Was Burke involved?

[Chewy]

I'm only sharing this because I like you and I'm weary of all the bickering.

My own son, as a few know here, was sexually assaulted by an 11, almost 12 year old. The 11 year kid resided with me for a grand total of 7 months. Six of those months were preadoption, one month after adoption.
The 11 year kid presented like a smart, kind, compassionate and mannerly child. Teachers remarked how wonderful he was and what a joy he was to have in the class at parent teacher conferences. He came with a glowing "profile" by from the private agency as well as DHS.

My education as well as my profession for 15 years prior had been geared toward abused children.

Fast forward... And I'm going to skip all the details. That child would set his watch alarm in the middle of the night, sneak into my sons room, he would hold a pillow over his face, he would punch him, he would threaten to kill him, chop me up and bury me in the bank yard first if he ever told. Then he'd set my son on fire.

My son, never said a word. One day I discovered pry marks on the downstairs bathroom door. After questioning I discovered while I was in the shower, he broke into the bathroom ... I heard from the 11 year old he thought about sexually assaulting him but stopped himself. I drop him off at a crisis center at the hospital.

The rest if the information and details of horrific acts were disclosed to me by my son...Like he sexually assaulted my son, at knife point. and even more details and acts when the 11 year old bargained for blankets and pillows from home in exchange for a full confession to police.

So yeah... I've seen evil.

Oh and through the discovery process, I learned he was caught for the first time sexually assaulting, with a weapon, at the age of 7!!! SEVEN! You know how DHS responded? They simply moved him from foster home to foster home never disclosing the abuse that was so well documented in his file. Oh and they never shared those many moves with me either.
I disrupted the adoption.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry that you went through this. But it's unfair to project your foster child's experience onto an otherwise innocent person WITHOUT EVIDENCE

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm only sharing this because I like you and I'm weary of all the bickering.

My own son, as a few know here, was sexually assaulted by an 11, almost 12 year old. The 11 year kid resided with me for a grand total of 7 months. Six of those months were preadoption, one month after adoption.
The 11 year kid presented like a smart, kind, compassionate and mannerly child. Teachers remarked how wonderful he was and what a joy he was to have in the class at parent teacher conferences. He came with a glowing "profile" by from the private agency as well as DHS.

My education as well as my profession for 15 years prior had been geared toward abused children.

Fast forward... And I'm going to skip all the details. That child would set his watch alarm in the middle of the night, sneak into my sons room, he would hold a pillow over his face, he would punch him, he would threaten to kill him, chop me up and bury me in the bank yard first if he ever told. Then he'd set my son on fire.

My son, never said a word. One day I discovered pry marks on the downstairs bathroom door. After questioning I discovered while I was in the shower, he broke into the bathroom ... I heard from the 11 year old he thought about sexually assaulting him but stopped himself. I drop him off at a crisis center at the hospital.

The rest if the information and details of horrific acts were disclosed to me by my son...Like he sexually assaulted my son, at knife point. and even more details and acts when the 11 year old bargained for blankets and pillows from home in exchange for a full confession to police.

So yeah... I've seen evil.

Oh and through the discovery process, I learned he was caught for the first time sexually assaulting, with a weapon, at the age of 7!!! SEVEN! You know how DHS responded? They simply moved him from foster home to foster home never disclosing the abuse that was so well documented in his file. Oh and they never shared those many moves with me either.
I disrupted the adoption.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huge hug!!!!!

I think the most important thing to recognize here is that we all bring our own bias and perceptions to these cases.

We keep going back and forth between "he couldn't have done it, he was only 9," to "there is no proof, its horrible to make these accusations."

The fact is a 9 year old is capable of violent crime, and BRs age shouldn't automatically rule him out.

Others seem to be defending the Rs based on their own personal experiences. No experience is wrong.

However, this example, along with the one I shared the other day exemplify how horribly dysfunctional families can be, all the while seeming "normal" to the outside world.

Linda7NJ post also shows how corrupt the surrounding bureaucracies can be and if that is the case then the situation becomes even more complicated and convoluted.

And FWIW, the Globe article actually details quite a bit of true info. I don't know about the pics, but the other info is very similar to what Kolar discusses. the picture he describes BR to have drawn during this session was not rainbows and butterflies. Again, the Rs were successful in having BR interviewed by a shrink in conjunction with DCS, and although follow-up was recommended, the Rs didn't accept that offer. And once again AH didn't pursue it.

In a nutshell, all 3 Rs have direct ties to either JRBs body or the crime scene, along with a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence and behaviors.

And CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is evidence.

*prior sexual contact
*no evidence of an intruder
*fingerprints on snack items in DR
*PRs fibers in the bindings
*they ain't stun gun marks
*BR was not asleep
*JR seemed to know where the body is
*the RN is so clearly not written by an intruder
*JRB was redressed
*the scene was obviously staged with aspects of undoing as well
*the tDNA isn't a smoking gun
*the pocket knife
*bedwetting/soiling issues for both kids
*the boot print
*The hidden medical records...for both kids
*all the Rs post murder behavior
*LYING, LYING, &&MORE LYING

^^^all coincidence?

Oh wait.....how could I forget???

*THE GRAND JURY SIGNED A TRUE BILL!!!

All of these things are evidence, some of which could have been explored more fully, but the team shut it down, and AH allowed it.

And the last thing I've got is my complete bafflement that the "JR was molesting JRB, and PR was somehow facilitating it," scenario is somehow "better," or more "statistically probable," is crazy in itself.

/shrugs

I've got back away from this thread
:seeya:

 

[chlban]

I take offense to words being put in my mouth when I've already explained numerous times that I do not think the child was capable of "raping and murdering". I have explained numerous times the events I believe may have led to the tragedy. I take offense to being asked questions, responding with silly things like psychological studies regarding sibling abuse, only to have those links and studies ignored and dismissed. It becomes tiresome.

What part of "it was likely an accident stemming from ongoing experimentation/curiosity that the parents then covered up" is hard to wrap one's mind around?

Spending days upon days attempting to explain the rationale is far from "disappearing in a puff of smoke."

No disrespect intended. I am simply explaining why I am absolutely exhausted with this conversation. BDI can't have their own reasonable discussion right now, that much is now clear.

BBM. I am still, after all these years, alternating between BDI or PDI. However, if it was BDI, then this is the theory I find most likely. I absolutely do not believe that Burke fashioned the garrote, or did any staging at all. The initial injury is all I think he could have been resonsible for.

That theory to me ties in well to Burke asking "what did you find" while Patsy was on the phone to 911. He knew only that he had injured his sister, the rest he was unaware of and certainly had no knowledge of the RN they were describing to the 911 operator. In that context "what did you find" makes perfect sense.

 

[Linda7NJ]

All I do on any given RDI thread is discuss the possibility in conjunction with the evidence. That's all any of us can do. I shared to explain why I believe the possibility of BDI in this thread.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is "impossible for Burke to have done this" only that there is no evidence to suggest that he did. Note that in your example it didn't take much for Law Enforcement to elicit a full confession out of a child several years older than Burke was at the time. That's why I've stated before I find it hard to believe a 9 year old child could withstand a police interview and not give any indication to the cops that he had done it. Especially not after years of investigation.

Even in the James Bulger case the boys admitted what they had done.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is "impossible for Burke to have done this" only that there is no evidence to suggest that he did.

I'll give you a vote for impossible.
I don't believe that he had the strength to impose the injury to her head, And I don't believe that he strangled her or would have strangled her like that.

I wish there was some evidence that supported this theory that was completely factual and reliable. I just don't see it. IMO

 

[Chewy]

Well for arguments sake, say the argument is this. It's Christmas eve night and Patsy shoos the kids away from the living room to go play while she makes last minute adjustments. They wander upset and Burke is playing around with a baseball bat. Some sibling bickering goes on as silly as Jonbenet taunting him and Burke turns around and "smacks her over the head" with the bat in a "stop that" gesture. But he hits her harder than he realizes. She's lying on the bed and pees and he runs downstairs and gets mom and dad.

They come upstairs and realize she's doomed and then try to figure out what to do......and then this is where it just goes off the rails.

I think that's why these theories never make much sense to me. Why I mentioned the part where Patsy asking the detective to spell out in steps how he thinks she did this. Because the motive, the chain of events etc. step by step it just doesn't add up.

An example that's unrelated was the interview of Steve Irwin's camera guy when he was killed by the stingray barb. The guy said he knew it was bad but they had done CPR on him for almost an hour because he didn't realize how bad the injury was, thinking he'd been struck in the lung, not the heart.

Sorry To continue


I just don't see how people line up what supposedly happened in any way that makes any sense. So say Burke DID accidentally hit her over the head and she collapsed and looked as good as dead. What parent takes a still breathing child and decides that the best course of action is to take her to the basement and garrote her and mutilate her and write a ransom note as a cover up?

What parents wouldn't immediately be on the phone to 911 assuming she'd gone unconscious but could be saved?

It's like people have bits and pieces of theories but don't actually lay them out in order in a way that really follows a line of thought from start to finish.


That's why you get a lot of "Evil Ramsey" theories out there. Because only a truly evil parent would look at their injured child and then do what is alleged that they had done.

I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it. Or that Burke didn't do it. I do think the decision by the Grand Jury that they could have been indicted for putting a child in harms way and aiding a cover up are very telling. Because they are the ones who have seen all the information. However I'm not seeing any evidence that takes it step by step to a theory of what happened that matches down the line.

Motive
means
Opportunity

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is "impossible for Burke to have done this" only that there is no evidence to suggest that he did. Note that in your example it didn't take much for Law Enforcement to elicit a full confession out of a child several years older than Burke was at the time. That's why I've stated before I find it hard to believe a 9 year old child could withstand a police interview and not give any indication to the cops that he had done it. Especially not after years of investigation.

Even in the James Bulger case the boys admitted what they had done.

Burke was interviewed as a witness, not a suspect by law enforcement.

The child did spend 5-6 hours testifying for the grand jury. We have no idea what was said or if his story held up, or if he did confess. Nor would we.

Kolar makes it a point to state he will NOT be sharing the details of the grand jury testimony. He legally couldn't.

Ask yourself why the true bill wasn't signed. Patsy and John couldn't be prosecuted without disclosing Burke did it. For a misdemeanor that wouldn't even amount to a day of jail time? Hardly worth it.

Ask yourself why Linda Arnet and Mary Lacy would go out of their way to befriend Patsy? Lacy going as far as issuing that ridiculous pass for all Ramsey's right around the time Patsy died.

The little tid bit we know Burke admitted to owning the Hi-Tech shoes to the grand jury. I am comfortable assuming there is much much more.

The grand jury is not allowed to discuss testimony.

It's a crime to disclose the fact Burke did it, if he did. Legally, and one that did come straight out and state it could be charged with a crime.

IMO this BDI theory makes the most sense.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well for arguments sake, say the argument is this. It's Christmas
eve night and Patsy shoos the kids away from the living room to go play while she makes last minute adjustments. They wander upset and Burke is playing around with a baseball bat. Some sibling bickering goes on as silly as Jonbenet taunting him and Burke turns around and "smacks her over the head" with the bat in a "stop that" gesture. But he hits her harder than he realizes. She's lying on the bed and pees and he runs downstairs and gets mom and dad.

They come upstairs and realize she's doomed and then try to figure out what to do......and then this is where it just goes off the rails.

I think that's why these theories never make much sense to me. Why I mentioned the part where Patsy asking the detective to spell out in steps how he thinks she did this. Because the motive, the chain of events etc. step by step it just doesn't add up.

An example that's unrelated was the interview of Steve Irwin's camera guy when he was killed by the stingray barb. The guy said he knew it was bad but they had done CPR on him for almost an hour because he didn't realize how bad the injury was, thinking he'd been struck in the lung, not the heart.

She was not killed on Christmas eve. She was killed Christmas night.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well for arguments sake, say the argument is this. It's Christmas eve night and Patsy shoos the kids away from the living room to go play while she makes last minute adjustments. They wander upset and Burke is playing around with a baseball bat. Some sibling bickering goes on as silly as Jonbenet taunting him and Burke turns around and "smacks her over the head" with the bat in a "stop that" gesture. But he hits her harder than he realizes. She's lying on the bed and pees and he runs downstairs and gets mom and dad.

They come upstairs and realize she's doomed and then try to figure out what to do......and then this is where it just goes off the rails.

I think that's why these theories never make much sense to me. Why I mentioned the part where Patsy asking the detective to spell out in steps how he thinks she did this. Because the motive, the chain of events etc. step by step it just doesn't add up.

An example that's unrelated was the interview of Steve Irwin's camera guy when he was killed by the stingray barb. The guy said he knew it was bad but they had done CPR on him for almost an hour because he didn't realize how bad the injury was, thinking he'd been struck in the lung, not the heart.

Sorry To continue


I just don't see how people line up what supposedly happened in any way that makes any sense. So say Burke DID accidentally hit her over the head and she collapsed and looked as good as dead. What parent takes a still breathing child and decides that the best course of action is to take her to the basement and garrote her and mutilate her and write a ransom note as a cover up?

What parents wouldn't immediately be on the phone to 911 assuming she'd gone unconscious but could be saved?

It's like people have bits and pieces of theories but don't actually lay them out in order in a way that really follows a line of thought from start to finish.

I heard my kids head hit the nightstand...he had been jumping on the bed. I heard it. It was loud! I thought for sure his skull cracked. I rushed him to the ER ...nope. Huge lump, no concussion not skull fracture.

When my am broke, I heard it and so did others.

I can't begin to even image the sound her little skull made from being struck like that. Who ever hit her, heard it, knew immediately, and was looking at an unconscious JonBenet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well for arguments sake, say the argument is this. It's Christmas eve night and Patsy shoos the kids away from the living room to go play while she makes last minute adjustments. They wander upset and Burke is playing around with a baseball bat. Some sibling bickering goes on as silly as Jonbenet taunting him and Burke turns around and "smacks her over the head" with the bat in a "stop that" gesture. But he hits her harder than he realizes. She's lying on the bed and pees and he runs downstairs and gets mom and dad.

They come upstairs and realize she's doomed and then try to figure out what to do......and then this is where it just goes off the rails.

I think that's why these theories never make much sense to me. Why I mentioned the part where Patsy asking the detective to spell out in steps how he thinks she did this. Because the motive, the chain of events etc. step by step it just doesn't add up.

An example that's unrelated was the interview of Steve Irwin's camera guy when he was killed by the stingray barb. The guy said he knew it was bad but they had done CPR on him for almost an hour because he didn't realize how bad the injury was, thinking he'd been struck in the lung, not the heart.

Sorry To continue


I just don't see how people line up what supposedly happened in any way that makes any sense. So say Burke DID accidentally hit her over the head and she collapsed and looked as good as dead. What parent takes a still breathing child and decides that the best course of action is to take her to the basement and garrote her and mutilate her and write a ransom note as a cover up?

What parents wouldn't immediately be on the phone to 911 assuming she'd gone unconscious but could be saved?

It's like people have bits and pieces of theories but don't actually lay them out in order in a way that really follows a line of thought from start to finish.


That's why you get a lot of "Evil Ramsey" theories out there. Because only a truly evil parent would look at their injured child and then do what is alleged that they had done.

I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it. Or that Burke didn't do it. I do think the decision by the Grand Jury that they could have been indicted for putting a child in harms way and aiding a cover up are very telling. Because they are the ones who have seen all the information. However I'm not seeing any evidence that takes it step by step to a theory of what happened that matches down the line.

Motive
means
Opportunity

You're excusing she was redressed, wiped down vaginal area and the assault of her vagina.

I'm suggesting the head blow came after that because JonBenet screamed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Also it is ridiculous.. Any parent would call 911 or take her to the ER. Not stage a scene, And then garrote her.
Sorry..

 

[Chewy]

You're excusing she was redressed, wiped down vaginal area and the assault of her vagina.

I'm suggesting the head blow came after that because JonBenet screamed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How am I excusing that she was redressed? Please spell out a theory. (even just ideas at this point you don't need to post evidence) as you think it happened step by step. This was a very involved crime with lots of steps. So what happened step by step?

 

[Chewy]

Also it is ridiculous.. Any parent would call 911 or take her to the ER. Not stage a scene, And then garrote her.
Sorry..

Exactly, unless they were all in on it, it just doesn't make any sense.

If they were all in on it then Burke was a victim of adult manipulation. Not a perpetrator on his own.

That's what I mean by when you spell it out step by step you hit road blocks all over the place. Which is why most people only seem to discuss this case in bits and pieces. So "here's a theory how Burke could have killed her" ok then......how do you fit in the reaction of the parents? The ransom note was not written by Burke.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The whole John Mark Karr farce, that was a hilarious waste and everyone that's been a RDI and familiar with the evidence sat back and laughed.
She didn't even bother to put him in Boulder at the time.
That wasn't a mistake. IMO that was deliberate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is "impossible for Burke to have done this" only that there is no evidence to suggest that he did. Note that in your example it didn't take much for Law Enforcement to elicit a full confession out of a child several years older than Burke was at the time. That's why I've stated before I find it hard to believe a 9 year old child could withstand a police interview and not give any indication to the cops that he had done it. Especially not after years of investigation.

Even in the James Bulger case the boys admitted what they had done.

ITA. Law Enforcement did interview Burke and he spent time surrounded by other people. I think a 9-year-old would insist it was an "accident" rather than come up with an elaborate SODDI scenario when being interviewed by a cop. I don't know that Kolar actually interviewed him.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Exactly, unless they were all in on it, it just doesn't make any sense.



If they were all in on it then Burke was a victim of adult manipulation. Not a perpetrator on his own.



That's what I mean by when you spell it out step by step you hit road blocks all over the place. Which is why most people only seem to discuss this case in bits and pieces. So "here's a theory how Burke could have killed her" ok then......how do you fit in the reaction of the parents? The ransom note was not written by Burke.

I do think most people (BDI) believe both adults became involved.

Without a videotape and full confessions all around, we will never know. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. JonBenet is still dead, a RDI still did it. IMO Patsy still wrote the note,

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

How am I excusing that she was redressed? Please spell out a theory. (even just ideas at this point you don't need to post evidence) as you think it happened step by step. This was a very involved crime with lots of steps. So what happened step by step?

I've previous posted countless times. Just go back and read them if you're interested in how I think it may have went down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well for arguments sake, say the argument is this. It's Christmas eve night and Patsy shoos the kids away from the living room to go play while she makes last minute adjustments. They wander upset and Burke is playing around with a baseball bat. Some sibling bickering goes on as silly as Jonbenet taunting him and Burke turns around and "smacks her over the head" with the bat in a "stop that" gesture. But he hits her harder than he realizes. She's lying on the bed and pees and he runs downstairs and gets mom and dad.

They come upstairs and realize she's doomed and then try to figure out what to do......and then this is where it just goes off the rails.

I think that's why these theories never make much sense to me. Why I mentioned the part where Patsy asking the detective to spell out in steps how he thinks she did this. Because the motive, the chain of events etc. step by step it just doesn't add up.

An example that's unrelated was the interview of Steve Irwin's camera guy when he was killed by the stingray barb. The guy said he knew it was bad but they had done CPR on him for almost an hour because he didn't realize how bad the injury was, thinking he'd been struck in the lung, not the heart.

Sorry To continue


I just don't see how people line up what supposedly happened in any way that makes any sense. So say Burke DID accidentally hit her over the head and she collapsed and looked as good as dead. What parent takes a still breathing child and decides that the best course of action is to take her to the basement and garrote her and mutilate her and write a ransom note as a cover up?

What parents wouldn't immediately be on the phone to 911 assuming she'd gone unconscious but could be saved?

It's like people have bits and pieces of theories but don't actually lay them out in order in a way that really follows a line of thought from start to finish.


That's why you get a lot of "Evil Ramsey" theories out there. Because only a truly evil parent would look at their injured child and then do what is alleged that they had done.

I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it. Or that Burke didn't do it. I do think the decision by the Grand Jury that they could have been indicted for putting a child in harms way and aiding a cover up are very telling. Because they are the ones who have seen all the information. However I'm not seeing any evidence that takes it step by step to a theory of what happened that matches down the line.

Motive
means
Opportunity

Most parents also don't lie and thwart every attempt to find the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Who brought up Karr? I'm asking for step by step how you think it MAY have happened.