Was Burke involved?

[MyBelle]

I have scorn, derision, and condemnation for people who lie and deceive in general. To cover up the murder (intentional or otherwise) of an innocent 6 year old just compounds that.

That said, I think it's... redeeming? (for lack of a better word)... of them, at least to me, that they came together to protect and cover for their remaining child. Honestly, that is what seals the BDI case for me. He is the only thing I can imagine both parents coming together to protect. I really don't believe either would cover for the other for so long, but I do believe they'd want to protect him.

I can't imagine anything more heinous than the murder of a child and the denial of justice to her. We'll continue to disagree that they covered to protect their other child. I think they blamed their other child in order to protect themselves.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

Oh Linda you are one of my angels on a certain thread, I cant believe we disagree on this one!

However upsetting my questions may be to some I am NOT "trying to shut down" the thread or any discussion.

Ive asked for whatever evidence points to Burke and it seems to boil down to -

A bowl of pineapple
poo on a candy box
Kolars theory

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but honestly....IS THAT IT?!!!

Seems to be. Honestly I'm not that familiar with this case. I thought people were working with aLOT more evidence.

Here's something that does bolster the argument that BDI

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/g...-against-jonbenet-ramseys-parents-f8C11464935

On the child abuse count, the grand jury wrote that the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

On a second count of accessory to a crime, it alleged that each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Oh Linda you are one of my angels on a certain thread, I cant believe we disagree on this one!



However upsetting my questions may be to some I am NOT "trying to shut down" the thread or any discussion.



Ive asked for whatever evidence points to Burke and it seems to boil down to -



A bowl of pineapple

poo on a candy box

Kolars theory



I'm no Sherlock Holmes but honestly....IS THAT IT?!!!

I can't believe we disagree on this one either, and of course, I know you well enough to know you don't want this thread shut down.,.love ya!

There is more.
IMO its a good theory.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Oh Linda you are one of my angels on a certain thread, I cant believe we disagree on this one!

However upsetting my questions may be to some I am NOT "trying to shut down" the thread or any discussion.

Ive asked for whatever evidence points to Burke and it seems to boil down to -

A bowl of pineapple
poo on a candy box
Kolars theory

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but honestly....IS THAT IT?!!!

I haven't read Kolars book nor do I know his theory but I do believe it is possible Burke's parents intentionally planted the seed that Burke was involved or their attorneys did so. They lied about everything to give the illusion they were trying to protect him when, in fact, their goal was to protect themselves by making Burke the scapegoat.

 

[Linda7NJ]

And I can not believe that I completely agree with you here! Miracles happen at WS.



I really have an issue with the fecal matter. I can not find a source for it, find out how much? if it was ever dna tested? Or tested at all to see if it was really fecal matter???



I think that some things have to be backed up. To say you feel he is guilty? Well that is a feeling and you are entitled to it.

To say there is proof that points to him being guilty, I think you have to provide that proof. IMHO

I take issue with the word "proof"

There is evidence supporting the theory.

Not really fair to say I believe based on a feeling. You could at least read Kolar's book.

The only thing I'm sure of is that there was no intruder. It was a Ramsey. IMO I am familiar enough with the case to put together a decent theory based on evidence that pointed to any one of them, working alone as well as working together.

That's the problem with this case and why it will never be brought to trial.
There is evidence for every possible scenario.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

I haven't read Kolars book nor do I know his theory but I do believe it is possible Burke's parents intentionally planted the seed that Burke was involved or their attorneys did so. They lied about everything to give the illusion they were trying to protect him when, in fact, their goal was to protect themselves by making Burke the scapegoat.

I would agree with this more than BDI. In the event that this was a freak accident or even intentional by Burke, I find it very doubtful that a nine year old boy could hold up a lie like that for a year.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would consider it prudent to at least be familiar with the theory before discounting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

That's what I've spent hours trying to do only to see people admit they have no idea what the evidence actually shows. It's all just gossip.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That's what I've spent hours trying to do only to see people admit they have no idea what the evidence actually shows. It's all just gossip.

That's not true.
I suggested sources for you to read and I've recommended books.
I'm not going to outline 15 years worth of following this case, I'm not wiling to write what would amount to a dissertation complete with a bibliography.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SapphireSteel]

I would consider it prudent to at least be familiar with the theory before discounting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of this does seem to come from Kolars book.

If anyone has a link to where i can read this online please share!

Thanks

 

[Linda7NJ]

A lot of this does seem to come from Kolars book.



If anyone has a link to where i can read this online please share!



Thanks

Kolar's book brings a lot of it together from all the other sources so it's in one convienant place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

My library had it, my suggestion would be to check yours!

 

[MyBelle]

A lot of this does seem to come from Kolars book.

If anyone has a link to where i can read this online please share!

Thanks

Here's a blog that reviews the book. It points out that for whatever reason, Kolar decided BR was more likely the perp than his father. Kolar seems to have made the same mistake as others and assumed that because the Ramseys gave all appearance to being loving, Christian parents, by golly it was impossible for either one to be capable of the crime.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/kolars-book.html

 

[bettybaby00]

Here's a blog that reviews the book. It points out that for whatever reason, Kolar decided BR was more likely the perp than his father. Kolar seems to have made the same mistake as others and assumed that because the Ramseys gave all appearance to being loving, Christian parents, by golly it was impossible for either one to be capable of the crime.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/kolars-book.html

He is a firm believer in JDI, through and through. And although simple is often best, IMO in this case it's too SIME of a conclusion. IA with others, look at the links provided, and kolars book definitely brings it together even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Here's a blog that reviews the book. It points out that for whatever reason, Kolar decided BR was more likely the perp than his father. Kolar seems to have made the same mistake as others and assumed that because the Ramseys gave all appearance to being loving, Christian parents, by golly it was impossible for either one to be capable of the crime.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/kolars-book.html

Thanks for the link.

Just ad I suspected, Kolar skips over the parental involvement especially of John.

Just not good enough and proof the author was attempting to spin the facts into a BDI theory to sell books.

Moo and all that.

Where is the evidence that incriminates Burke?

This is not the crime of a child.

 

[Linda7NJ]

He is a firm believer in JDI, through and through. And although simple is often best, IMO in this case it's too SIME of a conclusion. IA with others, look at the links provided, and kolars book definitely brings it together even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

Iirc the author of the blog is a member of FFJ forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Years ago when I was about 8 I was bickering with my sister while she was standing over me and she hauled off and slammed me over the head with a broom handle. I could easily see something like that going down but I have a hard time explainng Burke being able to keep that secret under so much scrutiny.

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks for the link.

Just ad I suspected, Kolar skips over the parental involvement especially of John.

Just not good enough and proof the author was attempting to spin the facts into a BDI theory to sell books.

Moo and all that.

Where is the evidence that incriminates Burke?

This is not the crime of a child.

I agree it is not the crime of a child. Kolar did the same thing as Smit and that was to factor in their religion as though it was some kind of proof of innocence for the parents. I think the Ramseys really did intentionally implicate Burke. I'm shocked anybody fell for it but that could be the reason DA Lacy cleared him by name in 2008 and why DA Hunter refused to sign the true bill.

Parents pointing to their own child as the perp is the kind of stunt a defense attorney would pull knowing full well the child was too young to prosecute.

JMO

 

[SapphireSteel]

That detail, that B was too young to prosecute, takes away the need to "cover" for him.

If he hurt JB any parent would call 911 instead of murdering their injured baby!

BDI makes zero sense, as does exonerating J or P.

 

[BOESP]

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?

Could you tell me why "how many fingerprints," "where on the bowl," and "which fingers" were used is relevant? Please and thank you.

Just about anything one wants to know about this case can be found at www.acandyrose.com or on Forums For Justice and what they don't have a web copy of will likely be referenced so that one can personally obtain the information (e.g. buying books on Amazon; ordering files from the court, and so on). Then there's always Google.

One example of objectivity is a Grand Jury who evaluates evidence known only in that courtroom, both for and against, yet who decide a True Bill is needed so that John and Patsy Ramsey can be indicted. The Grand Jury found enough evidence to take the case to trial, charging Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.