Was Burke Involved? # 4

[dizzychick]

was BR involved? - YES

 

[LisaWL7TR]

If Burke is under the bus, his parents put him on the road and got in the driver's seat. I do believe 9yo Burke killed his sister and I 100% believe he was not morally responsible, because his parents ignored the escalation that was occurring in their extremely dysfunctional household.

Where he earns my disdain is participating in the lie now, as a nearly 30 year old man. I'd give him a pass for maintaining the subterfuge if he did it in silence, in gratitude and deference to his parents' efforts and out of respect for JonBenet - to not publicly lie about his guilt. But he shows his lack of moral fibre by getting involved in the public deception now. Yes, he was raised by terrible people but at some point the responsibility passes onto the individual and 29 is well past that point - otherwise we could just blame a long chain back for the circumstances that led to JonBenet's murder.

My two cents...it is 5 a.m. and I haven't been asleep yet...so I will be short and hope to proof before hitting send.

In the very beginning I thought Burke(possibly jealous brother over Christmas presents).
With his young age and the passing of days and he hadn't confessed then I moved to Patsy.

I never felt John was involved. Imho



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[apabld]

I just wanted to ask a question:

Which pieces of evidence point directly to Burke being the murderer and rules out anyone else?

 

[Ambitioned]

Where he earns my disdain is participating in the lie now, as a nearly 30 year old man.

I agree. I also have a bit of disdain for other siblings too if they know something and kept silent. Maybe they're doing it for John. But none of them behave as a family of a girl who was murdered by an intruder. I think this is one of the most maddening things of this case for me.

Dissolving the foundation with the reward money, lack of public pleas to find the killer, lack of public gratitude to LE and forums such as WS, FFJ, etc thanking for pursuing justice. On Dr. Phil, when told of the forums, BR denied knowing about them but he could have used the opportunity to thank them for their interest in his little sister. Yet, he didn't. I could go on and on. It's no wonder Marc Klaas said something.

No, that never happened in this case, and it’s always been a problem to me. And I understand [John] Ramsey’s situation, and only wish he’d been more cooperative up front so that all of us, including law enforcement, could have gotten past looking at him and his wife. Because quite frankly, if you look at the evidence made available to the public, as well as the conduct of the parents, i.e. refusing in most respects to cooperate with the cops, not give independent interviews with law enforcement, not take polygraphs, to hire a PR firm to handle your image, it seems self-serving. It doesn’t seem to me that that helps JonBenet, or it doesn’t help find who killed JonBenet.

 

[Miz Adventure]

If Burke is under the bus, his parents put him on the road and got in the driver's seat. I do believe 9yo Burke killed his sister and I 100% believe he was not morally responsible, because his parents ignored the escalation that was occurring in their extremely dysfunctional household.

Where he earns my disdain is participating in the lie now, as a nearly 30 year old man. I'd give him a pass for maintaining the subterfuge if he did it in silence, in gratitude and deference to his parents' efforts and out of respect for JonBenet - to not publicly lie about his guilt. But he shows his lack of moral fibre by getting involved in the public deception now. Yes, he was raised by terrible people but at some point the responsibility passes onto the individual and 29 is well past that point - otherwise we could just blame a long chain back for the circumstances that led to JonBenet's murder.

If he admitted to killing his sister it would mean that he would have to re-pay all the money he received in damages from the tabloids, (His parents sued around 7 or 8 tabloids when BR was about 13 years old).

Of course he's now suing Werner Spitz and if he gets a big payout (please God, don't let that happen) that will ensure he will never admit to the crime.

Rather than being upset by accusations I suspect the R's are rather happy because it means another law suit - more money.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I just wanted to ask a question:

Which pieces of evidence point directly to Burke being the murderer and rules out anyone else?

There is no direct evidence pointing specifically to anyone thanks to the complete contamination of the crime scene coupled with the fact that the only viable potential suspects lived in the house. However, many believe he is the best suspect by exclusion. There was no intruder, so that means one of three certain people murdered her, or at least set off the violence that ended in her death. I've always believed he made the most sense because I have trouble seeing the parents either killing her together or one covering for the other. But I can see them both deciding that night they'd cover for their son and Patsy's only remaining child.

Over the years as more information has emerged, I've become convinced it was Burke. And it would seem the Grand Jury who heard evidence for many months - evidence we have not seen - came to the same conclusion as they recommended both parents be charged with aiding and abetting the killer after the fact and keeping their child in a dangerous situation leading to her death. But not the murder itself.

 

[ozazure]

If he admitted to killing his sister it would mean that he would have to re-pay all the money he received in damages from the tabloids, (His parents sued around 7 or 8 tabloids when BR was about 13 years old).

Of course he's now suing Werner Spitz and if he gets a big payout (please God, don't let that happen) that will ensure he will never admit to the crime.

Rather than being upset by accusations I suspect the R's are rather happy because it means another law suit - more money.

The damage is done, JonBenet is dead, the money spent on the investigation is gone, the law suits paid out - I don't expect Burke as an adult to pay financially or otherwise for the choices adults made around his actions as a child. It should have been dealt with properly at the time, their community would have likely known what had happened but the Ramsey influence could have prevented this becoming one of the biggest true crime stories ever. They could have moved and began a new life and this would not dog him. He didn't get to make that choice so I don't morally expect he should now confess and have that all come down on his head. I do expect that he shouldn't be out there spinning the lies and pursuing further law suits.

 

[Tortoise]

The damage is done, JonBenet is dead, the money spent on the investigation is gone, the law suits paid out - I don't expect Burke as an adult to pay financially or otherwise for the choices adults made around his actions as a child. It should have been dealt with properly at the time, their community would have likely known what had happened but the Ramsey influence could have prevented this becoming one of the biggest true crime stories ever. They could have moved and began a new life and this would not dog him. He didn't get to make that choice so I don't morally expect he should now confess and have that all come down on his head. I do expect that he shouldn't be out there spinning the lies and pursuing further law suits.

Would you still say that if he is innocent?

 

[otg]

(bbm)

If he admitted to killing his sister it would mean that he would have to re-pay all the money he received in damages from the tabloids, (His parents sued around 7 or 8 tabloids when BR was about 13 years old).

Of course he's now suing Werner Spitz and if he gets a big payout (please God, don't let that happen) that will ensure he will never admit to the crime.

Rather than being upset by accusations I suspect the R's are rather happy because it means another law suit - more money.

Each of those cases was settled out of court. Not one of them went to trial. That means that whatever the settlement terms were, they were agreed upon by both parties. Finding the facts to be different from what could be proven at the time of the settlement doesn't change or alter what had been agreed to (by both parties) previously.

If OTOH the lawsuit had gone to court and it was a judgement handed down by a judge or a jury, (and I'm not certain of this, but I think) the losing party could ask for a retrial with new information that wasn't introduced in the earlier hearing. What I'm not certain of in this case is whether or not the fact that it was a civil case instead of a criminal trial would have a bearing on being able to re-hear the case, or if another separate lawsuit would have to be filed.

 

[apabld]

There is no direct evidence pointing specifically to anyone thanks to the complete contamination of the crime scene coupled with the fact that the only viable potential suspects lived in the house. However, many believe he is the best suspect by exclusion. There was no intruder, so that means one of three certain people murdered her, or at least set off the violence that ended in her death. I've always believed he made the most sense because I have trouble seeing the parents either killing her together or one covering for the other. But I can see them both deciding that night they'd cover for their son and Patsy's only remaining child.

Over the years as more information has emerged, I've become convinced it was Burke. And it would seem the Grand Jury who heard evidence for many months - evidence we have not seen - came to the same conclusion as they recommended both parents be charged with aiding and abetting the killer after the fact and keeping their child in a dangerous situation leading to her death. But not the murder itself.

Thanks for the response, HarmonyE. I do agree that Burke seems to be the most likely suspect given all the information we have, and if the intruder theory is discounted.

Most people seem to be BDI on here, so I'd just like to ask: is there anything (no matter how small) that gives you doubt of the BDI theory?

 

[kanzz]

Thanks for the response, HarmonyE. I do agree that Burke seems to be the most likely suspect given all the information we have, and if the intruder theory is discounted.

Most people seem to be BDI on here, so I'd just like to ask: is there anything (no matter how small) that gives you doubt of the BDI theory?

Weighing in: I've found nothing that gives me any doubt.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for the response, HarmonyE. I do agree that Burke seems to be the most likely suspect given all the information we have, and if the intruder theory is discounted.

Most people seem to be BDI on here, so I'd just like to ask: is there anything (no matter how small) that gives you doubt of the BDI theory?

apabld,
The case could be PDI. There is no smoking gun demonstrating it was BR. There is more forensic evidence linking PR to the wine-cellar than BR. Yet the totality of the circumstantial evidence seems to point in BR's direction. The GJ seemed to back this up with their true bill, and BR appearing on Dr Phil did himself no favors at all.

To cap it all off after watching Dr Phil I read online about the dna being an amalgam of stranger dna, thus representing a fiction. Alongside a picture of the urine stained long johns worn by JonBenet, that patently belong to BR!

I do not see either Patsy or John fabricating a crime-scene where they dress JonBenet in over sized underwear and male long johns.

Only one person in that house would think all that was appropriate, and for all the wrong reasons.

.

 

[k-mac]

Thanks for the response, HarmonyE. I do agree that Burke seems to be the most likely suspect given all the information we have, and if the intruder theory is discounted.

Most people seem to be BDI on here, so I'd just like to ask: is there anything (no matter how small) that gives you doubt of the BDI theory?

the GJ bills is my BDI kicker but everytime i start reading and listening to PR my instincts scream at me self preservation.
can't shake it.
BR is shady as **** but so is his mother .....so is his father lol
for me its my parental feelings that even though i support BDI (it makes plenty of sense) i personally feel the whole picture isnt as ugly as that. (although it could well be...:thinking
these people werent weirdo's per say.....
they were over all the typical upstanding upper class law abinding family (in PRs mind!!)
my P&JDI fits with the entire situation an escalating domestic situation revolving around PR grooming her little miss america to perfection.
the more successful JBR was becoming the hungrier PR was for it.
the higher the stakes...the higher the pressure for JBR to perform.
PR would not cover for anyone killing her dream. thats my kicker for PDI.
:cheers:

 

[singularity]

It does happen.

Do you think John Ramsey knows the truth about the murder? If he does and Patsy is solely responsible for the murder and the horrific staging, do you think he would cover for her? Want to stay married to her? Want her to raise his youngest surviving child? What if she went "psycho" again?

Of course he knows the truth. Even if he doesn't know everything, he knows who did it and why. There's no way in hell he could've read that ransom note and not immediately realized it was Patsy talking to him. If he doesn't know what's going on, why is he doing spring cleaning in the basement while the cops are there?

Yes he would cover for her...stay married to her til the end...they had many secrets....who else is going to raise Burke?.....and she probably did go psycho again.....it just didn't lead to another murder.



UK....

This is basically where I land. Could Patsy have done it? Yes, but I can’t see John covering for her. They were hardly lovebirds; it seemed more of a business relationship. If she was that crazy, she needed help. Why would he want her around his surviving child when he’d already lost two?

You can turn this around and ask the same thing. If Burke killed her, he's crazy and needs help. Would they want a child who bashes heads in during snacks in their house? Imagine family meals for starters. YOu would be able to cut the tension with a knife. Also imagine the two of them going to bed every night knowing they have to sleep while the lunatic could come in there at any time and do to them what he did to her.

Of course it wasn't a loving relationship. That whole family was dysfunction junction. The ransom note gives us a peak through the window of their relationship.

I know some people think John went along because Patsy would rat him out as a child molester, but there is no evidence to support this allegation against him

She was being abused by someone so even if simply by default that places John on the list of suspects in that department.

If John was the murderer, I think Patsy would have impulsively and instinctively turned on him in a New York minute.

And overturn the apple cart? Not likely.

Miz Adventure...

Even if he didn't do it, the killing of his sister has turned into a nice little earner.

Many people made money off of this girl's corpse. If Burke didn't do it and I obviously don't think he did, he has every right to sue for being accused of her murder. While I don't think he deserves millions for the allegation, on the list of people who made money off of Jonbenet, Burke is last on the list.


icedtea4me....

It looks to me like he's holding a big towel.

A college kid carrying his clothes. No big deal.

Now if he was carrying a suitcase containing semen stained blankets and Dr. Seuss books.....

I recall seeing an interview with Barbara Walters or someone of that stature and he seemed clearly on some kind of drug - perhaps cocaine? He kept repeatedly licking his lips in a chewing motion, like he had extreme dry mouth. I just wondered if he'd had a drug habit for a while and if that might factor into the less than perfect hidden side of the Ramsey family that was kept away from the public eye

Meth....or cocaine.... and pain pills can also be uppers even though they are technically synthetic heroin. Oxy users can experience cotton mouth...really bad.

I agree that layers need to be peeled back and they never even really bothered to dig into the drug angle...which sadly could've played a huge role in the chaos that night.

Patsy was a pill popper and JOhn admitted to taking antidepressants. What else did he take? Awhile back DeDee or Olivia posted a story from someone who witnessed Patsy doing some bat poop crazy things in public. It was a perfect description of someone riding one of those pill highs. Oxy and benzos are highly addictive. I was a user off and on for many years. The worst thing about it is the withdrawals....as a user and someone who has witnessed other users experiencing it. A person in withdrawal is capable of almost anything. The smallest thing can agitate them as they are already highly agitated in the first place.


apabld....

Which pieces of evidence point directly to Burke being the murderer and rules out anyone else?

None.


Ambitioned....

I also have a bit of disdain for other siblings too if they know something and kept silent. Maybe they're doing it for John. But none of them behave as a family of a girl who was murdered by an intruder. I think this is one of the most maddening things of this case for me.

Absolutely. It shows the dysfunction ran deep and that none of the people in this family really cared much for her. She had older siblings who basically just moved on with their life immediately. No one was an advocate for justice.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Weighing in: I've found nothing that gives me any doubt.

Me neither. Granted there is no smoking gun here, but he is the only one who makes complete sense to me. Always has. But since learning of the GJ's indictments and now watching him interviewed both then and now, I feel more strongly about it than ever before.

 

[ozazure]

Would you still say that if he is innocent?

Well if he is innocent because it was an intruder, it is not lies. However I find the intruder theory implausible. If he knew one of his parents is responsible I believe he should share that information, instead of doubling down, so he is even more reprehensible than the situation I believe he is in now, which is lying about the crime he committed as a child.

 

[Tortoise]

Well if he is innocent because it was an intruder, it is not lies. However I find the intruder theory implausible. If he knew one of his parents is responsible I believe he should share that information, instead of doubling down, so he is even more reprehensible than the situation I believe he is in now, which is lying about the crime he committed as a child.

And then there is the 3rd possibility that he knows nothing. It makes the most sense in terms of not living in fear of his parents afterwards.

JBR was hit in her bedroom as she was being readied for bed (shortly after eating her pineapple) they closed her door and started whispering about what to do, Burke who had been in his bedroom at the other end of the house getting ready for bed then crept down to play in the dark and had heard nothing. He then either takes himself back to bed or one of the parents finds him downstairs and puts him to bed. There is the possibility of a long interval between the head injury and the strangulation, moving her from her bedroom to the basement.

I don't think it's coincidence that a lot of elements of the crime can be located to that end of the house. (JAR's rope, penknife, spiral stairs, ransom note pad etc)

 

[Miz Adventure]

Awhile back DeDee or Olivia posted a story from someone who witnessed Patsy doing some bat poop crazy things in public. It was a perfect description of someone riding one of those pill highs..

What did they witness? Just curious.

 

[otg]

What did they witness? Just curious.

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com...howComment=1241688240000#c5579343533036210003

 

[mrseeker]

I suppose all of the angst and theories in WS on this case just proves Alex Hunter was right not bringing charges. How would he ever prove any theory beyond a reasonable doubt? I think the GJ came up with their best solution. One of the 3 people alive in the house that morning did it. And the only two legally able to be charged were held responsible basically by not preventing the murder by the other or by the child. AH probably thought that charge would be DOA in the first hearing.