Was Burke Involved # 5

[MzOpinion8d]

MzOpinion8d,
You could be right, other members have suggested the same explanation.

The way I see it is you have a staged crime-scene in the basement, and the parents had all night to arrange it so it looked plausible.

Yet they ignored the pineapple snack, dressed JonBenet in Patsy's niece's size-12's and Burke's long johns?

Which is strange since it makes BR fall under a cloud of suspicion, even if he is innocent.

I'm thinking the parents were late to the original murder scene, JonBenet was already in rigor mortis, there was not a lot they could do, and time was short, so they relocated JonBenet along with her dressing gown, cleaned her up and wrote the ransom note as a cover, with Patsy adding the ligature and paintbrush?

Could be Burke Ramsey staged JonBenet in her bedroom, where she was found by either Patsy or John?

This scenario allows for BDI All as per James Kolar and PDI via the asphyxiation?

Thats how I see the case: a combination of BDI and the parents adding the staging, but the size-12's and long johns were added by Burke. I could see a panicked Burke doing that but not either parent.

If the case is PDI why bother staging at all then leave the pineapple snack in place which blows you version of events, then lie about the size-12's which you should know all about?

The answer: Patsy took a bullet for Burke, she was willing to to say black was white so to defend Burke.

Assuming BR's bedroom was untouched that night, it looks like Burke and JonBenet were sharing beds and something went seriously wrong. Burke cleaned up, staged JonBenet as best he could and probably retired to his own room?

.

I don't have a specific theory of how everything happened, but I do think Burke hitting JonBenet upside the head with the flashlight is the most likely cause for her skull fracture. I think Burke was a kid who lived in his own world, and probably once he hit her and she crumpled to the floor, he probably just went on about whatever he was going to do next before she got in the way. I doubt he even wondered or cared if she was hurt - she was out of the way and that's what was important to him at that moment.

I think there was a disproportionately large amount of time spent on the ransom note. For one thing, it was ridiculously long, and for another we know there was a practice version of at least some of it. This could explain why there were some things overlooked. But also I think it's possible they didn't consider the police would investigate thoroughly inside the home once they thought she'd been kidnapped and removed from the house.

 

[Jennifer17]

yep we all agree its totally inappropriate.
think it was for the pooping dramas rather than wee though.
all her underwear had stains.

Well, there was lots going on there. It makes you wonder why that little girl had such trouble with her nether regions, doesn't it? Someone was at her. I don't know who it was, but I doubt it was her nine year old brother.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't have a specific theory of how everything happened, but I do think Burke hitting JonBenet upside the head with the flashlight is the most likely cause for her skull fracture. I think Burke was a kid who lived in his own world, and probably once he hit her and she crumpled to the floor, he probably just went on about whatever he was going to do next before she got in the way. I doubt he even wondered or cared if she was hurt - she was out of the way and that's what was important to him at that moment.

I think there was a disproportionately large amount of time spent on the ransom note. For one thing, it was ridiculously long, and for another we know there was a practice version of at least some of it. This could explain why there were some things overlooked. But also I think it's possible they didn't consider the police would investigate thoroughly inside the home once they thought she'd been kidnapped and removed from the house.

MzOpinion8d,
Sure, they probably thought the cops would go away when JonBenet was never returned?

That Ransom Note was authored by Patsy, but not to cover for herself since her forensics are all over the wine-cellar including underneath the tape on JonBenet's mouth.

Was she covering for John or Burke, this is the question that needs an answer?

The case could be PDI with Patsy making a total mess of the staging. Yet from the ransom note and her education she is not stupid, she was a smart woman.

So I usually end up with BDI and Patsy staging it all away for him. Imagine that your mother fakes a crime-scene for you, wow!

If it was PDI Patsy would have made a better job of the staging, those size-12's are dumb, and Burke's long johns, well only the pedantic can assume they were, like OK, Patsy used them all the time, really, even for homicide staging. Come On Down!

.

 

[k-mac]

Well, there was lots going on there. It makes you wonder why that little girl had such trouble with her nether regions, doesn't it? Someone was at her. I don't know who it was, but I doubt it was her nine year old brother.

so much inappropriate shannigans.
JBR was patsys lil prized possession.
bleaching a toddlers hair , full face make up and hair blow drys......sexy clothes....pageant scrubs.....douching was definitely not off limits to that woman.
JBR was being preened for miss America.
peeing and pooping her pants was not part of the desired etiquette!!
as mumma paugh said JBR was only a little bit molested.??

 

[Yellow Rose]

Is there someone I can go to learn the initials used in these threads? PDI, BDI, etc.

 

[flourish]

Is there someone I can go to learn the initials used in these threads? PDI, BDI, etc.

I don't think there is, but that's a good idea. The ones you asked about, though...
BDI is Burke did it
PDI is patsy did it
RDI is Ramsey did it (like we're not sure which one)
IDI is intruder did it
JR is John Ramsey
JBR is jonbenet Ramsey
Lhp is the housekeeper initials

 

[UKGuy]

Is there someone I can go to learn the initials used in these threads? PDI, BDI, etc.

Yellow Rose,
The acronyms track the Ramsey family names. So BDI All, is Burke Did It All. So thinks James Kolar who authored Foreign Faction, a must read for BDI proponents.

.

 

[otg]

Is there someone I can go to learn the initials used in these threads? PDI, BDI, etc.

Feel free to add to it anything that might have been missed:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?233682-JonBenet-Ramsey-Case-Abbreviations

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

JonBenet Autopsy Report, excerpt

Nose. "The nostrils are both patent and contain a small amount of tan mucous material."

Note: No mention of bleeding!

The AR doesn't say she was wearing a gold ring or gold bracelet either. Here is what it says instead:

On the middle finger of the right hand is a yellow metal band. Around the right wrist is a yellow metal identification bracelet with the name "JonBenet" on one side and the date "12/25/96" on the other side.
​

Just like his not saying that the "yellow metal" was gold, Meyer doesn't identify possible blood-tinged mucus without confirmation from testing. Can you come up with a better reason that someone with a TBI would have "tan mucous material" in her nasal cavities? IMO it was CSF from the fractured skull that became blood-tinged because of the TBI.

 

[UKGuy]

(rsbm)The AR doesn't say she was wearing a gold ring or gold bracelet either. Here is what it says instead:

On the middle finger of the right hand is a yellow metal band. Around the right wrist is a yellow metal identification bracelet with the name "JonBenet" on one side and the date "12/25/96" on the other side.
​

Just like his not saying that the "yellow metal" was gold, Meyer doesn't identify possible blood-tinged mucus without confirmation from testing. Can you come up with a better reason that someone with a TBI would have "tan mucous material" in her nasal cavities? IMO it was CSF from the fractured skull that became blood-tinged because of the TBI.

otg,
mmm, Meyer had no problem slipping Birefringment Material in. Maybe he does not want us to know stuff? I would agree with your analysis that the TBI led to the CSF, and hence likely blood in her nostrils?

Which suggests Boulder Police were eliminating a blood source, e.g. prior nose bleed, and locking Patsy into a position where an explanation for the bloodstain on her pillow could be confidently sourced to her nostrils, thereby placing JonBenet in her bedroom when she was whacked on the head?

.

 

[BBB167893]

MzOpinion8d,
Sure, they probably thought the cops would go away when JonBenet was never returned?

Maybe.

The case could be PDI with Patsy making a total mess of the staging. Yet from the ransom note and her education she is not stupid, she was a smart woman.

The two are not mutually exclusive, UKGuy. As I've pointed out many times.

If it was PDI Patsy would have made a better job of the staging, those size-12's are dumb, and Burke's long johns, well only the pedantic can assume they were, like OK, Patsy used them all the time, really, even for homicide staging. Come On Down!

I guess that means me. Here I am!

 

[UKGuy]

Maybe.



The two are not mutually exclusive, UKGuy. As I've pointed out many times.



I guess that means me. Here I am!

AuperDave,

The two are not mutually exclusive, UKGuy. As I've pointed out many times.

Sure, yet it appears this is the position of most PDI proponents, i.e. on this occassion they are mutually exclusive.

I can buy a naive PDI since it solves the case, particularly the bedwetting scenario.

When I analyze the evidence the case does not seem to stack up like that. I wish it would then there would be more time for chasing other pursuits.

Assuming JonBenet was assaulted and incapacitated around midnight, that leaves Patsy 6-hours to get the staging right.

Yet if you check out the wine-cellar crime-scene, from a PDI perspective its a mess.

Why? Because Patsy has left forensic evidence which identifies her, she even uses Her Own paintbrush to asphyxiate JonBenet. Add in the Ransom Note and its a slam dunk Patsy is up for Prime Suspect. Then in a postmortem interview Patsy states she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her own personal use. Yet BPD investigators found none in the house?

The Pink Barbie Nightgown is a red flag, its inconsistent with Patsy's version of events.

Remnants of the pineapple snack were left in the breakfast bar, contradicting Patsy's version of events, e.g. JonBenet was placed directly in bed.

JonBenet was found wearing hair-ties that dressed her hair in ponytails, again contradicting Patsy's version of events, e.g. JonBenet was placed directly in bed.

What's wrong with this? Well it's meant to be a crime-scene staging in which Patsy is aiming to write herself out of the script. Yet she does the opposite.

So for Patsy to succeed in her crime-scene staging all she has to do is serve up a plain vanilla style staging, e.g. JonBenet wiped clean, dressed in her Pink Barbie Nightgown and asphyxiated with only the ligature cord, or even just manually, i.e. no paintbrush.

So we know there is a question mark hanging over the size-12's. How about Burke Ramsey's long johns? JonBenet has a drawer full of pajamas, yet when Patsy selects bedtime wear for JonBenet, she selects an old pair of Burke Ramsey's long johns, neglecting all her normal pajamas, thereby injecting Burke directly into the case. Usually this would not matter as nobody else would see what JonBenet wore to bed, but this is a detail in a crime-scene being staged, so it does matter.

Patsy does not really benefit either from authoring the Ransom Note or staging the wine-cellar crime-scene, she would have been better off leaving JonBenet posed gratuitously in her bedroom, hence minimizing her forensic profile.

So on the mutually exclusive point, it cannot be Patsy made a mess of the crime-scene staging because she was dumb, patently she had a good SATS score.

Some of the details that are glaringly wrong are elementary mistakes, not in commission, but in execution, e.g. hair-ties, size-12's, breakfast bar, etc.

Particularly the breafast bar, since for a consistent PDI, Patsy should have cleaned up the breakfast bar.

We can pass over Patsy's fiber deposits in the wine-cellar, granting her forensic ignorance on this topic.

So why would an intelligent woman, who is fabricating a crime-scene which she hopes will mask her involvement in the death of her daughter, get so many important, yet mundane details wrong?

I reckon, no surprise here, its because she is staging for Burke Ramsey. This is who effectively is being written out of the script?

I guess that means me. Here I am!

Maybe from a PDI point of view you could explain all these anomalous details whereby Patsy entangles herself deeper into JonBenet's homicide with her amateur staging in the contex of a consistent PDI?



.

 

[Userid]

^ I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when you criticize PDI as being a "mess" when it comes to the cellar room and staging, while at the same time, you completely overlook the absurdity of the same crime scene as "utterly clean" and more devoid of any evidence of BR, had BR been involved to the extent that your theory supposes (including the staging).

My point is, if inexperienced parents couldn't have staged a crime without leaving behind ample evidence, how in the world would a nine-year-old have somehow (impossibly) done better? Moreover, how would said parents have been able to cover as thoroughly for their nine year old, when they couldn't have covered for themselves all the same (after the fact)? It's a huge flaw in your logic.

 

[UKGuy]

^ I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when you criticize PDI as being a "mess" when it comes to the cellar room and staging, while at the same time, you completely overlook the absurdity of the same crime scene as "utterly clean" and more devoid of any evidence of BR, had BR been involved to the extent that your theory supposes (including the staging).

My point is, if inexperienced parents couldn't have staged a crime without leaving behind ample evidence, how in the world would a nine-year-old have somehow (impossibly) done better? Moreover, how would said parents have been able to cover as thoroughly for their nine year old, when they couldn't have covered for themselves all the same (after the fact)? It's a huge flaw in your logic.

Userid,

how in the world would a nine-year-old have somehow (impossibly) done better?

nah, your just picking holes with logical rhetoric. Everyone can read from the above how you miss the point or as so wedded to your RDI you cannot see past your nose.

Burke Ramsey did not do better, that's the point, his parents attempted to though, and some like yourself see this evidence as constituting a prima facie case for homicide, and thereby arrive at PDI, etc.

The PDI staging is not really Patsy staging for Patsy its for Burke. As per usual nobody promoting either PDI or JDI explains the anomalous PDI evidence.

,

 

[k-mac]

Userid,

nah, your just picking holes with logical rhetoric. Everyone can read from the above how you miss the point or as so wedded to your RDI you cannot see past your nose.

Burke Ramsey did not do better, that's the point, his parents attempted to though, and some like yourself see this evidence as constituting a prima facie case for homicide, and thereby arrive at PDI, etc.

The PDI staging is not really Patsy staging for Patsy its for Burke. As per usual nobody promoting either PDI or JDI explains the anomalous PDI evidence.

,

uk guy
your desperation to involve BDI to the evidence has become non sensical.
its as pathetic as IDI .
as ive said before I thank you for pushing me to PDI /JDI

bottom line.
it is not likely for a mother to cover up the murder of her daughter to protect a vicious killer incriminating herself.
it is very likely for a mother to cover up the vicious murder of her daughter that she is responsible for.
there is no implanting herself into the crimescene to protect burke. that is absurd. they tried very hard to eliminate themselves but weren't smart enough to think of everything.

its PDI / JDI all day long ;-)

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*So BDI All, is Burke Did It All.*snip*

That's so very nice of you to tell Yellow Rose that All = All.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,

Yes, I am interrupting the discussion to go way off topic.

I need your help. All the details of why are at this link.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/announcement.php?f=37

In the 14 years of owning Websleuths have never asked members and guests for money to help with Webslueths financial obligations.

As you will read in the announcement there are things that happened beyond anyone's control.

We can get through this if you can help you BUT ONLY IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Do not put ANY stress on your finances. That is the last thing I want.

Go to www.paypal.com and use the email [email protected]

If you would rather not use PayPal email me at [email protected]

Thank you for your time. We now return you to your regular scheduled Burke discussion on Websleuths.

Love,
Tricia

 

[Userid]

Userid,

nah, your just picking holes with logical rhetoric. Everyone can read from the above how you miss the point or as so wedded to your RDI you cannot see past your nose.

Burke Ramsey did not do better, that's the point, his parents attempted to though, and some like yourself see this evidence as constituting a prima facie case for homicide, and thereby arrive at PDI, etc.

The PDI staging is not really Patsy staging for Patsy its for Burke. As per usual nobody promoting either PDI or JDI explains the anomalous PDI evidence.

,

So let me get this straight: his parents were "good enough" to remove practically all of a nine-year-old's evidence away, but not good enough to remove their own evidence? How convenient! Doesn't pass the smell test, UKG, no matter how you try to spin it. You're trying to "have it both ways," like you always do.

 

[Userid]

uk guy
your desperation to involve BDI to the evidence has become non sensical.
its as pathetic as IDI .
as ive said before I thank you for pushing me to PDI /JDI

bottom line.
it is not likely for a mother to cover up the murder of her daughter to protect a vicious killer incriminating herself.
it is very likely for a mother to cover up the vicious murder of her daughter that she is responsible for.
there is no implanting herself into the crimescene to protect burke. that is absurd. they tried very hard to eliminate themselves but weren't smart enough to think of everything.

its PDI / JDI all day long ;-)

I'd give you a "thanks," but it looks like that feature is gone now. Anyways, yes, BDI ignores the majority of the evidence that points to JR and PR as being the killers. All of the evidence points to them. It's equally preposterous as a segment of people blaming OJ's son as the real killer, with OJ covering up the crime. The evidence that points to BR is much flimsier than the evidence that points to PR/JR.

 

[UKGuy]

So let me get this straight: his parents were "good enough" to remove practically all of a nine-year-old's evidence away, but not good enough to remove their own evidence? How convenient! Doesn't pass the smell test, UKG, no matter how you try to spin it. You're trying to "have it both ways," like you always do.

Userid,
Yes, that's how I see it. Of course some of BR's presence was left behind, the parents were not 100% successful, e.g. penknife, or the breakfast bar.

I'll bet BR never told them everything otherwise it would have been cleaned up. PDI has a dilemma: Patsy staged a crime-scene to mask her involvement in her daughters death, but nearly everything she did advertised her direct participation. So how does that pass any smell test?

.