Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[Bean&Cheese]

It seems like the bulk of BDI happened after the CBS limited series. And then the disastrous Dr Phil interview….
All my bias rears up whenever I watch a BR interview portion, or any of the Dr Phil episode. IMO BR is odd. He doesn’t fit any of my expectations of how an innocent kid should act after the murder of his little sister. Does that make him a killer? I don’t know. Is it probable. Maybe. Likely? Dunno.

But what really bugs me lately about this case, IMO, is the lack of any forensic evidence from JR. His blue bathrobe is found in his study. He tells LE he was in his underwear reading the note, after he had showered… (No DNA trace) and he remarks to his pastor, after bringing up JB, something like …he didn’t mean to kill her. He wrapped her in a blanket…(FF) IIRC he also made the same remark to the victim advocate. So… one could infer he was talking about BR. Would any person defend the actions of a killer who just brutally murdered a six year old child? But then JR remarked to Anderson Cooper (2015) that John Mark Carr seemed like a nice guy..,bizarrre
IMO, JR placed JB in that wine cellar. Not PR. Not BR. And when he brought her up I believe that comment was from his own guilt, he was talking about himself. I don’t think BR wrapped his dead sister in her favorite blanket and JR knew about it …
But I could be wrong…

There are many bits of evidence that point to PR, JAR, BR… but none for JR…
Those black fibers from his shirt?

Kids kill kids. That’s a fact. And kids can spend their entire adult lives covering and lying for their horrid parents. Kids can be brilliant sociopaths and lie and commit horrible crimes. When “scientific evidence” is demanded. Well.. good luck with this entire crime. The big show for the miracle DNA that identifies the killer isn’t likely to happen. This is a crime which qualifies as “Everyone believes the family did it but it can’t be proven”.
And that is the legacy of the Ramsey family. Unless someone comes forward with the truth….

But what was the GJ thinking when they handed down those four true bills? What facts from the evidence and testimonies lead them to those conclusions?
One day maybe the truth will come out.

Where on earth did you hear that JR said all of that to his pastor and LE? I’ve never heard that.

 

[GRT]

Where on earth did you hear that JR said all of that to his pastor and LE? I’ve never heard that.

I've read several books about the murder, and I've never read that. It's not in any public reports, and the pastor went on record saying he didn't think the Ramsey's did it.

It's just that the story has ballooned over the past decades until some renditions don't come close to the original reports, depositions, and documents.

 

[AddieBoo]

OK. But how does this quote prove that (quoted) "he successfully fooled trained investigators into believing he was innocent" ?
What part of this statement actually proves that there was any fooling happening, if there is a possibility that he really "had no idea what had happened that night" - just like Dr. Barnhard stated.

A possibility - He really had no idea what had happened that night because he was sent away to bed after the accident and he stayed in his room the whole night.

Same question here - how should this quote explain that he has fooled anyone? If he really did not witness JonBenets death then this is a correct statement, isn't it?

A possibility - It is clear that Burke was not a witness to JonBenet's death because he was not a witness to Jonbenet's death when she was strangled in the basement.

Does this statement somehow prove that he fooled the detectives into thinking so? How?

A possibility - Burke only knew that his sister was missing because that is what he was told by his parents in the morning when they came to get him from his room and John told him that JonBenet is missing. He knew only of the kidnapping.

I know all the above statements very well and I believe all those statements are true. Neither of them, IMO, point out or prove that Burke actually knew what happened but "fooled" the investigators to believe that he did not know. Because if he really did not know of nothing he did not need to fool anyone into thinking he did not know nothing.

Why would we need to suspect of any fooling?

And why are all those three possibilities, that actually match what the detectives have stated, so hard to be considered to be possibilities?

Is it just me?

Where on earth did you hear that JR said all of that to his pastor and LE? I’ve never heard that.

It’s in Kolars book “Foreign Faction” Detectives interviewing Rev Holverstock 12/30/96.
Chilling…a statement John Ramsey “blurted out”
about concern for the killer…not JonBenet…..

It’s a small paragraph in the book but IMO one of the most intriguing pieces of information in the case.
I will go back and find the page number for a direct quote.

 

[AddieBoo]

It’s in Kolars book “Foreign Faction” Detectives interviewing Rev Holverstock 12/30/96.
Chilling…a statement John Ramsey “blurted out”
about concern for the killer…not JonBenet…..

It’s a small paragraph in the book but IMO one of the most intriguing pieces of information in the case.
I will go back and find the page number for a direct quote.

It’s on page 88: “Foreign Faction”
…..”Ramsey blurted out, “I don’t think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket” or that “she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket”

iIRC the victims advocate made a similar statement. I could guess that they could have been in close proximity when he made that statement.
MOO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

It’s in Kolars book “Foreign Faction” Detectives interviewing Rev Holverstock 12/30/96.
Chilling…a statement John Ramsey “blurted out”
about concern for the killer…not JonBenet…..

It’s a small paragraph in the book but IMO one of the most intriguing pieces of information in the case.
I will go back and find the page number for a direct quote.

“He” could have been referring to the offender (intruder)

 

[Bean&Cheese]

“He” could have been referring to the offender (intruder)

And that fact that the author said that he could have said that, “she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket”. In my opinion, an innocent father that just found his 6 yr old baby girl dead with rope wrapped around her neck and wrist is trying to find any way in his mind for his baby girl to have suffered less or that she experienced a touch of compassion in her final moments. That is what my brain would search for because the thought and reality of what his little girl went through would be too much for me to take one more breath.

 

[AddieBoo]

And that fact that the author said that he could have said that, “she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket”. In my opinion, an innocent father that just found his 6 yr old baby girl dead with rope wrapped around her neck and wrist is trying to find any way in his mind for his baby girl to have suffered less or that she experienced a touch of compassion in her final moments. That is what my brain would search for because the thought and reality of what his little girl went through would be too much for me to take one more breath.

That’s one way to look at it….
I emphatically disagree - but respect your opinion.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It’s in Kolars book “Foreign Faction” Detectives interviewing Rev Holverstock 12/30/96.
Chilling…a statement John Ramsey “blurted out”
about concern for the killer…not JonBenet…..

It’s a small paragraph in the book but IMO one of the most intriguing pieces of information in the case.
I will go back and find the page number for a direct quote.

He was very adept at knowing what questions were hot bed questions.
I think while he didn't tell anything of substance in the portion we were privy to, he knew well enough to not step into the quagmire of damning questions.

 

[Ponytale]

It’s on page 88: “Foreign Faction”
…..”Ramsey blurted out, “I don’t think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket” or that “she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket”

So a brief summary would be that...
Ramsey's are to believe that a sick minded crazy intruder from a Foreign Faction is behind the murder of their beloved daughter, but that sick minded person did not mean to hurt John by killing Jonbenet, or even mean to kill her in the first place because he cared for her for keeping her warm inside in a blanket.

Now why would a father whos daughter had been killed in his own house defend that sick minded person by saying "I don't think he meant to kill her..." ? Unless he knew that this really was the case.

Someone did not mean to kill Jonbenet. It was just something that had to be done because there were no other options left anymore. It was not meant to be so. And after that person killed her he showed his affection and care about her by wrapping her in a blanket to keep her safe and warm... And, there was only one other "he" in that house besides John that we know about. IMO

Interestingly, that statement goes along with JAR asking for forgiveness for that crazy minded intruder that killed his half-sister.

Now how many parents could imagine that situation and see themselves thinking about the caring sides of the killer and asking forgiveness for him?

 

[Swirlz]

And after that person killed her he showed his affection and care about her by wrapping her in a blanket to keep her safe and warm

I don't believe either BR or a Foreign Faction had anything to do with what happened that night and I don't believe that blanket was tossed over her in an attempt to show affection; it was thrown on top of the body for the purposes of concealing it and no, I don't believe the story about her having been wrapped "papoose-like".

 

[Ponytale]

I don't believe either BR or a Foreign Faction had anything to do with what happened that night and I don't believe that blanket was tossed over her in an attempt to show affection; it was thrown on top of the body for the purposes of concealing it and no, I don't believe the story about her having been wrapped "papoose-like".

Wouldn't it have been easier to remove the body by leaving from one of the open doors after the murder was done, if there was an intent to conceal the body so that it would not be found?
A body left in a home covered with a white blanket that did not belong to the wine cellar in the first place does not indicate that it was done for a purpose of concealing, IMO. I could entertain that idea if that blanket was dark colored and kept in the wine cellar for whatever reason - it would make it hard to be seen in a dark room and would look like it was something that just was handy lying around in the same room and used with the intent to hide her body. But again, even then the perp could have just taken the body along with him as he left the house.

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Wouldn't it have been easier to remove the body by leaving from one of the open doors after the murder was done, if there was an intent to conceal the body so that it would not be found?
A body left in a home covered with a white blanket that did not belong to the wine cellar in the first place does not indicate that it was done for a purpose of concealing, IMO. I could entertain that idea if that blanket was dark colored and kept in the wine cellar for whatever reason - it would make it hard to be seen in a dark room and would look like it was something that just was handy lying around in the same room and used with the intent to hide her body. But again, even then the perp could have just taken the body along with him as he left the house.

Not if he rode away on a bike

 

[Slebby]

Not if he rode away on a bike

Arriving, then leaving, thru an upscale neighborhood, on Christmas, on a bicycle, an unlikely sight in December, would draw attention. It makes no sense to plan a kidnapping, but not have a plan for how you’re going to take the kidnappee with you.

IMHO

 

[Slebby]

Wouldn't it have been easier to remove the body by leaving from one of the open doors after the murder was done, if there was an intent to conceal the body so that it would not be found?
A body left in a home covered with a white blanket that did not belong to the wine cellar in the first place does not indicate that it was done for a purpose of concealing, IMO. I could entertain that idea if that blanket was dark colored and kept in the wine cellar for whatever reason - it would make it hard to be seen in a dark room and would look like it was something that just was handy lying around in the same room and used with the intent to hide her body. But again, even then the perp could have just taken the body along with him as he left the house.

It is my belief that the kidnap victim, JBR, did not leave the home because dumping the body threatened the chance of a proper burial. The tiny child would have been very easy to bundle away in the night.
IMHO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

So a brief summary would be that...
Ramsey's are to believe that a sick minded crazy intruder from a Foreign Faction is behind the murder of their beloved daughter, but that sick minded person did not mean to hurt John by killing Jonbenet, or even mean to kill her in the first place because he cared for her for keeping her warm inside in a blanket.

Now why would a father whos daughter had been killed in his own house defend that sick minded person by saying "I don't think he meant to kill her..." ? Unless he knew that this really was the case.

Someone did not mean to kill Jonbenet. It was just something that had to be done because there were no other options left anymore. It was not meant to be so. And after that person killed her he showed his affection and care about her by wrapping her in a blanket to keep her safe and warm... And, there was only one other "he" in that house besides John that we know about. IMO

Interestingly, that statement goes along with JAR asking for forgiveness for that crazy minded intruder that killed his half-sister.

Now how many parents could imagine that situation and see themselves thinking about the caring sides of the killer and asking forgiveness for him?

There is no foreign faction- it’s a sadistic pedophile that wrote that RN just to further mess with the Ramseys

 

[Ponytale]

There is no foreign faction- it’s a sadistic pedophile that wrote that RN just to further mess with the Ramseys

Ok, a sadistic pedophile then. What does it change in the outcome?

I'll rephrase:
"Ramsey's are to believe that a sadistic pedophile intruder is behind the murder of their beloved daughter, but that sick minded pedophile did not mean to hurt John by killing Jonbenet, or even mean to kill her in the first place because he cared for her for keeping her warm inside in a blanket."

Now why would a father whos daughter had been killed in his own house defend that sick minded pedophile by saying "I don't think he meant to kill her..." ? Unless he knew that this really was the case.

But what is there to suggest that it was a pedophile? There was no rape involved that would suggest a pedophile, and a "sadistic pedophile" would do much gruesome things to a child, wouldn't he? Or was he only fantasizing about intruding into the house to "slightly assault her with a tip of a paintbrush"? It wouldn't really point to an "sadistic" act, would it? What was there that would point to an sadistic crime at all? Or a pedophile? Happy to learn.

 

[snarast]

Ok, a sadistic pedophile then. What does it change in the outcome?

I'll rephrase:
"Ramsey's are to believe that a sadistic pedophile intruder is behind the murder of their beloved daughter, but that sick minded pedophile did not mean to hurt John by killing Jonbenet, or even mean to kill her in the first place because he cared for her for keeping her warm inside in a blanket."

Now why would a father whos daughter had been killed in his own house defend that sick minded pedophile by saying "I don't think he meant to kill her..." ? Unless he knew that this really was the case.

But what is there to suggest that it was a pedophile? There was no rape involved that would suggest a pedophile, and a "sadistic pedophile" would do much gruesome things to a child, wouldn't he? Or was he only fantasizing about intruding into the house to "slightly assault her with a tip of a paintbrush"? It wouldn't really point to an "sadistic" act, would it? What was there that would point to an sadistic crime at all? Or a pedophile? Happy to learn.

It becomes sadistic if the greatest enjoyment came from being there to observe the parents reacting to their child’s death. Intruder as a friend.

And the garotte is torture all right.

 

[Ponytale]

It becomes sadistic if the greatest enjoyment came from being there to observe the parents reacting to their child’s death. Intruder as a friend.

If the intent was to hurt the parents - why again be so "gentle" with the crime. The crime scene showed signs of care (blanket, wiping, redressing). Would an intruder, who does the crime with the purpose to hurt the parents, wipe down the blood from his victim? Would he redress her? Would he care about covering her with her favorite blanket?
If the intent is to hurt and see a reaction - why not violate the body much more and leave it in the plain sight? Or leave evidence of a "cruel and violent attack" behind and take the body so there would be no proper burial? Why not leave signs of torture (like blood) on the scene? Nothing, IMO, suggest sadistic. It suggest care.

And the garotte is torture all right.

It was not a garrote, it has been discussed previously.
And again (sorry for the graphic explanation coming here) - a sadistic pedophile (or even just an intruder with an intent to kill) would have left his victim hanging by her neck, undressed and bleeding for the parents to see as soon as they found her missing - not taking time to clean her up, redress her and hide her away covering with blanket. If the intent was to see their reaction and really hurt them.
It is all my opinion of course, but looking at other crimes that actually have been committed by intruders with sadistic/ pedophile/crazy intents - the common factor is the gruesomeness of the scene left behind after the crime. There is nothing that would suggest it in this crime scene. IMO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Ok, a sadistic pedophile then. What does it change in the outcome?

I'll rephrase:
"Ramsey's are to believe that a sadistic pedophile intruder is behind the murder of their beloved daughter, but that sick minded pedophile did not mean to hurt John by killing Jonbenet, or even mean to kill her in the first place because he cared for her for keeping her warm inside in a blanket."

Now why would a father whos daughter had been killed in his own house defend that sick minded pedophile by saying "I don't think he meant to kill her..." ? Unless he knew that this really was the case.

But what is there to suggest that it was a pedophile? There was no rape involved that would suggest a pedophile, and a "sadistic pedophile" would do much gruesome things to a child, wouldn't he? Or was he only fantasizing about intruding into the house to "slightly assault her with a tip of a paintbrush"? It wouldn't really point to an "sadistic" act, would it? What was there that would point to an sadistic crime at all? Or a pedophile? Happy to learn.

He’s not defending the offender; he’s rationalizing in his own mind and trying to find hope that his daughter didn’t experience the degree of depravity of what she went through (his mind just does not want to go there and it’s trying to find any ounce of humanity that he could muster up).

 

[Ponytale]

He’s not defending the offender; he’s rationalizing in his own mind and trying to find hope that his daughter didn’t experience the degree of depravity of what she went through (his mind just does not want to go there and it’s trying to find any ounce of humanity that he could muster up).

Possibly, I can see that happening in his mind. Or it also could be seen as an apology, sort of...