Was BR involved? #2

[Springrain]

So, to you, John's message was "Twenty six years from now in 2027 when Burke is 40 and I'm 83, he'll have an emotional blowup"? Why did John feel the need to choose the age of 40 (which Patsy was just a few days shy of on Christmas night)? Why not 25 or 30? Why not state "They keep a lot inside and they don't really start thinking about it until they get to be older and that's when it hurts"?

I don't know. I was just trying to consider all the pieces of information. Probably not when he's 40, that specifically. I would just be curious see what he had to say.

 

[Annapurna]

I had a thought: if BDI, and we know there is the CO children's law, I wonder if that means the investigators can't even fully consider (as in obtain any warrants on that premise or any official stuff) that possibility officially? I wonder if that is part of the law, or maybe even an unofficial part of the culture. Perhaps that could even explain some of the reticence of AH.

I know Kolar operated on this premise, but his case is slightly different in that he was reviewing case files already written & operating independently.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Burke allowed himself to be filmed for the Barbara Walters special. He didn't speak, but they showed a video of him on a boat. It was only a few seconds, but it does show that he isn't completely hiding away.

 

[andreww]

If you saw it I would love to hear the details. The show was not available in my area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InstantProof]

It was an hour long and Barbara spent the majority of the hour going through the story and playing her interview with John & Patsy from years ago. They first presented the story with J&P looking guilty and uncooperative, then switched gears and went into the Lou Smit stuff. They mentioned the grand jury, and the R's not being indicted (no mention of the grand jury's vote to indict) and they mentioned the male DNA on the underwear belonging to the killer (!) numerous times and how the R's had finally been cleared. It all goes in J&P's favor very quickly. Barbara paints a picture of John going through hell and things eventually getting better for him, leading up to her new interview which was brief (10 minutes at the most) and offered nothing noteworthy. The only mention of Burke that I remember is Barbara asking about him being accused at the time on the cover of The Enquirer, and John just talking about trying to shield him from seeing that stuff. They showed video of Burke on a boat and said he works in computer tech. John talked about missing JB, losing his fortune & making poor financial decisions during a tragedy, having trouble finding work, and his new wife spoke for a bit.
I wasn't expecting much from this and was actually surprised they spent any time at all on some of the points that make the R's look guilty. I tried to watch with an open mind and I did feel bad for Patsy during her interview. But they present evidence that it must be a family member or someone very close only to end up brushing it all off as probably just a crazy child molester roaming the neighborhood.

 

[OliviaG1996]

It was an hour long and Barbara spent the majority of the hour going through the story and playing her interview with John & Patsy from years ago. They first presented the story with J&P looking guilty and uncooperative, then switched gears and went into the Lou Smit stuff. They mentioned the grand jury, and the R's not being indicted (no mention of the grand jury's vote to indict) and they mentioned the male DNA on the underwear belonging to the killer (!) numerous times and how the R's had finally been cleared. It all goes in J&P's favor very quickly. Barbara paints a picture of John going through hell and things eventually getting better for him, leading up to her new interview which was brief (10 minutes at the most) and offered nothing noteworthy. The only mention of Burke that I remember is Barbara asking about him being accused at the time on the cover of The Enquirer, and John just talking about trying to shield him from seeing that stuff. They showed video of Burke on a boat and said he works in computer tech. John talked about missing JB, losing his fortune & making poor financial decisions during a tragedy, having trouble finding work, and his new wife spoke for a bit.
I wasn't expecting much from this and was actually surprised they spent any time at all on some of the points that make the R's look guilty. I tried to watch with an open mind and I did feel bad for Patsy during her interview. But they present evidence that it must be a family member or someone very close only to end up brushing it all off as probably just a crazy child molester roaming the neighborhood.

I watched a few minute preview last night. The only informative part of the clip was that they showed angles of certain rooms of the house that I'd never seen before. Other than that, it was the typical "The BPD ruined the entire case and caused the intruder to get away" agenda. I don't know if I'll have the patience to watch a whole hour of one-sided arguments. I'll try to find it anyway.

Here's the preview:
http://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/barbara-walters-presents-american-scandals/

 

[andreww]

John Ramsey

"I wrote a letter saying we would meet and answer their questions anytime, anywhere"

If that is true he is asking us to believe that the Boulder Police Department willfully declined to interview not only the key witness's, but the prime suspects of a murder case they were having difficulty closing. Does he think we are stupid enough to believe his bald face lies? I think it is pretty damned obvious that any interview with the Ramseys would come with certain conditions that obviously LE were unwilling to agree to.

John Ramsey is a lying piece of and if he were to get hit by a bus tomorrow I'd crack a fine bottle of wine and break out a fine cuban cigar to celebrate.

And Barbara, call it a day sweetie. Your investigative skills must have been surgically removed during your last facelift.

 

[Occams Razor]

Reddit seems convinced that BR did it, but I just don't think so. Sure a 9-year-old COULD molest and kill his kid sister, but parental murder is infinitely more common than a sibling (child) killing a sibling (child). Parents abuse, neglect and kill their kids every day.

Burke most certainly didn't write the ransom note. Unless he was sexually abused himself, he would not have that level of knowledge about sexual things at age 9. Puberty doesn't occur in boys until age 12-16 on average. How did he know that the vagina even had a place to insert things? Most girls aren't even aware of the vaginal canal until menstruation begins. (Sorry if too graphic).

Anyway, I feel like many BDI theorists are bending over backwards to lay blame on anyone but the parents. Is it because they're wealthy white Christians from middle America? I can only assume it is. If Burke was involved, I believe he only inflicted the head wound, either in a rage or by accident. I don't believe he was responsible for the ongoing vaginal trauma or any of the sexual stuff that happened that night.

All MOO :cow:

 

[andreww]

Reddit seems convinced that BR did it, but I just don't think so. Sure a 9-year-old COULD molest and kill his kid sister, but parental murder is infinitely more common than a sibling (child) killing a sibling (child). Parents abuse, neglect and kill their kids every day.

Burke most certainly didn't write the ransom note. Unless he was sexually abused himself, he would not have that level of knowledge about sexual things at age 9. Puberty doesn't occur in boys until age 12-16 on average. How did he know that the vagina even had a place to insert things? Most girls aren't even aware of the vaginal canal until menstruation begins. (Sorry if too graphic).

Anyway, I feel like many BDI theorists are bending over backwards to lay blame on anyone but the parents. Is it because they're wealthy white Christians from middle America? I can only assume it is. If Burke was involved, I believe he only inflicted the head wound, either in a rage or by accident. I don't believe he was responsible for the ongoing vaginal trauma or any of the sexual stuff that happened that night.

All MOO :cow:

I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself. Although I have a strong suspicion of BDI, I don't believe that Burke did anything beyond the head bash. I think at some point that day the kids might have been playing doctor as young children sometimes tend to do, so Patsy staged a sexual assault as a means to cover this up. I believe Patsy staged the scene, I believe Patsy wrote the note, and I believe John had no clue as to what happened until the next day, about 10:00 am when he originally found the body.

So even though I consider this to be a BDI scenario, in truth it's PDI, and I assume many BDIs feel somewhat the same, to one extent or another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MsArk]

The one aspect of this case that keeps me coming back to BDI is that PR and JR were able to stay unified throughout the ordeal. IMO, the only way parents of a slain child could do that is to protect the child responsible for the murder. I do not see JR staying with PR if he thought or knew she was responsible. Similarly, what mother could sleep with a man at night who potentially molested then killed her precious daughter? I've read extensively, know the evidence (not as well as most of you admittedly) but BDI is the only scenario that makes common sense to me. They rushed him out of the house on the morning of 12-26 (strange on many levels) seemingly not wishing to have him close when their daughter had been "kidnapped" and the house supposedly being "watched". I think PR and JR fell on the sword for Burke.

ETA: PR did write the note with John's help after they sent Burke to bed when they realized what happened. No way BR was able to compose that note at age 9.

 

[andreww]

ETA: PR did write the note with John's help after they sent Burke to bed when they realized what happened. No way BR was able to compose that note at age 9.

BBM. See that is where I disagree. Lets just assume that John is involved in this charade. Why would he tell police that he had checked all the doors and they were locked? Why would he admit to having breaking that window when Fleet discovered it? If he was involved why not say "the front door was wide open" and "how the heck did that window get broken?" No, John did the Ramsey cause no favours in the early hours of this investigation. There are only two explanations for this;

- Patsy and or Burke committed this crime and John had no knowledge of it.

or

- The crime was actually committed by someone outside of the family.


Now for fun lets say the second option is true. We now have to ask ourselves why John's story changed? Why does he now deny that he checked all the locks? Why does he after three months reveal that he actually locked and closed that broken window? If that second statement is in fact true there would be no reason for him to alter his statement, because, if true, that stranger had to have had an entry and exit point. No need to lie or change stories.

 

[InstantProof]

BBM. See that is where I disagree. Lets just assume that John is involved in this charade. Why would he tell police that he had checked all the doors and they were locked? Why would he admit to having breaking that window when Fleet discovered it? If he was involved why not say "the front door was wide open" and "how the heck did that window get broken?" No, John did the Ramsey cause no favours in the early hours of this investigation. There are only two explanations for this;

- Patsy and or Burke committed this crime and John had no knowledge of it.

or

- The crime was actually committed by someone outside of the family.


Now for fun lets say the second option is true. We now have to ask ourselves why John's story changed? Why does he now deny that he checked all the locks? Why does he after three months reveal that he actually locked and closed that broken window? If that second statement is in fact true there would be no reason for him to alter his statement, because, if true, that stranger had to have had an entry and exit point. No need to lie or change stories.

I agree. Patsy wrote the note to control the situation (a bad guy did it) and in it she passes the problem off to John. Don't grow a brain... use that common sense... it's up to you now, John.

 

[OliviaG1996]

BBM. See that is where I disagree. Lets just assume that John is involved in this charade. Why would he tell police that he had checked all the doors and they were locked? Why would he admit to having breaking that window when Fleet discovered it? If he was involved why not say "the front door was wide open" and "how the heck did that window get broken?" No, John did the Ramsey cause no favours in the early hours of this investigation. There are only two explanations for this;

- Patsy and or Burke committed this crime and John had no knowledge of it.

or

- The crime was actually committed by someone outside of the family.


Now for fun lets say the second option is true. We now have to ask ourselves why John's story changed? Why does he now deny that he checked all the locks? Why does he after three months reveal that he actually locked and closed that broken window? If that second statement is in fact true there would be no reason for him to alter his statement, because, if true, that stranger had to have had an entry and exit point. No need to lie or change stories.

If JR had no knowledge of the crime until recognizing PR's handwriting and way of speaking in the ransom note, why didn't he go with the intruder theory right off the bat? Why did it take him up until supposedly finding JBR's body at 10 A.M. (or 11, I forget) to start covering for PR? And, why didn't he start screaming that he had found her right then and there? It's possible that JR didn't have anything to do with the crime and cover-up, but I don't think PR could've been able to keep her mouth shut after she saw JBR not responding.

 

[andreww]

If JR had no knowledge of the crime until recognizing PR's handwriting and way of speaking in the ransom note, why didn't he go with the intruder theory right off the bat? Why did it take him up until supposedly finding JBR's body at 10 A.M. (or 11, I forget) to start covering for PR? And, why didn't he start screaming that he had found her right then and there? It's possible that JR didn't have anything to do with the crime and cover-up, but I don't think PR could've been able to keep her mouth shut after she saw JBR not responding.

I think that when he looked at the note it crossed his mind that the writing resembled Patsy's, but that was just one clue. I think he was contemplating a lot of things that morning. Possibly Burke's demeanour tipped him off some more, and I suspect that many little things were not adding up. Possibly John himself was thinking "how the hell did someone get in and out of the house?". I truly believe that John stumbled upon the body at about 10:00 am, the very time that he disappeared for about an hour. I believe he was putting pieces together. Perhaps he'd at one time showed Burke how to make a garrote type device? Perhaps the half assed restraints gave it away? But IMO it was a little bit of everything that allowed John to figure out what happened.

 

[chlban]

I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself. Although I have a strong suspicion of BDI, I don't believe that Burke did anything beyond the head bash. I think at some point that day the kids might have been playing doctor as young children sometimes tend to do, so Patsy staged a sexual assault as a means to cover this up. I believe Patsy staged the scene, I believe Patsy wrote the note, and I believe John had no clue as to what happened until the next day, about 10:00 am when he originally found the body.

So even though I consider this to be a BDI scenario, in truth it's PDI, and I assume many BDIs feel somewhat the same, to one extent or another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITA about John not knowing until the next day. I have always believed that. I also believe if Burke was involved, which is my number one theory, that it was nothing more than the head bash.

The only other possibility I still entertain is that Patsy did all of it. In a fit of rage. I do lean more strongly though to BDI and all of the initial staging, including the War and Peace of Ransom notes, was Patsy.

I believe part of the reason she invited so many people over was to delay John confronting her and I think the often reported "distance" between the two of them that morning makes perfect sense if you assume that she was hoping to avoid questions and he was rapidly coming to the conclusion that, not only was there no kidnapping, but that his dear wife had clearly penned the RN.

That Note screams Patsy, even if the handwriting didn't match.

 

[andreww]

That Note screams Patsy, even if the handwriting didn't match.

The handwriting matched

 

[chlban]

The handwriting matched

Agreed.

 

[InstantProof]

If JR had no knowledge of the crime until recognizing PR's handwriting and way of speaking in the ransom note, why didn't he go with the intruder theory right off the bat? Why did it take him up until supposedly finding JBR's body at 10 A.M. (or 11, I forget) to start covering for PR? And, why didn't he start screaming that he had found her right then and there? It's possible that JR didn't have anything to do with the crime and cover-up, but I don't think PR could've been able to keep her mouth shut after she saw JBR not responding.

-If he feels Patsy wrote the letter, but has no idea what is going on, it makes sense he would just be honest. Once he starts lying, he is involved in whatever is going on.

-I think he may have staged some of the scene the first time supposedly finding the body.

 

[OliviaG1996]

-If he feels Patsy wrote the letter, but has no idea what is going on, it makes sense he would just be honest. Once he starts lying, he is involved in whatever is going on.

If JR wanted to be honest, he should've told LE immediately that the end of the note contained an inside joke only he and his family understood. He left that part out, though.

-I think he may have staged some of the scene the first time supposedly finding the body.

Respectfully, I still don't understand why he wouldn't scream and shout immediately upon seeing her body at 10, especially after being so desperate for answers as to what happened to her, where she was, and whether or not his wife had anything to do with this. You also have to consider that if JR wasn't a part of any of this, he didn't know if this was an accident or not yet. Would he choose to cover for his murdering wife (as far as he knew) over telling LE when he first found his dead daughter?

 

[chlban]

If JR wanted to be honest, he should've told LE immediately that the end of the note contained an inside joke only he and his family understood. He left that part out, though.



Respectfully, I still don't understand why he wouldn't scream and shout immediately upon seeing her body at 10, especially after being so desperate for answers as to what happened to her, where she was, and whether or not his wife had anything to do with this. You also have to consider that if JR wasn't a part of any of this, he didn't know if this was an accident or not yet. Would he choose to cover for his murdering wife (as far as he knew) over telling LE when he first found his dead daughter?

An accident?like she fell into the garote and accidentally strangled herself trying to get up? I think once he found her he KNEW someone had murdered her and his wife had written a ridiculous RN to try to sell a ridiculous "kidnapping". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that either she or the only other person in the house was responsible for it.