Was Burke involved?

[MyBelle]

I actually believe that was the standard operating procedure at the time of the JonBenet case - since then, the media has lost almost all its ethics, but they seem to have just forgotten about the Burke speculation. If something brought it up again, I think they'd be all over it. But I don't think most of the public thinks a little boy did it, so they don't want to get people angry, especially as Burke keeps such a low profile. I don't think most people want the whole thing dug up again, but if juicy info came out, then I do think the media would look into it extensively, like with the Ramsey grand jury stuff.

BBM. Burke does have rights. He's been officially cleared. The media can not name him a suspect unless police name him a suspect. All kinds of "juicy" tidbits may come out as rumors but I doubt even the tabloids will publish them now unless cops confirm it is tied to the criminal investigation.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

BBM. Burke does have rights. He's been officially cleared. The media can not name him a suspect unless police name him a suspect. All kinds of "juicy" tidbits may come out as rumors but I doubt even the tabloids will publish them now unless cops confirm it is tied to the criminal investigation.



JMO

There are ways around this IMO without coming out and labeling him a suspect. The new trend seems to be "person of interest"
Reports could be written about how he had been considered a possible suspect, especially paired with Kolars book, and that questionable affidavit where Hunter skirted around by not actually clearing him totally in writing. Choosing his words very carefully legally and the role Colorado Children Code could also figure into the equation.

Oh the media could print the story for sure based on all of the above....and toss in a little Steve Thomas and grand jury indictments for good measure...and put a bow on top. IMO

 

[Venom]

I agree with Tawny, could we get a BDI thread only for RDI's?

 

[MyBelle]

There are ways around this IMO without coming out and labeling him a suspect. The new trend seems to be "person of interest"
Reports could be written about how he had been considered a possible suspect, especially paired with Kolars book, and that questionable affidavit where Hunter skirted around by not actually clearing him totally in writing. Choosing his words very carefully legally and the role Colorado Children Code could also figure into the equation.

Oh the media could print the story for sure based on all of the above....and toss in a little Steve Thomas and grand jury indictments for good measure...and put a bow on top. IMO

There are ethics the media must adhere to. The only person they'll speculate was responsible was Patsy and that's because she is dead and can't be defamed.

The key is that the Ramseys were publicly cleared AFTER Hunter skirted around it. The media will now only use "person of interest" if cops use it. Of course they can report on Kolar's book but they will be very careful to point out that JR and BR were cleared so that they will avoid liability. Kolar's book is an opinion and he's allowed to express it.

I haven't read Kolar's book but if JR/BR feels it is defamatory, he'll file a lawsuit but the media won't be a defendant.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree with Tawny, could we get a BDI thread only for RDI's?

Maybe it is just me. But it seems so silly to only want to talk about one point of view.

There is an RDI thread, and an IDI thread if we want to talk about specific theories. I just don't see why some seem so offended by other opinions in an open thread.

IT is enlightening and it gives us all something to think about and discuss.

It seems juvenile to me to only want one voice heard.. JMO

 

[Chewy]

Maybe it is just me. But it seems so silly to only want to talk about one point of view.

There is an RDI thread, and an IDI thread if we want to talk about specific theories. I just don't see why some seem so offended by other opinions in an open thread.

IT is enlightening and it gives us all something to think about and discuss.

It seems juvenile to me to only want one voice heard.. JMO

It's a little strange to be considered irksome because you ask for evidence :waitasec:

 

[Venom]

Maybe it is just me. But it seems so silly to only one to talk about one point of view.

There is an RDI thread, and an IDI thread if we want to talk about specific theories. I just don't see why some seem so offended by other opinions in an open thread.

IT is enlightening and it gives us all something to think about and discuss.

It seems juvenile to me to only want one voice heard.. JMO

I don't only want 1 voice heard. I'd like to talk about theories, opinions. If I remember correctly, the IDI's wanted their own thread? Am I wrong?

Honestly, I don't even know what this thread is anymore. We were talking about if BR was involved, off the top of my head it's come up as to whether or not ST was the lead detective, if the media can publicly name him a suspect. How does ST being a lead detective come into play of BR being involved? It doesn't imo.

And I'm not offended by a differing opinion. I just don't want to have to side step, look up information for someone to just go :snooty: no that is not how it is. And before that is misconstrued, I am happy to link information for people who want to look at it.

So, should I just say that I'd like to have a BDI thread where it is not turned into a train wreck?

 

[otg]

Did I miss the news flash that "the media" is now governed by guidelines issued by "the Bar Association? And LE can be their only source of information? How did I miss that in the news?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't only want 1 voice heard. I'd like to talk]/b] about theories, opinions. If I remember correctly, the IDI's wanted their own thread? Am I wrong?

Honestly, I don't even know what this thread is anymore. We were talking about if BR was involved, off the top of my head it's come up as to whether or not ST was the lead detective, if the media can publicly name him a suspect. How does ST being a lead detective come into play of BR being involved? It doesn't imo.

And I'm not offended by a differing opinion. I just don't want to have to side step, look up information for someone to just go :snooty: no that is not how it is. And before that is misconstrued, I am happy to link information for people who want to look at it.

So, should I just say that I'd like to have a BDI thread where it is not turned into a train wreck?

Just steer it back. Start talking about what you think should be discussed that is on topic.
I am sure with the length of these threads and the information in them, There will always be someone who has not heard about evidence that may be referenced. I think that is just the nature of forums. People come and people go.
I don't think it is a train wreck. I think it is a bunch of different people posting and that makes in interesting.

IMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Did I miss the news flash that "the media" is now governed by guidelines issued by "the Bar Association? And LE can be their only source of information? How did I miss that in the news?

I took it to mean that the Media is not going to knowingly print something that is not based on fact. If it is just rumor that someone is a suspect they are going to leave it be unless there is something to back it up so they don't get sued.

Anyway that is the way I took it.

 

[Venom]

Another thing to think about, BR's tdna was found on the Barbie nightgown and his fingerprints were on the glass and bowl. How did his tdna and prints end up on those two things connected to the scene? (I know he lived in the house.)

 

[Chewy]

You'd need to have specific evidence before evaluating it.

 

[Frigga]

The touch DNA on the barbie nightgown is very compelling, if it and the blanket came out of the dryer, to be wrapped around JB.

Burke's description of what he thought happened to his sister- very interesting- especially due to the fact the Ramsey's insist so much information was kept from him.

The swiss army knife taken away and hidden stands out to me, as well.

What else?

 

[Frigga]

Oh, and I need to add, that I seriously doubt Burke Ramsey did dishes in that house.

 

[Frigga]

I believe we have to be willing to say that it is a 50/50 chance that the HiTech boot print in the wine cellar ocuured the night of the murder as easily as we can believe it happened at some other time.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Another thing to think about, BR's tdna was found on the Barbie nightgown and his fingerprints were on the glass and bowl. How did his tdna and prints end up on those two things connected to the scene? (I know he lived in the house.)

He could have touched the bowl and glass any time. They are in his house. That is not anything extraordinary...

That it was on the nightgown could be that he just touched it with other clean clothes. There is nothing nefarious there.

There is no way to know. but it belongs there so it can not be connected to anything more.. IMPO

 

[Chewy]

Again where are the specifics about the "fingerprints'

 

[Linda7NJ]

For me, I absolutely hate to provide links.
So ....when they're requested and I go through all the trouble of tracking down & searching and linking them....only to have those links not read and completely ignored.......this becomes evident a few posts later when the same thread clogging comments and requests for links are repeated and the information previously supplied was completely ignored.

......annoys me....it's a game I do not want to play....

 

[Venom]

Again where are the specifics about the "fingerprints'

Is this directed towards me?

Are these the specifics you asked about?
Fingerprints on Bowl. The bowl was later determined to have fingerprints matching both Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey
Source of Bowl. Burke reported in police interviews that he recognized the bowl
There also was a glass of tea on the same table at the seat normally occupied by Burke. This glass was later determined to have fingerprints matching Burke Ramsey
According to Internet poster Evening2, "Burke helped Patsy empty the dishwasher as part of their family time," so the fact that fingerprints were found on these items is not necessarily suspicious. But what's puzzling is that according to Evening2, "both Patsy and John said the table was CLEARED before they went to the Whites."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Is this directed towards me?



Are these the specifics you asked about?

Fingerprints on Bowl. The bowl was later determined to have fingerprints matching both Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey

Source of Bowl. Burke reported in police interviews that he recognized the bowl

There also was a glass of tea on the same table at the seat normally occupied by Burke. This glass was later determined to have fingerprints matching Burke Ramsey

According to Internet poster Evening2, "Burke helped Patsy empty the dishwasher as part of their family time," so the fact that fingerprints were found on these items is not necessarily suspicious. But what's puzzling is that according to Evening2, "both Patsy and John said the table was CLEARED before they went to the Whites."

And Patsy didn't recognize the bowl, wouldn't have used that spoon, Pineapple, tissue box, flashlight, ......on and on....