Was Burke involved?

[Chewy]

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

Would you mind either repeating it or just posting a link to the post that you say it in? I'd really appreciate it.

 

[MyBelle]

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

A misdemeanor? I thought the charges related to child abuse?

Lacy cleared the family in 2008, two years after Patsy died. I think it was because the parents tried to throw blame on Burke even though he wasn't involved. Blaming Burke was a ploy thought up by Ramsey's attorneys and Hunter and Lacy saw through it.

If LE thought Burke was responsible, they would not have continued to expend so many resources to investigate the crime. They would have announced what happened and closed the case after Patsy died.

It's coy of Kolar to pretend the Grand Jury testimony contains some kind of proof but, hey, he can't disclose it. Innuendo helps sell his book.

There is no statute of limitations on sex abuse of a child. I believe it is very possible the Grand Jury returned the child abuse charges against the parents because of abuse of Burke.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

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

ITA. I just don't see that happening if it was an accident. JR didn't assist with the cover-up because it was an accident involving BR, he assisted to cover his own involvement.

JMO

 

[tezi]

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

Yes, something that I have thought since the very beginning.

JMO

 

[tezi]

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

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

It takes nearly no force to swing a Maglite flashlight like the one the R's owned (and was completely clean of fingerprints to include the batteries) and do severe damage. I suggest anyone doubting me go to any hardware store and ask for the large-ish sized Maglite (4 D-cell) and take a few test swings.

The bulb on that thing is massive, and the force it would take to swing it is actually minimal.

There is any "factual" evidence of JDI, PDI, or IDI, either. So we're all in the same boat, paddling along.

 

[Tawny]

If LE thought Burke was responsible, they would not have continued to expend so many resources to investigate the crime. They would have announced what happened and closed the case after Patsy died.

RSBM

No, they were still indicted for the COVER UP. That is still a crime.

 

[chlban]

I find it fascinating that people can accept that one or both of the R's could have either accidentally, or some seem to believe not accidentally, killed JB and done all of the staging, but find it impossible to believe that they could have done the exact same staging you think they did for themselves, in order to protect their son.

I mean no disrespect, I honestly just don't get it. To me, if you are convinced it was RDI and that there absolutely was no intruder, then you have to accept it was one of the three. You may have a favorite theory, or theories, most of us do. But none of us knows for certain who did what.

I find it perfectly believable that Burke could have hit his sister and hit her hard. Then either Patsy or both parents covered it up. Why is that less believable than the idea that one parent hit her hard and then both parents covered it up? Maybe because they beleived JB was either already dead or too far gone to ever recover.

Personally, there is no way in Hell that I would protect a spouse if he harmed my child. Protecting another child? Thank God that is choice I have never had to make.

Keep in mind, I think it is highly unlikely that Patsy knew, that night, that Burke could not be prosecuted. That is not the kind of knowledge someone outside of LE or the legal profession would just have floating around in their brain. Aside from that you have the factor of your child being known to the world as the kid that killed, or at the very least, violently assaulted his younger sister. Finally you have narcissistic Patsy, who I believe would worry about how it would "look". Particularly if there was a sexual assault involved. Doesn't seem like the stuff mother of year awards are made of.

 

[MyBelle]

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:

BBM. I think we all agree a 9-year-old is capable of violence, but the act of violence isn't a crime because of the age. I've not seen any evidence that Burke was violent or had an explosive temper. If BR was violent toward his sister, his parents had a duty to protect her and to protect Burke by getting him into therapy. Failure to do that is child abuse.

The Ramseys were indicted for child abuse. I think the member of the Ramsey family with an explosive temper was Patsy, not Burke.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It takes nearly no force to swing a Maglite flashlight like the one the R's owned (and was completely clean of fingerprints to include the batteries) and do severe damage. I suggest anyone doubting me go to any hardware store and ask for the large-ish sized Maglite (4 D-cell) and take a few test swings.

The bulb on that thing is massive, and the force it would take to swing it is actually minimal.

There is any "factual" evidence of JDI, PDI, or IDI, either. So we're all in the same boat, paddling along.

Actually I have one and as heavy as it is, It would take effort and strength to do that much damage. It would take great strength and impact.

There is no weapon in evidence that is tied to the crime.

 

[MyBelle]

RSBM

No, they were still indicted for the COVER UP. That is still a crime.

I don't know much more clear it could possibly be:

A Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét, according to documents released Friday morning.

The charges didn't directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl

Read more: JonBenét Ramsey grand jury indictment accused parents of child abuse resulting in death - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...-grand-jury-indictment-unsealed#ixzz2xYgbYMAp
http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

 

[MyBelle]

I find it fascinating that people can accept that one or both of the R's could have either accidentally, or some seem to believe not accidentally, killed JB and done all of the staging, but find it impossible to believe that they could have done the exact same staging you think they did for themselves, in order to protect their son.

I mean no disrespect, I honestly just don't get it. To me, if you are convinced it was RDI and that there absolutely was no intruder, then you have to accept it was one of the three. You may have a favorite theory, or theories, most of us do. But none of us knows for certain who did what.

I find it perfectly believable that Burke could have hit his sister and hit her hard. Then either Patsy or both parents covered it up. Why is that less believable than the idea that one parent hit her hard and then both parents covered it up? Maybe because they beleived JB was either already dead or too far gone to ever recover.

Personally, there is no way in Hell that I would protect a spouse if he harmed my child. Protecting another child? Thank God that is choice I have never had to make.

Keep in mind, I think it is highly unlikely that Patsy knew, that night, that Burke could not be prosecuted. That is not the kind of knowledge someone outside of LE or the legal profession would just have floating around in their brain. Aside from that you have the factor of your child being known to the world as the kid that killed, or at the very least, violently assaulted his younger sister. Finally you have narcissistic Patsy, who I believe would worry about how it would "look". Particularly if there was a sexual assault involved. Doesn't seem like the stuff mother of year awards are made of.

The scene wasn't just staged. There was a garrote and an additional act of asphyxiation. It is impossible for me to believe any parent would subject their child's body to an additional act of violence let alone believe that they did so to "protect" their other child. The garrote was not an act of love.

That's simply too great a leap for me to make.

 

[Linda7NJ]

BBM. I think we all agree a 9-year-old is capable of violence, but the act of violence isn't a crime because of the age. I've not seen any evidence that Burke was violent or had an explosive temper. If BR was violent toward his sister, his parents had a duty to protect her and to protect Burke by getting him into therapy. Failure to do that is child abuse.



The Ramseys were indicted for child abuse. I think the member of the Ramsey family with an explosive temper was Patsy, not Burke.



JMO

Jealousy is a terrible thing. We do know he whacked her in the face with a golf club once. Pasty said it was an accident. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
What I find interesting, Patsy rushed her to a PLASTIC Surgeon, not the ER. It was a scuff mark. It musta grazed her face. Patsy was more concerned about how JonBenet looked.

Burke simply and easily erased JonBenet after her death.

He repeatedly expressed he was not scared or afraid after her death. Thats significant in itself.



All into


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

It takes nearly no force to swing a Maglite flashlight like the one the R's owned (and was completely clean of fingerprints to include the batteries) and do severe damage. I suggest anyone doubting me go to any hardware store and ask for the large-ish sized Maglite (4 D-cell) and take a few test swings.

The bulb on that thing is massive, and the force it would take to swing it is actually minimal.

There is any "factual" evidence of JDI, PDI, or IDI, either. So we're all in the same boat, paddling along.

I don't believe that BR premeditated murder of his sister. Grabbing a flashlight, ball bat, whatever would be intentional infliction and I don't know that there is any evidence the death was intentional.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Would you mind either repeating it or just posting a link to the post that you say it in? I'd really appreciate it.

Yes, I do mind as I have too many possible scenarios which I previously documented here.
The ability to search and read threads by an individual poster & topic is available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Jealousy is a terrible thing. We do know he whacked her in the face with a golf club once. Pasty said it was an accident. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
What I find interesting, Patsy rushed her to a PLASTIC Surgeon, not the ER. It was a scuff mark. It musta grazed her face. Patsy was more concerned about how JonBenet looked.

Burke simply and easily erased JonBenet after her death.

He repeatedly expressed he was not scared or afraid after her death. Thats significant in itself.



All into


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree jealousy is a terrible thing. I just don't see there was any reason for Burke to explode into a rage at his sister at that time of night. I think from a physical standpoint, both children were very tired.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I agree jealousy is a terrible thing. I just don't see there was any reason for Burke to explode into a rage at his sister at that time of night. I think from a physical standpoint, both children were very tired.

IN my experience, tired children aren't always in the best of moods. They tend to be rather cranky and impulsive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

IN my experience, tired children aren't always in the best of moods. They tend to be rather cranky and impulsive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I can go by is my own experience. Tired never preceded bursts of adrenalin-fueled rage.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't know much more clear it could possibly be:



A Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét, according to documents released Friday morning.



The charges didn't directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl



Read more: JonBenét Ramsey grand jury indictment accused parents of child abuse resulting in death - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...-grand-jury-indictment-unsealed#ixzz2xYgbYMAp

http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

From your own post:

"The charges didn't directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl"

"PERMITTED JonBenet to be Placed in a dangerous situation that lead to her death"

That means to me... They knew of the jealousy, the ongoing sexual molestation and did nothing to protect their daughter or ensure her safety.

"And helping whoever killed the girl"
They would not help an intruder. They, the grand jury, didn't believe they were covering for each other. The Ramsey's' would have been indicted for conspiracy to commit or conceal a murder.


All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

I find it fascinating that people can accept that one or both of the R's could have either accidentally, or some seem to believe not accidentally, killed JB and done all of the staging, but find it impossible to believe that they could have done the exact same staging you think they did for themselves, in order to protect their son.

I mean no disrespect, I honestly just don't get it. To me, if you are convinced it was RDI and that there absolutely was no intruder, then you have to accept it was one of the three. You may have a favorite theory, or theories, most of us do. But none of us knows for certain who did what.

I find it perfectly believable that Burke could have hit his sister and hit her hard. Then either Patsy or both parents covered it up. Why is that less believable than the idea that one parent hit her hard and then both parents covered it up? Maybe because they beleived JB was either already dead or too far gone to ever recover.

Personally, there is no way in Hell that I would protect a spouse if he harmed my child. Protecting another child? Thank God that is choice I have never had to make.

Keep in mind, I think it is highly unlikely that Patsy knew, that night, that Burke could not be prosecuted. That is not the kind of knowledge someone outside of LE or the legal profession would just have floating around in their brain. Aside from that you have the factor of your child being known to the world as the kid that killed, or at the very least, violently assaulted his younger sister. Finally you have narcissistic Patsy, who I believe would worry about how it would "look". Particularly if there was a sexual assault involved. Doesn't seem like the stuff mother of year awards are made of.

I don't think it's implausible at all that Burke could have hurt his sister and the parents covered it up. But unless the parents absolutely thought she was dead or were completely evil you get a road block in what happened.

I know not all crimes are logical.

But your suggestion is that Burke hits her over the head and the parents react by killing her to cover it up.

Jonbenet's cause of death was by asphyxiation not by head injury. That means she was breathing when they took her downstairs. Now this turns into a lot of time between step A. Burke hits Jonbenet and translates to Parents trying to figure out what to do and then jumping to

"I know, let's asphyxiate her with a garrote and mutilate her body and hide her in the basement and fake a kidnapping"

How does this add up as a chain of events to you?

That's why, as I've said before, we have people leap frogging all over the place in theories. So John Ramsey was sexually molesting her, something goes wrong, no wait, John Ramsey was sexually molesting her and when Burke hit her over the head John was so worried that the sexual molestation would get picked up that he did this instead....

meanwhile back at reality camp, Jonbenet had 27 visits to doctors over the years, but suddenly they think taking her to the hospital is going to upset the whole apple cart and get them busted.

It's like frogger reading the arguments.