Was Burke involved?

[Tawny]

She SAW it. There is no evidence Burke witnessed anything he would later remember because his sister was not kidnapped.

There is no evidence he would remember anything because nobody ever asked.

 

[Linda7NJ]

She SAW it. There is no evidence Burke witnessed anything he would later remember because his sister was not kidnapped.

His sister was dead in the basement. You don't know what he knows. his story doesn't match that of either parent.

He was awake that morning, very very early, why? It's not normal for children to be awake that early after being up late. It's not normal after a busy exciting holiday. They tend to sleep a little later.


At a minimum two people are lying about the events that evening when they came home and again in the morning. We know everything between those times is a lie.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

It's obvious some think the situation of the 25 December, came out of nowhere.

It didn't.

There is an entire private family history of events before that evening.

That evening is the end result of various events, namely (most obviously) someone vaginally abusing Jonbenet.

Statistically, this is more likely to be her father than any other family member.

Statistically, her murder is more likely to be at the hands of a parent, than any other human being.

Statistically, the murder was a culmination of worsening abuse which got out of hand that night.

Statistically, there was more severe dysfunction going on in that house, in that marriage, than has been revealed or can probably be guessed at by "normal" people.

Statistically, that dysfunction was created by the adults in the home, not the children who were victims.

:twocents:

For some strange, unexplained and totally ridiculous reason, investigators decided the family was "Christian" and their faith provided some kind of shield of "normalcy."

The only shield that family had was one of wealth and influence and it worked beautifully. There is no excuse for the DA's office to refuse to obtain subpoenas for things like long distance records. Those attorneys were buddies scratching each others itch.

 

[MyBelle]

The point is, the child remembered CRITICAL information at a later date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The child HAD critical information. She saw the perp. What exactly did Burke see? There was no kidnapper.

 

[Tawny]

The child HAD critical information. She saw the perp. What exactly did Burke see? There was no kidnapper.

He didn't have to have seen a kidnapper to have important information pertaining to the events that culminated in JBR's death.

 

[MyBelle]

His sister was dead in the basement. You don't know what he knows. his story doesn't match that of either parent.

He was awake that morning, very very early, why? It's not normal for children to be awake that early after being up late. It's not normal after a busy exciting holiday. They tend to sleep a little later.


At a minimum two people are lying about the events that evening when they came home and again in the morning. We know everything between those times is a lie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree that it isn't normal for kids to awaken early. I think if he'd been in the basement molesting and killing his sister at midnight he would be unlikely awake that early.

BBM. I wouldn't expect his story to match his parents. He was 9-years-old and oblivious to what was going on in the bowels of a basement located two stories below his room. All the innuendo in the world is not going to change the actual facts of this case.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The child HAD critical information. She saw the perp. What exactly did Burke see? There was no kidnapper.

The day before she had critical information, she didn't know she had it.

I don't know how much more clear I can make it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I disagree that it isn't normal for kids to awaken early. I think if he'd been in the basement molesting and killing his sister at midnight he would be unlikely awake that early.



BBM. I wouldn't expect his story to match his parents. He was 9-years-old and oblivious to what was going on in the bowels of a basement located two stories below his room. All the innuendo in the world is not going to change the actual facts of this case.

The deliberate twisting of words adds nothing to any debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

The deliberate twisting of words adds nothing to any debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I also didn't twist your words.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The Ramseys lived with others after the murder. There would be no reason to remove him after the indictment if he had someone caring for him. As it was, the DA didn't want try them for just child abuse. I don't believe he shared all the suspicions that Burke was the evil kid and the parents were just covering for him. That's the only reason I can come up with for his refusal to sign the true bill.



It wouldn't be considered justice for JonBenet if her parents were only convicted of child abuse if they were actually guilty of being responsible for the sexual abuse and murder. The is no statute of limitations for murder or child sex abuse.

People get their children removed from their custody all the time without parents being criminally charged. For things FAR less DANGEROUS than what the Ramsey's were indicted for.


Children are not permitted to live in a home ...where after an extensive investigation (like the grand jury indicts on charges such as theirs.) I assure you the grand jury investigation was far more diligent than CPS ever was on their very best day! The DA is also a mandated reporter. He is bound by LAW to report it to CPS.

Read the indictment again..,Come on! They remove children from parents everyday for far far less.

Give the Ramsey's a pass because they're living with with someone else? Nope. Nope nope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheadedgal]

Statistically, this is more likely to be her father than any other family member.

again, this is incorrect:

It is also believed that sexual abuse of minors occurs more often at the hands of a sibling or other minor than at the hands of a parent or other adult.

http://www.outofthefog.net/Relationships/SiblingAbuse.html

Sibling sexual abuse is more prevalent than other forms of intra-familial sexual abuse.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/researchsummary/ressum3/index.html

Researchers estimate that the rate of sibling incest may be five times the rate of parent-child sexual abuse

http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml

 

[MyBelle]

People get their children removed from their custody all the time without parents being criminally charged. For things FAR less DANGEROUS than what the Ramsey's were indicted for.


Children are not permitted to live in a home ...where after an extensive investigation (like the grand jury indicts on charges such as theirs.) I assure you the grand jury investigation was far more diligent than CPS ever was on their very best day! The DA is also a mandated reporter. He is bound by LAW to report it to CPS.

Read the indictment again..,Come on! They remove children from parents everyday for far far less.

Give the Ramsey's a pass because they're living with with someone else? Nope. Nope nope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Burke Ramsey was never removed from his home to my knowledge. Ramseys did live with others after the murder.

I could read that indictment a million times and still have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It is also a moot point because the DA didn't sign the indictment and the case is still unsolved.

If Burke had directly been involved in causing the death or sexual molestation, I agree he would have been removed from his parents care and control. He wasn't removed.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Burke Ramsey was never removed from his home to my knowledge. Ramseys did live with others after the murder.



I could read that indictment a million times and still have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It is also a moot point because the DA didn't sign the indictment and the case is still unsolved.



If Burke had directly been involved in causing the death or sexual molestation, I agree he would have been removed from his parents care and control. He wasn't removed.

You missed the point entirely.
FACT His parents were indicted for a serious crime. More evidence against them than 90% of the cases against parents whose children are removed from their custody and placed with another relative or in foster care.

Burke would have been protected. If he wasn't involved. They would have removed Burke from his parents home for his own safety!!!! Clearly the GJ believed he was who they were covering for. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Burke Ramsey was never removed from his home to my knowledge. Ramseys did live with others after the murder.



I could read that indictment a million times and still have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It is also a moot point because the DA didn't sign the indictment and the case is still unsolved.



If Burke had directly been involved in causing the death or sexual molestation, I agree he would have been removed from his parents care and control. He wasn't removed.

I'm arguing the exact opposite.
If Burke did it, he would not have been removed from his home. He didn't legally commit a crime under the CCC

He's no longer a threat to anyone else in the home and the Ramsey's were in a position to pay for years of the very best therapy money could buy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

Whenever Karr is seriously brought up as a viable suspect because of his "confession", I die a little inside.

Oh, he confessed, he MUST have done it. Regardless of where he was located on the globe at the time.

:shakehead: Are the polls closed for Lacy? I vote moron with an agenda. (A very dangerous kind of public servant.) moo

 

[gramcracker]

I agree. It's a convoluted theory that makes no sense other than fit with the "anybody but the Ramseys" goal.

I just did a little research on the comment that JR's phone records weren't available. That's straight from Steve Thomas who said Trip DeMuth refused to sign a subpoena for the long distance phone records. Trip DeMuth later went to work for Ramsey's attorneys. And I'm pretty sure his daddy, Larry DeMuth was legal counsel for U S WEST. Those long distance records would have shown any phone calls made by Ramsey to their attorney or anybody else.

I think it is entirely possible the two-hour window John Ramsey mysteriously left his house was go to his office to call his attorney and the strategy was hatched.

BBM
Linda Arndt, 03.08.00 (LA v. BPD):

"25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a

Page 117

1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of

4 time; is that correct?

5 A. No.

6 Q. It's not correct?

7 A. That is not correct."​

24 Q. And didn't you indicate that it was

25 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 noon that John Ramsey

Page 129

1 left to pick up his mail or that you lost track of him

2 but later saw him reading the mail and assumed he had

3 left to pick up the mail during that period you had

4 lost track of him?

5 A. It has been widely reported that -

6 Q. I'm not talking about widely reported. I'm

7 talking about what you know.

8 A. What I know? Okay. Ask me again then.

9 Q. I'll ask you again. Isn't it your

10 recollection that it was between 10:40 and 12:00 noon

11 that you lost track of John Ramsey, and when you later

12 saw him opening mail you assumed he had gone out to get

13 the mail during that period you had lost track of him?

14 A. As I told you when you asked before, I

15 didn't personally watch him every minute from about

16 10:40 until noon.

17 Q. Would you read back the question?

18 (Record read by reporter as requested.)

19 THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry. What did I not

20 answer?

21 Q. (BY MR. HALABY) Are you stating that you

22 never lost track of him during that period?

23 A. I think I just told you that I personally

24 couldn't account for every minute.

25 Does that mean that you lost track of him

Page 130

1 then?

2 A. You could interpret it that way.

3 Q. All right. And during that period that you

4 lost track of him, did you later conclude what he had

5 done during that period in terms of going to pick up

6 the mail?

7 A. When I didn't personally monitor him the

8 whole time, what was the other half?

9 Q. Did you conclude that during that period

10 you'd lost track of him that he had gone out to pick up

11 the mail?

12 A. When I didn't personally monitor him, I

13 didn't know how he had gotten his mail.

14 Q. And did you then put two and two together

15 and believe that he had gone out to get the mail?

16 A. I thought he had gotten mail by stepping

17 outside.

18 Q. You didn't believe somebody else had picked

19 up the mail and delivered it to him inside the house?

20 A. I didn't know.

21 Q. But what you had concluded was that he had

22 gone out to get the mail, correct?

23 A. I thought he had got - yes.

http://www.acandyrose.com/03182000-arndtdepo-04102000.htm

 

[bettybaby00]

24 Q. And didn't you indicate that it was

25 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 noon that John Ramsey

Page 129

1 left to pick up his mail or that you lost track of him

2 but later saw him reading the mail and assumed he had

3 left to pick up the mail during that period you had

4 lost track of him?

5 A. It has been widely reported that -

6 Q. I'm not talking about widely reported. I'm

7 talking about what you know.

8 A. What I know? Okay. Ask me again then.

9 Q. I'll ask you again. Isn't it your

10 recollection that it was between 10:40 and 12:00 noon

11 that you lost track of John Ramsey, and when you later

12 saw him opening mail you assumed he had gone out to get

13 the mail during that period you had lost track of him?

14 A. As I told you when you asked before, I

15 didn't personally watch him every minute from about

16 10:40 until noon.

17 Q. Would you read back the question?

18 (Record read by reporter as requested.)

19 THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry. What did I not

20 answer?

21 Q. (BY MR. HALABY) Are you stating that you

22 never lost track of him during that period?

23 A. I think I just told you that I personally

24 couldn't account for every minute.

25 Does that mean that you lost track of him

Page 130

1 then?

2 A. You could interpret it that way.

3 Q. All right. And during that period that you

4 lost track of him, did you later conclude what he had

5 done during that period in terms of going to pick up

6 the mail?

7 A. When I didn't personally monitor him the

8 whole time, what was the other half?

9 Q. Did you conclude that during that period

10 you'd lost track of him that he had gone out to pick up

11 the mail?

12 A. When I didn't personally monitor him, I

13 didn't know how he had gotten his mail.

14 Q. And did you then put two and two together

15 and believe that he had gone out to get the mail?

16 A. I thought he had gotten mail by stepping

17 outside.

18 Q. You didn't believe somebody else had picked

19 up the mail and delivered it to him inside the house?

20 A. I didn't know.

21 Q. But what you had concluded was that he had

22 gone out to get the mail, correct?

23 A. I thought he had got - yes.

http://www.acandyrose.com/03182000-arndtdepo-04102000.htm

This is why the whole testimony in context is important. It sounds to me as if LA is backtracking b/c she was trying to make herself look less incompetent.

Similar to the ST delpo, without the whole context, it's not the full picture.

 

[Venom]

Some mothers still haven't accepted the death of their child, decades later.

The mother is the last one to hold hope, always.

BDI means THIS mother sat down and wrote a ransom note, then rewrote it, tied garrotes, washed down JB's body, all while the poor little thing was still breathing.

Most of the mothers I know can't even squash a spider let alone put their own 6 year old to death!

IMO, not exactly. BDI doesn't mean exclusively that this mother wrote the note, tied garrotes, and washed down JB's body. There could have been another helping hand in it- JR's shirt fibers found in the crotch of the underwear? He could have been staging while she was writing.
moo

 

[Tawny]

IMO, not exactly. BDI doesn't mean exclusively that this mother wrote the note, tied garrotes, and washed down JB's body. There could have been another helping hand in it- JR's shirt fibers found in the crotch of the underwear? He could have been staging while she was writing.
moo

This is what I think may have been happening. She wrote the note, if anybody is honest with themselves it's obvious, even a reasonable layperson can see that by the handwriting. JR did the staging. JMO

 

[UKGuy]

I'm arguing the exact opposite.
If Burke did it, he would not have been removed from his home. He didn't legally commit a crime under the CCC

He's no longer a threat to anyone else in the home and the Ramsey's were in a position to pay for years of the very best therapy money could buy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ,
Well put.

If Burke did it, he would not have been removed from his home.

Yet he was, by Fleet White et al. Was this a preemptive move, to avoid BR being legally removed as a formal procedure?

If its not BDI then its one of JDI, PDI or IDI, and Boulder Police Department did not have enough forensic evidence to decide which was the most likely line to pursue.

So leaving BR in the house would surely have drawn criticism on child safety grounds?

Does Fleet White think he was duped that morning by JR, has he come to realize he was part of the staging?

If Burke did it, he would not have been removed from his home. He didn't legally commit a crime under the CCC

The authorities in Boulder still have a duty of care to other children, yet they seemed unconcerned that BR was back in school so quickly?

.