Was Burke involved?

[Linda7NJ]

After what John Mark Karr said it would have been irresponsible not to bring him back to the States. And no I would not label a man who fantasizes and talks about sexual attraction and murdering a 6 year old girl as a "weird butt". I would label him as a dangerous sexual deviant with probable psychosis and do what I could to get him off the streets.

Karr also knew less than many posters here. His statements were not consistent with the evidence and Mary Lacy couldn't even place him in Boulder that Christmas. There was photographic evidence he was with family.
http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,1424222,00.html

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8

Video is worth the watch just to hear her comments on the possibility the DNA is artifact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gramcracker]

while we were being lied to for years and being told that the GJ did not return a TB, IDIs touted the GJ system as the greatest thing, proof that the system works, yadda, yadda, yadda. no TB, end of argument

since the truth has been revealed, IDIs no longer consider the GJ to be an authority re what is right, good or proper

 

[bettybaby00]

Part of why Kolar has no credibility with me is that he makes too many arguments from straws. He discusses the “cobwebs” because at one point the window where the cobwebs were was considered a point of interest for an intruder entry, (yes I know about Lou Smit but a wrong theory does not make the Ramsey’s sexually deviant murders). But it is a moot point, the best most viable theory is that the intruder was in the home for some hours, that he had a key or that he entered through an unlocked door, yes in spite the wild reporting of no unlocked doors it was reported in an initial police report that 1 door was found unlocked. When Kolar wastes time discussing the cobwebs it leads me to believe that he is playing with smoke and mirrors.

There was a report initially that 1 door was unlocked, really? I've never come across it. I find that hard to believe b/c if that was the case, why does JRs recounting of events evolve to focus on the window as the likely point of entry. If he had stated a door may have been left unlocked, and somehow that point became lost in the "wild reporting," why wouldn't he continually bring it up? Instead, his statements over time become more focused on the window, the suit case, how the "bizarrely clever" intruder blocked the train room door with a chair on his way out, and how while awaiting for the call from the kidnappers, he recalled the threat that the house would be watched, and ran upstairs, binoculars in hand, to scan the street for anything suspicious. he notices a white car circling the neigorhood and, an unfamiliar van parked in the alley! Yet he never thought to alert any of the officers on the scene. He doesn't remark upon it that night when police stop by to try and get additional questions answered. Nor does he frantically contact police in the days, weeks, or months after and proclaim, "wait, I think a door may have been unlocked!!!!"

He just keeps bringing up the basement window. He doesn't indicate he believes the basement window was the point of entry until 4/97, the binocular story arises in june, as does the clever chair.

Given this, the discrediting of the point of entry is pretty central to the the intruder theory. Funny too, is that instead of talking to police from the onset, they chose to go on Larry King, and issue press releases about how they are cooperating fully with police, and they've told them everything they know.

the best most viable theory is that the intruder was in the home for some hours

The idea that someone got into the house with a key, or an unlocked door and hung around for "some hours," is too much of a stretch for me.

I have been to Candy’s site so thank you.

The bit about Mary Lacey letting a sexual deviant child murderer skate because she was their pal is just not reasonable to me.

The way I see it, the problem wasn't that ML was willing to let a sexual deviant child murderer skate, it was that she was unwilling to consider that her pal(s) were sexual deviate child murderers.

 

[otg]

Karr also knew less than many posters here. His statements were not consistent with the evidence and Mary Lacy couldn't even place him in Boulder that Christmas. There was photographic evidence he was with family.
http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,1424222,00.html

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8

Video is worth the watch just to hear her comments on the possibility the DNA is artifact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Linda. That statement is as follows, and the following link will take you to the exact location in the video (4:36):

MARY LACY: The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

 

[bettybaby00]

Thanks, Linda. That statement is as follows, and the following link will take you to the exact location in the video (4:36):

MARY LACY: The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. In all, in... There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s, but it could be something else.
​

http://youtu.be/hD-E03NQ-v8?t=4m36s

How does she make the above statement and then go on to exonerate the Rs despite her own admission it could be an artifact ?

In the People mag link, gov Owen is quoted as saying...

On Monday, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens denounced Lacy, saying, "I find it incredible that Boulder authorities wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring Karr to Colorado given such a lack of evidence."

He continued, "Mary Lacy should be held accountable for the most extravagant and expensive DNA test in Colorado history."

Where is his outrage that she be held accountable for the unprecedented move to exonerate the Rs?

 

[Frigga]

Dr Beuf could have gone a LONG way in showing that JonBenet had no prior history of molestation by releasing ALL of JB's medical records from her short years in life. He didn't. The Ramsey's wouldn't. What are we left to believe. That was my point.

 

[bettybaby00]

Dr Beuf could have gone a LONG way in dispelling the myth that JonBenet had no prior history of molestation by releasing ALL of JB's medical records from her short years in life. He didn't. The Ramsey's wouldn't. What are we left to believe. That was my point.

Yup. We have no idea what records Morgan is referencing when he mentions "I have a real problem with certain kinds of medical records." Was he referring to JRBs, BRs? Office visit records, psych records, notes?

And ...

“I think you will get virtually everything you’ve described with the possible exception of personal medical records..."

The virtually everything..." Kills me, it's not up to him to "think" what's important."

But then again this is from of guy who arrogantly states "that's how we operate."

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[otg]

(bbm)

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

Page four of the autopsy second paragraph indicates that the hymen was partially intact (though you are correct the specific word is not used) which is something that would be unlikely in a chronically sexually abused female. And yes the autopsy does state that there is epithelial cell erosion but that would be consistent with JonBenét being sexually assaulted that night/morning.

Sorry I can’t copy and paste it and I am too tired to find one where I can.
And thanks for making me defend my posts I don’t mind getting the gray matter moving a little quicker.

Here is a copy of the AR that can be copied and pasted from:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

But I should warn you (or anyone who uses it) that it has a few mistakes and should therefore be checked against a PDF version for accuracy before quoting. Examples:

“The 1450 gm grain has a normal overall architecture.”
(Obviously the word should be “brain”.)

“The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.”
(Should read, “The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.”)
​

 

[Linda7NJ]

How does she make the above statement and then go on to exonerate the Rs despite her own admission it could be an artifact ?

In the People mag link, gov Owen is quoted as saying...



Where is his outrage that she be held accountable for the unprecedented move to exonerate the Rs?

Yeah... How did she get away with that?
She lost all credibility. She's clearly in the Ramsey's pocket...she's willing to go to extraordinary lengths ....why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

Yeah... How did she get away with that?
She lost all credibility. She's clearly in the Ramsey's pocket...she's willing to go to extraordinary lengths ....why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hanlon's razor.

 

[questfortrue]

Dr Beuf could have gone a LONG way in showing that JonBenet had no prior history of molestation by releasing ALL of JB's medical records from her short years in life. He didn't. The Ramsey's wouldn't. What are we left to believe. That was my point.

Legally, Dr. B could not release the full written records without the R consent. The R's gave approval allowing Detective H. to interview Dr. B's staff. (PMPT) The detective thereafter interviewed Dr. B who gave a summary verbal report to the detective. IMO, Dr. B did recognize he had exposure to misfeasance/nonfeasance; most likely the R's knew Dr. B had exposure as well. They closed ranks. The DA never allowed for a subpoena, and as bettybaby00 brings up, Attorney Morgan managed to obtain the seal of approval on making sure "certain" records were never revealed. moo

 

[Venom]

while we were being lied to for years and being told that the GJ did not return a TB, IDIs touted the GJ system as the greatest thing, proof that the system works, yadda, yadda, yadda. no TB, end of argument

since the truth has been revealed, IDIs no longer consider the GJ to be an authority re what is right, good or proper

Now we hear the opposite. GJ's don't always work, being indicted doesn't mean anything. Funny how that works. :dunno:

 

[Frigga]

The Grand Jury voted to indict, Alex Hunter made the decision not to, why call a Grand jury in the first place? Of course it was his right to make the decision but we will never know what may have come from it- that ship has sailed and as far as I'm concerned- justice with it. I'm talking about back then- with the evidence they had then.

Of course it's a lower threshold than a jury trial but there is a point to it and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Steve Thomas was a good man and a fine police officer, in my opinion. A little girl was brutally murdered in her own home where a ransom note was left. This case will always haunt him. Is he perfect? No one is. Were mistakes made? Oh. my. god- yes! Should that forever take away from someone finally being prosecuted for this case? It shouldn't.

James Kolar is a good man in my book too. God forbid anyone pick my life in my career apart. He is human. Burke Ramsey, rightfully or not, at the time in Colorado could not be prosecuted for the crime- I disagree with this but fair enough- a reason was determined that it is just too young an age to be held accountable for such actions- Burke Ramsey was close to the age he could have been though- very close.

The point of the Grand Juries determination was however, there were two adult individuals in the home that were old enough to know better yet contributed to the cover-up and didn't do what was necessary (in the eyes of the GJ) to prevent the outcome. This law wasn't put into effect to allow adults to do whatever heinous thing necessary to protect the underage perpetrator. It didn't give free license to stage a crime scene, blame innocent people (with the potential for watching an innocent person go to prison over the false accusations). This is what happened. I am not talking about now- but then. It is a travesty that any decent citizen should be appalled at. The Grand jury saw the evidence and voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on those two counts. We will never know what may have happened... sigh... my two cents and all.

 

[UKGuy]

The Grand Jury voted to indict, Alex Hunter made the decision not to, why call a Grand jury in the first place? Of course it was his right to make the decision but we will never know what may have come from it- that ship has sailed and as far as I'm concerned- justice with it. I'm talking about back then- with the evidence they had then.

Of course it's a lower threshold than a jury trial but there is a point to it and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Steve Thomas was a good man and a fine police officer, in my opinion. A little girl was brutally murdered in her own home where a ransom note was left. This case will always haunt him. Is he perfect? No one is. Were mistakes made? Oh. my. god- yes! Should that forever take away from someone finally being prosecuted for this case? It shouldn't.

James Kolar is a good man in my book too. God forbid anyone pick my life in my career apart. He is human. Burke Ramsey, rightfully or not, at the time in Colorado could not be prosecuted for the crime- I disagree with this but fair enough- a reason was determined that it is just too young an age to be held accountable for such actions- Burke Ramsey was close to the age he could have been though- very close.

The point of the Grand Juries determination was however, there were two adult individuals in the home that were old enough to know better yet contributed to the cover-up and didn't do what was necessary (in the eyes of the GJ) to prevent the outcome. This law wasn't put into effect to allow adults to do whatever heinous thing necessary to protect the underage perpetrator. It didn't give free license to stage a crime scene, blame innocent people (with the potential for watching an innocent person go to prison over the false accusations). This is what happened. I am not talking about now- but then. It is a travesty that any decent citizen should be appalled at. The Grand jury saw the evidence and voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on those two counts. We will never know what may have happened... sigh... my two cents and all.

Frigga,
Well put, BBM: yet thats what happened. For me this case opened my eyes to how the USofA criminal justice system is open to direct manipulation by those who have money.

Once JR leaves this earth I'll bet you the documentaries and conspiracy theories will start multiplying.

Then it will be BR's turn to use litigation to shut down any inspection of past Ramsey behaviour.

This case is all about the sexual abuse and murder of JonBenet so others could evade justice and maintain their illusion of social separateness.

That JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis is backed up by the Coroners evidence and his request for a second opinion.

So who was JonBenet's abuser and is this person the same as her killer?


.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO the best thing to come out of the grand jury....
They did not believe there was an intruder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

Legally, Dr. B could not release the full written records without the R consent. The R's gave approval allowing Detective H. to interview Dr. B's staff. (PMPT) The detective thereafter interviewed Dr. B who gave a summary verbal report to the detective. IMO, Dr. B did recognize he had exposure to misfeasance/nonfeasance; most likely the R's knew Dr. B had exposure as well. They closed ranks. The DA never allowed for a subpoena, and as bettybaby00 brings up, Attorney Morgan managed to obtain the seal of approval on making sure "certain" records were never revealed. moo

Yes, even though JB's doctor needed the parents' permission to release the medical records, the DA could have obtained a warrant for them without the parents' approval. That he did NOT do this is one if the red flags for me. There was SOMETHING in those medical records (and BR's records were "protected" as well) that likely indicated some kind of abuse between the siblings.

 

[Carmelita]

There was a report initially that 1 door was unlocked, really? I've never come across it. I find that hard to believe b/c if that was the case, why does JRs recounting of events evolve to focus on the window as the likely point of entry. If he had stated a door may have been left unlocked, and somehow that point became lost in the "wild reporting," why wouldn't he continually bring it up? Instead, his statements over time become more focused on the window, the suit case, how the "bizarrely clever" intruder blocked the train room door with a chair on his way out, and how while awaiting for the call from the kidnappers, he recalled the threat that the house would be watched, and ran upstairs, binoculars in hand, to scan the street for anything suspicious. he notices a white car circling the neigorhood and, an unfamiliar van parked in the alley! Yet he never thought to alert any of the officers on the scene. He doesn't remark upon it that night when police stop by to try and get additional questions answered. Nor does he frantically contact police in the days, weeks, or months after and proclaim, "wait, I think a door may have been unlocked!!!!"

He just keeps bringing up the basement window. He doesn't indicate he believes the basement window was the point of entry until 4/97, the binocular story arises in june, as does the clever chair.

Given this, the discrediting of the point of entry is pretty central to the the intruder theory. Funny too, is that instead of talking to police from the onset, they chose to go on Larry King, and issue press releases about how they are cooperating fully with police, and they've told them everything they know.


The idea that someone got into the house with a key, or an unlocked door and hung around for "some hours," is too much of a stretch for me.

I have been to Candy’s site so thank you.



The way I see it, the problem wasn't that ML was willing to let a sexual deviant child murderer skate, it was that she was unwilling to consider that her pal(s) were sexual deviate child murderers.

Yes there was an unlocked door. Yes it is in evidence. Yes there are many astute minds who believe the intruder was in the house for hours while the Ramsey's were out. No I do not believe that there is a conspiracy which would include Mary Lacey of people in power that are protecting a sexually deviant child murderer from justice because they are unwilling to consider that the person might actually be evil.

I know many people believe that to be the case. I have read numerous theories of the grand conspiracy, they are full of fantasy, gossip, "intuition" and "internet facts" in my opinion.

 

[Carmelita]

The Grand Jury voted to indict, Alex Hunter made the decision not to, why call a Grand jury in the first place? Of course it was his right to make the decision but we will never know what may have come from it- that ship has sailed and as far as I'm concerned- justice with it. I'm talking about back then- with the evidence they had then.

Of course it's a lower threshold than a jury trial but there is a point to it and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Steve Thomas was a good man and a fine police officer, in my opinion. A little girl was brutally murdered in her own home where a ransom note was left. This case will always haunt him. Is he perfect? No one is. Were mistakes made? Oh. my. god- yes! Should that forever take away from someone finally being prosecuted for this case? It shouldn't.

James Kolar is a good man in my book too. God forbid anyone pick my life in my career apart. He is human. Burke Ramsey, rightfully or not, at the time in Colorado could not be prosecuted for the crime- I disagree with this but fair enough- a reason was determined that it is just too young an age to be held accountable for such actions- Burke Ramsey was close to the age he could have been though- very close.

The point of the Grand Juries determination was however, there were two adult individuals in the home that were old enough to know better yet contributed to the cover-up and didn't do what was necessary (in the eyes of the GJ) to prevent the outcome. This law wasn't put into effect to allow adults to do whatever heinous thing necessary to protect the underage perpetrator. It didn't give free license to stage a crime scene, blame innocent people (with the potential for watching an innocent person go to prison over the false accusations). This is what happened. I am not talking about now- but then. It is a travesty that any decent citizen should be appalled at. The Grand jury saw the evidence and voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on those two counts. We will never know what may have happened... sigh... my two cents and all.

I am just choosing your post at random. I didn’t even finish reading it but I will as I critique it. But this is exactly why I feel a fruitful dialogue about his case is not possible with Ramsey Did It Enthusiasts.

I will address your post a point at a time. And my apologies neither italics or bold is working for me so I hope my post is clear,

"The Grand Jury voted to indict, Alex Hunter made the decision not to, why call a Grand jury in the first place? Of course it was his right to make the decision but we will never know what may have come from it- that ship has sailed and as far as I'm concerned- justice with it. I'm talking about back then- with the evidence they had then."

Alex Hunter may have seen the writing on the wall and knew that it was an untenable case. As to “Why call a GJ in the first place” because it is the way our systems works. To use a circular response if we are not going respect the DA’s right to veto, why give the DA that power anyway?


"Of course it's a lower threshold than a jury trial but there is a point to it and to say otherwise is ridiculous."


I never said that and it is a specious statement, verbal gymnastics to belittle what I said rather than address it. To say I said something I did not say and then to say that it is ridiculous simply isn’t conducive to a mindful and respectful dialogue.


"Steve Thomas was a good man and a fine police officer, in my opinion. A little girl was brutally murdered in her own home where a ransom note was left. This case will always haunt him. Is he perfect? No one is. Were mistakes made? Oh. my. god- yes! Should that forever take away from someone finally being prosecuted for this case? It shouldn't."


I never said that because mistakes were made that someone should not be prosecuted. My point is that one’s passion for justice should not blind them to the facts of the case. Personally my belief is that Thomas may have started out with good intentions but he ended up blinded by his narrow vision. I do not believe that resignation letter was the prose of a healthy unbiased mind.


"James Kolar is a good man in my book too. God forbid anyone pick my life in my career apart. He is human. Burke Ramsey, rightfully or not, at the time in Colorado could not be prosecuted for the crime- I disagree with this but fair enough- a reason was determined that it is just too young an age to be held accountable for such actions- Burke Ramsey was close to the age he could have been though- very close."


I don’t know whether or not Kolar is a good man or not. I disagree with his conclusions and believe that he was beset by confirmation bias. Burke if he was guilty of the crime which I believe 100% he was not would have and could have been held accountable. So here we will have to simply disagree.


"The point of the Grand Juries determination was however, there were two adult individuals in the home that were old enough to know better yet contributed to the cover-up and didn't do what was necessary (in the eyes of the GJ) to prevent the outcome."


The determination of the GJ was terribly nebulously worded and what they meant cannot be discerned other than they believed (maybe perhaps) that Patsy and John could have done something to prevent the horror that was inflicted on JonBenet.


"This law wasn't put into effect to allow adults to do whatever heinous thing necessary to protect the underage perpetrator."


I agree that the law was not put into effect to let heinous crimes go unanswered if they are committed by a minor.


"It didn't give free license to stage a crime scene, blame innocent people (with the potential for watching an innocent person go to prison over the false accusations). This is what happened."


That is your opinion, and the opinion of many, it is an opinion that many do not share.


"I am not talking about now- but then. It is a travesty that any decent citizen should be appalled at".


If there were proof that these claims were true, I would be appalled, there is only speculation, confirmation bias and the reinforcement of rumors and beliefs repeated enough times that many people believe that they are repeating confirmed facts of the case.


"The Grand jury saw the evidence and voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on those two counts. We will never know what may have happened... sigh... my two cents and all."

Thanks for your 2 cents, I hope you don’t mind mine.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes there was an unlocked door. Yes it is in evidence. Yes there are many astute minds who believe the intruder was in the house for hours while the Ramsey's were out. No I do not believe that there is a conspiracy which would include Mary Lacey of people in power that are protecting a sexually deviant child murderer from justice because they are unwilling to consider that the person might actually be evil.

I know many people believe that to be the case. I have read numerous theories of the grand conspiracy, they are full of fantasy, gossip, "intuition" and "internet facts" in my opinion.

It be great if there was a source attached to "there was a door unlocked, and it's in the evidence."

B/c if true, it defies logic that it never came to light by either JR himself, Lou Smit, L. Wood, their investigators, their lawyers, friends that were there that morning, CSI techs, or any other potential LE people who either viewed it with their own eyes, or saw it written in the tens of thousands documents that are on file in this case.

Instead, we've had nearly 20 years of accounts by JR and all those who have fought on his behalf pointing to a broken window.

 

[Frigga]

Just so we are clear Carmelita- I am not a "Ramsey did it enthusiast", I am an average citizen, with an average intellect. I came upon this case, in terms of really reading about it very late after the events transpired and a beautiful, sweet child was murdered.

Some people, myself being one, have a desire to read, research, and determine a conclusion, and yes sometimes based in part on the intuition you so callously, and rudely disregard in your post to babybetty.

My intuition has served me well in my lifetime. It is not all I base my opinions on, but you can damn well believe that I pay attention to it when it is telling me something.

I am no genius, I am not a great debater, I would never be able to go against you- toe to toe because I am not an intellectual like you, but I have an opinion that matters.

Many people seated on juries are just like me.

I can choose myself to believe what someone is telling me, or disbelieve it just the same. Just because they are saying it doesn't make it true. When people change their stories in a short amount of time my ears perk up and my hinky meter goes off. I know that when someone lies about one thing, or many I can make the decision to disregard some of the other things they are saying too. I can tell you, in no uncertain terms that I know when I am being manipulated without a shred of evidence to back that up. I know that a team of well paid lawyers, who are in the top of their field can change the odds and the stakes for their clients, irregardless of guilt or innocence.

I know what parents do when they have nothing to hide and want a perpetrator caught- I can at least tell you that much and no amount of "facts" in which you may deem important will change what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.



I appreciate and read everyones opinions, weather I agree with them or not.

I don't have to be a genius to come to the conclusion that I have come to- and I don't have to be able to have all the facts committed to memory to be able to say what my mind, heart and head tell me, and that doesn't make me a "Ramsey Did it Enthusiast" just because you say so.