For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[TressaRing28]

From what LE has said as well as the coroner, (I believe) Burke could not have hit JBR as hard as she was hit. A 9 year old couldn't do it unless he was a "Baby Huey" 9 year old. LOL.

Beebs we must remember Burke played baseball, infact one was found out side the murder house indeed the picture was numbered 410.


Now if Burke could hit a baseball, he dang sure could have crushed JB head with a blow from one... He need not be Baby Huey, just 9 going on 10 next month Burke.

Come on--- this is common sense.

 

[popcorn]

"Burke was a 9-year-old child when JonBenet was killed. The blow to JonBenet's head was powerful enough to bring down a 300-pound man. This blow was administered by an adult male. So, to presume that a 9-year-old child could so viciously and brutally attack another child is foolishness."

The foolishness is to believe that quote came from LE or the coroner. That 300 pound crap came from none other than John Ramsey. Interestingly, John Ramsey has an ability to determine the sex of who commiitted the crime as well. The FBI could probably use someone with that talent but he'd have to pass a polygraph to get hired.

The only way Burke Ramsey couldn't have administered a head blow was if he were paralyzed living in a vegetive state.

 

[BlueCrab]

Because of the velocity that can be easily obtained from a baseball bat's weight and length, it doesn't take a large or strong person to swing a baseball bat and cave in someone's skull with it. A kindergartener could do it.

With respect to the ransom note, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation could not eliminate Burke Ramsey as the writer. The CBI eliminated John and was almost able to eliminate Patsy, but not Burke. I think Burke wrote the RN, perhaps with the help of an older kid in regard to vocabulary. But the handwriting is Burke's.

IMO Burke either killed JonBenet or knows who killed her. Burke, at 9 years old, was 4 weeks short of being able to be charged in the crime. The grand jury likely solved the crime in 1999. Boulder authorities are forced to cover it up because the Colorado Children's Code makes it a felony to disclose the name of a child who is involved in a major crime.

JMO

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab:


Although Burke may have been too young to be charged with a criminal offence. Presumably this does not apply to anyone who colluded or assisted him materially, and who was old enough to be charged with a criminal offence?

Assuming that Burke played no material part in the death of JonBenet, and that the grand jury accepts that. Would the Colorado Children's Code still make it a felony to disclose the name of Burke?

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab:


Although Burke may have been too young to be charged with a criminal offence. Presumably this does not apply to anyone who colluded or assisted him materially, and who was old enough to be charged with a criminal offence?

Assuming that Burke played no material part in the death of JonBenet, and that the grand jury accepts that. Would the Colorado Children's Code still make it a felony to disclose the name of Burke?

UKGuy,

You are making a big assumption with respect to Burke, because an awful lot of evidence points his way as the actual perpetrator. And you don't define what "no material part in the death" means.

Nevertheless, IMO if it was proven Burke was only a witness and nothing but a witness, his name could likely be revealed after the crime was solved and the killer was old enough to prosecute. But if Burke was an accomplice, or he was the killer, his name could not be revealed after the crime was solved. Prior to the crime being solved, if Burke is a suspect, IMO he cannot be revealed as such (and that's probably why he's called a witness and not a suspect).

IMO, that's the dilemma that Boulder authorities currently find themselves. I think the grand jury solved the crime in 1999 but they can't even reveal it, because it would violate the Colorado Children's Code.

JMO

 

[popcorn]

"Would the Colorado Children's Code still make it a felony to disclose the name of Burke?"

The real picture is John and Patsy Ramsey can't be charged for conspiracy to cover up what happened at the hands of Burke without mention and disclosure of his name and obvious association. Their misdeeds have no legal standing as well.

 

[BlueCrab]

"Would the Colorado Children's Code still make it a felony to disclose the name of Burke?"

The real picture is John and Patsy Ramsey can't be charged for conspiracy to cover up what happened at the hands of Burke without mention and disclosure of his name and obvious association. Their misdeeds have no legal standing as well.

Popcorn,

Exactly (although the parents didn't conspire with Burke to kill JonBenet). Most states don't have rigid codes that limit who can and who cannot be charged with a crime. It's left up to the discretion of the justice system in those states, as it should be.

The Colorado Children's Code, in effect, says it's okay for everyone to lie to protect the identity of a child who is involved in a major crime. Although well intended, IMO the Children's Code is too inflexible, leading to the mess in the JonBenet Ramsey murder. (What a tangled web we weave with a lie.)

The Children's Code, besides allowing John and Patsy to slide away instead of being charged for obstruction of justice, may have also allowed a culpable adult who is a bonifide murderer or is an accomplice to a murder, to slip unnoticed between the cracks.

JMO

 

[KATKAT19691]

Because of the velocity that can be easily obtained from a baseball bat's weight and length, it doesn't take a large or strong person to swing a baseball bat and cave in someone's skull with it. A kindergartener could do it.

JMO

My dad joking tells a story now of when my brother and sister we small, my brother was 3 and my sis was 4 (yes they are 10 months apart), my dad was playing with my sis tickle her and my bro, thought he was hurting her so he picked up a coke bottle and hit him in the head with it. My 3 year old brother knocked him completley out. So you are right with the right instrument, a small child can bring down even an adult, so why not a little girl???

Kat
IMO

 

[KATKAT19691]

Maybe your post would be more appropriate under a thread titled "Abigail believes Patsy prostituted JBR", but, I don't think this is "on topic" here.

The point the poster was trying to make, was that if it can happen in one place then Patsy could have been using JBR for this reason to and that someone else could have hurt her. The post makes sense to me and does fit in.

Kat
IMO

 

[aRnd2it]

Now if Burke could hit a baseball, he dang sure could have crushed JB head with a blow from one... He need not be Baby Huey, just 9 going on 10 next month Burke.

John Ramsey says it best when he says that the head blow could have fallen a 300 Lb. man.
And Burke, or any other 10 year old, can certainly swing a baseball bat hard enough to knock out a 300 lb. man.

Dr. Cyril Wecht has said that there is nothing about this crime that couldn't include Burke.

 

[DocWatson]

BC,
As you well know, student Nathan Inouye himself says he was in California over that Xmas break. If we are to take your theory seriously, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he was even in Boulder at the time of the murder.

Moreover, your theory has to provide a plausible theory of how TWO "invited intruders" came and left the house that night, apparently detected by no one. In other posts, you have noted that there were bicycle tracks and that Patsy's bike, temporarily missing, was later returned. But unless you are claiming the two rode tandem (which seems dubious given the slick surface of the ground with the dusting of snow that must have still been there at the time they left), that only accounts for one.

A further complication is the lack of fingerprints or DNA evidence. If this was an accidental death, then how did these boys have the apparent foresight to wear gloves during the entire proceedings, leaving no telltale evidence on the garrote or JBR's person? And how do you account for the brutality of the slaying? Your theory IS consistent with the timing of the head blow, which came AFTER strangulation as otherwise there would have been a lot more bleeding. But it is not consistent with the foreign object JAMMED into her while alive and which would have hurt like hell.

You have done a great job of showing why the evidence exonerates PR and in crafting a theory that accounts for an intruder (i.e., all the items that apparently left the scene, the broken tip of the paintbrush being among them). So I'm puzzled why you seem so stuck on a BDI account (that is highly improbable--though admittedly not IMPOSSIBLE--from the standpoint of psycho-sexual development) rather than the far more straightforward explanation that the perp was either a pedophile or out to "get" John.

 

[UKGuy]

DocWatson:

I agree, these boys seem pretty forensically aware for their age. Also if they can leave with impunity , why not take JonBenet's body with them, after all they did just compose a ransom note. Whats the difference between footprint leading away from the house or bicycle tracks leading away, since the treads would point in one direction?

An apparent integral aspect to the BDI theory is that the evasiveness and less than constructive approach towards the police by Patsy and John, is explained by the need to protect Burke. But what if Patsy and John are actually seeking to protect themselves from arrest?

 

[DocWatson]

If there was an intruder involved, it couldn't have been a stranger intruder.

QUESTION: When was it reported that the Ramseys spoke with the Stines again after the murder (they weren't called that morning).

If you can accept the possibility of an intruder, then on what grounds do you rule out a stranger intruder? We've seen more than one other case where an intruder was stealthily able to get into a house and get access to a child
during the night even while the parents were sleeping on the same level!

The very fact that at least one of the Stines wasn't there is a pretty strong
clue Doug wasn't involved. Put yourself in their shoes. If Doug were involved and had been stealthily spirited home with the Ramsey's knowledge, can you IMAGINE one of the parents not wanting to be around as the police snooped around the house looking for clues? Wouldn't you be scared to death they would find something that would implicate your son? You are sensible to rule out Nathan since there is literally zero evidence tying him to the crime (BC's wild speculations are the farthest thing from evidence). You should now apply your good common sense to Doug.

 

[TLynn]

Why no stranger intruder?

Too familiar...with layout of a complicated house (wine cellar especially), with knowledge about the Ramseys (RN), the pineapple, the blanket being in the downstairs dryer, Burke's knife being in the 2nd floor cupboard (behind the diapers), finding and using the contents inside JAR's suitcase.

More - knowing that Patsy came down the back stairs, that the window was already broken, where their flashlight was kept - crime scene showed care for the victim.

Even JR stated it was an "inside job."

 

[sissi]

I have always had a problem thinking of an intruder, who wasn't known to the child, committing this murder. I considered Elizabeth,however, her sister saw the intruder,then Polly whose intruder was hardly stealth, the other girls witnessed her abduction, and Danielle, which was the oddest of all. Westerfield, who was balding, had a mustache, and was drunk, managed to slip into the house while parents were home, climb those stairs, quietly remove her, not waking her parents or brothers,even the dog wasn't alarmed, and yet, not a fiber, not a hair, not a fingerprint of his was found in that house. Is this not amazing!! Of course Westerfield didn't leave a ransom note, because likely an adult who commits this type of crime has no reason to leave one,not when his only motive is murderous lust. What kind of person needs to leave a ransom note? A person who fantasizes about kidnapping? A person who didn't admit to himself that he was going to kill her? ....and why is that note so personal, asking for John's bonus, mentioning his business, showing his hate for "fatcats", clearly saying, I took her, I killed her, because you have it all and you didn't share.
It sounds like tiny tims father ,given a temper and a sociopathic personality could have "dunnit" as retribution for the injustices, or tiny tim himself protected by his parent who "understands".

 

[sissi]

Why no stranger intruder?

Too familiar...with layout of a complicated house (wine cellar especially), with knowledge about the Ramseys (RN), the pineapple, the blanket being in the downstairs dryer, Burke's knife being in the 2nd floor cupboard (behind the diapers), finding and using the contents inside JAR's suitcase.

More - knowing that Patsy came down the back stairs, that the window was already broken, where their flashlight was kept - crime scene showed care for the victim.

Even JR stated it was an "inside job."

IMO if what you say is important, it points to LHP and her family, she knew where the knife was, admitted to borrowing the suitcase, knew the location of blankets,underwear,pullups and nighties, would serve pineapple ,had a key, was going to pick up a check, etc. They didn't do it, because in that entire family there wasn't one who could put together a sentence. (according to Steve this is how they got their "pass")
edit to add..and wasn't she returning clothing that Patsy loaned to Arianna? wonder if that included panties?

 

[aRnd2it]

and why is that note so personal, asking for John's bonus, mentioning his business, showing his hate for "fatcats", clearly saying, I took her, I killed her, because you have it all and you didn't share.

John and Patsy composed the note so that the authorities would think someone related to John's business was the kidnapper. Who else could they have pointed the crime toward, another crazed pageant mother?

 

[DocWatson]

Why no stranger intruder?

Too familiar...with layout of a complicated house (wine cellar especially), with knowledge about the Ramseys (RN), the pineapple, the blanket being in the downstairs dryer, Burke's knife being in the 2nd floor cupboard (behind the diapers), finding and using the contents inside JAR's suitcase.

More - knowing that Patsy came down the back stairs, that the window was already broken, where their flashlight was kept - crime scene showed care for the victim.

Even JR stated it was an "inside job."

But most intruder scenarios have the perp entering the house while the Ramseys were away, giving that individual several hours in the house and hence plenty of time to snoop around. The pineapple is not definitive evidence as there is too much variation in digestion times to "prove" it was ingested that night. The fact that note was left on back stairs doesn't prove the perp knew Patsy's habits.

 

[aRnd2it]

The pineapple is not definitive evidence as there is too much variation in digestion times to "prove" it was ingested that night.

Digestion time isn't even an issue. All the food she ate that day and at the White's party was in front of the pineapple in her digestive tract. She could only have eaten the pineapple AFTER they arrived home.

The pineapple is a BIG problem to the intruder theory--Lou Smit even told JR that.

 

[sissi]

Digestion time isn't even an issue. All the food she ate that day and at the White's party was in front of the pineapple in her digestive tract. She could only have eaten the pineapple AFTER they arrived home.

The pineapple is a BIG problem to the intruder theory--Lou Smit even told JR that.

There is no information to suggest "cracked crab" is in her digestive system. Imo, she threw it up. If she picked at food at the Whites until about 8, went to bed at 9:30, where is that food?