Was Burke Involved? # 4

[TexMex]

Because the perpetrator could not be charged, and the DA had committed to not prosecute them. Alex Hunter is a coward. I hope he burns in hell for selling JonBenet out so many times.

IIRC it wasn't Hunter alone who decided not to prosecute.

IMO the Ramsey's were presented with a horrific scene and decision that night. In their minds they had to choose between burying their daughter then losing Burke into the juvenile system...til he's 18? 21? What happens to him there? He's locked up with little in the way of mental health care. If and when he does emerge from ten years of being locked away, what then? He's likely to be even more dangerous. They also will be seen as less than perfect parents who obviously missed something dramatically wrong with their nine year old son.

The other choice and what they decided to do was to stage a kidnap/murder. JonBenet was their daughter. Burke was their son. So, this was a "family matter". They would bury their daughter. They would get Burke into the hands of qualified psychiatric help. They write a note. They call the police. They commit by doing so to stick to the story, protect their son and deal with the fallout. In this way they hope to save Burke from the juvenile system. To give him a shot at "moving on with his life". They also hope to be seen as the victims of a horrible crime, not as the parents of a disturbed son who killed his own sister.

So after the GJ does not indict the parents on murder now Hunter has a decision. Does he prosecute the Ramsey's who will be represented by high priced lawyers and highly paid experts with botched crime scene evidence and try and convince a jury most likely made up of 12 people who also parents that these people should go to jail? For child abuse? For hindering an investigation of their daughter's murder in order to protect their nine year old son? IIRC the DA would not even be able to bring up Burke's name because there is no way under the law he could be legally responsible for the crime due to his age.

IMO the powers that be decided that because of the legal restrictions they were under, this would have to remain a "family matter". John, Patsy and Burke would not be charged. They would be judged in the court of public opinion only.

 

[madeleine]

Maybe someone can help.... been thinking about this statement for a week now, it really bugs me but I can not find any logical explanations for it.
What parent would think like this and WHY? The only explanation I got for it is he thinks of his wife when saying this, she did it to punish him scenario. She knew he loves his son more or something .

Any other ideas?

So I wonder if those, either of those two events

3 might have elevated us into the cross hairs of

4 this maniac. And if they were angry at me, why

5 didn't they take it out on me? If they were angry

6 at me, why didn't they take it out on my son? Why

7 JonBenet?

 

[Ambitioned]

I didn't think either JR or PR were officially charged with anything? Maybe i missed that part?

Sorry I meant two indictments each.

 

[Mandala]

IIRC it wasn't Hunter alone who decided not to prosecute.

IMO the Ramsey's were presented with a horrific scene and decision that night. In their minds they had to choose between burying their daughter then losing Burke into the juvenile system...til he's 18? 21? What happens to him there? He's locked up with little in the way of mental health care. If and when he does emerge from ten years of being locked away, what then? He's likely to be even more dangerous. They also will be seen as less than perfect parents who obviously missed something dramatically wrong with their nine year old son.

The other choice and what they decided to do was to stage a kidnap/murder. JonBenet was their daughter. Burke was their son. So, this was a "family matter". They would bury their daughter. They would get Burke into the hands of qualified psychiatric help. They write a note. They call the police. They commit by doing so to stick to the story, protect their son and deal with the fallout. In this way they hope to save Burke from the juvenile system. To give him a shot at "moving on with his life". They also hope to be seen as the victims of a horrible crime, not as the parents of a disturbed son who killed his own sister.

So after the GJ does not indict the parents on murder now Hunter has a decision. Does he prosecute the Ramsey's who will be represented by high priced lawyers and highly paid experts with botched crime scene evidence and try and convince a jury most likely made up of 12 people who also parents that these people should go to jail? For child abuse? For hindering an investigation of their daughter's murder in order to protect their nine year old son? IIRC the DA would not even be able to bring up Burke's name because there is no way under the law he could be legally responsible for the crime due to his age.

IMO the powers that be decided that because of the legal restrictions they were under, this would have to remain a "family matter". John, Patsy and Burke would not be charged. They would be judged in the court of public opinion only.

Sorry, but I'd say staging a murder of your child is worse than admitting your son needs serious help and living with that. I realise the R's were in a terrible and horrifying situation but it's about what is ethically and morally the right thing to do IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Heymom]

IIRC it wasn't Hunter alone who decided not to prosecute.

IMO the Ramsey's were presented with a horrific scene and decision that night. In their minds they had to choose between burying their daughter then losing Burke into the juvenile system...til he's 18? 21? What happens to him there? He's locked up with little in the way of mental health care. If and when he does emerge from ten years of being locked away, what then? He's likely to be even more dangerous. They also will be seen as less than perfect parents who obviously missed something dramatically wrong with their nine year old son.

The other choice and what they decided to do was to stage a kidnap/murder. JonBenet was their daughter. Burke was their son. So, this was a "family matter". They would bury their daughter. They would get Burke into the hands of qualified psychiatric help. They write a note. They call the police. They commit by doing so to stick to the story, protect their son and deal with the fallout. In this way they hope to save Burke from the juvenile system. To give him a shot at "moving on with his life". They also hope to be seen as the victims of a horrible crime, not as the parents of a disturbed son who killed his own sister.

So after the GJ does not indict the parents on murder now Hunter has a decision. Does he prosecute the Ramsey's who will be represented by high priced lawyers and highly paid experts with botched crime scene evidence and try and convince a jury most likely made up of 12 people who also parents that these people should go to jail? For child abuse? For hindering an investigation of their daughter's murder in order to protect their nine year old son? IIRC the DA would not even be able to bring up Burke's name because there is no way under the law he could be legally responsible for the crime due to his age.

IMO the powers that be decided that because of the legal restrictions they were under, this would have to remain a "family matter". John, Patsy and Burke would not be charged. They would be judged in the court of public opinion only.

But the GJ DID indict the parents on neglect and on assisting a murder in the first degree. He chickened out and also had ties to the Ramsey attorneys. It is incestuous in Boulder. I HATE this case so much!

 

[Heymom]

I do as a matter of fact believe one of the parents committed the crime and the other one helped to cover it up.

We have better information now, than what Steven Thomas working with. The GJ indictments make it as clear as crystal who was responsible for what actions that night. Even Thomas was featured on the CBS special, no longer saying that Patsy did this. I never believed that scenario, for 2 reasons: I don't see Patsy as that angry a person, and also because the physics of such a thing never worked for me. Throwing a child into a faucet or whatever might cause a concussion, lacerate the face or scalp, etc. but it would not and could not cause a hole and crack in her skull like she had. If you study the location of the depression, the person who hit her had to be standing above and slightly behind her. Thomas' theory was wrong.

 

[Ambitioned]

In the past, I could see the probability of her lashing out in rage and striking her with an object. But nah, JB was her own living doll, her investment. She lived vicariously through her and was grooming her. Yes she would have turned a blind eye to Burke's disordered behavior. But she herself wouldn't have done anything to hurt JB.

 

[TexMex]

But the GJ DID indict the parents on neglect and on assisting a murder in the first degree. He chickened out and also had ties to the Ramsey attorneys. It is incestuous in Boulder. I HATE this case so much!

Agree. IMO the powers that be and Hunter realized it would be very hard and very expensive to obtain convictions on those indictments. They would be facing high powered attorneys and the best jury consultants and crime scene, handwriting,DNA, psychiatric experts money could buy. He would be doing so with evidence that was severely compromised due to BPD inexperience. In the long run they would be spending millions on prosecutions hoping to convict two people who buried their child of covering up the fact that their nine year old son was the killer. I'm not sure any jury would convict. JMO

 

[Karinna]

We have better information now, than what Steven Thomas working with. The GJ indictments make it as clear as crystal who was responsible for what actions that night. Even Thomas was featured on the CBS special, no longer saying that Patsy did this. I never believed that scenario, for 2 reasons: I don't see Patsy as that angry a person, and also because the physics of such a thing never worked for me. Throwing a child into a faucet or whatever might cause a concussion, lacerate the face or scalp, etc. but it would not and could not cause a hole and crack in her skull like she had. If you study the location of the depression, the person who hit her had to be standing above and slightly behind her. Thomas' theory was wrong.

PR's housekeeper would disagree with that.

 

[Ambitioned]

In the long run they would be spending millions on prosecutions hoping to convict two people who buried their child of covering up the fact that their nine year old son was the killer. I'm not sure any jury would convict. JMO

Yeah I could see that in court:

"Okay let's talk about the crime."

"What crime?"

 

[Ambitioned]

PR's housekeeper would disagree with that.

They still handed out the indictments after she testified for the GJ.

After reading her sex novel I'm wondering just how reliable her words are. Remember she had nothing but praise about the Ramseys until they pointed fingers at her.

 

[TexMex]

Sorry, but I'd say staging a murder of your child is worse than admitting your son needs serious help and living with that. I realise the R's were in a terrible and horrifying situation but it's about what is ethically and morally the right thing to do IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not saying it was the right thing to do. IMO the Ramsey's rationalized it by thinking they had the resources to get Burke better help than he would get in juvenile detention. That for Burke's future the "moral/ethical" thing to do was not have him locked away. JonBenet was dead. He was all Patsy had left. IMO she begged John help her find a way to "save" Burke.
Would my wife and I be able to see our son led away as our daughter lay in a body bag? Would we decide to use our resources to do what we believed was better for him? I don't know. I don't think a trial jury likely made up of a majority of parents would know either. JMO

 

[RL2]

Not possible. Did you read the indictments? Both were charged with allowing JB to be in a situation that lead to her death and helping the person cover it up. If one parent did it it would be a charge for murder with the other parent getting a charge for cover up. BDI is the only thing that makes sense.

I am not sure that the GJ was concluding that BDI... I think matching indictments on the parents without a first degree murder charge could just as easily indicate that the GJ could not find probable cause for first-degree murder (or they didn't know exactly what all went down that night, but know the parents obstructed and hindered the case through the staging after the fact and child abuse because maybe there were previous signs of child abuse, but unknown by whom).

 

[Karinna]

They still handed out the indictments after she testified for the GJ.

After reading her sex novel I'm wondering just how reliable her words are. Remember she had nothing but praise about the Ramseys until they pointed fingers at her.

Never knew she wrote a sex novel, lol. I imagine she would of been upset about the R's pointing to her.

 

[Karinna]

I am not sure that the GJ was concluding that BDI... I think matching indictments on the parents without a first degree murder charge could just as easily indicate that the GJ could not find probable cause for first-degree murder (or they didn't know exactly what all went down that night, but know the parents obstructed and hindered the case through the staging after the fact and child abuse because maybe there were previous signs of child abuse, but unknown by whom).

Exactly.

 

[TeaTime]

Yeah I could see that in court:

"Okay let's talk about the crime."

"What crime?"

Having an underage perp doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed, it just means that the underage perp will not be prosecuted.

 

[Ambitioned]

No but in their eyes if an infant can't be prosecuted then there's no crime in the eyes of the law. I forget who explained it really well. Probably BlueCrab

 

[Ambitioned]

Never knew she wrote a sex novel, lol. I imagine she would of been upset about the R's pointing to her.

That's just my tongue in cheek comment Here it is:

http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-of-innocent.html?m=1

I know this case is NOT funny but that bit was, about John and his unsucked nether regions. She reminds me of a naughty gramma.

 

[TeaTime]

Working backwards.

The time of death is estimated to be 1am on 12/26. This is when the strangulation occurred. The cord is not a 'garrote" but just a cord with 2 double knots in the back, it wasn't a slip knot or a fancy knot, or a complicated knot, just 2 knots that anyone who can tie their shoelaces could tie. The 2 cords found on the body measure 21 inches. I think they are just shoelaces without the tips.

The head wound came about 45 minutes to 90 minutes prior to death by strangulation. So, the blow came between 11:30pm on 12/25 and 12:15am on 12/26.

The Ramseys left the Whites at 9:00pm or 9:30pm, depending on which interview and day of recollection, but clearly 2 - 3 1/4 hours before the head blow.

They stopped at 2 friends houses on the way and got home between 9:30pm and 10:00pm, 2 - 2 3/4 hours before the head blow.

(I personally find it VERY unbelievable that JR, a Navy pilot, was not a chronic time keeper in life but this is for another discussion)

JR said he and BR stayed up for a while, putting together a BR toy. PR said she was doing last minute packing. This was after the parents put JBR to bed, undressed and dressed her for sleep. The only one not awake (by ALL accounts) was JBR, she was zonked.

JR tells us that PR then went to bed, followed by him putting BR to bed and finally taking his melatonin for sleep so he could awake at 5:25am (the time that the alarm clock was set to ring).

For discussion purposes let's say that 45 minutes to one hour passed between the time they got home and JR went to bed. It is now between 10:15pm and 11pm.

BR admits he sneaked downstairs after everyone was asleep. This puts him downstairs after at least 10:15pm and surely by 11pm.

The pineapple had been consumed 2 - 2.5 hours before death. This puts JBR eating pineapple between 10:30pm and 11:00pm at exactly the time BR was downstairs.

It leaves only few theories. BR witnessed his sister being cracked in the skull by a parent, he did it himself or he witnessed an intruder.

He would have mentioned an intruder. He didn't.

He said he sneaked downstairs - he thought his parents were asleep - but at worst they were in their 3rd floor bedroom.

"Someone took JBR quietly from her room, maybe with a knife, tiptoed downstairs and hit her on the head with maybe a hammer."

Who is it that secretly tiptoed downstairs by their own admission?

Who's knife was found in the WC?

Who's tDNA was on the barbie nightgown?

Who's prints were on both the bowl of pineapple and the tea glass?

Who owned HiTech boots with little compasses on the shoelaces?

Who played in the basement all the time?

Who demonstrated the striking blow?

Who was said to be asleep but was heard speaking in the back ground on the 911?

Who was ushered without a word form the home?

Who pretended to be asleep despite PR and an officer with a flashlight entering his room, his mother screaming into the phone and the house filling up with police and friends?

Who smeared feces, pooped on JBR's candy, was a loner, was only upset if he didn't get expensive toys and smiled at the funeral?

Who was lost for words when he saw a photo of a bowl of pineapple, when he didn't know that pineapple was found during the autopsy and therefore it should have been of no significance to him?

Who put the flashlight in JR's hands and in BR's room rather than in the kitchen drawer that night?

The evidence screams that BR killed JBR, IMO.

Apparently, the GJ thought so too.

I posted this in another thread but it belongs here, I think.

 

[Annapurna]

Also we have to remember that we have more information now than they did initially (like the indictments, the DNA, etc.). Steve Thomas among others popularized the PDI theory soon after the case began. For good reason too, that strange note, the fibers, her behavior, the behavior pre-murder and everything else we know. I think its quite clear (imho) that there is evidence connecting her to the staging of the crime. What I personally (again, all IMHO) cannot see is clear evidence that she actually committed the crime. Arguments can indeed be made for nearly anyone though. As evidenced by the fact that poor Santa Bill is getting trotted out again.