Was Burke Involved ? # 3

[MissUnderstood]

Those weren't train track pokes. They were far too large, they were stun gun marks. How can you imply a family with no prior past of serious domestic/physical violence can suddenly turn into cold blooded killers choking out their 6 year old daughter even though she's already dead from the blow to the head? Logic has to be applied here and this ain't logical. Hmmm... wonder why the CBS doc refused to test the supposed train track poke on someone to see what it would look like, yeah they didn't want to embarrass themselves on national television would be my answer. Smart of them considering how absurd the train track hoax is.

You cannot apply logic to what happened that night. There was panic and mental mayhem, no time for logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Heymom]

They did not say a thing about Burke. BPD said Burke wasn't involved. There is NO evidence that Burke had anything to do with this. Only one that says so is Kolar and we know how revered he is on this site. Ridiculous

you are being purposely dense. We do not know if they said anything about Burke, all of the findings were not made public. If John and Patsy were both charged with neglect leading to homicide, and also accessory to a homicide, WHO ELSE IS LEFT IN THE HOUSE? There is no one left but Burke.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think Burke did everything himself, except write the ransom note. John or Patsy might have put her in the blanket. Not sure on that one. Once I read Chief Kolar's book, all of the pennies dropped for me and the pieces just fit better. Occam's razor and all that.

I don't believe Burke wiped her down, redressed her, or wrapped her with the blanket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

The only thing that I am 99.9999% sure of... Is Patsy wrote that ransom note!
and, I think John's role in everything was limited...

**my opinion for past ten or so years since I began following this case closely

I have had theory's it was all Patsy, Pasty & John, Patsy & Burke and all three over the last 19 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

If you have worked with a wide spectrum of adults and children, regardless of race, age, disabilities etc, Burke is completely normal. He is very uncomfortable and he smiles when directly questioned. Many, many people do this. It is very common and has no bearing on guilt or innocence

He is not now nor as a 9 or an 11 year old, by any stretch of the imagination, "normal"
He's detached, lacks empathy and his affect is absolutely bizarre


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Heymom]

I don't believe Burke wiped her down, redressed her, or wrapped her with the blanket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's true, I had almost forgotten about the wiping. Certainly the parents (one or both) would have cleaned her up and put the size 12 panties on her.

 

[Linda7NJ]

These are medical experts that have a stake on his or theory. Most everyone on this case has a reputation to protect and that's a problem, especially with the CBS show

The only experts without a real dog in the fight was the experts in the CBS show.
These people have been literally haunted by this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

And this makes me sad. Would you like to be convicted based on Kolar and Websleuths?

Yes, I posted a BDI like 10 years ago. I've considered many possible scenarios and while I agree with Kolar & the CBS show on most things- there's some I still do not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think the accidental hit on the head is what caused the death, then panic mode hit!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Burke never panicked over anything in his life. IMO - he's not capable - just like he's not capable of empathy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[PositiveLight]

Legal experts....we know medical records for one or both of the kids was sealed.
BUT for the grand jury investigation would they have had access to those?

I'm just speculating that maybe the endangerment charges against the parents could have stemmed from one or both children having serious psychological diagnosis's for which the parents weren't taking seriously and/or weren't getting recommend help for these issues.

I know when parents refused medical care for there children, sometimes dr's and hospitals can file child endangerment charges against the parents.

I just wonder if this could be part of what the grand jury indictment is all about.....knowing a "medical" (aka psychological) problem existed, yet did not do enough to address this situation, therefor endangering both of their children.

I'm in the process of transcribing the CBS part 2 episode but have been mighty sick with a bad gallbladder. But I can answer this question really quick to help you out. This is part of the transcription relating to the indictment and what was specifically addressed.

Laura Richards and Jim Clemente were interviewing a local Boulder Colorado defense attorney Lisa Polansky in response to what the indictments meant.
Laura reads the Grand Jury Statement.
"So on or between December 25th and December 26th 1996, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, recklessly, knowingly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation in which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

The other count was...
John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person with intent to hinder, delay, prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person, knowing the person being assisted has committed and suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."
Both parents were charged with the same crimes.
John Bennett Ramsey- COUNT IV (a), COUNT VII
Patricia Paugh Ramsey- COUNT IV (a),
COUNT VII.
Clemente- "Does this mean they are charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they are charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?"
Polansky- "It's legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, or Patsy to be assisting John."
Clemente- " Wouldn't they both then also be charged with the underlying crime as proposed to just..."
Polansky- "Yes. Normally if they do an accessory charge which here is generally after the fact, it's usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person."
Clemente- "The only third person that is left is Burke Ramsey."
Polansky- " And it's a complicated area. Colorado's minimum age for prosecution is 10 years old. The science behind it of course would be that the child under 10 is not psychologically able to commit a crime and they use the old common law term which is infancy. Which is to say that they cannot form the intent. If you look at the brain science, um as we know the frontal lobe is not fully developed and that's where the executive function occurs. And so it's difficult to say well a kid clearly made a 'decision' to do X, Y, Z. With regard to Burke, he was nine at the time of the crime. I don't know how they would prosecute him because of that floor, that minimum age of 10. Let's just say, you could say, 'negligent homicide ' even if he was, you know prosecuted now, you can't even prosecute him for that because he was not yet 10."

Sorry if this has already been answered! Hope this helps a little.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I suspect we disagree on what counts for "evidence". This was a crime, not a science experiment, all kinds of evidence are admissible in court and a jury weighs that evidence. Just like the grand jury decided to indict the parents weighed the evidence. They decided that the parents put JBR in a dangerous situation and helped cover up her murder - and they made that decision based on the evidence they were presented. And many of us here weigh the evidence in the same way - however, since this is an internet forum and not a court proceeding our standards of evidence can even be lower than the grand jury's standard- which balances out the fact that we didn't get all the evidence the GJ got.

Finally, if any of that seems unfair to you, then consider how many people the Ramseys pointed a finger at without any evidence of their guilt. We're just following their lead.

We don't need a video of Burke brutally murdering his sister to believe he did. The circumstantial evidence is sufficient for more that 80% of us.

Truth be told, for years I juggled Patsy only Pasty and Patsy & Burke bouncing back & forth like a ping pong ball.

I leaned toward Burke after the release of ONLY 4 pages of the grand jury true bill.

What convinced me beyond all doubt, watching Burke's interviews, all of them. The Ramsey's again are their own worst enemy. Money can thwart justice but apparently can't buy self awareness. - Ramsey's lack it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

Those weren't train track pokes. They were far too large, they were stun gun marks. How can you imply a family with no prior past of serious domestic/physical violence can suddenly turn into cold blooded killers choking out their 6 year old daughter even though she's already dead from the blow to the head? Logic has to be applied here and this ain't logical. Hmmm... wonder why the CBS doc refused to test the supposed train track poke on someone to see what it would look like, yeah they didn't want to embarrass themselves on national television would be my answer. Smart of them considering how absurd the train track hoax is.

Kolar includes a photo of testing the train track on a living subject - or you could always test the theory yourself. O Train tracks are readily available. The marks line up perfectly. Now, if you can just get your hands on a fresh corpse....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TexMex]

I'm in the process of transcribing the CBS part 2 episode but have been mighty sick with a bad gallbladder. But I can answer this question really quick to help you out. This is part of the transcription relating to the indictment and what was specifically addressed.

Laura Richards and Jim Clemente were interviewing a local Boulder Colorado defense attorney Lisa Polansky in response to what the indictments meant.
Laura reads the Grand Jury Statement.
"So on or between December 25th and December 26th 1996, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, recklessly, knowingly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation in which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

The other count was...
John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person with intent to hinder, delay, prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person, knowing the person being assisted has committed and suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."
Both parents were charged with the same crimes.
John Bennett Ramsey- COUNT IV (a), COUNT VII
Patricia Paugh Ramsey- COUNT IV (a),
COUNT VII.
Clemente- "Does this mean they are charging John with assisting Patsy if she did it, and they are charging Patsy with assisting John if he did it?"
Polansky- "It's legally possible in the state of Colorado for John to be assisting Patsy, or Patsy to be assisting John."
Clemente- " Wouldn't they both then also be charged with the underlying crime as proposed to just..."
Polansky- "Yes. Normally if they do an accessory charge which here is generally after the fact, it's usually somebody else. My opinion would be that there is a third person."
Clemente- "The only third person that is left is Burke Ramsey."
Polansky- " And it's a complicated area. Colorado's minimum age for prosecution is 10 years old. The science behind it of course would be that the child under 10 is not psychologically able to commit a crime and they use the old common law term which is infancy. Which is to say that they cannot form the intent. If you look at the brain science, um as we know the frontal lobe is not fully developed and that's where the executive function occurs. And so it's difficult to say well a kid clearly made a 'decision' to do X, Y, Z. With regard to Burke, he was nine at the time of the crime. I don't know how they would prosecute him because of that floor, that minimum age of 10. Let's just say, you could say, 'negligent homicide ' even if he was, you know prosecuted now, you can't even prosecute him for that because he was not yet 10."

Sorry if this has already been answered! Hope this helps a little.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Well no wonder Hunter chose not to prosecute. Charging the parents of the victim for staging a crime scene to protect their son who is not old enough to be held legally responsible. That would be an uphill battle for sure.

 

[mauidreemn]

The only experts without a real dog in the fight was the experts in the CBS show.
These people have been literally haunted by this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That is simply not true. All of them have a stake in this case and have for years

 

[mauidreemn]

Yes, I posted a BDI like 10 years ago. I've considered many possible scenarios and while I agree with Kolar & the CBS show on most things- there's some I still do not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So, you would want to be prosecuted by Kolar's "evidence". Maybe hit with a flashlight, maybe poked with a train track, maybe you sexually assaulted your sister, maybe you.....?

 

[Kakidoll]

They did not say a thing about Burke. BPD said Burke wasn't involved. There is NO evidence that Burke had anything to do with this. Only one that says so is Kolar and we know how revered he is on this site. Ridiculous

Did you miss the part about them NOT being able to ever bring charges against him because he was under the age of 10? The LAW of Colorado states that. Not Kolar or WS. The GJ saw the evidence and HEARD from people we did not. THEY voted to bring charges. DA took it upon himself to not.... which I disagree with but with that law in place, they couldn't even MENTION BR. THAT is why this case is still 'unsolved'. That and a LOT of money.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That is simply not true. All of them have a stake in this case and have for years

I agree. It long ago became more about their own egos and the addiction to being right.

From what the current DA stated no one knows all the evidence his office has that has been amassed in this case throughout the 20 years. In fact didn't these tv director/producer try to contact the current PC or DA wanting to get additional evidence and they more or less told them to leave them out of it for they wanted no part of any of these shows? I believe the current DA said no one will know all the evidence they have unless and if someone ever goes to trial. The ones on the show went by old evidence. Were any of them even on the case when the DNA profile was found when FBI entered the unknown male DNA profile into CODIS?

 

[mauidreemn]

Did you miss the part about them NOT being able to ever bring charges against him because he was under the age of 10? The LAW of Colorado states that. Not Kolar or WS. The GJ saw the evidence and HEARD from people we did not. THEY voted to bring charges. DA took it upon himself to not.... which I disagree with but with that law in place, they couldn't even MENTION BR. THAT is why this case is still 'unsolved'. That and a LOT of money.

If you believe this, then what is the point of continuing with this case and discussion around it? Websleuths should shut this forum down. If Burke did it, it's done and over. The way I see it, if Burke did do this and his parents covered it up then we have the absolute BEST possible outcome ever. Burke went on the be successful and to our knowledge has never hurt anyone.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

Well, oddly enough, the Grand Jury thought there was, and charged both John and Patsy with neglect leading to homicide, as well as being accessories to a homicide. I can't imagine why they'd do that if a total stranger had killed JonBenet, can you?

"The grand jury also had alleged that each parent "did ... render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

BBM. I read the charging documents for the first time earlier today -- I has not been aware previously that they were publicly available -- and I was surprised and very interested to note that the charge for the unnamed third party was first degree murder.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Did you miss the part about them NOT being able to ever bring charges against him because he was under the age of 10? The LAW of Colorado states that. Not Kolar or WS. The GJ saw the evidence and HEARD from people we did not. THEY voted to bring charges. DA took it upon himself to not.... which I disagree with but with that law in place, they couldn't even MENTION BR. THAT is why this case is still 'unsolved'. That and a LOT of money.

Looking at the counts- there's quite a few missing. I'm assuming the grand jury was unaware Burke couldn't be charged under Colorado law. That's the reason those other counts were never released. As an "infant" under the law he's shielded by confidentiality laws as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro