Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[Cottonstar]

I believe it was preemptive postulation of the flashlight evidence that CBS was going to reveal on their docu-series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

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

Wow? What's so outrageous about my previous post? The fact that I don't abide by the notion that him smiling doesn't prove anything? Yeah, so outrageous (eyeroll).

I never said BR didn't lie during the interview, so don't put words in people's mouths -- that's a totally separate argument.

 

[Userid]

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 ...


.

You know the bolded works both ways, right? As long as we're supposing/guessing to support our theories (which again, ignores the actual evidence we do know, but I digress), maybe they have even more evidence that directly points to PR that they haven't released. Maybe they have more on JR that they haven't released.

Those charges by the GJ were leveled the way they were because the GJ didn't know which parent was responsible for which act.

I've clearly laid out the argument to reconcile: you have the parents smart enough to remove every single shred of evidence a nine-year-old would have left behind, but incompetent enough to leave obvious fiber evidence in multiple places on the body that directly point the family's involvement. You've tried to sweep this under the rug by completely guessing that there was indeed more evidence that BR left behind, but that it simply hasn't been released to the public yet. That's the only answer you have to the argument, and it's beyond weak and based on pure conjecture, like much of your BDI-all theory.

 

[Jolamom]

You know the bolded works both ways, right? As long as we're supposing/guessing to support our theories (which again, ignores the actual evidence we do know, but I digress), maybe they have even more evidence that directly points to PR that they haven't released. Maybe they have more on JR that they haven't released.

Those charges by the GJ were leveled the way they were because the GJ didn't know which parent was responsible for which act.

I've clearly laid out the argument to reconcile: you have the parents smart enough to remove every single shred of evidence a nine-year-old would have left behind, but incompetent enough to leave obvious fiber evidence in multiple places on the body that directly point the family's involvement. You've tried to sweep this under the rug by completely guessing that there was indeed more evidence that BR left behind, but that it simply hasn't been released to the public yet. That's the only answer you have to the argument, and it's beyond weak and based on pure conjecture, like much of your BDI-all theory.

If there ever was solid evidence against Burke, would it be made public? For example, would fiber evidence that linked him directly to the device used to strangle JonBenèt be something that anyone would be allowed to put into the public domain seeing that it would directly point a finger at an "infant"? I am not actually suggesting that such evidence exists but then again, how do we know it does not?

 

[UKGuy]

You know the bolded works both ways, right? As long as we're supposing/guessing to support our theories (which again, ignores the actual evidence we do know, but I digress), maybe they have even more evidence that directly points to PR that they haven't released. Maybe they have more on JR that they haven't released.

Those charges by the GJ were leveled the way they were because the GJ didn't know which parent was responsible for which act.

I've clearly laid out the argument to reconcile: you have the parents smart enough to remove every single shred of evidence a nine-year-old would have left behind, but incompetent enough to leave obvious fiber evidence in multiple places on the body that directly point the family's involvement. You've tried to sweep this under the rug by completely guessing that there was indeed more evidence that BR left behind, but that it simply hasn't been released to the public yet. That's the only answer you have to the argument, and it's beyond weak and based on pure conjecture, like much of your BDI-all theory.

Userid,

You know the bolded works both ways, right? As long as we're supposing/guessing to support our theories (which again, ignores the actual evidence we do know, but I digress), maybe they have even more evidence that directly points to PR that they haven't released. Maybe they have more on JR that they haven't released.

Right. Thats why I posted it.

I've clearly laid out the argument to reconcile

Sure but its your argument, from your persepective which simply ignores not only the detail of the BDI All I outlined, but why there is little of BR's evidence in the wine-cellar.

Once again, since I reckon it began in JonBenet's bedroom, bloodstains on the pillow and BR's pajama bottoms lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor, etc. The majority of BR's related forensic evidence will be in JonBenet's bedroom and possibly on her person, e.g. results not made public.

In summary the parents or BR relocate JonBenet to the basement do a cleanup, wrap her in a blanket and put her in the wine-cellar, hence little forensic evidence linked to BR.

The above is consistent with BDI All and the parents staging, it does not detour or digress into unrelated matters. so please consider your argument reconciled. Possibly not to your satisfaction, but certainly reconciled within the parameters of a BDI All theory.

In other words the case can be BDI All, like it or not!

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Right. Thats why I posted it.



Sure but its your argument, from your persepective which simply ignores not only the detail of the BDI All I outlined, but why there is little of BR's evidence in the wine-cellar.

Once again, since I reckon it began in JonBenet's bedroom, bloodstains on the pillow and BR's pajama bottoms lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor, etc. The majority of BR's related forensic evidence will be in JonBenet's bedroom and possibly on her person, e.g. results not made public.

In summary the parents or BR relocate JonBenet to the basement do a cleanup, wrap her in a blanket and put her in the wine-cellar, hence little forensic evidence linked to BR.

The above is consistent with BDI All and the parents staging, it does not detour or digress into unrelated matters. so please consider your argument reconciled. Possibly not to your satisfaction, but certainly reconciled within the parameters of a BDI All theory.

In other words the case can be BDI All, like it or not!

Hogwash! It directly addresses those points and illustrates the glaring contradiction that exists in your theory!

Again, if the parents themselves left evidence on the body, a nine year old would have left evidence on the body; particularly, if it was he himself who committed the actual murder. If the parents couldn't clean up the same evidence they left behind, they wouldn't have been able to clean up the same evidence a nine year old would have left behind on the body.

And if it were BR who relocated her to the basement, you would have had evidence all over the place that would have been missed by the parents. I can't believe you actually think it's plausible that a nine year old would be able to relocate her (an unconscious child more than half his own weight) by himself alone, let alone all the evidence that he would have left behind in doing so.

 

[Userid]

If there ever was solid evidence against Burke, would it be made public? For example, would fiber evidence that linked him directly to the device used to strangle JonBenèt be something that anyone would be allowed to put into the public domain seeing that it would directly point a finger at an "infant"? I am not actually suggesting that such evidence exists but then again, how do we know it does not?

It's the wrong approach to base your theory on "what if" than opposed to the actual evidence we all do know.

And also, yes -- I do think it would be made public actually. Leaks are leaks. Wasn't it leaked that BR was up and heard on the police call before the call was released to the public? You think a leaker would want to protect a child? I don't. That isn't the leaker's main goal. The leaker's goal is to simply sway public opinion at all costs, with the hopes that the trajectory of the investigation would realign and not be swept under the rug. The police would still want to nail JR & PR all the same for covering up their own daughter's murder, even if (and it's a monumental "if") BR committed the crime.

 

[Jolamom]

It's the wrong approach to base your theory on "what if" than opposed to the actual evidence we all do know.

And also, yes -- I do think it would be made public actually. Leaks are leaks. Wasn't it leaked that BR was up and heard on the police call before the call was released to the public? You think a leaker would want to protect a child? I don't. That isn't the leaker's main goal. The leaker's goal is to simply sway public opinion at all costs, with the hopes that the trajectory of the investigation would realign and not be swept under the rug. The police would still want to nail JR & PR all the same for covering up their own daughter's murder, even if (and it's a monumental "if") BR committed the crime.

So far, the things that have been "leaked" have not actually been evidence that makes Burke a suspect. If you think about it, the actual things that might make you suspect him have never actually been explained one way or the other as they seem to have been ignored during the investigation. For example, the possible feces that may or may not have been in JonBenèt's room, the pj bottoms, Burke's lack of interest is what happened that morning, his medical records that his parents should of had no reason to hid from the police.....

 

[Userid]

So far, the things that have been "leaked" have not actually been evidence that makes Burke a suspect. If you think about it, the actual things that might make you suspect him have never actually been explained one way or the other as they seem to have been ignored during the investigation. For example, the possible feces that may or may not have been in JonBenèt's room, the pj bottoms, Burke's lack of interest is what happened that morning, his medical records that his parents should of had no reason to hid from the police.....

They haven't been ignored; it's more likely that, they have no relevance to the crime itself. That, or such "evidence" never existed in the first place, like the supposed poopy pants. Again, that's basing your theory on a "what if." That's a bad approach; any detective will tell you that.

There haven't been leaks against BR, because there are no leaks to give. If there were, they would still be leaked, because the leaker (leaks would be coming from the police department) would want to nail JR & PR for covering up the crime all the same. You can't deny this. They'd have no reason to "protect" BR.

 

[UKGuy]

Hogwash! It directly addresses those points and illustrates the glaring contradiction that exists in your theory!

Again, if the parents themselves left evidence on the body, a nine year old would have left evidence on the body; particularly, if it was he himself who committed the actual murder. If the parents couldn't clean up the same evidence they left behind, they wouldn't have been able to clean up the same evidence a nine year old would have left behind on the body.

And if it were BR who relocated her to the basement, you would have had evidence all over the place that would have been missed by the parents. I can't believe you actually think it's plausible that a nine year old would be able to relocate her (an unconscious child more than half his own weight) by himself alone, let alone all the evidence that he would have left behind in doing so.

Userid,

Again, if the parents themselves left evidence on the body, a nine year old would have left evidence on the body; particularly, if it was he himself who committed the actual murder. If the parents couldn't clean up the same evidence they left behind, they wouldn't have been able to clean up the same evidence a nine year old would have left behind on the body.

Like I said, did you read it? Maybe BR left evidence on JonBenet, as possibly any of the parents did, we have only been told about the Intruders dna, so as usual absence of evidence is not evidence that there is none.

The very argument you make actually reinforces a BDI All due to the minimal BR related evidence.

What you need to ask is How come BR is a better stager than his parents, since they left their fibers behind?

I will not repeat the obvious answer, which I'm certain members will be shouting at the screen ...

.

 

[UKGuy]

So far, the things that have been "leaked" have not actually been evidence that makes Burke a suspect. If you think about it, the actual things that might make you suspect him have never actually been explained one way or the other as they seem to have been ignored during the investigation. For example, the possible feces that may or may not have been in JonBenèt's room, the pj bottoms, Burke's lack of interest is what happened that morning, his medical records that his parents should of had no reason to hid from the police.....

Jolamom,
Those directly involved in the case have to remain silent, its part of their contract, e.g. Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, who visited JBR's bedroom on the third day of the investigation. "Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material." Holly Smith's autobiography had the Ramsey chapter removed!

Kolar and Steve Thomas both admit they left stuff out of their books due to legal constraints. Kolar online and in interview with Tricia has declined to answer questions as he is legally barred by his prior employment from doing so.

This does not take into account that if the case is BDI then no mention can be made regarding BR as he relates to JonBenet's death, so the media and detectives resort to fictional theories.

such as : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-older-brother-Burke-smeared-feces-wall.html

which highlights stealing pineapple, prior fecal incidents and Spitz's flashlight experiments, makes for good TV, but did it happen, or is it a Stephen King novelette?

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Like I said, did you read it? Maybe BR left evidence on JonBenet, as possibly any of the parents did, we have only been told about the Intruders dna, so as usual absence of evidence is not evidence that there is none.

The very argument you make actually reinforces a BDI All due to the minimal BR related evidence.

What you need to ask is How come BR is a better stager than his parents, since they left their fibers behind?

I will not repeat the obvious answer, which I'm certain members will be shouting at the screen ...

.

(To the underlined) So lack of evidence "reinforces" evidence of BDI? Only in your mind, sir -- whatever you need to tell yourself. I'll just take a quote from another poster here and simply say, "wow."

There'd be no reason to withhold the leak; I've gone over this already. It's simply that, there's nothing to leak. You're literally inventing evidence now, because you can't reconcile the argument.

The answer to your bolded question is easy: because he had nothing to do with the crime.

 

[UKGuy]

(To the underlined) So lack of evidence "reinforces" evidence of BDI? Only in your mind, sir -- whatever you need to tell yourself. I'll just take a quote from another poster here and simply say, "wow."

There'd be no reason to withhold the leak; I've gone over this already. It's simply that, there's nothing to leak. You're literally inventing evidence now, because you can't reconcile the argument.

The answer to your bolded question is easy: because he had nothing to do with the crime.

Userid,
Its your argument: no BR evidence. Prior to you saying it was 'Wow' or was irreconcilable, part of BDI All is that the parents are removing evidence and cleaning JonBenet up.

So your argument that I cannot reconcile is. Since the parents remove any BR related evidence.

.

 

[Cottonstar]

(To the underlined) So lack of evidence "reinforces" evidence of BDI? Only in your mind, sir -- whatever you need to tell yourself. I'll just take a quote from another poster here and simply say, "wow."

There'd be no reason to withhold the leak; I've gone over this already. It's simply that, there's nothing to leak. You're literally inventing evidence now, because you can't reconcile the argument.

The answer to your bolded question is easy: because he had nothing to do with the crime.

Follow the evidence and momentum since the biggest leak of all in 2013 was revealed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Its your argument: no BR evidence. Prior to you saying it was 'Wow' or was irreconcilable, part of BDI All is that the parents are removing evidence and cleaning JonBenet up.

So your argument that I cannot reconcile is. Since the parents remove any BR related evidence.

.

This is my argument:

Again, if the parents themselves left evidence on the body, a nine year old would have left evidence on the body; particularly, if it was he himself who committed the actual murder. If the parents couldn't clean up the same evidence they left behind, they wouldn't have been able to clean up the same evidence a nine year old would have left behind on the body.

You've yet to reconcile this, only to say, that there may or may not be evidence that BR did leave on the body, but it's just that it hasn't been leaked yet, which is a beyond-weak and ever-convenient rebuttal. The end.

 

[Userid]

Follow the evidence and momentum since the biggest leak of all in 2013 was revealed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am following the evidence. The evidence doesn't lead to BDI; only conjecture leads to BDI. Conjecture and evidence are different things.

 

[Cottonstar]

Since we are talking in absolutes today, I'm sure I can find the time to do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

I am following the evidence. The evidence doesn't lead to BDI; only conjecture leads to BDI. Conjecture and evidence are different things.

I can tell you there is absolutely zero evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet. Period. There is no motive. The fiber evidence is the same as the fiber evidence against JR. It's from the 6 hours of staging that took place after they found her. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

I can tell you there is absolutely zero evidence that Patsy killed JonBenet. Period. There is no motive. The fiber evidence is the same as the fiber evidence against JR. It's from the 6 hours of staging that took place after they found her. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Watch this:

"I can tell you there is absolutely zero evidence that BR killed JonBenet. Period. There is no motive. Unlike JR & PR, there isn't even any fiber evidence linking him to any part of the crime, be it the staging or the actual murder itself; nor the ransom note, which does have similarities to PR's handwriting. Period."

My point: there is more evidence against these 2 individuals than BR in any single phase of this crime. You want to pretend that's a coincidence; and that they were the perfect stagers for BR, even though they couldn't even cover their own evidence they left behind. It's not.

 

[UKGuy]

This is my argument:



You've yet to reconcile this, only to say, that there may or may not be evidence that BR did leave on the body, but it's just that it hasn't been leaked yet, which is a beyond-weak and ever-convenient rebuttal. The end.

Userid,

You've yet to reconcile this, only to say, that there may or may not be evidence that BR did leave on the body, but it's just that it hasn't been leaked yet, which is a beyond-weak and ever-convenient rebuttal. The end.

What you are asking to be reconciled cannot be as we do not know all the forensic details.

Also your observation regarding the parents depositing forensic evidence is just that.

We can assume :

1. If BDI then BR might leave forensic evidence

2. If PDI then PR might leave forensic evidence

3. If JDI then JR might leave forensic evidence

4. If JR and PR stage then they might both leave forensic evidence

If you accept the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene and that forensic evidence directly related to the parents is present, then 4. implies any one or more of 1. 2. or 3.

So 4. implies 2. or a conventional PDI whatever the details.

4. also implies 1. BDI as PR or JR can have removed any evidence relating to BR.

That BR's expected forensic evidence is absent does not mean he was clever enough to remove it all, no his parents did that.

If you want to argue that an absence of BR's forensic evidence and the presence of the parents forensic evidence is a contradiction, then the same argument must apply to the parents staging the wine-cellar crime-scene, i.e. it was not them as they would have made sure they staged a perfect crime-scene, as intended.

So an absence of Burke's forensic evidence does not mean he did not kill JonBenet.

.