I do not believe he could have been publicly identified as a suspect. So we'll have to disagree on this. Yes, the parents were indicted on their own behavior, but there is no reason to assume they were only covering for each other. The main thing is- covering for their son can't be ruled out. Even if the parents knew he couldn't be charged, I feel they would not have wanted him to be attached to this crime in any way. Getting him "help" was not on their radar. They wanted this to stay as far away from him as possible. A complete and total blackout as far as BR was concerned.
Was Burke involved?
- Thread starter GuruJosh
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188- Latest: girlhasnoname
- Status
I do not believe he could have been publicly identified as a suspect. So we'll have to disagree on this. Yes, the parents were indicted on their own behavior, but there is no reason to assume they were only covering for each other. The main thing is- covering for their son can't be ruled out. Even if the parents knew he couldn't be charged, I feel they would not have wanted him to be attached to this crime in any way. Getting him "help" was not on their radar. They wanted this to stay as far away from him as possible. A complete and total blackout as far as BR was concerned.
The DA mentioned Burke in her 2008 letter that stated the family were no longer suspects. So maybe being a suspect in the court of public opinion was enough to prompt her to make that public statement of exoneration. I don't believe the investigation is focused on Burke for any reason other than he was a witness as to what went on that household when others weren't around. Is there a possibility he was sexually molesting his sister? Absolutely. But I don't believe Burke fashioned the garrote or participated in the murder of his sister.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 184
(snipped for reference)
I suppose, thinking in light of the GJ decision, what I said is confusing. Parents (as well as husbands, big brothers/sisters, people who accept a responsibility for anothers well-being) react as needed to a perceived threat. While I think the Ramsey parents should have been (and probably were) aware of problems, I dont think they perceived the problems as enough of a threat that their response wouldnt be enough to protect JonBenet as much as they felt necessary. But once that threat played itself out in the tragedy that happened, it was their remaining child they had to protect from the obvious threat of being found out. So my reference to doing anything in the world to protect their children was supposing the justification in their minds for doing all they did (IMO) to hide what happened. (Of course, I know you dont agree with me on what that was -- but still, :loveyou
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
For me, the Rs were successful in keeping BR out of the equation. bc before LO even thought to consider him the family was already too well protected.
The Rs used all their considerable resources for the wrong reasons. If it had been IDI, those resources would have helped LO, instead it hindered the entire process.
The interview w/BR was conducted by a psych in coordination with child services. They took care of 2 "problems" at the same time. And once again AH SAID, "ok"
:banghead:
The Rs used all their considerable resources for the wrong reasons. If it had been IDI, those resources would have helped LO, instead it hindered the entire process.
The interview w/BR was conducted by a psych in coordination with child services. They took care of 2 "problems" at the same time. And once again AH SAID, "ok"
:banghead:
Chebrock
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 134
The FBI stated (on TV) very early on in the case that:
1. They have had ransom notes and kidnappings where the child was found dead or alive but not on the premises
And
2. They have had children found dead in their home
But they have NEVER had a kidnapping and ransom demand where the child was found dead in the home!
Jon Benet was sexually assaulted as evidenced by the autopsy (can't remember his name now).
I will ALWAYS believe that the family did it, particularily John.
It's just my opinion. The family (probably with advice of their lawyer) did the best job of confusing the case, destroying evidence and generally getting away with murder that I've ever seen.
Again, just my opinion.
1. They have had ransom notes and kidnappings where the child was found dead or alive but not on the premises
And
2. They have had children found dead in their home
But they have NEVER had a kidnapping and ransom demand where the child was found dead in the home!
Jon Benet was sexually assaulted as evidenced by the autopsy (can't remember his name now).
I will ALWAYS believe that the family did it, particularily John.
It's just my opinion. The family (probably with advice of their lawyer) did the best job of confusing the case, destroying evidence and generally getting away with murder that I've ever seen.
Again, just my opinion.
Chebrock
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 134
This is only my opinion:
1. Christmas eve. John was sexually assaulting Jon Benet in the basement using a scarf or ribbon. Patsy had gone to bed.
2. John thought Jon Benet had died due to the pressure on the nerve going through her neck which caused convulsions.
3. John needed Patsy's help to cover up the murder so he woke Patsy up.
4. Knowing Patsy would never knowingly cover up the murder for him alone, he lied to her and told her Burke did it.
5. Together (one or the other or both) hit Jon Benet in the head as part of the cover up.
6. Together (one or the other or both) wrote the ransom note
7. Together (one or the other or both) staged the garrott
I do not believe Burke knew anything about what happened that night mainly because they let him go to school and be interviewed. Children almost NEVER are able to keep a family secret. Eventually they tell and since there is no statute on murder, John and Patsy would be caught.
Just my opinion.
1. Christmas eve. John was sexually assaulting Jon Benet in the basement using a scarf or ribbon. Patsy had gone to bed.
2. John thought Jon Benet had died due to the pressure on the nerve going through her neck which caused convulsions.
3. John needed Patsy's help to cover up the murder so he woke Patsy up.
4. Knowing Patsy would never knowingly cover up the murder for him alone, he lied to her and told her Burke did it.
5. Together (one or the other or both) hit Jon Benet in the head as part of the cover up.
6. Together (one or the other or both) wrote the ransom note
7. Together (one or the other or both) staged the garrott
I do not believe Burke knew anything about what happened that night mainly because they let him go to school and be interviewed. Children almost NEVER are able to keep a family secret. Eventually they tell and since there is no statute on murder, John and Patsy would be caught.
Just my opinion.
I agree with everything you said, esp about JR's involvement in the murder itself. Too many RDI's are saying he was innocent of the murder and just discovered it later and helped cover up what his wife had done unbeknownst to him. In no way do I accept that.
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
BBM
In addition, Detective Fred Patterson interviewed Burke, independent of his parents, on the 26th.
Do you have a source for this? I'm unfamiliar with it. TIA!
Mama2JML
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 7
Chapter 1 of PMPT, p. 27 on my nook. Burke's interview is mentioned in IRMI, too, but I don't have my book handy.
tweezybird
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 1
As hard as I try I just can't seem to wrap my head around one of the parents bashing her head in or strangling her.
I really believe that was all done before the parents found out about it.
Just my opinion
Nobody wants to believe the parents did it, but once you study the odd behavior of the parents after the murder, most people come to the conclusion that they were involved somehow. If you want to understand better, carefully analyze everything the parents did and said starting on the morning of 12-26. The sheer number of anomalies will hopefully open your eyes. Innocent people just do not act like this.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
Odd behavior after however is not evidence. It is just what people think about them.
If you want to understand better, Then you should look into all the evidence and the facts of the case. Not how people behave alone. Lots of people are weird. Lots of people are odd or do not behave like people think they should. That does not make them guilty of anything. IMO
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
Yes the whole, gee maybe I should ask about my sisters welfare?
Nah, how about where she is?
Nah, or maybe did you hear anything, see anything at all....
Nah
&& who the heck was 'grandma?'
Actually, how one acts after a crime can be admitted as evidence. The Grand Jury heard Burke as a witness and indicted Patsy. It is the totality of the evidence that matters, not just whether a 9-year-old kid acted "weird." There is no playbook for a nine-year old in how to act after your little sister is found murdered.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/
Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as consciousness of guilt. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to cover up his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
It only matters if there is real evidence that is backed up by behavior. Not if they act weird. The Gj heard a lot of things and indicted Patsy.. It may have nothing at all to do with Burke. That is just assumption.
Actually it was her blatant disregard for the basic tenets of a murder investigation, combined with her blind devotion to the Rs that caused her to give that false "exoneration". As anyone in LE knows, NO ONE is cleared in a murder unless and until the killer is identified by NAME. It was never that they were "no longer suspects". They STILL are suspects. The present DA alluded to that when he took over. He said no one was cleared as far as he was concerned. Especially the people who were in the house at the time.
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
Re: after learning about the GJ lie. Didn't Beckner say it was difficult to keep quiet bc he knew there could have been a true bill.
& what do you know the GJ did get it right.
& what do you know the GJ did get it right.
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
I know Kolar discusses it. The only thing he makes note of is the "odd behavior"
Still no concern, fear, or sadness that the whole town is at his house bc "his sister was kidnapped."
Not typical behavior.
- Status