Was Burke involved?

[Chewy]

If you hate providing links then you shouldn't debate evidence. I don't expect you to do my research for me, I'm googling as well but not finding evidence that backs up claims being made, quite the opposite in fact.

You can't posit that Burke handled the bowl and get annoyed when asked for evidence

 

[Chewy]

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."

How many fingerprints, which fingers and where on the bowl. Can you link to the evidence.

It's hard to find legitimate links because this case has so many crackpot theories out there. Where is the objective evidence?

 

[Linda7NJ]

How many fingerprints, which fingers and where on the bowl. Can you link to the evidence.



It's hard to find legitimate links because this case has so many crackpot theories out there. Where is the objective evidence?

I'm afraid our opinions differ on what constitutes a legitimate source of information.
I consider Steve Thomas and Kolar both reputable. I may disagree on their interpretation of some of the evidence, I have no reason to believe they've fabricated or manufactured evidence.

I consider transcribed interviews, depositions and statements made by the Ramsey's to be accurate and reliable sources for information , even though I do not find them to be consistent in actions, words or behavior. Nor do I find either Ramsey credible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

ok that's a source but where's the police evidence? I'll look that up but so far I'm only finding garbage like this

Fingerprints on Bowl. The bowl was later determined to have fingerprints matching both Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey (according to Internet poster Evening2, this fact was reported in Schiller's 2006 documentary). Internet poster Jameson says she spent a lot of time with investigators and never heard even a hint that anyone else's fingerprints besides Patsy's and Burke's had been found on the bowl.

I mean seriously SMH

 

[MyBelle]

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?

perhaps because it is something learned in Journalism 101.

 

[Linda7NJ]

ok that's a source but where's the police evidence? I'll look that up but so far I'm only finding garbage like this



I mean seriously SMH

What terms are you using to search?

I searched "fingerprints JonBenet" and found the page in Steve's book in about 90 seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

I'm afraid our opinions differ on what constitutes a legitimate source of information.
I consider Steve Thomas and Kolar both reputable. I may disagree on their interpretation of some of the evidence, I have no reason to believe they've fabricated or manufactured evidence.

I consider transcribed interviews, depositions and statements made by the Ramsey's to be accurate and reliable sources for information , even though I do not find them to be consistent in actions, words or behavior. Nor do I find either Ramsey credible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITA. Apparently some are confused and believe there is no evidence at all when, in fact, there is an abundance of evidence but chain of custody was compromised by the contamination of the Ramseys.

 

[Chewy]

ITA. Apparently some are confused and believe there is no evidence at all when, in fact, there is an abundance of evidence but chain of custody was compromised by the contamination of the Ramseys.

So post the evidence, I absolutely agree with the interpretation that if someone lies about small details they should be looked at more closely. That's why I want the details of Burke's fingerprints on the bowl. How was he holding it? etc

It's weird to see people so cleaved to their theories that any sort of rational inquiry is perceived as a threat!

Here's a source I found.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-interrogation-tapes/

 

[Chewy]

What terms are you using to search?

I searched "fingerprints JonBenet" and found the page in Steve's book in about 90 seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See that was helpful. I've been searching Burke Ramsey Fingerprints and getting nut jobs. Thanks


This is what I got using your search
https://www.google.com/search?q="fi..."&aqs=chrome.0.69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No book

Finally found it, it's a shame it took hours instead of seconds


Here's the link for others

http://books.google.com/books?id=pC...wCQ#v=onepage&q=fingerprints JonBenet&f=false


Ok it mentions fingerprints but is not what I'm asking for. His fingerprints were on the bowl is a broad statement that could mean anything

 

[Venom]

Here's more fingerprint sources. I'm not going to get baited into a response to get a time out. Believe the sources for fingerprints or not, it's up to you.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/15.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=pC...wCQ#v=onepage&q=fingerprints jonbenet&f=false

 

[Chewy]

Again it's weird to me that asking for evidence is considered "baiting" someone! thanks for the link.


ETA


It's the same link and just "mentions" fingerprints it doesn't show where.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, "his prints are on the bowl" is not really a broad statement at all. It means simply....his prints are on the bowl (of pineapple).
Fingerprints cannot be "dated" in the sense of proving they were left at a certain time when it is on an item that is a common household item and left by someone who lived in the house. Obviously prints do not survive being washed, so BR's prints were left on that bowl at some point after it came out of a dishwasher or was washed and pineapple put in it. This pineapple in the bowl was tested against the pineapple in JB's small intestine and found to match. As the bowl was on the table when the body was found, it is likely she ate from that bowl. But unfortunately we can't prove BR was there with her when she ate it. It is possible, even probably, but not provable.

 

[Mama2JML]

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?

I would agree IF the blanket & nightgown came straight out of the dryer & IF the knife in question was in fact Burke's Swiss Army knife & IF other compelling forensic evidence didn't exist.

 

[Chewy]

Actually, "his prints are on the bowl" is not really a broad statement at all. It means simply....his prints are on the bowl (of pineapple).
Fingerprints cannot be "dated" in the sense of proving they were left at a certain time when it is on an item that is a common household item and left by someone who lived in the house. Obviously prints do not survive being washed, so BR's prints were left on that bowl at some point after it came out of a dishwasher or was washed and pineapple put in it. This pineapple in the bowl was tested against the pineapple in JB's small intestine and found to match. As the bowl was on the table when the body was found, it is likely she ate from that bowl. But unfortunately we can't prove BR was there with her when she ate it. It is possible, even probably, but not provable.

It could be very important, for example if they were on the bottom like he was holding it for her or just glancing off it as if he pushed it out of the way, or multiple prints showing he shared it with her, only outside or inside too. How can you say it's not important?

Timing has nothing to do with it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It could be very important, for example if they were on the bottom like he was holding it for her or just glancing off it as if he pushed it out of the way, or multiple prints showing he shared it with her, only outside or inside too. How can you say it's not important?

Timing has nothing to do with it.

The thing with the prints is there is no way to tell how they got there or when, so the prints are just information not evidence. If they could be dated or had something else on them like blood, like with Jodi Arias where she put her hand print on the wall in TA's blood. That is evidence.

But he lived in the house. He could have handled the bowl before and the someone else handled it with gloves and did not leave prints.. Just no way to make it something bigger than just information.

 

[Chewy]

Well, I wouldn't entirely agree with that. They had been washed in a dishwasher and thus cleaned off. If partial prints were found on the edge that's one thing but if prints indicate he was actually holding the bowl, it tells a different story.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well, I wouldn't entirely agree with that. They had been washed in a dishwasher and thus cleaned off. If partial prints were found on the edge that's one thing but if prints indicate he was actually holding the bowl, it tells a different story.

It really doesn't. It just shows at one time he held the bowl. It does not point to anything evidentiary. IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

If all a person is doing is looking at fingerprint position and amount on the bowl in a vacuum I would agree.

It's all the lies and other evidence related to the bowl of pineapple, statements made about it not being on the table earlier, the Burke & his dad worked on a toy after he carried her up to bed, or the version that John read to JonBenet before bed and Patsy & Burke went straight to bed, and the version that had her awake and walking in on her own. Patsy not recognizing the bowl denying she even had fresh pineapple her lawyer theorizing the killer brought it in a Tupperware container.

It's a fact JonBenet ate fresh, not canned, pineapple relatively shortly before she died.

See to me, all of those versions point to one thing and one thing only. The Ramsey's lied. Repeatedly, and they didn't get together to all get on the same page about the minute details they never considered they might be asked.

So yes, each piece can be excused or argued away if looked at as separate. But it's not really separate is it? No. It's part of a whole mountain of contradictory statements and bold faced lies. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

You can't look at one piece of evidence and accept or dismiss JUST that piece. It's the TOTALITY of the puzzle.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You can't look at one piece of evidence and accept or dismiss JUST that piece. It's the TOTALITY of the puzzle.

Actually you can. You have to look at each piece see if it has real evidentiary value before you start adding it to see if it fits with other pieces.

To start trying to make it fit before knowing if it is good and real evidence will lead you down the garden path and out the gate..