Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Cottonstar,
You have a source for that, or the transcript?



Well if you parse the above Burke appears to be asked at his house since the last sentence starts Later, at the home of a family friend ... , i.e. another location.

Also JonBenet has been found by the time Burke is interviewed that afternoon, 3PM according to Steve Thomas.

So why bother asking him where JonBenet might be?

.
Cottonstar,
You have a source for that, or the transcript?



Well if you parse the above Burke appears to be asked at his house since the last sentence starts Later, at the home of a family friend ... , i.e. another location.

Also JonBenet has been found by the time Burke is interviewed that afternoon, 3PM according to Steve Thomas.

So why bother asking him where JonBenet might be?

.

Well if you parse the above Burke appears to be asked at his house since the last sentence starts Later, at the home of a family friend ... , i.e. another location.

Later, at the home of a
family friend....

Yes, this means at the Fernies later that evening.

When Patterson briefly interviewed Burke at 2:17pm, he did not
tell him JonBenet was dead.
 
Cottonstar,
You have a source for that, or the transcript?



Well if you parse the above Burke appears to be asked at his house since the last sentence starts Later, at the home of a family friend ... , i.e. another location.

Also JonBenet has been found by the time Burke is interviewed that afternoon, 3PM according to Steve Thomas.

So why bother asking him where JonBenet might be?

.

“Burke provided conflicting information about waking: in one instance he advised that he woke and his father told him about JonBenét being gone. In another instance, he advised Detective Patterson that his dad had awakened him and told him that his sister was missing and that they were going to find her.” Kolar, FF

Yes, so this is the afternoon interview when Burke also told Patterson that she may be hiding somewhere etc...

Also, Patterson first arrived at the Ramsey house along with Det. Linda Arndt at 8:10am. Burke was out of the house and gone to the Whites at 7:00am, so there was no chance that the two talked to each other until 2:17pm.
 
Last edited:
UK-

In the Dr. Phil interview, Burke explained that he was “trying to be positive” after detectives confirmed his sister’s disappearance.

“I told the guy(Fred Patterson?)I was like, ‘Uh, she’s probably hiding somewhere. Did you check the whole house? ... Maybe she’s outside,” he recounted. Later that day, John confirmed his daughter’s death to his son.


So to clear it up, BR stated she’s probably hiding somewhere during the interview with Patterson that took place at the Whites at 2:17pm. Patterson did not tell BR that JBR was dead, just that she was still missing.

Later, around 5-6pm is when Burke was retrieved from the Whites and joined John and Patsy at the Fernies where John purportedly told Burke that JBR was in heaven. I say that because they have told three different stories of who told BR that JBr was dead while at the Fernies.
 
I think the brother did it in some sort of jealous rage. But, didn't mean to kill her only harm her and the mother covered it up. If the police found out that the brother did it, it would of men't she lost both children.
 
I think the brother did it in some sort of jealous rage. But, didn't mean to kill her only harm her and the mother covered it up. If the police found out that the brother did it, it would of men't she lost both children.
I agree,though my alternate theory is that Patsy did it out of jealousy when John began abusing Jon Benet.

Sick household.
 
Feldspar,

Why would Patsy be jealous when John was abusing her? I've never heard of this thought/theory before. I do agree though, that the whole family had a lot of skeletons in the closest that they were hiding.
 
Feldspar,

Why would Patsy be jealous when John was abusing her? I've never heard of this thought/theory before. I do agree though, that the whole family had a lot of skeletons in the closest that they were hiding.
Perhaps because John's sexual interest in his young daughter instead of his wife, sick with cancer, triggered in Patsy irrevocable rage.
 
“Burke provided conflicting information about waking: in one instance he advised that he woke and his father told him about JonBenét being gone. In another instance, he advised Detective Patterson that his dad had awakened him and told him that his sister was missing and that they were going to find her.” Kolar, FF

Yes, so this is the afternoon interview when Burke also told Patterson that she may be hiding somewhere etc...

Also, Patterson first arrived at the Ramsey house along with Det. Linda Arndt at 8:10am. Burke was out of the house and gone to the Whites at 7:00am, so there was no chance that the two talked to each other until 2:17pm.

Cottonstar,
Yes, looks like I just accepted his house at face value, so your version looks good.
Burke provided conflicting information about waking
This is the problem here, BR is not consistent with his timeline or what he said. So really what he says can be interpreted to fit whatever perspective.

According to Kolar Patterson drove to the White's home because he wondered if Burke had seen or heard anything that would help the investigation.

On Dr Phil Burke does not say where he said various things just this is what I said.

IMO Burke does not come over as being credible after being asked by Dr Phil numerous times, paraphrasing:

So you say your Mom came into your room shouting for JonBenet, then a policeman came in and shone a flashlight about your room.

Did you not think this was strange, were you not curious?

Did you not want to get up and check stuff out?

Burke has different explanations for not getting out of his bed, which given the circumstances appear fabricated to me?


"John and Patsy Ramsey have changed the story they told cops about their daughter JonBenet's murder -- they now admit their son Burke was awake during that Christmas 1996 nightmare!

Until being questioned by The ENQUIRER, the Ramseys had always insisted that Burke was still sleeping when police arrived at their home after Patsy's 911 call.

But now John has admitted to The ENQUIRER that Burke woke up before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 a.m. to summon police.
04032001enquirer.htm

Dr Phil never refers to the above account.


Also on the same Dr Phil Show Burke relates how on Christmas morning he and JonBenet rise to go and look at their presents. Burke says he saw a bike and wrapped gifts, he tells Dr Phil he got a Nintendo, an electric train set and We both got bikes.

Seems like Burke is definitely saying he was given a bike for Christmas.

So when Burke snuck back downstairs Christmas night was it the electric train set he was referring to or the Lego Set in the wine-cellar, big difference?

The way Burke behaved Christmas morning, i.e. pretending to be asleep in bed, not getting up to see what was going on, etc can easily be explained as premeditated staging by his parents?

I'm 100% convinced Burke knows who killed JonBenet !
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because John's sexual interest in his young daughter instead of his wife, sick with cancer, triggered in Patsy irrevocable rage.

feldspar,
PDI is plausible, e.g. Steve Thomas' Bed wetting theory, or jealousy for some reason?

Patsy is on record saying she and JonBenet were arguing Christmas Day over what JonBenet should wear to the White's e.g. matching outfits.

John relates on Dr Phil how JonBenet did not like one of her Christmas presents, a look a like doll, which she said looked like someone in a coffin?

Is this really true?

So seems like JonBenet and Patsy were at odds on Christmas Day, in JonBenet's last ever photograph Patsy does appear on edge, check how she seems to be gripping JonBenet?

For me PDI falls down when Patsy just goes about directly implicating herself in her daughters death, e.g. fibers in ligature, fibers on duct tape, hand-writing on ransom note, etc.

.
 
Last edited:
I agree, I don't think they would have sent BR to the neighbors if he had whacked his sister on the head. Way too risky he would have talked. A good point I had never though of before.
 
Actually, you’re being unrealistic. If you won’t allow your son to be interviewed you look guilty! Just like the parents looked guilty as heck by not interviewing until 125 days after the murder!

Keep him close to them at the scene? Do you not know what happened at the scene that day. Like I said before which you completely ignored is that the Rams friends could tell something was wrong in the first hour they were there.

You’re the one that needs spin if you think that not ushering Burke out of the crime scene would have been safer and better than securing him away from all of that at a friends house. And it worked, for 8 hours no one questioned Burke about his missing sister. Let that sink in.

Pot, meet kettle. I'd say it's even more unrealistic to assume that --if BR himself committed the crime -- that the parents would all but throw him to the wolves (neighbors, police) to defend himself, as opposed to keeping him by their side and protecting him from any such questioning. Again, they didn't care about "looking guilty" -- this is beyond obvious in the sense that they themselves refused to be questioned for months to a year after the crime occurred! They easily would have risked "looking guilty" in order to protect their murdering nine-year-old son from spilling the beans -- this is common sense 101.
 
Last edited:
um..what.? I never said ANY of that. I said the interviews were disturbing, meaning his obvious deception and evasiveness. And don't be ridiculous, if I opine that I believe Burke Ramsey was involved in anything that transpired that night, it is based on where the evidence leads me., which may or may not involve interview content. And further, how do you know what my experience and education is. That is downright insulting.-MY OPINION.

Looks like we're playing the "I didn't say that" game. Here is what you wrote, exactly:

"I have seen BR in his interviews, and I saw a sneaky, secretive and deceptive person."

You determined all of this, from watching a TV interview. Again, you have no education in behavioral analysis to make such claims. I assume you didn't have expertise in the subject, which is a fair assumption because you would have said you did. Even though Dr. Phil isn't the most qualified, he would have more knowledge on the subject and his explanation that it was simply nervous laughter/smiling from a generally shy individual hold way more water than your opinion of an amateur armchair psychologist who casually throws around labels like "sneaky, secretive, and deceptive."

Let's just be completely real here: he didn't react the way you personally believe a "normal" person would react in the interview, therefore you think he's guilty. That's really what it boils down to, which isn't much.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that’s not factually correct. It was because of Pete Hofstrom and who he was inside the DA office that made sure the Rams would never go to court.

So there was no police incompetence displayed in this case? You're saying that police incompetence didn't play a role at all? The fact of the matter is, it was both: police incompetence and a crooked DA (assuming your theory about the DA is accurate).
 
The only thing I know for sure is that the person(s) responsible:

Wrote the note
Hit her on the head
Strangled her
Redressed her
Got her out of her bedroom
Got her down to the basement
Had at least some knowledge of the house layout
Cared for her somewhat (blanket)
Was in the house between the time they got home and the next morning
Seemed to be improvising (paintbrush, notepad, etc.)
Left no fingerprints
Chose to be in the house on Christmas day
Knew about JR's bonus
Was a movie buff

Anything else...?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
202
Total visitors
277

Forum statistics

Threads
609,163
Messages
18,250,349
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top