Details About Burke's 1/8/97 Interview

[BlueCrab]

Further, that without anyone of them having been convicted of a murder, it is wrong to accuse and defame them.

Fran,

A person cannot be convicted of a crime without first being accused.

It isn't defamation to discuss on the internet the evidence for and against an accused person, but it might be defamation to say the people who want to post and discuss the evidence are espousing disgusting theories, implying the poster is disgusting.

So you don't intend to provide what you consider evidence of an intruder? Why doesn't that surprise me?

You don't know of any evidence of an intruder, do you?

JMO

 

[Fran Bancroft]

Fran,

A person cannot be convicted of a crime without first being accused.

It isn't defamation to discuss on the internet the evidence for and against an accused person, but it might be defamation to say the people who want to post and discuss the evidence are espousing disgusting theories, implying the poster is disgusting.

So you don't intend to provide what you consider evidence of an intruder? Why doesn't that surprise me?

You don't know of any evidence of an intruder, do you?

JMO

You're not sounding like your usual self dealing with facts. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're being snotty to me. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[sissi]

There are two different tests which the courts have applied in order to distinguish libel from slander. They are:

the form of publication - defamatory material published in a permanent form is libel, if non-permanent then it is slander, and
the mode of publication - defamatory material published to the eye is libel, but to the ear is slander.

I think the Aussies have it right, IMO. Our laws seem to determine each case by merit.

evidence of an intruder.
Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
I question WHY?
More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.

IMO

 

[Seeker]

Actually, the word is LIBEL not Liable. Written=libel. Spoken=slander.

LOL! Thanks Fran....spelling is not my strong suit.

 

[Fran Bancroft]

LOL! Thanks Fran....spelling is not my strong suit.

You're a good sport! Thanks for not being offended at my correcting the spelling. I LOVE spelling. (But, I make goofs, too.)

 

[BlueCrab]

You're not sounding like your usual self dealing with facts. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're being snotty to me. I hope I'm wrong.

Fran,

Looking back on my post, I did sound snotty. Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude, just straightforward to egg you into a discussion on credible intruder evidence (which I'm convinced doesn't exist).

JMO

 

[Ivy]

I stand with BlueCrab... Burke was never cleared. But so what if he had been cleared by Hunter, or never really considered a suspect? People are "uncleared" and/or added to suspect lists all the time.

Hunter is history. Has Keenan ever officially cleared Burke? As far as I know, she hasn't, and when a certain poster here emailed Keenan and tried to pin her down on the subject of Burke, the reponse the poster received was noncommittal.

imo

 

[K777angel]

I stand with BlueCrab... Burke was never cleared. But so what if he had been cleared by Hunter, or never really considered a suspect? People are "uncleared" and/or added to suspect lists all the time.

Hunter is history. Has Keenan ever officially cleared Burke? As far as I know, she hasn't, and when a certain poster here emailed Keenan and tried to pin her down on the subject of Burke, the reponse the poster received was noncommittal.

imo

Also, keep in mind that in the NY Post lawsuit deal, the judge made a point in his order that the rough draft affadavit regarding Burke Lin Wood first submitted to Alex Hunter to sign saying he'd been cleared - was REJECTED by Alex Hunter and revised to be worded differently.
The judge is no dummy and knew there was significance to this so pointed it out. It wasn't due to puncutation errors...
Also, Lin Wood's whole objective in getting Hunter to sign this affadavit was to announce to the public that Burke was cleared.
If the current affadavit says he's "cleared" (which it doesn't) - then what possible correction would there have been needed on the first draft? It's not like Wood had the first one dumbed-down and Hunter wanted it ramped up to be more emphatic.
No. It was the other way around.
Think people, think!!

 

[BlueCrab]

I stand with BlueCrab... Burke was never cleared. But so what if he had been cleared by Hunter, or never really considered a suspect? People are "uncleared" and/or added to suspect lists all the time.

Hunter is history. Has Keenan ever officially cleared Burke? As far as I know, she hasn't, and when a certain poster here emailed Keenan and tried to pin her down on the subject of Burke, the reponse the poster received was noncommittal.

imo

Ivy,

Keenan has never cleared Burke either. The WS poster you mentioned e-mailed both Keenan and Beckner, and neither would state that Burke has been cleared.

JMO

 

[Ivy]

Thanks, BC. I remember now that the poster also emailed Beckner as well as Keenan to "prove" to us that Burke was cleared...and failed utterly to do so, because neither would say Burke was cleared.

Excerpt from http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm :

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect (Not the same as "cleared") in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Nor would he say that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did, however, agree to language in which he declared that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect," and there is nothing in the transcripts of the interviews of the Ramseys to suggest any such evidence was developed.

So whatever Hunter's suspicions about Burke, he wasn't able to substantiate them.

~~

imo

 

[BlueCrab]

Thanks, BC. I remember now that the poster also emailed Beckner as well as Keenan to "prove" to us that Burke was cleared...and failed utterly to do so, because neither would say Burke was cleared.

Excerpt from http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm :

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect (Not the same as "cleared") in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Nor would he say that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did, however, agree to language in which he declared that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect," and there is nothing in the transcripts of the interviews of the Ramseys to suggest any such evidence was developed.

So whatever Hunter's suspicions about Burke, he wasn't able to substantiate them.

~~

imo

Ivy,

That's correct. Boulder authorities will use every obfuscated word or term in the book to keep from saying Burke has been CLEARED.

But I don't think they have a choice. IMO the authorities can't say he's cleared without lying to the public; and they can't say BDI without violating the Colorado Children's Code protecting the identity of children involved in a major crime.

Lie and Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

JMO

 

[Fran Bancroft]

Fran,

Looking back on my post, I did sound snotty. Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude, just straightforward to egg you into a discussion on credible intruder evidence (which I'm convinced doesn't exist).

JMO

Hey, BC, no problem. I kindly accept your "egging" invitation. You'll probably think I'm copping out, but, it will be a bit before I can present myself for your challenge. My father died a few weeks ago, and I'm incredibly busy preparing to file a lawsuit early next week. I come here to WS for a "break". I am, indeed, interested in looking for what, if any, evidence points to an intruder. I cannot commit the time yet-but, I will soon.


Fran

 

[BlueCrab]

Hey, BC, no problem. I kindly accept your "egging" invitation. You'll probably think I'm copping out, but, it will be a bit before I can present myself for your challenge. My father died a few weeks ago, and I'm incredibly busy preparing to file a lawsuit early next week. I come here to WS for a "break". I am, indeed, interested in looking for what, if any, evidence points to an intruder. I cannot commit the time yet-but, I will soon.


Fran

Fran,

I'm very sorry to learn of your dad's death. Bless you.

BC

 

[sissi]

My sympathies too, Fran.

 

[KATKAT19691]

Bed wetting past a certain age in male children is a sign of a serial killer. That is why it is important as to if he was still wetting his bed.

Kat
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Bed wetting past a certain age in male children is a sign of a serial killer. That is why it is important as to if he was still wetting his bed.

Kat

Kat,

According to Dr. Bernhard, the psychologist who interviewed Burke several days after the murder, the Social Services people told her Burke had a current bedwetting problem. Burke denied it to Dr. Bernhard, which she said was unusual because children usually don't lie to her about such things.

JMO

 

[KATKAT19691]

Kat,

According to Dr. Bernhard, the psychologist who interviewed Burke several days after the murder, the Social Services people told her Burke had a current bedwetting problem. Burke denied it to Dr. Bernhard, which she said was unusual because children usually don't lie to her about such things.

JMO

Was not disputing the fact of if he was wetting the bed. was saying that is why the question was asked and why it is important. if he was wetting the bed by age 10 i believe it is getting close to the age considered to be a sign of a serial killer. Also, does anyone know if there was ever an occasion of burke hurting animals? just wondering.

Kat
IMO

PS... Here is some info to ponder on. I really don't see anything here to apply to Burke, but someone else may know something that may apply.

Could you be raising a criminal? Acts of violence don't come out of nowhere, and every parent should be aware of the clues along the way. For the most violent of criminals, there are warning signs that often start in childhood. Below is a list of the 14 most common traits of serial killers.

1. Over 90 percent of serial killers are male.

2. They tend to be intelligent, with IQ's in the "bright normal" range.

3. They do poorly in school, have trouble holding down jobs, and often work as unskilled laborers.

4. They tend to come from markedly unstable families.

5. As children, they are abandoned by their fathers and raised by domineering mothers.

6. Their families often have criminal, psychiatric and alcoholic histories.

7. They hate their fathers and mothers.

8. They are commonly abused as children — psychologically, physically and sexually. Often the abuse is by a family member.

9. Many serial killers spend time in institutions as children and have records of early psychiatric problems.

10. They have high rates of suicide attempts.

11. From an early age, many are intensely interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sado-masochistic .

12. More than 60 percent of serial killers wet their beds beyond the age of 12.

13. Many serial killers are fascinated with fire starting.

14. They are involved with sadistic activity or tormenting small creatures.

Source: Internal Association of Forensic Science, an article written by FBI Special Agent Robert K. Ressler
"The Serial Killer," Harold Schechter

 

[sissi]

Primary bedwetting has no importance in the psychology of a child. However, in an abusive home it could have created tension and violence, this is what I would expect in the homes that are unstable as you described .
Burke denied bedwetting because it wasn't an issue when he was a little guy, and he had stopped around the age of six. I take as a source of information that offered by his former nanny and LHP. The "leaks" by the bpd surrounding this issue were actually from the mouth of LHP, who stated Burke stopped wetting around the time Patsy's attention turned toward Jonbenet. Truth he stopped at around age six, which in his genetic background was about average. John's children from his marriage to Lucinda wet the bed ,as well, until around this approx. age. IMO
Secondary bedwetting is a different pathology, and has never been noted in the case of any of the Ramsey children.
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Burke denied bedwetting because it wasn't an issue when he was a little guy, and he had stopped around the age of six. I take as a source of information that offered by his former nanny and LHP.

Sissi,

Dr. Bernhard says she got the information about Burke from Social Services. I guess the Social Services people could have had incorrect information in regard to Burke still wetting the bed at nine years of age.

But what was Social Services doing with this kind of information about Burke in the first place? There appears to be an untold story about Burke and why Social Services was or had been involved with him.

JMO

 

[sissi]

Social services had to make a determination after the murder to satisfy Colorado law, to insure this home was a safe place for this child.
They decided it was safe after Burke's interview.( Jan.8,1997) If you are suggesting there was involvement with this agency before the murder, I will suggest your information is wrong. IMO

Edit to add..the information you have concerning bedwetting, did it come straight from the "bonita" papers?