Was Burke involved?

[bettybaby00]

I've answered your question three times now.

Here comes the fourth:

IMO the headbash came first. That alone would have killed her.
She was very very close to death when Patsy laid eyes on her. She appeared to Patsy to be already dead.

Patsy couldn't bare the thought of losing Burke too. She would have no idea what the law would do with or to Burke. She panicked.

It didn't appear like an accident. Her panties were off, she was bleeding from her vagina.

Her brilliant plan: kidnapping by a foreign faction.



The staging to me indicates two people with different ideas on how to cover it up.

Patsy knew where that knife was. And she knew that white blanket was in the dryer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much the likely scenario. The other is that she was already dead, in fact I I think this may have been the case.

 

[MyBelle]

We've witnessed the lengths a parent is often willing to go to cover for, excuse or deny their child's actions,
Countless times following trials.
Why it's so shocking to some of you confuses me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His parents lied about circumstances prior to the crime. Why would they do that? Whether it was an accident or deliberate, there is no reason for the parents to lie about circumstances PRIOR to the murder unless they were directly involved in the crimes. How does lying about what happened once they returned home protect Burke? How does lying about going to bed and at what time protect Burke? Or eating pineapple? These lies were going on when they wanted everyone to believe it was a kidnapping by an intruder.

Burke was interviewed by police and would know about his actions before he went to bed. I think he remembered whether Dad read him a story and tucked him in. Do you really believe his parents or their lawyers would let him be interviewed by police if he was directly involved? I don't.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM- I would very much like to be able to look at some of the many cases you speak of- especially since it is, as you say, "used every day now to look at cases and resolve them."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...cigarette-dna-linked-murder-article-1.1463394

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...t-paper-roll-puts-murderer-away-for-life.html

http://pursuitwire.com/2012/03/touch-dna-used-in-solving-nonviolent-property-crimes/


As you can see there are many many cases everyday that are being solved by Touch DNA. Some murders some property issues but everyday it is used more and more to solve cases.

There is no dispute that Tdna solves cases.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yet to me, it's the only theory that doesnt fit at all.

I'm still asking - mums - under what circumstance would you kill one child to save another?

You, personally?

No one can answer this question it seems.

Imo, there is not a single scenario in which we (normal loving mothers) can contemplate such an act. We would probably rather kill ourselves.

A mother who behaves differently per PR, does not view her children as individuals at all, rather as bit actors in her own personal drama. PR's behaviour regarding the pageants tends to confirm this.

Ironically I can imagine my own mother behaving as PR did, but even she would call 911 rather than put herself to the trouble of staging. She'd happily blame one of her other kids as a true narcissist would.

The only time someone like this would go to all that trouble is if SHE HERSELF committed. the murder.

:moo:

I don't exactly know why you seem so convinced it was patsy who "finished her off." It could have just as easily been john, and to me, if JRB was deliberately finished off, he is more likely to have been the one to do it, IMO

Think of the note:

*Don't try to grow a brain John.
*Don't underestimate us John.
*Use that good southern common sense of yours.
*It is up to you now John!

Or put another way...

"Make it look good John or we're all going to jail."

I know I've answered this before, but for me personally, I can't conceive of any situation where I would kill one of my kids to save the other.


Oh wait one just popped into my head:

Child A is a strung out, teenage drug addict holding a knife at his little sister's throat, threatening to kill her if you don't go to the bank and get him money for drugs. Pleading, begging, and arguing are only making him more agitated and angry. You finally agree, but while brushing past him, you grab a knife off the kitchen counter and plunge it into him.

Not quite the same I know, but you asked for a scenario and I'm giving you one.

There have been numerous examples posted of what other parents have done to protect their kid. I know I have used the CA trial as an example.

And another example just came to mind:

You wake in the middle of the night to the smell of smoke. When you run out into the hallway, it's filled with smoke, and flames. You run into child As room 1st, b/c it's closer. You find him unconscious from the smoke, and haul him out of bed, staggering back out to the hallway. The flames have become more intense, and you're becoming light-headed now yourself. You hold your son closer, and realize that if you go to grab your daughter the flames will be consuming the stairs. Blinded by tears, and screaming for help, you run down the stairs and out into the night.

Did you put your hands around your daughter's neck and kill her? No, yet your actions led to one child living, and the other one dying. Why? b/c kid As room was a couple of feet closer than your daughter's. In a only a few moments of panic, you had to decide if saving the child in your arms, and subsequently yourself was more important than risking it all and trying to reach that other bedroom door.

I sincerely hope I haven't hit too close to home for anybody with these two stories, cause sadly they've played out countless times. If I have, I apologize in advance.

 

[Linda7NJ]

His parents lied about circumstances prior to the crime. Why would they do that? Whether it was an accident or deliberate, there is no reason for the parents to lie about circumstances PRIOR to the murder unless they were directly involved in the crimes. How does lying about what happened once they returned home protect Burke? How does lying about going to bed and at what time protect Burke? Or eating pineapple? These lies were going on when they wanted everyone to believe it was a kidnapping by an intruder.



Burke was interviewed by police and would know about his actions before he went to bed. I think he remembered whether Dad read him a story and tucked him in. Do you really believe his parents or their lawyers would let him be interviewed by police if he was directly involved? I don't.

When lying or encouraging someone else to...it's easier to tell him to say, we came home, I went to bed...I know nothing until my dad & fleet woke me up. K.I.S.S. Is the way to go when encouraging a child to lie.

That's exactly what parents do when they have their children make false allegations.
That's why the all the little details...aren't known or provided. Children can't remember them and the allegation unravels.
That's exactly why the details about what exactly happened when the Ramsey's got home and all the movements that morning are important...that's why law enforcement asks about the details. The devil is always in the details. People aren't smart enough to get the whole story, complete with details, straight.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...cigarette-dna-linked-murder-article-1.1463394



http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...t-paper-roll-puts-murderer-away-for-life.html



http://pursuitwire.com/2012/03/touch-dna-used-in-solving-nonviolent-property-crimes/





As you can see there are many many cases everyday that are being solved by Touch DNA. Some murders some property issues but everyday it is used more and more to solve cases.



There is no dispute that Tdna solves cases.

Not the same.

Cigarette butt dudes TDNA was found on the known murder weapon and matched someone already in the system.

Toilet paper dude...was already a suspect and they searched places he likely touched.

Find a case please where there are multiple sources (6) of tDna not matching a single suspect and not found in the data base. And it lead to the crime being solved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

When lying or encouraging someone else to...it's easier to tell him to say, we came home, I went to bed...I know nothing until my dad & fleet woke me up. K.I.S.S. Is the way to go when encouraging a child to lie.

That's exactly what parents do when they have their children make false allegations.
That's why the all the little details...aren't known or provided. Children can't remember them and the allegation unravels.
That's exactly why the details about what exactly happened when the Ramsey's got home and all the movements that morning are important...that's why law enforcement asks about the details. The devil is always in the details. People aren't smart enough to get the whole story, complete with details, straight.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know any parent who would encourage their kid to lie to police. Especially Presbyterians who make sure their kids go to Church. I was raised a Presbyterian and I dared not lie to anybody and instilled that in my own kids. Burke wouldn't lie to a Grand Jury especially after swearing to tell the truth. No way.

 

[Frigga]

I don't know any parent who would encourage their kid to lie to police. Especially Presbyterians who make sure their kids go to Church. I was raised a Presbyterian and I dared not lie to anybody and instilled that in my own kids. Burke wouldn't lie to a Grand Jury especially after swearing to tell the truth. No way.

Are you serious?

 

[Frigga]

In LE's first interview with Burke a mere 5-6 hours after Burke Ramsey left his own house, he gave two conflicting stories. One of them was a lie- if one of them was true, or they both were lies.

 

[MyBelle]

Are you serious?

Yes, totally serious. There is absolutely no evidence Burke was instructed to lie to police or the Grand Jury. That's only a far-fetched notion by those desperate to believe Burke was directly involved in the crime, imo.

 

[Frigga]

I don't know any parent who would encourage their kid to lie to police. Especially Presbyterians who make sure their kids go to Church. I was raised a Presbyterian and I dared not lie to anybody and instilled that in my own kids. Burke wouldn't lie to a Grand Jury especially after swearing to tell the truth. No way.

Isn't your theory that Patsey killed JonBenet?

So Presbyterian Patsy would lie but the son she raised Presbyterian wouldn't lie?

In your opinion did John lie?

 

[bettybaby00]

I don't know any parent who would encourage their kid to lie to police. Especially Presbyterians who make sure their kids go to Church. I was raised a Presbyterian and I dared not lie to anybody and instilled that in my own kids. Burke wouldn't lie to a Grand Jury especially after swearing to tell the truth. No way.

Especially Presbyterians? What does that have to do with it? I'm pretty sure ALL religions believe lying is wrong.

Of course most parents wouldn't encourage their child to lie to police...innocent people that is. You don't think BR realized the gravity of the situation, and what the "truth" could do?

And why do you believe he lied to the GJ? Maybe the fact that he didn't is why his parents were indicted on the charges they were.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't know any parent who would encourage their kid to lie to police. Especially Presbyterians who make sure their kids go to Church. I was raised a Presbyterian and I dared not lie to anybody and instilled that in my own kids. Burke wouldn't lie to a Grand Jury especially after swearing to tell the truth. No way.

Lies of omittance ....

I know lots of parents that encouraged their children to lie to the police while making false allegations against the other parent.

I know lots of very religious people that lie. IMO it's silly to use religion to prove truthfulness or morality.
I could make you a rather long list of people that used religion to lie and take advantage of others.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frigga]

Yes, totally serious. There is absolutely no evidence Burke was instructed to lie to police or the Grand Jury. That's only a far-fetched notion by those desperate to believe Burke was directly involved in the crime, imo.

... but you said because he is Presbyterian- he wouldn't lie?

 

[Frigga]

??????

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, totally serious. There is absolutely no evidence Burke was instructed to lie to police or the Grand Jury. That's only a far-fetched notion by those desperate to believe Burke was directly involved in the crime, imo.

The truth never changes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gramcracker]

He prayed for most if not all of the people he was trying to bring to justice. IT was not something unique. His record speaks for itself.

praying with someone is very different from praying for someone

it crossed a professional line. they were in adversarial positions. we've all heard about good cop/bad cop; in this instance there was only gooooood cop. who got played by the steel magnolia, big-time, IMO

 

[Frigga]

Yes, totally serious. There is absolutely no evidence Burke was instructed to lie to police or the Grand Jury. That's only a far-fetched notion by those desperate to believe Burke was directly involved in the crime, imo.

BBM I think you made your point clear.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, totally serious. There is absolutely no evidence Burke was instructed to lie to police or the Grand Jury. That's only a far-fetched notion by those desperate to believe Burke was directly involved in the crime, imo.

There is evidence Burke lied.

Pretending there isn't, doesn't accomplish anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

If one of my kids has a knife to the other's throat, I sure as heck wouldn't leave the house. GMAB. I'd call police and try to talk my child out of the situation. But then, I also wouldn't allow my child become a violent drug addict, I'd have gotten him help long before that point.

It doesn't matter if one believes JR murdered his daughter or that PR was responsible. There were two crimes and not for a minute do I believe PR was responsible for the long-term sexual abuse or that Burke was.

There is no statute of limitations on either murder or sexual assault of a child. Why do you believe JR was so desperate to try to get his hands on the Grand Jury evidence? The guy is still worried he's going to be indicted as well he should be. Blaming it on Burke may have worked in 1999. It ain't going to work now.

Now it's my turn to ask if you're serious. Do you honestly believe that you have that much control over whether or not your child will come to have a drug problem? Seriously?

I'm guessing you haven't seen addiction up close and personal. I have, and it's not pretty. For many it's not about "how they were raised," or even that they suffered some horrible circumstance in their life. There are countless little things that lead up to it, and pretty much 100% of the time, the parents are helpless to either help their child, or do anything to prevent them from becoming violent.

Most addicts who become violent don't do it b/c they want to, they do it b/c they feel they have no choice.