. This result excludes any chronic assault for which there was physical evidence in the form of internal scar healing.

So maybe the Coroner got it all wrong and he is not telling anyone, in case there is a trial, who knows?

Although we cannot link any sexual assault directly with any resident of the house, you must tell us who else is in the frame?

.

 

[Jolamom]

Jolamom,
In BDI All JonBenet is already dead or appears so. Patsy just fakes a garrote asphyxiation and an abduction via the ransom note.

The parents are faced wih an apparent dead JonBenet. They must know BR is responsible as he is staged out of the case.

The Coroner had JonBenet medically examined twice, once in the official autopsy procedure and later that night with another medical examiner attending and he backed up the Coroner's prior conclusion: Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. This result excludes any chronic assault for which there was physical evidence in the form of internal scar healing.

So maybe the Coroner got it all wrong and he is not telling anyone, in case there is a trial, who knows?

Although we cannot link any sexual assault directly with any resident of the house, you must tell us who else is in the frame?

.

I don't know that there is anyone other then the immediate family who could have been in close personal contact with JonBenèt that would have had the accessibility to her that would have been necessary to commit the sexual abuse that was noted. You also have to keep in mind it was someone JonBenèt apparently did not feel threatened enough by to seek protection from or at least tell someone about. If not her parents, a teacher, a friend, or even one of the other adults in her life. She was not portrayed as a shy or timid child. Could the signs of sexual abuse have been from experimentation? With her slightly older brother? Someone in the neighborhood? Maybe a combination? Before we label an adult with a pedophile label, I think we should consider some of the less sinister possibilities. Just my two cents and I must tell you, I have not yet (even after all these years) come to a sound conclusion as to who I think did what. I am open to any theory that I can make sense of.