Was Burke Involved? # 4

[PositiveLight]

A couple of things are crossing my mind atm...
Has anyone else thought how dangerous it was (if BDI) that they sent him off to someone elses home without proper psych care? I mean if he did kill JonBenet, he could have still been a time bomb. He could've killed any other kids that day. WTH.
If it was my kid I'd want him under me for two possible reasons 1.) He could be a danger to others 2.)He could be IN danger if he wasn't guilty.
Either way WTH were they thinking letting him leave their eyesight???
I do think both parents truly grieved the loss of JonBenet even if it were at the hands of their only surviving child. I can't imagine the dysfunction and feelings they must have had in their home after her death. I'm not so sure I'd ever feel safe around him.
I do think they covered up the crime to save their only remaining child?
Yes but I don't think it was done easily. Do they probably have regrets? I'm sure!
Hindsight is 20/20
I think BDI with intent. Although I'm not sure he understood how permanent it would be.
JMOO though.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

(BBM)

I don't think she was thinking clearly enough to realize that she may be suspected if she covered for him. She was thinking people would just buy her story. I don't think the R's could have ever anticipated the ridiculous amount of media attention, the number of people pouring over every detail of the case.

I think there is a little bit of hindsight syndrome going on when people try to talk about how the R's behaved illogically (which they did). There was not a whole lot of logic going through their minds I imagine.

They also couldn't know how big or advanced both the internet and technology would become. Or how cheap, so that all the land could could enjoy it. Thus making the world a whole lot smaller. Shout out to the UK, Germany, Mexico, Canada and all those not named! Thanks for being here today for Jonbenet! :greetings:

 

[Charliegirl610]

A couple of things are crossing my mind atm...
Has anyone else thought how dangerous it was (if BDI) that they sent him off to someone elses home without proper psych care? I mean if he did kill JonBenet, he could have still been a time bomb. He could've killed any other kids that day. WTH.
If it was my kid I'd want him under me for two possible reasons 1.) He could be a danger to others 2.)He could be IN danger if he wasn't guilty.
Either way WTH were they thinking letting him leave their eyesight???
I do think both parents truly grieved the loss of JonBenet even if it were at the hands of their only surviving child. I can't imagine the dysfunction and feelings they must have had in their home after her death. I'm not so sure I'd ever feel safe around him.
I do think they covered up the crime to save their only remaining child?
Yes but I don't think it was done easily. Do they probably have regrets? I'm sure!
Hindsight is 20/20
I think BDI with intent. Although I'm not sure he understood how permanent it would be.
JMOO though.

I think getting him out of the house was the only option for them. Can you imagine all the questioning that was going on that morning? Not just by the Police but the family friends and the advocates. BR had to be removed from the house for fear of being questioned and possibly saying something that did not align with the story I'm sure was well rehearsed with him by the parents. By all accounts BR kept to himself, played by himself, was in his own little world. My guess is he is not much of a talker. I think that the Ramsey's stressed the importance of removing him to shield him from the "trauma" of what was going on. I'm certain the Whites and the caregivers at the Whites house would not be questioning him. It was safer for him to be out of the house then there where he would be questioned and possibly misspeak giving anything away. They knew he was not in danger by leaving the home. It too believe his actions were intentional and that he did not understand the gravity of his actions when it came to hurting JBR that night. I think the Ramsey's had no idea this would become national news or even statewide news. But once they gave their version of events that morning they were bound to stick by that story. I'm certain if they could have turned time back and handle JBR's death differently they would have, given their uncooperative inconsistent stories have plagued them all these years.At the time I think it was fear of losing PR's only living child and vanity to keep up appearances as the innocent perfect family that drove them to their web of lies. moo

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,
The CBS lawyer said there was nothing impeding the GJ from charging either parent with Murder 1 charges. Its maybe not hard proof, but since we all know why the third party is referred to as a person, i.e. BR was an infant under Colorado Statute, so becomes anonymous.

If person referred to a parent why not name them, they are already down for two other charges, so there is no need for anonymity?

The GJ are saying they think the case is definitely BDI with the parents staging the wine-cellar, etc. Of course they might be wrong and its really PDI, and like OJ, she got away with murder?

.

BIB They don't know which one to name, is a possible reason.

 

[Tortoise]

A couple of things are crossing my mind atm...
Has anyone else thought how dangerous it was (if BDI) that they sent him off to someone elses home without proper psych care? I mean if he did kill JonBenet, he could have still been a time bomb. He could've killed any other kids that day. WTH.
If it was my kid I'd want him under me for two possible reasons 1.) He could be a danger to others 2.)He could be IN danger if he wasn't guilty.
Either way WTH were they thinking letting him leave their eyesight???
I do think both parents truly grieved the loss of JonBenet even if it were at the hands of their only surviving child. I can't imagine the dysfunction and feelings they must have had in their home after her death. I'm not so sure I'd ever feel safe around him.
I do think they covered up the crime to save their only remaining child?
Yes but I don't think it was done easily. Do they probably have regrets? I'm sure!
Hindsight is 20/20
I think BDI with intent. Although I'm not sure he understood how permanent it would be.
JMOO though.

I'm not disagreeing with you PL. But just consider two parents abandoning their 6 year old daughter's body, laying choked with cord and with tape across her mouth, in cold rigor mortis, in a damp cellar beneath them. And contrast that with the primping and dolling her up in a ballerina dress at her funeral a couple of days later.

Sorry I'm even attaching this to your post, because it seems aimed at you and it's not. It's just how I see those parents.

 

[PositiveLight]

I'm not disagreeing with you PL. But just consider two parents abandoning their 6 year old daughter's body, laying choked with cord and with tape across her mouth, in cold rigor mortis, in a damp cellar beneath them. And contrast that with the primping and dolling her up in a ballerina dress at her funeral a couple of days later.

Sorry I'm even attaching this to your post, because it seems aimed at you and it's not. It's just how I see those parents.

I totally get what you mean. They were all about appearances. The whole thing disgusts me.
Don't forget the floor was moldy too. Poor little angel 😭

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Scandigirl]

Hi Uk Guy, I agree that the wording "person" could be because it's referring to an infant.

What about the wording that John and Patsy assisted someone who they "knew had committed" and was "suspected"? Was Burke ever officially named or considered a suspect? Would that be relevant in that case? If Burke has never been an official suspect, would that maybe mean that there is someone else apart from the 3 people in the house- a person known to the parents, and possibly also to Burke?

If not BDI, (not saying it was or wasn't!), another alternative is that Burke is strange and "off" etc but without being guilty, and that he either witnessed something, or even interrupted someone else when he was downstairs alone in the middle of the night. Although, this is the most unlikely scenario, and it the simpler option is probably that he was the culprit.

Also, the wording says that John and Patsy both "knew" what the person they were assisting had done. Do you think that means that they definitely knew about the head bash? If they didn't, it would mean that Burke must have done the strangulation, and the parents both knew it. I guess we can't know the answer to that!

Also, the wording of "murder in the First Degree"- what exactly does that charge involve? Would that mean that the GJ believed it was done with deliberate intent, as that clearly doesn't mean an accident? All just speculation, imo, of course.

 

[observation]

(0508-12) 12 SMIT: Just one more question. I have got a photograph here called 17.7. Somehow this is in your roll of pictures or someone's roll of pictures from before, okay, and it shows, first of all, put it to the camera so they can see that. And I am going to show you that.
(0508-20) LOU SMIT: Do you know who would have taken that photograph? JOHN RAMSEY: It's remotely possible that I was having trouble with my camera, I think, and I don't remember doing this, but I can remember just clicking the camera, trying to see if it worked. LOU SMIT: When was that? JOHN RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know. I mean it was, you know, the only time we got the cameras out were typically at Christmas time. But this looks like the pad frankly that I gave her. LOU SMIT: Does that look like the spot where you would -- that you picked it up from? JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, my recollection, yeah. LOU SMIT: So that could be the actual pad of a picture taken prior to what happened? JOHN RAMSEY: That's possible.
(0509-07) LOU SMIT: What else do you notice? JOHN RAMSEY: Well, this bag is still there, the school bag in the corner. The toy is still roughly where it was. There is a, I think that was a Santa Claus or something that was -- LOU SMIT: Santa Claus suit? JOHN RAMSEY: Suit, yeah, or something, likes look. I don't remember what it was. But that's there. Looks like it's still in this picture. This red present is still there. Day-Timer is not there in this picture. LOU SMIT: What? JOHN RAMSEY: The Day-Timer doesn't look like it's there in this picture. LOU SMIT: In the picture taken prior, the Day-Timer is not there? JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I think that is -- I think that is my Day-Timer, but I am not sure. I had one that was similar, black.
(0511-13) LOU SMIT: You notice the bags that are in this picture dated prior, the prior one, the bags, the plastic bags, does it appear as they have been moved to you? JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum. Definitely. LOU SMIT: Do you know why they would have been moved? JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know what's in there. I mean it -- there is something else of course here on the floor, looks like a stocking or something, Christmas stocking. But no, I don't. I mean I can't -- sometimes when we bag up clothes that we were going to give away, you know, that might have been what that was.
Taken from acandyrose website. In looking at these photos from before/after the kid napping- these findings are so interesting to me. Perhaps BR put that Santa suit on. Why would it be in the photos and then removed????
I have spent a lot of time trying to see differences in the before/after and a lot are redacted. Anyone catch any more? Another was that JR's golf bag was moved.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

The santa suit was in the before and after photos from that transcript, observation

 

[observation]

The santa suit was in the before and after photos from that transcript, observation

That's not how I read it. Need to go back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[observation]

The santa suit was in the before and after photos from that transcript, observation

This was from JR's film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

This was from JR's film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not following your train of thought here. the santa suit was in JR's pictures before Christmas morning and in the police pictures on 26th.

 

[Heymom]

Hi Uk Guy, I agree that the wording "person" could be because it's referring to an infant.

What about the wording that John and Patsy assisted someone who they "knew had committed" and was "suspected"? Was Burke ever officially named or considered a suspect? Would that be relevant in that case? If Burke has never been an official suspect, would that maybe mean that there is someone else apart from the 3 people in the house- a person known to the parents, and possibly also to Burke?

If not BDI, (not saying it was or wasn't!), another alternative is that Burke is strange and "off" etc but without being guilty, and that he either witnessed something, or even interrupted someone else when he was downstairs alone in the middle of the night. Although, this is the most unlikely scenario, and it the simpler option is probably that he was the culprit.

Also, the wording says that John and Patsy both "knew" what the person they were assisting had done. Do you think that means that they definitely knew about the head bash? If they didn't, it would mean that Burke must have done the strangulation, and the parents both knew it. I guess we can't know the answer to that!

Also, the wording of "murder in the First Degree"- what exactly does that charge involve? Would that mean that the GJ believed it was done with deliberate intent, as that clearly doesn't mean an accident? All just speculation, imo, of course.

My but people are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to figure out what is so obvious ...

There was no one else in that house on the night of 12/25/1996. Why, in all this time, would the Ramseys not give that person up, if they knew who had killed JonBenet? Why would the GJ indict both parents with child neglect and with being accessories and assisting in the murder of JonBenet, and not name the murder and charge him/her?

This thread has just gone all haywire with people going back to IDI or F(friend)DI or whatever. Anything not to believe it was really Burke.

This is not personal to you, you're just that last person I came upon after reading a LOT of posts about the GJ indictments.

 

[Tortoise]

(0508-12) 12 SMIT: Just one more question. I have got a photograph here called 17.7. Somehow this is in your roll of pictures or someone's roll of pictures from before, okay, and it shows, first of all, put it to the camera so they can see that. And I am going to show you that.
(0508-20) LOU SMIT: Do you know who would have taken that photograph? JOHN RAMSEY: It's remotely possible that I was having trouble with my camera, I think, and I don't remember doing this, but I can remember just clicking the camera, trying to see if it worked. LOU SMIT: When was that? JOHN RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know. I mean it was, you know, the only time we got the cameras out were typically at Christmas time. But this looks like the pad frankly that I gave her. LOU SMIT: Does that look like the spot where you would -- that you picked it up from? JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, my recollection, yeah. LOU SMIT: So that could be the actual pad of a picture taken prior to what happened? JOHN RAMSEY: That's possible.
(0509-07) LOU SMIT: What else do you notice? JOHN RAMSEY: Well, this bag is still there, the school bag in the corner. The toy is still roughly where it was. There is a, I think that was a Santa Claus or something that was -- LOU SMIT: Santa Claus suit? JOHN RAMSEY: Suit, yeah, or something, likes look. I don't remember what it was. But that's there. Looks like it's still in this picture. This red present is still there. Day-Timer is not there in this picture. LOU SMIT: What? JOHN RAMSEY: The Day-Timer doesn't look like it's there in this picture. LOU SMIT: In the picture taken prior, the Day-Timer is not there? JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I think that is -- I think that is my Day-Timer, but I am not sure. I had one that was similar, black.
(0511-13) LOU SMIT: You notice the bags that are in this picture dated prior, the prior one, the bags, the plastic bags, does it appear as they have been moved to you? JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum. Definitely. LOU SMIT: Do you know why they would have been moved? JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know what's in there. I mean it -- there is something else of course here on the floor, looks like a stocking or something, Christmas stocking. But no, I don't. I mean I can't -- sometimes when we bag up clothes that we were going to give away, you know, that might have been what that was.
Taken from acandyrose website. In looking at these photos from before/after the kid napping- these findings are so interesting to me. Perhaps BR put that Santa suit on. Why would it be in the photos and then removed????
I have spent a lot of time trying to see differences in the before/after and a lot are redacted. Anyone catch any more? Another was that JR's golf bag was moved.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bit in red

 

[observation]

not following your train of thought here. the santa suit was in JR's pictures before Christmas morning and in the police pictures on 26th.

Wow- I need a break. Looking for hidden clues not even here. Sorry to confuse or misinform anyone. I'm usually more careful. Grrr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

My but people are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to figure out what is so obvious ...

There was no one else in that house on the night of 12/25/1996. Why, in all this time, would the Ramseys not give that person up, if they knew who had killed JonBenet? Why would the GJ indict both parents with child neglect and with being accessories and assisting in the murder of JonBenet, and not name the murder and charge him/her?

This thread has just gone all haywire with people going back to IDI or F(friend)DI or whatever. Anything not to believe it was really Burke.

This is not personal to you, you're just that last person I came upon after reading a LOT of posts about the GJ indictments.

Supposedly when the Atlanta burglary happened they were down at the station cooperating and insisting the perp be found.

With Jonbenet, they did not cooperate. They surrounded themselves with friends (i.e. the gatekeeper), lawyers, public relations, and media appearances.

If it was IDI or FDI Patsy would throw them under the bus and be down at the station or cooperating with detectives and LE. If IDI she would have kept Burke by her side rather than sending him off to friends to avoid questions. Covering up for Burke is the only thing that makes sense. That and the language of the true bills.

Let's not turn out like the JB subreddit where everyone is grasping at straws trying to convince themselves Burke couldn't have done it. Why not? Three boys ages 9, 10, and 11 just doused a 10 yr old and set him on fire. We all know Burke had anger and resentment and was well capable of hurting JB.

 

[PositiveLight]

What is a day timer? *Goes to look it up* I think JR was being evasive to the Santa suit imho.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[PositiveLight]

Does he mean a day planner???

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

The organizer things people used before smartphones :happydance:

 

[PositiveLight]

bit in red

He seems very evasive in regards to the Santa suit. He wants to take away the eyes looking at it and point to something else. Why did he become so frustrated at that moment? Makes you wonder. The Ramsey's should have been magicians. They are damn good at slight of hand tricks.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk