Was BR involved? #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is when any of us insert what we would do in a similar situation and then make conclusions about it, that makes for an invalid argument.

It's not about *us,* it's what this family did, what their decisions were, and it was based on their rationale, good, bad, indifferent, or evil. It's really hard to do, but as Dr. Pitt or one of the lead investigators mentioned, one has to remove themselves from the equation and look at a case based on the facts.

Most people go off their feelings about things. Even Lou Smit made that error. "Well I wouldn't do what John or Patsy did..." That's correct, you probably would not. But the case isn't about you or me or what any of us would or wouldn't do.

There is no conclusive hard evidence. So we're left to decide who and what to believe. And yes, we make our interpretations based on what we would expect a reasonable person to do in those circumstance. And how we imagine others to be based on our experience of them. I know of no other way to proceed. I'm certainly not going to just believe what the Ramsey family and their lawyers say and ignore by BS detector that won't stop ringing in the background.
 
http://perezhilton.com/2016-09-09-dr-phil-ask-burke-ramsey-kill-jonbenet#.V9QQ2TWy9dg

1st vid, Dr Phil states that BR is the only one of the three Rs that hasn't spoken publicly and asks BR, "Why now?"

Burke's response riles me. He doesn't say he'd like to speak out in hopes of pursuing leads that point to the real killer or tell us that it's to pursue justice for his little sister. Instead, BR says, "... Twentieth Anniversary and apparently there's still a lot of attention around it."

BR is interviewing b/c of attention surrounding JonBenet's murder. Her murder has always been in the spotlight. Why not give an interview five years ago on the fifteenth anni or wait five more years for the 25th or Silver Anniversary of his sister's death? Thus far, these previews are disturbing.


Burke is in a Catch 22 position. Would he contradict his parents' version of events knowing we may eventually have access to the GJ testimony? JMHO Burke has always known who the killer was or highly suspected that he knew. It is doubtful that he will make that a pubic accusatory announcement on the Dr Phil Show because we all know that a Foreign Faction did it.

I've never suspected Burke of being guilty of harming his sister that fateful night but I do think it is highly likely that he was present when it happened. Will body language and word usage viewed over the next few interviews change my mind? Maybe. I remain open-minded despite accusations that I'm not.

What has always been of great interest to me was why BR went to the White's home instead of the the Stine's so BR could be with DS? Instead, he was taken to where he had been before his sister was murdered. As I recall, when the first officer arrived at the White's to question BR, he was just about to sit down to eat a sandwich which is what he did. He did not speak much to the officer, but he ate his sandwich instead. BR knew not to talk about anything related to the night before.

And where exactly is the electric fence anyway? I've driven around the property but it was invisible to me. I am aware that Boulder has problems with beavers so homeowners install electric fences to keep beavers from chewing down the nice Mesquite and pinion trees in the property.


In the Dr Phil snip-its, BR grins -- nerves or duping delight -- and licking the inside of his mouth -- nerves, meds, dry mouth, attempt to keep knowledge in and not revealed via the mouth. You can be assured we are watching for signs of deception. Through the years of studying criminals, and I mean some are mad dog type criminals, I've self-certified myself as a body language expert, LOL, for I also, possess body language and survival skills developed during the extensive history of living with a NPD Sociopath.

The same body language is human nature. Lillian Glass begins around the 01:40 mark.

[video=youtube;yMhkoBgiuL4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhkoBgiuL4[/video]

https://www.drlillianglass.com/

Peter Hyatt also amazingly analyzes language for Statement Analysis.

Also, many of the Charlevoix gifts were on the plane when JR loaded it on Christmas Day. PR wrapped more for the Charlevoix Christmas, if JR was already gone to the airport, it is likely that she took them upstairs to be packed for the MI Holiday. All FAO presents left in the basement with torn wrapping paper were likely BRs bday presents for his upcoming bday. BR tore into them while PR was wrapping the Charlevoix gifts was my train of thought on events and not while with a flashlight while being with JB late at night.

Lin Wood was On Fire! last night on Twitter.
 
Adam ‏@Adam25088 10h10 hours ago
@llinwood Why is Burke talking now to Dr. Phil when he declined to talk to detectives several years back?
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
User Actions
Follow

Lin Wood
‏@LLinWood
@Adam25088 Because of information that the upcoming @CBS mini-series would include false accusations against him.

Boom. What we thought confirmed.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/774586208433348609
 
If we're left with this same sort of impression after all the interviews then how does that help him? Are we expected to think - oh the fact that he finds his mother's trauma over the loss of her daughter amusing means nothing- he's just a Sheldon Cooper type. I'm finding this very odd.

Agreed. He's way too giddy IMO
 
On page 349 of Kolar's book, he is reviewing the video of the Jan. 8, 1997 interview by Dr. Susanne Bernhard of Burke. He says, " I was taken aback at another comment offered during the playing of a board game. The nature of the game involved guessing the features of faces hidden on the opponent's side of the gameboard. Burke had mistakenly flipped down a face on his side of the board and then returned it to an upright position, commenting, "Oops, you're not dead yet." This comment seemed extremely callous and suggested little care or concern for the circumstances at hand. I would later think that this comment might have its source in the events surrounding the death of Jon Benet."
Hmmm...
 
Kolar's book on Amazon:

#1,573 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Law > Criminal Law
#5 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > True Crime > Murder & Mayhem
#5 in Books > Law > Criminal Law

And The Case Of hasn't even aired yet.
 
On page 349 of Kolar's book, he is reviewing the video of the Jan. 8, 1997 interview by Dr. Susanne Bernhard of Burke. He says, " I was taken aback at another comment offered during the playing of a board game. The nature of the game involved guessing the features of faces hidden on the opponent's side of the gameboard. Burke had mistakenly flipped down a face on his side of the board and then returned it to an upright position, commenting, "Oops, you're not dead yet." This comment seemed extremely callous and suggested little care or concern for the circumstances at hand. I would later think that this comment might have its source in the events surrounding the death of Jon Benet."
Hmmm...

Wow.

ty for posting that. Missed these
tidbits first time round.
 
Kolar's book on Amazon:

#1,573 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Law > Criminal Law
#5 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > True Crime > Murder & Mayhem
#5 in Books > Law > Criminal Law

And The Case Of hasn't even aired yet.

right on
 
Doesn't that depend on whether or not a Ramsey is actually guilty of anything? If after 20 years my family was still being suspected of being involved with the murder of another family member, and we knew we were innocent, and the murderer was never found, I wouldn't think my lawyer did a very good job.

ya jj

valid point
 
I think that's been said, but I don't know if they had all been loaded, or whether there might have still been some not yet taken. That's the thing though -- we just don't know. I'm simply pointing out why there might be presents left in the WC.

Also note that the presents shown in the photo were wrapped with the FAO Swartz paper. Patsy bought those presents (along with the size 12/14 Bloomies for her niece) and had them wrap and ship them to Boulder. Might that be a reason to peak under the wrapping trying to find something in particular?

otg,
Well, well, how can you know what unopened gifts were yet to be loaded if Patsy needed to open them to check for stuff?

The gifts status, i.e. delivered and unopened, suggest that what likely happened was BR opened them as Kolar says.

What if the footprints in the wine-cellar are all child size? You have BR's touch-dna on the pink barbie nightgown, allegedly his footprint on the floor, and his swiss army knife found there too, and Kolar is saying one person did it all, with the GJ also saying the parents were accessories to a homicide, what's left to think about?

.
 
http://perezhilton.com/2016-09-09-dr-phil-ask-burke-ramsey-kill-jonbenet#.V9QQ2TWy9dg

1st vid, Dr Phil states that BR is the only one of the three Rs that hasn't spoken publicly and asks BR, "Why now?"

Burke's response riles me. He doesn't say he'd like to speak out in hopes of pursuing leads that point to the real killer or tell us that it's to pursue justice for his little sister. Instead, BR says, "... Twentieth Anniversary and apparently there's still a lot of attention around it."
I had the same reaction but the longer quote isn't quite as bad. The Huffington Post seemed to have a poor transcription of it (rendering "attention" as "tension" for example) but it has the full quote: "As to what I’m doing now, it’s the twentieth anniversary and apparently still a lot of tension around it, and I guess I kind of wanted to make it about remembering her and not just another new story.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...tion-tapes-reveal_us_57d37c18e4b03d2d459ab08f
Of course, it's been pointed out in the Dateline thread that Dr. Phil told Entertainment Tonight Burke wanted to "control the narrative" in the media and now we know LW was involved in setting it up to counter the CBS special, so
your question of why he's doing it now instead of any other time the story was in the press is still relevant. There's certainly more than one motive behind it.

Have these videos been posted yet? There's two on the page.
http://www.drphil.com/videos/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-youve-got-to-stop-crying-at-some-point/
1st video:
Asked if he remembers JonBenet's funeral, Burke responds, "I remember the viewing. I remember the casket was small, her eyes were closed, one of her eyes was a little droopy or something. I thought that was weird."

Dr. Phil asks, "How did you feel seeing her?"

"A lot of sadness," says Burke. "I don't think I fully grasped, like, after this I won't see her again. I remember my parents being really upset ... I kind of remember my dad leaned down and gave her a kiss."

"Was it traumatizing to see her?"

Burke answers, "That was weird. That was traumatizing, a little bit."
2nd video:
When Dr. Phil points out that some critics believe Burke seemed unfazed, at the time, by his sister's murder, Burke recalls, "I would just randomly cry out of nowhere." Looking at video showing him, at age 6, being interviewed about the gruesome murder of his sister, Burke explains about what some might call an unperturbed demeanor: "I guess this is the combination of sitting in there with this weird guy that I'd never talked to before asking personal questions - it’s a combination of that and at some point, you just have to move on. I’m not saying I moved on. Then kind of the other end is that I really didn’t get it, but you've got to stop crying at some point I guess."
The "weird guy" he's talking about is the interviewer on the old tape, not Dr. Phil (who in my opinion is also kind of a weird guy!). And the random crying thing is something he describes happening at the Fernies'.
 
The problem is when any of us insert what we would do in a similar situation and then make conclusions about it, that makes for an invalid argument.

It's not about *us,* it's what this family did, what their decisions were, and it was based on their rationale, good, bad, indifferent, or evil. It's really hard to do, but as Dr. Pitt or one of the lead investigators mentioned, one has to remove themselves from the equation and look at a case based on the facts.

Most people go off their feelings about things. Even Lou Smit made that error. "Well I wouldn't do what John or Patsy did..." That's correct, you probably would not. But the case isn't about you or me or what any of us would or wouldn't do.

I would never have chosen to get married at Loeb castle in Charlevoix which was built and owned by Albert Loeb. Richard Loeb, Alberts son, and Nathan Leopold kidnapped and killed Loebs 14 year old cousin, Bobby Frank's, for the thrill of it. While I have been to the castle many years ago and it was quite impressive, I would never be married at a place associated with someone like that, Unlike John Ramsey and Jan.
 
Lin Wood ‏@LLinWood 3m3 minutes ago @HotNostrilsrFun @DatelineNBC Kolar is total whack job & if he accuses Burke in CBS series, he & CBS will be sued. Guaranteed. @CBSNews @CBS
 
Lin Wood ‏@LLinWood 3m3 minutes ago @HotNostrilsrFun @DatelineNBC Kolar is total whack job & if he accuses Burke in CBS series, he & CBS will be sued. Guaranteed. @CBSNews @CBS

LW is a piece of work and gets so defensive. Yeah, we get your a lawyer in civil and defamation law cases. You missed your calling as a defense lawyer. Now he practices solo- must be a hard person to be around because he always wants to be right. Anyway- he gets under my skin. Also, IIRC Kolar in his book states he carefully wrote this book but if litigation was ever a threat- he would then finally get to question BR under oath. So LW- we got you # and bluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LW is a piece of work and gets so defensive. Yeah, we get your a lawyer in civil and defamation law cases. You missed your calling as a defense lawyer. Now he practices solo- must be a hard person to be around because he always wants to be right. Anyway- he gets under my skin. Also, IIRC Kolar in his book states he carefully wrote this book but if litigation was ever a threat- he would then finally get to question BR under oath. So LW- we got you # and bluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

observation,
LW will go down in history as a legal nutjob, keeping the R's out of court is a good result. Litigation will obviously bring him and his methods under the microscope, something he might wish to avoid?

Back to Jason Bourne ...
 
I don't think it's ever been confirmed exactly what all of the still wrapped presents were intended for, but they had planned on having a second Christmas celebration at Charlevoix with the extended family (possibly the reason for JonBenet's comment about a second visit from Santa), and there were also probably presents being held for Burke's upcoming birthday.

I am talking specifically about the 2 presents (Lego set and I forget what the other item was) with torn wrapping paper photographed in the wine room where JB's body was found. According to Kolar, these were presents set back for Burke's birthday in January. According to Kolar, Patsy claimed she tore the wrapping on these 2 presents because she couldn't recall what they were. According to Kolar, he later discovered that Burke had torn the paper.

I assume Kolar knows what he's talking about. Others may not share that view. But either way, this is what Kolar has stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
2,935
Total visitors
2,991

Forum statistics

Threads
600,780
Messages
18,113,319
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top