Was Burke Involved ? # 3

[DatelineFan]

I don't want to imagine it either. BUT it does happen. It was noted by family friends and housekeeper that they played doctor and when caught they told the house keeper to leave them alone.
Also add in the fact that when someone is abused they are made aware of situations and ideas that those who aren't abused would never know about. I try to keep this in mind. No one of course has confirmed they were abused. But it is a running possibility among sleuths that it could be a possible reason.

I know. But "playing doctor" and penetration are very different. I don't know if Burke ever touched her inappropriately, but I highly doubt he penetrated her. Ugh. Poor JB.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[PositiveLight]

I know. But "playing doctor" and penetration are very different. I don't know if Burke ever touched her inappropriately, but I highly doubt he penetrated her. Ugh. Poor JB.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

I know it breaks my heart when I read of this happening to any child. The idea of it makes me shudder. Whomever did it was violent with it. If you read the autopsy notes its pretty obvious. Even if BR did penetrate her, I doubt he would have done it so violently? Playing doctor is more about curiousity. This was violent. There was evidence of chronic abuse too.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

 

[8paws]

This is my first post here and I haven't figured out how to quote people.
Having watched the two episodes of Dr Phil interviewing Burke things which have me puzzled/wondering
How was Burke educated after the death of JBR if he (as Dr Phil reports) didn't go to school? To me this indicates the parents wanted to keep Burke from giving away family secrets rather than that they wanted to protect him from media etc. Plenty of high profile kids go to school.
Interesting that John said he put Burke to bed with the torch after first denying it was even their torch and then saying it was one his older son had given him.
John also said he helped Burke complete the model he wanted to play with - now Burke says he sneaked downstairs. Was John lying and if so why?
I thought I read somewhere that the lifelike doll was given to JonBenet when she was younger, not this Christmas, also he already had a train set which he used in the basement and moved upstairs to go under the tree in his room. Did he get another? I thought it was just Jon Benet and Patsy who received bicycles this Christmas.
When Dr Phil shows him the ransom note he says the writing is sloppy which is the same word as John used to "prove" it wasn't Patsy's at depositions. It seems weird that someone whose sister suffered this terrible fate would say 20 years later that he had never read the note. Unless you already knew who had killed your sister why wouldn't you read it????
James Kolar states in his book that he was puzzled by the fact that Burke is smiling in photos taken by police of the three Ramseys on the afternoon of the 28th Dec.Looks like Burke smiled inappropriately even then.

GREAT post Petal!

 

[observation]

Actually... I think most people attribute that quote to Honest Abe. But here's another take on it (from http://isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/package.jsp?name=fte/lincoln/lincoln):

This was thought to be part of a speech Lincoln gave in September 1858 in Clinton (of all places), Illinois, but the line is not included in the text that was printed in the local newspaper. It was attributed to Lincoln in 1910 when two people remembered hearing him say it in 1856--54 years later.
​

O/T- you are 100% correct. I have heard him state that in the past (via TV) way before my time. He must have quoted honest Abe. So sorry, as I was confident it was JFK and was wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[just the facts pls]

I just got done watching Dr Phil characterize this case as a "strictly DNA case." I'm still dubious, but here are a few articles I found about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1823...he-ramsey-family-cites-important-dna-evidence

But the second article specifically states it is Touch DNA:

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the "touch DNA" scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenét Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

Dr Phil is saying that there were two DNA tests done and both had unknown male DNA. This doesn't fit with everything I've read about the case so far. Is he more confused than I am, or is he just pushing the Ramsey narrative?

 

[just the facts pls]

Another news article:

http://nypost.com/2016/09/12/jonbenet-ramsey-series-questions-key-dna-evidence/

“We all shed DNA all the time within our skin cells. It can be deposited anywhere at any time for various reasons, reasons that are benign,” Coombes says. “To clear somebody just on the premise of touch DNA, especially when you have a situation where the crime scene wasn’t secure at the beginning . . . really is a stretch.”

 

[CorallaroC]

ty jtfp


I've often read about PR changing her
handwriting, typing correspondence
but had long forgotten BC's assertion
that BR may have made the notations on
the photos from the family album

interesting...

we also know from narratives (either from PR interviews or statements made by close friends--sorry I do not have a source handy) that PR said that BR had difficulties with hand-eye coordination, including tying his own shoes. I did not make that up! I promise. I do feel sorry for him in that regard. Closeup pics from his social media and DP walking-footage show his sneakers unusually tied. who knows for sure? maybe that is one of his difficulties - and that doesn't necessarily mean that he has learning/developmental problms or autism/spectrum issues ok. So yes, I was keen to watch his hand movements during the inverviews. I have no comment at this time. all JMO. I feel sympathy for him, I truly do.

ETA: his response to DP about the ransom note regarding his mother making him re-write things to emphasize good-handwriting, also caught my attention. Hmmm.

 

[MsFacetious]

I remember hearing about this guy many years ago.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/22/jonbenet-ramsey-child-*advertiser censored*-boulder-gary-oliva/

 

[UKGuy]

I just got done watching Dr Phil characterize this case as a "strictly DNA case." I'm still dubious, but here are a few articles I found about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1823...he-ramsey-family-cites-important-dna-evidence

But the second article specifically states it is Touch DNA:



Dr Phil is saying that there were two DNA tests done and both had unknown male DNA. This doesn't fit with everything I've read about the case so far. Is he more confused than I am, or is he just pushing the Ramsey narrative?

just the facts pls,
Its all just smoke and mirrors, touch-dna means nothing until you can link to a named suspect, then you have to prove the touch-dna never arrived by accident.

Did Kolar not cite 6 or 7 samples of touch-dna from across the crime-scene?

.

 

[bxbbysoxer]

Speaking simultaneously as someone who has an anxiety disorder and as someone who is very strongly for BDI, I recognize some traits of my disorder in Burke in that interview, but at the same time, people who are just autistic or just mentally ill don't tend to give off that vibe of 'there is something strange here'. Both my brother - who has ASD - and I have traits which are often perceived as characteristic of lying, i.e. awkward smiling, difficulty with eye contact, etc., but the thing is when you take our mental health into account, it explains that behaviour. As in, it makes sense + stops seeming weird once you understand what's going on with us.

This is not saying that Burke does or doesn't have any mental health problems, I think it's almost certain that he does, it's just that when you take that into account, his behaviour still seems strange. I think the only one's who wouldn't be struck by the way he's behaving are those who are very firmly IDI, or those old ladies who think a mother or brother could never have anything to do with the death of her child.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well, just trying to explain something that struck me.

 

[bxbbysoxer]

just the facts pls,
Its all just smoke and mirrors, touch-dna means nothing until you can link to a named suspect, then you have to prove the touch-dna never arrived by accident.

Did Kolar not cite 6 or 7 samples of touch-dna from across the crime-scene?

.

I don't have my copy of his book on me now, but from what I remember he did. Pretty sure this has been said a thousand times, but the tDNA could have come from literally anywhere. Things she bumped into, etc.. What's more suspicious is where the DNA of the Ramseys is around the crime scene, compared to a few stray fibers. Like you said, if you don't have any suspect to link the DNA, it's basically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't just randomly there, and you can't do that here.

 

[mrseeker]

I do not believe BR killed her even by accident. I cannot rule it out, but I think the damage to her skull was done by an adult. I think PDI. I do have to say, the clips I have seen of his Dr.P interview have left me confused. I am trying to get the smile. I have heard of the nervous laugh, and I have seen people smile trying to avoid crying. but he has a constant smile from the clips anyway. Some of you have watched it all. So clearly you know much more than I do. I was trying to think what could explain it. I guess socially awkward could do it. It almost reminds me of when you are telling a funny story about a loved one who has past or reminiscing of old times when your mother acted like a mother, but the underlying story is about nothing serious. So the time your mother did this or your grandfather did this. The stories might be told ribbing-ly but lovingly. WHat could ever be funny about the time your mother acted silly when her daughter was kidnapped? What could make you smile as you told the story your little sister was murdered. I get he was 9, but i can get worked up talking about the dog that died 30 years ago if you ask too many questions. How has he become so detached from these tragic event? even if he cannot feel the pain himself, how can he not feel the pain of his parents, if he truly believes them innocent? Do you think his smile is defensive or is it because he is only an observer to events he barely remembers or is he devoid of feelings? Those who have seen more than clips,. what are your thoughts?

 

[just the facts pls]

Perception is a funny thing. Now that I am leaning towards BDI, J&PR's statements "keep your babies close to you" sounds like a plea for parents to be more watchful about their children's behavior to prevent tragedies like JBR's murder.

 

[Tricia]

A couple of things to let you know about.

Chat room is open now for those who want to discuss the case. It will be open until the Investigation Discovery show is over.

https://www.rumbletalk.com/client/chat.php?5T*D4Dq5

Tonight at 8 PM Mountain I will be on the Levi Page podcast. It's a pay podcast but worth every penny. Only 4.99 a month.
https://www.connectpal.com/levipage

 

[bxbbysoxer]

It just frustrates me that we're working with only a fraction of the evidence. Even just thinking of Kolar's book and the new things he divulged about Burke, it's really showing that something was going on in that house and with those kids, but that we have no way of really knowing the full extent of it.

 

[Errrr]

I don't think what happened here was accidental. The force needed to split her skull in the manner it was shows that this was not an accident. It was deliberate and with force. The fact that they chose to cover it up rather than calling 911 proves it.

Despite the apparent force used I can still believe it to be an accident or at least a crime of passion where murder was not intended. At the time, the police seemed reluctant to continue with a charge or search for a killer. It was as if they felt it was an accident that went too far and no good would come of persuing it?

 

[mrseeker]

If one child injures another, even seriously, whether by accident or intentional, why would a parent immediately go into coverup mode and not just call 9-11? Why think the worst?
I also have trouble understanding why BR did not go downstairs immediately when his mother burst into his room yelling OM gosh? Either his mother was often chaotic, or BR was strange even as a child, or he had a guilty conscience. Or perhaps it never happened that way.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I think the blow to the head wasn't the deciding factor on choosing to cover up. A blow to the head can be passed off as an accident, even if not, you could pass it off a sibling squabble and a brother who didn't know his own strength.

Nope, the only thing that caused the cover up was the vaginal damage done to JB either before or after the blow to the head which had JB bleeding from her vagina and which washed up. That is something that cannot be waived as an accident. And child abuse in the family, is something that a socialite who needed to have the most perfect looking family like PR could not abide other people from knowing.

I don't know if they thought JB was dead or alive when they applied the "garrote", but its chilling that they (or just Patsy) would rather cover it up than face social embarrassment. Also to protect BR as well.

Completely agree with this. When you think of all of the doctors' visits and JonBenet's return to bed wetting, it seems likely someone close to her was abusing her. Given the nature of the injuries I don't think it was a grown man and I very seriously doubt her mother was doing it. Nearly 10 year old, mentally off-kilter brother? That fits much better. Maybe a very hard clunk on the head with a flashlight (first used to find their way down to the first floor and/or cellar) when the the poor child began to cry or scream? Not being able to rouse the victim and being a scared child himself, the brother may then have run to John and Patsy for help. And at that point, Perfect Patsy might have assumed Jon Benet was dead or dying and knows she can't pretend away what's happened or what's been going on.

The garrote is of course the most chilling part of all of this. I can't see a 10 year old fashioning it, especially considering this was the early days of the World Wide Web (today a smart 10 year old could probably build a nuke) so like the note, it's probably a part of the cover up. It wasn't necessary. The poor baby could have been strangled without it, but it allowed the final act to be more remote, somehow less personal. And Jon Benet would have been facing away at the time, so John or Patsy would not have had to see her face. Tuck her in with blanket, get her favorite nightgown, say some prayers. Saved By The Cross.

 

[icedtea4me]

I don't want to imagine it either. BUT it does happen. It was noted by family friends and housekeeper that they played doctor and when caught they told the house keeper to leave them alone.
Also add in the fact that when someone is abused they are made aware of situations and ideas that those who aren't abused would never know about. I try to keep this in mind. No one of course has confirmed they were abused. But it is a running possibility among sleuths that it could be a possible reason.

I think that when Burke and JonBenet were playing "doctor", they were doing the old "You show me yours and I'll show you mine". What do you think they were doing?

 

[LifeCitizen]

I was always undecided between PDI or BDI.

Seeing his recent video, I'm now quite certain BDI is the right scenario.