Was Burke Involved ? # 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. I have always struggled to believe that JR or PR did the cord around her neck as part of the staging and "finished her off" rather than have her lie there alive and suffering. I now believe they came across the scene already in place, with JBR obviously dead. And they didn't even know about the head injury or didn't know that is what was going to kill her eventually. They may have been told about the hit on the head, but didn't think it would cause her death. Whatever - I believe JBR was already dead when they first found her.


Hi Heymom,

Totally makes sense to me, especially after reading the votes to indict the Ramseys by the Grand Jury.

Especially the words bolded by me :

" did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."

and that each of JonBenet's parents:

"did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously 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."
 
As I said along with others in the thread "Why G.J. Likely Solved Case in 1999", I genuinely believe that the key to solving this is with the Grand Jury's conclusions.

All of the evidence which the Grand Jury heard (and we are not aware of) is in the hands of the D.A. I hope and pray that Stanley Garnett, D.A. does the
right thing now.
 
I can agree with that but I still don't see what purpose it would serve other than to quiet the forums. I don't see many people all that put out by this case. One could make an argument for the White's but that is a rabbit hole none of us want to go down.

This case has reinforced a precedent set by the O.J. Simpson case. That is unfair and, frankly, probably unlawful in some sense.

BBM: your statement sounds like you have pushed JonBenet down the rabbit hole.
 
Most people have forgotten about this case. It would just trudge up more nonsense. And I hope that Jonbenet is resting peacefully and happy as can be. We all know that these forums and discussions are for us, only us. Maybe to quiet our soul and make peace with this case?

BBM: please, don't include me in the sweeping generalities stated in so many of your posts.
 
As I said along with others in the thread "Why G.J. Likely Solved Case in 1999", I genuinely believe that the key to solving this is with the Grand Jury's conclusions.

All of the evidence which the Grand Jury heard (and we are not aware of) is in the hands of the D.A. I hope and pray that Stanley Garnett, D.A. does the
right thing now.

What do you think "the right thing" is?
 
I can agree with that but I still don't see what purpose it would serve other than to quiet the forums. I don't see many people all that put out by this case. One could make an argument for the White's but that is a rabbit hole none of us want to go down.

What standard does this case have to reach for you to say "many" people are put out by it? What cases do people care about? You're prettty much saying that nothing should be done because not enough people care about this case...which is pretty ridiculous...especially considering how much media interest there is in this case 20 years later...and how much more media interest there is compared to probably 99% of other cases, even ones that are much more recent.
 
Hi Johnjay,

I believe that the right thing to do, and Stanley Garnett can do this, is to convene a Grand Jury. Then, if the Grand Jury votes for indictment for J.R. (as the previous
Grand Jury did) then that needs to proceed to court with J.R. being charged with the indictment.

I have read articles about Stanley Garnett and I tend to believe he will possibly do this. Just my opinion.
 
Hi Johnjay,

I believe that the right thing to do, and Stanley Garnett can do this, is to convene a Grand Jury. Then, if the Grand Jury votes for indictment for J.R. (as the previous
Grand Jury did) then that needs to proceed to court with J.R. being charged with the indictment.

I have read articles about Stanley Garnett and I tend to believe he will possibly do this. Just my opinion.

I thought the statute of limitations was up for that charge.
 
I can agree with that but I still don't see what purpose it would serve other than to quiet the forums. I don't see many people all that put out by this case. One could make an argument for the White's but that is a rabbit hole none of us want to go down.
The fact that it was never solved. That a beautiful little 6 year old was violently murdered. There a lot of people who do care about JonBenet's murder and do want it solved. Not just on forums. Otherwise, why make so many documentaries near the anniversary of her death? Obviously people do care. Obviously people do want answers. The purpose to find justice is to give a 6 year old little girl named JonBenet a proper ending. No murder that remains unsolved is fair. All should be solved. The victims deserve at least that. Since the family doesn't seem to want justice, it's up to everyone who was involved in the case and everyone who cares, to help bring justice. In this case, the only justice may be that they admit what happened. No charges can be filed now. But sometimes, and in my humble opinion, justice in the public eye, especially for the rich, is enough. No one should be able commit a crime, whether premeditated or accidental, and not be held accountable. Period. We have NO proof that Burke was ever "punished" or ever "treated medically and psychologically" for any of this. Patsy nor John were punished either. Had the D.A. followed through with what the Grand Jury recommended, we might be closer to the truth by now. This subject might have been laid to rest a long time ago. Yes it would have been extremely hard to plead this case, but if they waited for more evidence, the statute of limitations would have expired. Which is exactly what happened. So, personally this bothers the hell out of me. It stinks. It was a political decision. THAT is heart breaking. So we should continue to discuss it. All of us have different opinions and those should be discussed. It needs to be. A lot of people DO care about this and wish to see a proper closure.
The family did throw a lot of people under the bus. Those people have a right also to have their name cleared publicly. Since the Ramsey's have sued everyone who even uttered what the truth could be, I think its only right to have the tables turned. I saw more tears in the CBS documentary shed by those who loved JonBenet than the family shed. THAT is so heartbreaking. So for those who were close to JonBenet, justice (however it is served) is necessary. The town of Boulder deserves justice too. JonBenet was loved by many people and they want her to have a proper answer to her death.
Please don't take this as a direct attack on you. I promise that's not what is intended by my response. You are very entitled to your opinion and it is welcomed and respected. :)! We all should be able to voice our feelings and discuss the case openly. :discuss:
 
Ok I think I need to finish up the transcript of the CBS episode 2. Especially for those who have not been able to watch it in its entirety. I will post in on the proper CBS thread on the forum. (I'm in severe pain from a gallbladder attack so bare with me. Seriously, I've spent several days on it and I still have at least 30 min to go... Good grief there was so much detail in that show! Highly impressed!!!) Funny note. I have literally ran through 4 batteries on my remote, stopping and starting the DVR! lol
Back to the discussion! :seeya:
 
Who made the "factual" statement?

in the link, "burke ramsey said he owned a pair of hi tec boots". pretty clear to me who said it!
he also said as much to dr phil!

http://tamaratattles.com/2016/09/20/dr-phil-burke-ramsey-interview-part-3-the-conclusion/

When Patsy was interviewed in Atlanta in 2000 about the boots she denied that she bought them for him when they were visiting Atlanta. The attorney for the state, Mr. Levin asked her multiple times and even told her where and when they were purchased and that Burke and one other person has verified this. Lin Wood objected continuously until Mr. Levin finally had to explain it happened during the grand jury testimony in a round a about way. Wood figured he would not be able to use that information in an interview because it came from the grand jury. On Dr. Phil, Lin Wood still emphatically stated that no one in the Ramsey family had those boots. Meanwhile, Burke told Dr. Phil he did have the boots with the compasses on the shoelaces. He said he doesn’t remember the brand. In the interview with Patsy in Atlanta, Levin points out that Burke was sort of obsessed with the compasses and would point them in several directions. This would be something parents would remember about their kid and his interest in the compasses on his shoes.
 
And as u said on the other thread....those knots aren't complicated and well within the reach of a child who was taking sailing lessons. I've taught sailing to beginners through competitive racers....there are skills you learn in sailing at each level that are relatively consistent from sailing school to sailing school, especially if they are us sailing certified instructors.

Hitches are one of the knots he would have been exposed to after learning a cleat, a bowline, and a square knot. They are used to tie line to a pole.

I think it's possible that garrot might have been made by Burke prior to that night, and he may have used it in a game with his sister that night.

It is entirely possible that the garrote was made prior to the attack and was used because of its handiness.

I've also thought that the garrote was used perhaps to physically and emotionally distance the person strangling JBR in addition to reducing the amount of forensic evidence left behind if strangling with your hands (even if gloved).

Based on the position of the garrote and the interpretation of the autopsy findings (such as the slant of the ligature mark and the urine stain on the front of her panties), it is believed that the strangulation occurred from behind. This method allowed whoever did the garroting to avoid looking at JBR in the face or touching her as she was strangled.

I go back and forth on whether Burke or John applied the garrote. It is clear to me that one of them fashioned it, not Patsy (her paintbrush was handy, and it being her paintbrush doesn't mean that she made the garrote).

If Burke, I believe it was because of some sort of play - either he was intentionally terrorizing his little sister (which is common behavior, even in otherwise normal households) and went to far, or this was a game they both were playing that got out of hand.

But if Burke knocked her unconscious with the head blow first, then it couldn't have been play. This is a little harder for me to believe, but I also feel like LE (specifically Kolar) might have cards they can't show us that lead more in this direction.

If John, you have to first believe that, for whatever reason, he or him and Patsy felt like there was no way JBR could be saved. I have zero medical experience, but I've wondered if JBR appeared lifeless after the head blow (imperceptible shallow breathing, heartbeat so faint they couldn't get a pulse, etc.), or they felt she was not going to survive regardless or would at least be a vegetable if she did.

Then the garrote is meant to deceive LE into thinking what many of us do: How could a parent do that to their child on purpose? It plays more to the "foreign faction" angle, and the bonus is that John doesn't have to strangle his daughter with his hands - the garrote provides him with physical and emotional distance in that moment, and maybe he did it not even realizing she was still alive.
 
I'm a BDI theorist but am not happy with this conclusion. I hate to believe it but think it best explains the evidence and staging. It's hard to imagine children killing other children but the fact is, it happens. If you Google it there are many cases of it. Some kill an infant sibling to stop the crying, some kill because they have uncontrollable anger issues, some because they are sadistic psychopaths.
BR took a lot of lessons: golf, sailing, some type of musical instrument, playing ball. In addition to going to school. I used to think it was so the family looked successful and accomplished accomplished but now I wonder if it was to keep him busy and away from JBR.
 
Not sure if anyone responded to you yet. Still working through the thread after a day off. haha Anyway!
Firstly just know I'm not personally attacking you and your belief, in fact I respect it! :)
So here's my take on the intruder theory. I DO think the family members could have easily committed this crime. Parent's kill their children all the time on horrendous ways. Parents can and do sexually abuse their kids. Siblings, even young ones kill the other. What makes the Ramsey's so special that they couldn't or shouldn't be under the umbrella of suspicion? Because they are wealthy Christians? Money does not make a person good or bad. Being a Christian doesn't clear you of doubt. An innocent family would have cooperated fully with the law enforcement. Also let me add that Patsy lived through JonBenet. She was heartbroken that her son had potentially killed her.
First of all there were only patches of snow on ground that day. An intruder wouldn't have had to of walked carefully.
The window that was open and broken, John admitted he broke that window months earlier, when he forgot his house key.
The scuff on the wall was more than likely from JR climbing through window months earlier (or at least not ruled out as a possibility)
The window in question does not open completely. It is also not a tall or wide window. Even when Lou Smit reenacted climbing through,
his hips filled the window completely. With that said, there was an old cobweb covering the corner of the window in the original crime scene video. There is no logical way anyone could climb through that window and not disturb the cobweb. It wasn't a new new web either. There was dust and old debris within the
cobweb.
The disturbance of the debris in the window well could easily have been from John climbing through the window months earlier.
There was no debris noted below the basement window. The boot print could have been from Burke, as he admitted the one found near her body was
probably his due to the kids always playing down there.
Patsy also stated that after John broke window, her and the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh vacuumed under that window extremely well so the kids didn't get
into the glass. So if there had been an intruder, there would have been debris knocked into the basement below the window. An intruder wouldn't have even worried about cleaning it up.
The intruder would have had to have been moving all over the house that night for most of the night to get everything done. He had to find a pen and paper at the home and after writing 2 practice letters and throwing in trash, wrote a 2 1/2 page ransom note (The longest kidnapping letter on record) with 76% of the note being unnecessary per an analyst and expert. Also, the writer was noted to have a high level of writing (Patsy studied journalism in college). The writer was also
estimated to be over 30+. Also had many maternal aspects in note that pointed towards a female. The note was overly dramatic even using several lines from
famous movies. There was never a small foreign faction. If there was, it would be the dumbest organisation ever. They not only killed their kidnapped victim before they got out of house, they left the ransom note. Even the amount asked for was questionable. So since JR was so rich, why did they only ask for $118,000? And why that exact amount? That was also how much John made in his bonus recently. So insider knowledge would be needed. Plus no one ever called.
Also, Burke received a swiss army knife as a gift from his parents. He was known to widdle wood often. (possibly even the garrote?) He always made a mess and left wood shavings on the floor. The housekeeper finally had to confiscate the knife and she hid it very good in a closet. Again, insider knowledge.
The potential murder weapon, the maglight flashlight is sturdy and heavy. Very little strength would be needed to crack a 6 yr old's skull. The flashlight fits the wound perfectly. There was a maglite flashlight found in the kitchen on the counter. It was completely clean of prints on the outside and even the batteries
were wiped down. A intruder wouldn't do this. In the Dr. Phil interview Burke admitted to being downstairs that night after everyone was in bed. He never went into detail of what toy he wanted to play with nor how long he was down there. But, he would've more than likely seen the attack. Until Dr. Phil interview, it was never told that Burke went back downstairs that night.
Strangling her with the noose would not require great strength if the perp was sitting on her back. She was strangled from behind. The fingernail marks around the cord could have been from Burke trying to get the garrote off after he possibly committed the crime (IMHO). The sexual assault has been explained by experts that it wasn't a true sexual assault. It was part of staging.
The garrote itself could have been easily made by Burke or John. Burke was in boy scouts an knot tying is learned. Also John owned boats and a yacht. Again, knot tying required. The garrote could have been made at a different time for a different reason but it was available so it was used. An intruder would also not
feed JonBenet pineapple with milk mixed in and a glass of tea.
Kidnappers usually snatch and grab. They don't want to risk being caught.
The quotes heard after Patsy thought she disconnected from the police actually prove to me more that they all were involved at some point.
When Patsy said "What did you do? Help me Jesus" she was possibly referring to Burke's attack on JonBenet. To save her only last living child she had to protect him and in the process completely disrespect JBR's body to cover up the scene. I'm sure she was also telling Burke to keep his mouth shut and say he was asleep through it all or he would go to jail. (I know he couldn't have by law but Burke didn't know he couldn't and neither did Patsy and John I'm sure.)
John saying- We're not talking to you" tells me that he was livid over Burke's crime and didn't even want to look at him. If he DID do it, I wouldn't want to look at
my daughter's killer either.
When Burke said "What DID you find?" I think that was his way of getting a thrill out of seeing his parent's in pain. Just like a true psychopath would do. They often revisit their crime scenes during the investigation just to watch the turmoil and suffering. They get a sick pleasure out of it. Burke also had a fascination with
feces. He would smear it on walls and on JonBenet's things. Once the housekeeper found a grapefruit sized ball of human feces on her bed. He also smeared it on her box of christmas chocolates she received that year. He was known to have a horrible temper.
Just MOO but thought I would reply! :)
ETA: extra content.
Thank you! A very well written summary of everything we've learned the past week. I am even more convinced of Burke's guilt. Thank goodness he hasn't hurt anyone since (as far as we know).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
in the link, "burke ramsey said he owned a pair of hi tec boots". pretty clear to me who said it!
he also said as much to dr phil!

http://tamaratattles.com/2016/09/20/dr-phil-burke-ramsey-interview-part-3-the-conclusion/

When Patsy was interviewed in Atlanta in 2000 about the boots she denied that she bought them for him when they were visiting Atlanta. The attorney for the state, Mr. Levin asked her multiple times and even told her where and when they were purchased and that Burke and one other person has verified this. Lin Wood objected continuously until Mr. Levin finally had to explain it happened during the grand jury testimony in a round a about way. Wood figured he would not be able to use that information in an interview because it came from the grand jury. On Dr. Phil, Lin Wood still emphatically stated that no one in the Ramsey family had those boots. Meanwhile, Burke told Dr. Phil he did have the boots with the compasses on the shoelaces. He said he doesn’t remember the brand. In the interview with Patsy in Atlanta, Levin points out that Burke was sort of obsessed with the compasses and would point them in several directions. This would be something parents would remember about their kid and his interest in the compasses on his shoes.

Totally agree but it is never stated that they were Hi-Tech brand and I don't believe any boots of that brand were ever found or any purchase receipts? Regardless, if Burke has those boots and he went to the basement, would that be weird?
 
Exactly. I have always struggled to believe that JR or PR did the cord around her neck as part of the staging and "finished her off" rather than have her lie there alive and suffering. I now believe they came across the scene already in place, with JBR obviously dead. And they didn't even know about the head injury or didn't know that is what was going to kill her eventually. They may have been told about the hit on the head, but didn't think it would cause her death. Whatever - I believe JBR was already dead when they first found her.

Didn't someone say she had been wiped down and dressed? This had to happen before her actual death because crime scene showed she died face down because death leakage into front of underpants.
 
Didn't someone say she had been wiped down and dressed? This had to happen before her actual death because crime scene showed she died face down because death leakage into front of underpants.

She could have already urinated into the other panties, as she passed, perhaps with the long johns having been pulled down, and they didn't get wet. Then the scene is discovered, she is eventually re-dressed in new panties and her bladder continues to relax, allowing a scant bit more urine to stain the new panties as well. I think the original underwear was probably soaked with urine and also more of her blood as well as her brother's DNA, would have been obvious that something needed to be done about those. Were they flushed? Likely, as LE removed the toilets in the house and tried to examine the plumbing (as I recall, can't remember which book this was in).
 
Ok I think I need to finish up the transcript of the CBS episode 2. Especially for those who have not been able to watch it in its entirety. I will post in on the proper CBS thread on the forum. (I'm in severe pain from a gallbladder attack so bare with me. Seriously, I've spent several days on it and I still have at least 30 min to go... Good grief there was so much detail in that show! Highly impressed!!!) Funny note. I have literally ran through 4 batteries on my remote, stopping and starting the DVR! lol
Back to the discussion! :seeya:
Thanks for your contributions and I do hope you feel better soon!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
3,303
Total visitors
3,374

Forum statistics

Threads
603,299
Messages
18,154,519
Members
231,702
Latest member
Rav17en
Back
Top