Burke Ramsey, has no interest in once again answering questions

[telemag]

At the bottom of EVERY SINGLE post I write is the sentence "this post is my OPINION", Enough said. When I state something as fact it IS a fact. The rest is OPINION. Like everybody else here, including you. It IS just my opinion that his refusal makes him look suspicious. Mine an many others. But it is a FACT that he did refuse, though his lawyer.

No one can really put themselves into the shoes of BR or anyone else in the family for that matter. But I think if it were me, and all these years had gone by with no further development, I'd be wiling to try. Unless I had a good reason not to. But, hey, that's just me.

Agreed as far as the above post. I personally think that Burke should be left alone. As far as the case itself, I followed it for years and bottom line as far as I'm concerned is it's old news and never going to be solved. I REALLY hope I'm wrong.

 

[madeleine]

I would ask you to try and put yourself in his shoes, but that would be impossible. Imagine being 9 and seeing your parents on the cover of every mag out there being called killers of your little sister? Imagine as the next 15 years go by and having to live like this almost constantly even while your mother is dying of cancer? I wonder how this would make a person feel about the media and the police department that basically ruined your life? Well, I can't imagine and another thing that I can't imagine is wanting to sit down with a friendly chat or a simple interview as you put it and talk to the very same department that did this to your family's life, but hey that's just me.

Maybe cooperating would improve his parents reputation in the eyes of the public,the truth would set them all free,especially if IDI,right?So basically he has nothing to lose if talking to the cops.The cops probably learned from past mistakes and won't crucify him for every word he would say.
Second,it's his own parents who loved to be on TV,see how many documentaries their own team aired.It's not like they didn't asked for media attention.

Would you be mad with the cops if you were in his shoes?For certain.But sitting down with them (hey,he has LW around,nothing to worry about!) would be 1-0 for him,especially if his parents are innocent.

I would do it if I were sure my parents were wrongfully accused.If they are indeed innocent I would fight till the end to clear their name,my name and find my sisters killer/killers,but this is an ego thing I guess and some don't have the character/strength for it.It would kill me not to do everything possible.

 

[Szabo]

Due to his age and how many years ago it was, is there's a chance now that Burke's memory has possibly become blurred with what he thinks he saw that night and from what he's read happened over the years.

I had just turned 12 six days before Christmas in 1996, and really I hardly remember any of it now and I'm sure it'd be even harder for someone who was only nine at the time.

Of course, none of this explains why he doesn't want to be questioned again.

 

[Cazzie]

At the bottom of EVERY SINGLE post I write is the sentence "this post is my OPINION", Enough said. When I state something as fact it IS a fact. The rest is OPINION. Like everybody else here, including you. It IS just my opinion that his refusal makes him look suspicious. Mine an many others. But it is a FACT that he did refuse, though his lawyer.

No one can really put themselves into the shoes of BR or anyone else in the family for that matter. But I think if it were me, and all these years had gone by with no further development, I'd be wiling to try. Unless I had a good reason not to. But, hey, that's just me.

Just a gentle FYI, the WS forum has an option whether to sees signatures or not (likewise, avatars and images).

So it can't be assumed that every reader sees a signature (or avatar or image) on any post.

It's in UserCP, Options.

 

[DeeDee249]

Due to his age and how many years ago it was, is there's a chance now that Burke's memory has possibly become blurred with what he thinks he saw that night and from what he's read happened over the years.

I had just turned 12 six days before Christmas in 1996, and really I hardly remember any of it now and I'm sure it'd be even harder for someone who was only nine at the time.

Of course, none of this explains why he doesn't want to be questioned again.

Kids do tend to remember events the way they have been TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they really happened. If this happened to your sister, I am sure you'd remember it. Hearing about it in the news when it involves strangers is different- you probably wouldn't remember much about it if you were 12 at the time.

 

[JeannaT]

telemag,
Stop being so sanctimonious and put your bible away. DeeDee249 is only stating the facts.

I would personally like to ask Burke if he sipped tea with JonBenet as she snacked on pineapple, after arriving back from the White's party. Burke is on record stating that, on returning from the White's, he saw JonBenet walk into the house. This contradicts his parents account. Burke's voice is to be heard on the 911 call Patsy made, again this contradicts his parents version of events, which state he was in bed asleep. So Burke is a co-conspirator in the parents enterprise.

At 9-years old we can understand his desire to assist his parents, he is an adult now, so least he could do is set the record straight!

Then again we might have to wait until his father passes on.

p.s. I do not consider Burke Ramsey to be culpable for the death of JonBenet, but there is nothing to rule him out.


.

Well, two things rule him out - there's no way a 9 year old child wrote that ransom note, or tied that sado knot so perfectly.

I think that pretty much rules him out.

 

[JeannaT]

NOT an accusatory statement at all-but a simple FACT. He refuses to speak to police, and it was his LAWYER who issued that statement. I can't think of a single reason why he would refuse except that there is something to hide. He need not worry for himself- he can never be named a suspect in the crime and (another FACT here) it is because of his age (under 10) at the time.
It took his parents MONTHS to "submit" to that "simple interview" and of course, their lawyers prevented them from answering the most important questions. Since when does an innocent parent of a murdered child consider speaking to police as having to "submit"? They should have been breaking down the door to talk to police and they shouldn't have stopped talking until the case was solved.
No one thinks BR is the devil- then OR now. I don't think of ANY of the family as the devil, though I feel they are involved in this crime.
I also don't think anyone believes BR wrote the RN. It is Patsy's handwriting, after all, and the language doesn't lend itself to being written by a 9-year old.
Some people do believe the note was written to cover for someone else. BR, JAR or both seem to be the only ones that might prompt such a cover up. Can it be proved? Probably not at this point.
If any one of us had a child kidnapped and murdered and there was another child in nearby when this occurred would WANT that child to be questioned about that night. What did they hear- what did they see? Anything that may provide even the smallest clue. This family did just the opposite.
Wasn't it Elizabeth Smart's little sister who finally helped crack her kidnapping case, remembering that she had seen that "handyman" before at the house?
There is plenty of cause for BR to talk now. Of course, there is really nothing to say, is there....

Can you really not think of lots of reasons why he wouldn't want to revisit this horror ever again? His idillic life ground to a screeching halt the night his beloved sister was brutally murdered - his parents were assumed guilty and his mother died a broken woman of cancer.

How much more of his life does he have to give to this murderer? It's time for him to move on, and make the best of his own life.

Any new ideas he would have now of what happened would be pointless. I think we all went through the craziness of "recovered memories" in the 1980's that are now found to be almost always untrue.

The thought that the killer will be eventually caught are beginning to fade. It's possible he is already in prison, or dead. At any rate the case has gone stone cold and the murderer has not been found.

Sad, but I see no reason for Burke to make this his life focus. His life is his own, and prayers he is able to find peace and happiness.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, two things rule him out - there's no way a 9 year old child wrote that ransom note, or tied that sado knot so perfectly.

I think that pretty much rules him out.

I don't think he tied that knot, BUT- he was a scout, and his family were all sailors and well-versed on knots. There has been conflicting opinions as to whether the knot was a simple knot any one of us could tie or something more complex. I don't know anything about knots, but just looking at the knot, to me, it looks like a knot I'd tie myself if I wanted to tie a knot in anything.

The note-writer may or may not also be the killer. It doesn't mean he was NOT involved just because he did not write the note. I do not think he had anything to do with the note.
And it certainly doesn't rule out his having knowledge of what happened that night. whether he was a witness to it or not.

 

[telemag]

I don't think he tied that knot, BUT- he was a scout, and his family were all sailors and well-versed on knots. There has been conflicting opinions as to whether the knot was a simple knot any one of us could tie or something more complex. I don't know anything about knots, but just looking at the knot, to me, it looks like a knot I'd tie myself if I wanted to tie a knot in anything.

The note-writer may or may not also be the killer. It doesn't mean he was NOT involved just because he did not write the note. I do not think he had anything to do with the note.
And it certainly doesn't rule out his having knowledge of what happened that night. whether he was a witness to it or not.

Has there ever been any evidence that has tied Burke to this crime? I'm not talking about opinion or theory, but actual evidence?

 

[DeeDee249]

Has there ever been any evidence that has tied Burke to this crime? I'm not talking about opinion or theory, but actual evidence?

How would anyone know? If there was, it could never be made public because of his age. Many people believe there was- and that is why the Grand Jury did not return an indictment or even issue a statement as to why they did not (which they are allowed to do).
Your question is a riddle. It has no answer. If there WAS evidence, no one would know. Consequently- if there is NO evidence, we can't be sure there really is NO evidence, or is it simply a matter of evidence that cannot be considered because of his age.
That being said- unlike his parents, whose fibers are right ON the body, there were no fibers linking BR to the crime scene of which we are aware. The secrecy shield in Colorado may be hiding that information as well. There may still be some redacted information in the evidence lists (and I believe that is the case). The only thing we do know is that his fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl and on an empty glass with a tea bag in it. We don't know whether he drank tea from that glass or of the glass was simply used to place a used tea bag in it. I do not think the little paper tag on the tea bag was tested for prints or DNA. And there is no real way to prove the tea was consumed (if at all) at the same time JB ate the pineapple. Just because they are on the table together doesn't mean you can prove BR drank it. He may have been at the table with JB when she ate the pineapple, and to me, THAT is the kind of question the police need to ask and THAT is the kind of information he doesn't seem to want to give. The reason? If he admits being there when she ate it, that pretty much proved his parents were lying about the pineapple. Could they have been there in the breakfast room without their parents' knowledge- sure, but I don't think so. The timeline the autopsy PROVES indicates she had the pineapple between 10 and 11 PM. Patsy admitted being up late getting things ready for the trip the next day. JR admitted working on a toy with BR AFTER they got home - around 9:30- 10 PM. You see- THIS is why the pineapple was lied about. It isn't the pineapple snack itself. It is the TIME she ate it.
BR could provide at least an approximate time for the pineapple snack, if he was there. It is entirely possible that Patsy gave JB the pineapple during the time JR was helping BR with that toy. Or BR may have also eaten pineapple. That is something only he can say. And he won't say.

I have to say that I am not a fan of laws that forbid this information because of a person's age. Obviously, children below a certain age cannot and should not be prosecuted. But I believe the public has a right to know about these kinds of crimes, regardless of the age of the person involved.

 

[geojeffrey]

NOTHING is know that excludes BR as the perpetrator and so much of this bizarre crime fits together if BR is the perpetrator.

Consider this possibility, BR and Jonbenet can't sleep since its Christmas eve, they quietly play out of earshot of their parents. The kids were tired and frazzled and the playing got wild. BR recklessly (but not purposefully) injures Jonbenet. At somepoint he wakes his parents who encounter the most horrible scene imaginable. Their baby girl appears dead, so they panic. The overwhelming tragedy puts the parents into overdrive protective mode. They cannot bare the thought of losing BOTH children, so they stage the scene, write the note and launch the plan. Some friends, some family and probably even some in LE know the truth. the Ramsey's were high profile, well respected and hard working people; not criminals. It was natural for them to protect their one surviving child, even though his actions caused the death. He was 9 years old and did not mean to injure her.

If you go back and read over the case chronologies and facts, so many o the wierd facts make sense. Patsy and John were purposefully confusing because they didn't want to lose their son as well.

 

[DeeDee249]

The only thing I disagree on is that I don't think the parents (or at least Patsy) were ever asleep that night at all. It is well known that Patsy answered the door in the same clothes from the party the night before, compete with full makeup at 6 am.

 

[telemag]

How would anyone know? If there was, it could never be made public because of his age. Many people believe there was- and that is why the Grand Jury did not return an indictment or even issue a statement as to why they did not (which they are allowed to do).
Your question is a riddle. It has no answer. If there WAS evidence, no one would know. Consequently- if there is NO evidence, we can't be sure there really is NO evidence, or is it simply a matter of evidence that cannot be considered because of his age.
That being said- unlike his parents, whose fibers are right ON the body, there were no fibers linking BR to the crime scene of which we are aware. The secrecy shield in Colorado may be hiding that information as well. There may still be some redacted information in the evidence lists (and I believe that is the case). The only thing we do know is that his fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl and on an empty glass with a tea bag in it. We don't know whether he drank tea from that glass or of the glass was simply used to place a used tea bag in it. I do not think the little paper tag on the tea bag was tested for prints or DNA. And there is no real way to prove the tea was consumed (if at all) at the same time JB ate the pineapple. Just because they are on the table together doesn't mean you can prove BR drank it. He may have been at the table with JB when she ate the pineapple, and to me, THAT is the kind of question the police need to ask and THAT is the kind of information he doesn't seem to want to give. The reason? If he admits being there when she ate it, that pretty much proved his parents were lying about the pineapple. Could they have been there in the breakfast room without their parents' knowledge- sure, but I don't think so. The timeline the autopsy PROVES indicates she had the pineapple between 10 and 11 PM. Patsy admitted being up late getting things ready for the trip the next day. JR admitted working on a toy with BR AFTER they got home - around 9:30- 10 PM. You see- THIS is why the pineapple was lied about. It isn't the pineapple snack itself. It is the TIME she ate it.
BR could provide at least an approximate time for the pineapple snack, if he was there. It is entirely possible that Patsy gave JB the pineapple during the time JR was helping BR with that toy. Or BR may have also eaten pineapple. That is something only he can say. And he won't say.

I have to say that I am not a fan of laws that forbid this information because of a person's age. Obviously, children below a certain age cannot and should not be prosecuted. But I believe the public has a right to know about these kinds of crimes, regardless of the age of the person involved.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[FairM]

I'll take that as a no.

Yep that's a no alright.

People are more than happy to point the finger though, they don't need evidence , remember this is the court of public opinion not a court of law !!!:twocents:

 

[DeeDee249]

Yep that's a no alright.

People are more than happy to point the finger though, they don't need evidence , remember this is the court of public opinion not a court of law !!!:twocents:

It HAS to be a "no". Like I said- NO evidence against him can ever be made public. That doesn't mean there is none.
Like ALL forums here- it is opinion. :twocents:
If it were able to be in a court of law, we wouldn't need to still be here 15 years later.

 

[geojeffrey]

RE: DEEDEE249's comment at 11:11pm yesterday. Thanks for the reminder about PR's clothes.

So much of the weirdness of this case, avoidance, confusion and red herrings seem to be explained by covering for BR in some manner. Again, not that he is a psycho killer or anything like that, but he had some issues as do a fair number of kids. PR was recovering from chemo, not at her best. Quick decisions were made, a plan to keep the remaining family together was implemented. Early on, it is very likely that they did NOT know that BR was immune from prosecution. Later, they wanted to let him have as normal a life as possible, the high profile nature of the crime would have only blasted his face and name all over the media, so they couldn't reveal the truth at that point either.

Patsy's odd behavior, her anger and her contradictions make a lot of sense if she was protecting her son.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

The thing is, these people don't even have to worry about refusing to speak to LE. Try that sometime yourself (if you have the misfortune of being close to a crime that was committed). Believe me, it won't fly. Anybody else would have been arrested for that alone, a long time ago. It must be nice to live so far above us "common folk".

I think you stated is part of my frustration with this case. I have my own opinion about who the culprit(s) is/are. But regardless of that...The R's (and their lawyers) continued(s) to call the shots in how justice will prevail. IMO they think that the "law" doesn't apply to them..that they are "above" it.

Once again, money and legalities trump moral behavior and responsibility.
:banghead:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Baby Lisa's parents are "common folk" and they haven't spoken to LE in a month. It's been going good for them so far.

 

[FairM]

It HAS to be a "no". Like I said- NO evidence against him can ever be made public. That doesn't mean there is none.
Like ALL forums here- it is opinion. :twocents:
If it were able to be in a court of law, we wouldn't need to still be here 15 years later.

oh believe me if there was any evidence against him it would have been leaked by now.

 

[DeeDee249]

oh believe me if there was any evidence against him it would have been leaked by now.

I suppose. But I can't be sure. For me, it all goes back to the note and pineapple. I believe with all my heart that Patsy wrote that note, and the lying about the pineapple is just so obvious and so unnecessary (if you are innocent) that those two things alone point to parental involvement in the coverup alone. And I can't see them covering up for anyone except family.