Was Burke involved?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes. Absolutely. It was something unique.

I feel like some people including LE have always wanted some clear box to put it in but since they can't, they went after the easiest targets first and I think missed a lot by focusing in the Ramseys too quick.

 

[BOESP]

Yes. Absolutely. It was something unique.

I feel like some people including LE have always wanted some clear box to put it in but since they can't, they went after the easiest targets first and I think missed a lot by focusing in the Ramseys too quick.

What makes you feel like "LE have always wanted some clear box to put it in ....?"

We are all entitled to our opinions but saying things like "they went after the easiest targets first" is unprovable and certainly isn't evidence. But, based on your above statement, I'll reply by saying that if the Ramseys had cooperated from the beginning (or cooperated at all), perhaps LE could have eliminated them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Okay yes. In my opinion the family is always the easiest target because they have them. They are known. They can okay statistics and go that way and because it happened in the home it is the easiest thing to say " they were there".

Remember I am still working on this case. Still reading and taking things step by step. Today I listened to the 911 call 5 times. I'm starting from that point and moving through step by step.

I still have way more questions than answers.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

Okay yes. In my opinion the family is always the easiest target because they have them. They are known. They can okay statistics and go that way and because it happened in the home it is the easiest thing to say " they were there".

Remember I am still working on this case. Still reading and taking things step by step. Today I listened to the 911 call 5 times. I'm starting from that point and moving through step by step.

I still have way more questions than answers.

It's OK Scarlett, I agree with you. IMO the BPD botched the investigation early on. Partly, because they lacked the experience to handle a case like this. If this went down in NY or LA we may have had a very different outcome.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

What makes you feel like "LE have always wanted some clear box to put it in ....?"

We are all entitled to our opinions but saying things like "they went after the easiest targets first" is unprovable and certainly isn't evidence. But, based on your above statement, I'll reply by saying that if the Ramseys had cooperated from the beginning (or cooperated at all), perhaps LE could have eliminated them.

This isn't entirely true. It's true they lawyered up quickly but what a lot of people don't know is that they submitted handwriting exemplars the day of the crime. If they had faked the note I might've expected them to stall on that regard. After all they aren't doc examiners and have no way of knowing they can fool the experts. Yet another reason that I'm skeptical that they wrote the note at all.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

Okay yes. In my opinion the family is always the easiest target because they have them. They are known. They can okay statistics and go that way and because it happened in the home it is the easiest thing to say " they were there".

Remember I am still working on this case. Still reading and taking things step by step. Today I listened to the 911 call 5 times. I'm starting from that point and moving through step by step.

I still have way more questions than answers.

Incidentally I listened to the 911 call numerous times through good headphones. All I hear is PR. As far as I'm concerned neither BR nor JR is on that tape.

 

[BOESP]

Unusual but not extremely so, it happens. The case of Timothy Spencer comes to mind. He raped and killed a teenage girl in her bedroom that was separated from her parents by only a wall. And the parents never heard a thing. There are others.

Yet neither does that prove the Ramseys are innocent. It works both ways.

Okay yes. In my opinion the family is always the easiest target because they have them. They are known. They can okay statistics and go that way and because it happened in the home it is the easiest thing to say " they were there".

Remember I am still working on this case. Still reading and taking things step by step. Today I listened to the 911 call 5 times. I'm starting from that point and moving through step by step.

I still have way more questions than answers.

Since you are new to this case, you might not be familiar with http://www.acandyrose.com. You can find transcripts there of many interviews, which are quite helpful. Here's a direct link to JonBenet's files: http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm.

In addition, you might want to read James Kolar's book, Steve Thomas's book, Lawrence Schiller's book, and Death of Innocence by the Ramseys.

Youtube.com also has lots of good video material which includes people from both sides of the table.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have been on that site, I am looking through it along with other sites.

I would not say I am new to the case, I remember when it happened as my dd was 7 then.
I have followed the case but I am trying to separate rumor, media spin and opinion from the facts.

I have found a great source for information that seems to take it piece by piece.

What I have a problem with is opinions from people that should just give facts and finding that some things that were reported I think to make the Ramseys look bad, have been taken as fact when in fact they were not true.

I appreciate the information and that you are willing to supply your take on the evidence and information. It all helps to bounce things off different people with different views!

 

[BOESP]

This isn't entirely true. It's true they lawyered up quickly but what a lot of people don't know is that they submitted handwriting exemplars the day of the crime. If they had faked the note I might've expected them to stall on that regard. After all they aren't doc examiners and have no way of knowing they can fool the experts. Yet another reason that I'm skeptical that they wrote the note at all.

You know someone's gonna ask so it might as well be me. May I have a link or reference that proves your statement is correct and not hearsay? It is my understanding that the official exemplars were taken at an attorney's home month's later.

 

[BOESP]

I have been on that site, I am looking through it along with other sites.

I would not say I am new to the case, I remember when it happened as my dd was 7 then.
I have followed the case but I am trying to separate rumor, media spin and opinion from the facts.

I have found a great source for information that seems to take it piece by piece.

What I have a problem with is opinions from people that should just give facts and finding that some things that were reported I think to make the Ramseys look bad, have been taken as fact when in fact they were not true.

I appreciate the information and that you are willing to supply your take on the evidence and information. It all helps to bounce things off different people with different views!

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you'd posted several times that you were new to the case and still learning and didn't know that much about it.

I understand the problems caused with opinions from people that should give facts. But, this is a message board and not an official vehicle for information. I see that as a hindrance because none of us are privy to the case facts unless we've been in the evidence locker. You know what they say about opinions. :facepalm:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you'd posted several times that you were new to the case and still learning and didn't know that much about it.

I understand the problems caused with opinions from people that should give facts. But, this is a message board and not an official vehicle for information. I see that as a hindrance because none of us are privy to the case facts unless we've been in the evidence locker. You know what they say about opinions. :facepalm:

Ha. I hear you. And I know that I am not where near as versed in all the information on the case as many of you are.

I guess I am trying to separate the spin from the evidence.

 

[Chelly]

Best to:
* Lurk here a bit.
* Gather information from reliable sources.
* Form evidence-based rational thoughts.
* Then, post findings/opinions. imo

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

You know someone's gonna ask so it might as well be me. May I have a link or reference that proves your statement is correct and not hearsay? It is my understanding that the official exemplars were taken at an attorney's home month's later.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682489/Key Events in the Investigation

That webpage has an investigative timeline. I was off by 2 days. The family submitted hair, blood and handwriting on the 28th. It does say that PR was too distraught to submit evidence at that time. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I was always under the impression that she gave handwriting early on as well. I'd have to confirm that. I haven't looked at this case in quite some time, so my facts may be a little off.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Best to:
* Lurk here a bit.
* Gather information from reliable sources.
* Form evidence-based rational thoughts.
* Then, post findings/opinions. imo

That is not how I work.

I need to talk in through and see where it leads. Someone may have a valid answer to a question or may be able to show me why that is right or wrong.

I am sure it can be bother some when new kids come on the thread but we have to have a chance to work the problem for ourselves. How that works for us.

 

[BOESP]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682489/Key%20Events%20in%20the%20Investigation

That webpage has an investigative timeline. I was off by 2 days. The family submitted hair, blood and handwriting on the 28th. It does say that PR was too distraught to submit evidence at that time. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I was always under the impression that she gave handwriting early on as well. I'd have to confirm that. I haven't looked at this case in quite some time, so my facts may be a little off.

That suggests she didn't give an exemplar initially. The FBI, Cina Wong, and others thought it probable that Patsy wrote the note. Say what you will, the FBI knows what they are doing and they certainly didn't have a dog in the race. It's an old tactic for defense attorneys to blame incompetent police work for all problems, preceded only by the SODDI defense. I take such claims with a grain of salt.

Also, if you aren't already familiar with the timeline on the morning of December 26, you might be interested in studying what all Patsy stated she did between getting up at approximately 5:35-5:40 AM and calling 911 at 5:52 AM. This information is somewhere in an organized format here at Websleuths in this topic and was constructed by information taken from Patsy's interviews with various LEOs and attorneys (see acandyrose.com).

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That suggests she didn't give an exemplar initially. The FBI, Cina Wong, and others thought it probable that Patsy wrote the note. Say what you will, the FBI knows what they are doing and they certainly didn't have a dog in the race. It's an old tactic for defense attorneys to blame incompetent police work for all problems, preceded only by the SODDI defense. I take such claims with a grain of salt.

Also, if you aren't already familiar with the timeline on the morning of December 26, you might be interested in studying what all Patsy stated she did between getting up at approximately 5:35-5:40 AM and calling 911 at 5:52 AM. This information is somewhere in an organized format here at Websleuths in this topic and was constructed by information taken from Patsy's interviews with various LEOs and attorneys (see acandyrose.com).

When did they think it was Patsy that wrote the note? That note is not a slam dunk for me that points toward the Ramseys.

It makes no sense. None. Writing a ransom note only gives more evidence if you did it, Not steers them away. The wording, The paper, the pen, The bonus amount, All would point to them! Not away... So if you are going to cover the crime up, if you did it, You are going to write a milktoast ransom note, Not much words, And destroy the paper where it came from .

Anything else is just not in the realm of possibility for me.

 

[BOESP]

Here's a link to a brief timeline and discussion of same in another topic (since this is the Is Burke Involved topic I don't want to hijack it):

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8823838#post8823838

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

That suggests she didn't give an exemplar initially. The FBI, Cina Wong, and others thought it probable that Patsy wrote the note. Say what you will, the FBI knows what they are doing and they certainly didn't have a dog in the race. It's an old tactic for defense attorneys to blame incompetent police work for all problems, preceded only by the SODDI defense. I take such claims with a grain of salt.

Also, if you aren't already familiar with the timeline on the morning of December 26, you might be interested in studying what all Patsy stated she did between getting up at approximately 5:35-5:40 AM and calling 911 at 5:52 AM. This information is somewhere in an organized format here at Websleuths in this topic and was constructed by information taken from Patsy's interviews with various LEOs and attorneys (see acandyrose.com).

It suggests nothing because I actually believe she did give an exemplar very early on. Not to mention the fact that they allowed the BPD to seize any written materials from their home. Cina Wong and I quote "does not meet the standards of a forensic document examiner as accepted by the profession". That's a statement by Gideon Epstein who was ruled in by the courts as an expert AND believed PR wrote the note. Wong is self appointed expert who has no professional qualifications and her findings should be marginalized. I state this just to let you know the facts.
As far as the FBI goes well John Douglas led the FBI's behavioral science unit and actually spent time with the Ramsey's on more than one occasion. His conclusions were that they had nothing to do with the crime. I invite you to read his take on it in a book entitled The cases that haunt us. He makes some excellent points in there.
I'm hardly a novice to this case. I've read Thomas' book, the Ramsey's book, Schiller's book and I've ordered Kolar's book which I'm looking forward to reading.

 

[BOESP]

When did they think it was Patsy that wrote the note? That note is not a slam dunk for me that points toward the Ramseys.

It makes no sense. None. Writing a ransom note only gives more evidence if you did it, Not steers them away. The wording, The paper, the pen, The bonus amount, All would point to them! Not away... So if you are going to cover the crime up, if you did it, You are going to write a milktoast ransom note, Not much words, And destroy the paper where it came from .

Anything else is just not in the realm of possibility for me.

Slam dunk? No one said it was. It is one piece of data (information) that is viable and points toward Patsy Ramsey. Apparently you are looking for evidence to prove what you already believe to the exclusion of anything that disagrees with your preconceived notion but that's your prerogative.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

When did they think it was Patsy that wrote the note? That note is not a slam dunk for me that points toward the Ramseys.

It makes no sense. None. Writing a ransom note only gives more evidence if you did it, Not steers them away. The wording, The paper, the pen, The bonus amount, All would point to them! Not away... So if you are going to cover the crime up, if you did it, You are going to write a milktoast ransom note, Not much words, And destroy the paper where it came from .

Anything else is just not in the realm of possibility for me.

Right. Not to mention the fact that the longer the note the more the experts have to work with to tie the crime to them. They'd have to be complete idiots to write a 370 word note as opposed to a nice short one which would've given the cops less to work with. But hey, anything's possible right?