Undoing

[Ames]

UKYGuy, Over the weekend I read several old threads here concerning Burke. Some interesting ideas were brought up in the old discussions. One, Burke was not cleared and the only time him being cleared was mentioned was Hunter being caught off-guard during an interview. Apparently, Colorado law does not allow any mention of a crime committed by someone under ten years old. According to old messages here, such crimes, in the eyes of the law, are as if they were never committed, all records are sealed and no one can mention anything about it under penalty of law. It was interesting reading.

On the other hand, Steve Thomas's theory is that Patsy did it. He stated he felt sorry for Burke because he had been unfairly subjected to suspicion (my paraphrasing).

I agree with Steve Thomas, andd I just don't see how Burke...at age 9...could have pulled this off. IF it had of been Burke, then the ONLY thing that would have made sense, would be if he argued with JB over a toy or something, and he shoved her down the stairs, or something..and the parents covered it up. But, like you said..if that were the case,,,him being under ten at the time, it would have been like it never happened, so why would the Rams cover for him? This is why I don't think that he was involved AT ALL.

 

[BOESP]

I agree with Steve Thomas, andd I just don't see how Burke...at age 9...could have pulled this off. IF it had of been Burke, then the ONLY thing that would have made sense, would be if he argued with JB over a toy or something, and he shoved her down the stairs, or something..and the parents covered it up. But, like you said..if that were the case,,,him being under ten at the time, it would have been like it never happened, so why would the Rams cover for him? This is why I don't think that he was involved AT ALL.

Good points. I guess the Ramseys could have covered it up even if it involved rough play since someone would have to explain why JonBenet was dead and, perhaps, they didn't want any stigma attached. Who knows. Regardless, the Ramseys know/knew more than they told an like you, I tend to sit on Steve Thomas's side of the fence.

 

[JMO8778]

coloradokares,
Sure something along those lines, with separate lawyers, this was a possible defense against any plea bargaining. imo the questioning of Patsy was the focus of attempts to turn her, she knew this, so mostly replied in kind.

.

yes,the focus WAS on her,as it was said they thought she did it.she was q'd far longer (and harder,if you want to call it that), than JR was.
you are saying they focused on her in order to get her to turn on JR?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778

Separate lawyers mean someone has something to defend, since the separation means no shared evidence, one or both parties were allowing for the I was there, but he did it defense?

Burke Ramsey holds the key to this case, its his testimony that will either corroborate the parents version of events, or deny them?


.

IA that BR doesn't know anything, other than what he was told to say (lie about rather).If he did see or hear anything,he's not talking.

 

[JMO8778]

A wife cannot be compelled or legally forced to testify against her husband and the opposite is true as well regarding the other spouse The Ramseys were well aware of this and so was the DA All they had to do is keep their mouths shut and they were home free, the fact they each had their own attorneys was their insurance neither would break or give testmony regarding the other. It was also their stay out of jail free cards!! It worked!!! That is my opinion

well-said,and probably the reason they stayed married.

 

[Ames]

Good points. I guess the Ramseys could have covered it up even if it involved rough play since someone would have to explain why JonBenet was dead and, perhaps, they didn't want any stigma attached. Who knows. Regardless, the Ramseys know/knew more than they told an like you, I tend to sit on Steve Thomas's side of the fence.

But, even if Burke HAD of pushed her down a flight of stairs, because of a fight over a toy or something...I don't believe that the head blow is what killed her....I think it eventually would have though. I believe that her air supply being cut off is what intitially killed her. SOOOO..if JB had of been shoved, and they knew that Burke wouldn't have to do any time for it, I think that they would have called 911, instead of choking off her air (unless they thought that she was ALREADY dead from the fall)..and staging a crime scene. I think that they just went to to much trouble, IF it had of been Burke, when he wouldn't have really gotten into trouble for it. They could have said that it was an accident, or something. Anyway...Patsy did it, so all this talk about Burke is a moot point. LOL

 

[coloradokares]

I agree with Steve Thomas, andd I just don't see how Burke...at age 9...could have pulled this off. IF it had of been Burke, then the ONLY thing that would have made sense, would be if he argued with JB over a toy or something, and he shoved her down the stairs, or something..and the parents covered it up. But, like you said..if that were the case,,,him being under ten at the time, it would have been like it never happened, so why would the Rams cover for him? This is why I don't think that he was involved AT ALL.

Unless it was deliberate, an act of irrefutable murder with intent , follow my thought, and Burke was very close to the age cutoff, .... who can say as close to the cut off age as he was what the outcome might have been. There has been in every state exceptions made and children charged and in some cases as adults, that be the case, take all criteria, and that Jon Benet had been harmed prior by Burke from a golf club incident! The only scenario that fits is #1 they did not know that Burke or indeed themselves could not be charged so in their desperation to protect Burke they lied and staged and false reported SFF or #2 they knew or had special knowldege that since Burke had hurt Jon Benet before and they had failed to protect her that could somehow alter how the state would likely handle this matter and charges would likely be brought one way or the other ...... or Burke being removed from the home and I am only rambling and mulling over various possibilities well ......I just dont see this all fitting. I think its a real stretch to insert Burke in this at all unless that golf club incident had changed things in ways we dont imagine.?!? But, personally I just dont see it. I really think there were more problems in that house than any of us knew about and $$ and power and appearances hid those problems and protected their reputations till that night they had a body on their hands and rather than face the consequences they staged and wrote ransom notes and did what must be done to protect themselves and each other and sadly it worked. One thing is true we may never know or have the truth confirmed to us. That is because nothing of substance was ever done to obtain truth or justice for Jon Benet. I really think they know who killed Jon Benet but they will never charge or prosecute.

 

[coloradokares]

Unless it was deliberate, an act of irrefutable murder with intent , follow my thought, and Burke was very close to the age cutoff, .... who can say as close to the cut off age as he was what the outcome might have been. There has been in every state exceptions made and children charged and in some cases as adults, that be the case, take all criteria, and that Jon Benet had been harmed prior by Burke from a golf club incident! The only scenario that fits is #1 they did not know that Burke or indeed themselves could not be charged so in their desperation to protect Burke they lied and staged and false reported SFF or #2 they knew or had special knowldege that since Burke had hurt Jon Benet before and they had failed to protect her that could somehow alter how the state would likely handle this matter and charges would likely be brought one way or the other ...... or Burke being removed from the home and I am only rambling and mulling over various possibilities well ......I just dont see this all fitting. I think its a real stretch to insert Burke in this at all unless that golf club incident had changed things in ways we dont imagine.?!? But, personally I just dont see it. I really think there were more problems in that house than any of us knew about and $$ and power and appearances hid those problems and protected their reputations till that night they had a body on their hands and rather than face the consequences they staged and wrote ransom notes and did what must be done to protect themselves and each other and sadly it worked. One thing is true we may never know or have the truth confirmed to us. That is because nothing of substance was ever done to obtain truth or justice for Jon Benet. I really think they know who killed Jon Benet but they will never charge or prosecute.

Let me add I do not think it was Burke. If so it would blow my mind.

 

[UKGuy]

UKYGuy, Over the weekend I read several old threads here concerning Burke. Some interesting ideas were brought up in the old discussions. One, Burke was not cleared and the only time him being cleared was mentioned was Hunter being caught off-guard during an interview. Apparently, Colorado law does not allow any mention of a crime committed by someone under ten years old. According to old messages here, such crimes, in the eyes of the law, are as if they were never committed, all records are sealed and no one can mention anything about it under penalty of law. It was interesting reading.

On the other hand, Steve Thomas's theory is that Patsy did it. He stated he felt sorry for Burke because he had been unfairly subjected to suspicion (my paraphrasing).

BOESP,

Yes, Colorado's child protection laws, were what underpinned BlueCrab's BDI theory.

Although Burke may not have been directly involved in the death of JonBenet? He patently knows which account is correct. Remember he said JonBenet walked into the house, the parents said she was carried in sleeping? The parents deny all knowledge of a pineapple snack, Burke may have been present, he might be able to tell us another story? John says Burke spent some time with him on returning from the White's, did he, or is this fabricated? Again Burke can tell us. Similarly for the sequence of events the following morning, Burke can tell us what he knows.

Whatever we think, whomever we think killed JonBenet, Burke definitely knows, since he was there, and he knows now that his parents version of events is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, so he is the only person who can break the case, assuming the Lounge Lizard, continues to maintain his innocence?

As long as Burke's Grand Jury testimony largely agreed with, or did not unduly contradict his parents version of events, then what he said will be covered by colorado's jurisdiction.

Assuming Burke had no legal liability due to his age, does this mean his testimony similarly carried no legal force?


.

 

[Ames]

Let me add I do not think it was Burke. If so it would blow my mind.

I don't think so either. I believe that the golf club accident was just that...an accident. John said, that Burke was just swinging the club, as wasn't watching what he was doing..like MOST kids do...and JB came up beside of him, and he didn't see her. And this is probably the ONE and ONLY time that I actually believe John. Burke was only nine, he wouldn't have been able to deliver that severe blow to JB's head...dislodging a piece of her skull...he wasn't "The Incredible Hulk". Like most boys, I am sure that he probably thought he was, though. LOL

 

[UKGuy]

yes,the focus WAS on her,as it was said they thought she did it.she was q'd far longer (and harder,if you want to call it that), than JR was.
you are saying they focused on her in order to get her to turn on JR?

JMO8778,

Yes this was their interview strategy. They hoped to force Patsy into some admission, or accept a contradiction, or ultimately face her down with the evidence of JonBenet's prior sexual abuse?

I reckon they thought John was guilty and Patsy was covering for him, so by questioning Patsy they hoped to get her to crack, do a plea bargain, and put her up against John. It never worked probably because Patsy was involved?


.

 

[UKGuy]

IA that BR doesn't know anything, other than what he was told to say (lie about rather).If he did see or hear anything,he's not talking.

JMO8778,

Sure but he knows. He is no longer a child, and can still testify, one day he may decide to tell the world that he was manipulated as a child, and that he wishes to unburden himself, probably once John has passed on?


.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,

Yes, Colorado's child protection laws, were what underpinned BlueCrab's BDI theory.

Although Burke may not have been directly involved in the death of JonBenet? He patently knows which account is correct. Remember he said JonBenet walked into the house, the parents said she was carried in sleeping? The parents deny all knowledge of a pineapple snack, Burke may have been present, he might be able to tell us another story? John says Burke spent some time with him on returning from the White's, did he, or is this fabricated? Again Burke can tell us. Similarly for the sequence of events the following morning, Burke can tell us what he knows.

Whatever we think, whomever we think killed JonBenet, Burke definitely knows, since he was there, and he knows now that his parents version of events is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, so he is the only person who can break the case, assuming the Lounge Lizard, continues to maintain his innocence?

As long as Burke's Grand Jury testimony largely agreed with, or did not unduly contradict his parents version of events, then what he said will be covered by colorado's jurisdiction.

Assuming Burke had no legal liability due to his age, does this mean his testimony similarly carried no legal force?

I don't know but your question is a good one (in bold type above). That poor kid has a big burden to carry around if he, indeed, knows what happened and can't discuss it.

I thought BlueCrab did a good job with his theory and arguments. I only learned of the Colorado Juvenile Code a couple of weeks ago so this entire line of discussion was new to me.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know but your question is a good one (in bold type above). That poor kid has a big burden to carry around if he, indeed, knows what happened and can't discuss it.

I thought BlueCrab did a good job with his theory and arguments. I only learned of the Colorado Juvenile Code a couple of weeks ago so this entire line of discussion was new to me.

BOESP,

The salient point being, if it carries no force, then Colorado's child protection laws are of no real relevance?

.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,

The salient point being, if it carries no force, then Colorado's child protection laws are of no real relevance?

.

I know nothing about Colorado Code but unless Burke was charged with something I doubt the Grand Jury questioning him would fall under their juvenile protection laws since he hadn't been charged with anything criminal. :waitasec:

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Sure but he knows. He is no longer a child, and can still testify, one day he may decide to tell the world that he was manipulated as a child, and that he wishes to unburden himself, probably once John has passed on?


.

if he does then I bet he would feel very vindicated for it.he was totally used for PR and JR's gain,and he may come to realize that someday,if he doesn't already.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Yes this was their interview strategy. They hoped to force Patsy into some admission, or accept a contradiction, or ultimately face her down with the evidence of JonBenet's prior sexual abuse?

I reckon they thought John was guilty and Patsy was covering for him, so by questioning Patsy they hoped to get her to crack, do a plea bargain, and put her up against John. It never worked probably because Patsy was involved?


.

is this a common interview/interrogation strategy involving spouses,where only one is thought to be guilty?b/c to me it seemed,or at least they said,the focus was on Patsy b/c it was felt she was the one guilty of murdering JB.

 

[DeeDee249]

JMO8778,

Sure but he knows. He is no longer a child, and can still testify, one day he may decide to tell the world that he was manipulated as a child, and that he wishes to unburden himself, probably once John has passed on?


.

I was wondering that myself. I am not all that familiar with Colorado law, but CAN he ever be called to testify on this (supposedly still open) case? Even if someone can't be charged with a crime under age 10, why can't they be charged at a later time? So all anyone needs to do to kill someone in Colorado is have someone present under 10 and blame them, and like magic, the crime never occurred. Interesting...who do they think is burued in JBR's grave? A non-existant little girl?

 

[UKGuy]

is this a common interview/interrogation strategy involving spouses,where only one is thought to be guilty?b/c to me it seemed,or at least they said,the focus was on Patsy b/c it was felt she was the one guilty of murdering JB.

JMO8778,

Yes, very common. The divide and conquer strategy, even when a spouse is guilty, or involved in some manner, the spouse will be offered some kind of plea bargain in return for either a reduced sentence or misdemeanor charges.

The spouse normally a wife, is then represented to the court as a tragic victim, who has harrowing testimony to present to the court, but that will help convict her husband who is usually described as having a personality disorder, and being abusive etc.

This strategy guarantees results in cases where lack of co-operation might result in a long drawn out legal process, or the main players are married.

Also in JonBenet's case it is likely that only one person actually killed her, assuming it was not a joint effort, then the police know one of the parents could be offered a lower degree homicide charge, or none at all, in return for testimony that would secure a conviction.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I was wondering that myself. I am not all that familiar with Colorado law, but CAN he ever be called to testify on this (supposedly still open) case? Even if someone can't be charged with a crime under age 10, why can't they be charged at a later time? So all anyone needs to do to kill someone in Colorado is have someone present under 10 and blame them, and like magic, the crime never occurred. Interesting...who do they think is burued in JBR's grave? A non-existant little girl?

DeeDee249,

Yes he can be called to testify as part of any legal process. Yes what you suggest would be the consequence of any child crime under those laws, but in practise any serious violation would be reported even if only in the third person. There have been cases in other states where children have accidently killed other children, and although their names are not reported, the circumstances tell everyone just who is being reported.

If Burke had killed JonBenet or been accussed of it we would know about it, but everyone in authority would cite the law and refuse to discuss?

I think it is improbable that Burke was involved in the death of JonBenet. Due to his silence and collusion, it will be part of his legacy that he remains as a suspect since he was a resident on the night of her death.


.