Why Burke did not kill JonBenet

[BlueCrab]

What, you got a videotape of the crime, or an eyewitness who's talking?

Britt,

Technically, you are correct. The only evidence usually accepted as direct evidence is an eye-witness, someone who can give testimony and be cross-examined. Lawyereze-wise, verything else is circumstantial evidence.

However, we all know the fallacies of eye-witnesses -- they lie and they make human errors. But DNA doesn't lie; fingerprints don't lie; Hi-Tec boots don't lie; and ransom notes don't lie. There's nothing "circumstantial" about them. They exist like a slab of concrete, not like someone's rememberance of what they believe they saw or heard.

IMO the evidence against Burke Ramsey is not "circumstantial". It physically exists, cannot be refuted, and is as direct as direct can be.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

He is a Ramsey, is he not? The foreign DNA is reportedly male and not a Ramsey. If you're going to exclude Burke from that distinction, then you must also exclude John and John Andrew.

No official statement has been released saying that ALL male Ramseys have been excluded as the donor of the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

John's DNA analysis was revealed and it doesn't match the male foreign DNA in JonBenet's panties.

John Andrew has been cleared.

Burke's DNA analysis has not been revealed and he has not been cleared.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Patsy's prints are also on the bowl. How do the fingerprints on the bowl prove who the killer is? Fingerprints on the bowl, especially from two residents of the home, can't tell us how or when they got there, much less be connected to the crime.

Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl because it was she who emptied the dishwasher and put the clean dishes away in the kitchen cabinets. It is highly unlikely Burke put the dishes away.

Burke's prints are on the bowl so it is obvious he was the one who put the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table. JonBenet died about 2 hours after snacking on pineapple from the bowl. That places Burke secretly downstairs with JonBenet long after the parents had gone to bed.

If only Patsy's prints were on the bowl then it would point to her.

If John's prints were on the bowl it would point to him.

If an intruder's prints were on the bowl it would point to him.

BURKE'S PRINTS WERE ON THE BOWL.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

That note was written by Patsy Ramsey. Her linguistics in the note - not to mention her habit of using numerous exclamation points (Check out her new business website - she does the same thing) are far more telling than her disguised handwriting which STILL cannot exclude her from authorship.

That note was written to throw off LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Something an adult's mind would be geared toward in the staging.
NOT a child's.
Had a child written a fake ransom note - the child's #1 motivation would be throw off the parents! It would not have been 3 pages long with words like
"attache" and phrases like "gentlemen" and "and hence" - all phrases Patsy was known to use. Not to mention the $118,000 and the use of the personal
"John".

Patsy wrote the note not Burke Ramsey. She wrote it to cover up for her son.

 

[BlueCrab]

Where is the published analysis of Burke's handwriting?

Britt, you know as well as I do that almost NOTHING about Burke's interviews and DNA and handwriting analyses have been officially released.

However, we know from the written information in the search warrants issued for the Charlevoix house in Michigan that the CBI said the handwriting analyses revealed that "John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, that it was "probable" that Burke did not write the note, and possible that Patsy wrote it".

IOW, based on the results of the handwriting analyses, it appears the CBI excluded John as the writer but could not exclude Burke and Patsy as the possible writer.

JMO

 

[Thorkim]

I remember reading something during the New York Times lawsuit, when that was going on, the one involving (I think) the Star where the Ramseys sued regarding the Star saying Burke was involved. I believe there was a delay at one point due to the "voluminous" records & files on Burke that the DA or BPD had that needed to be handed over or copied to the NYT lawyers. If Burke wasn't involved, why were there so many boxes of stuff on him? IMO, there is a strong possibility of his involvement somehow in this crime. I talked to an Assistant Attorney General in my office yesterday. He was a former prosecutor for another county before coming to the AG office. We were discussing this case. He said he believes either Burke or JAR was involved, and also believes the case will be prosecuted one day. That makes it 100% of all attorneys I have talked to for opinions and each & every one have said they believe Burke was involved.

 

[BlueCrab]

That note was written by Patsy Ramsey. Her linguistics in the note - not to mention her habit of using numerous exclamation points (Check out her new business website - she does the same thing) are far more telling than her disguised handwriting which STILL cannot exclude her from authorship.

That note was written to throw off LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Something an adult's mind would be geared toward in the staging.
NOT a child's.
Had a child written a fake ransom note - the child's #1 motivation would be throw off the parents! It would not have been 3 pages long with words like
"attache" and phrases like "gentlemen" and "and hence" - all phrases Patsy was known to use. Not to mention the $118,000 and the use of the personal
"John".

Patsy wrote the note not Burke Ramsey. She wrote it to cover up for her son.

Angel,

Perhaps. But that's not what the CBI's six professional handwriting examiners came up with. Patsy couldn't be excluded as the writer, but neither could Burke. And one of the six examiners, Richard Dusak of the U.S. Secret Service, concluded that Patsy absolutely did not write the note.

The naive note, IMO, has the trappings of a male teen, probably somewhere around 14 years old, or a very intelligent younger juvenile. It's full of threats, foreign intrigue, and bravado -- much of it taken from popular action movies. If it was written by a teen he would have been in the house at the invitation of at least one of the Ramseys or otherwise the Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up for him.

JMO

 

[Britt]

Britt, you know as well as I do that almost NOTHING about Burke's interviews and DNA and handwriting analyses have been officially released.

Exactly, so why are you stating speculation as fact?

You stated: Burke has never been excluded as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's underwear and Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the writer.

Do you have inside info here or is it your speculation?

This case is confusing enough without arbitrary fact invention. Jeez, don't we get enough of that from Ramsey defenders?

 

[Britt]

And one of the six examiners, Richard Dusak of the U.S. Secret Service, concluded that Patsy absolutely did not write the note.

Secret Service? I thought you said CBI.

And my but don't these alleged "conclusions" get more conclusive by the day. Dusak said that? "Absolutely did not write" it? He eliminated Patsy as the note writer? Could you please post a source or point me to that quote?

Ya know what, BC, you have finally convinced me without a doubt that Burke is not involved. The creative factizing is starting to remind me of intruder theorizing. A logical theory doesn't need to be propped up by invention and spin.

 

[Britt]

BURKE'S PRINTS WERE ON THE BOWL.

AND SO WERE PATSY'S.

How on earth can you know HOW either of their prints got on the bowl?

Without knowing HOW the prints got there, you can't possibly use the prints to connect anyone to the crime.

Besides, from what we've heard of Patsy's housekeeping skills, I'd say it's no more likely she did dish duty than Burke. The bowl left out on the table is consistent with the housekeepers' statements that the Ramseys -- all of them, not just Burke -- tended to just leave a trail of crap in their wakes, leaving it for The Help to pick up.

 

[Cherokee]

Angel,

Perhaps. But that's not what the CBI's six professional handwriting examiners came up with. Patsy couldn't be excluded as the writer, but neither could Burke. And one of the six examiners, Richard Dusak of the U.S. Secret Service, concluded that Patsy absolutely did not write the note.

First of all, as Britt has posted, it was not "the CBI's six professional handwriting examiners."

There were four examiners used by the CBI. Two of the ones you are quoting (to make six) were paid for by the Ramseys, not the CBI. If you want to say "six examiners" ... fine. But leave the adjective "CBI" out of it.

Secondly, you never address the fact the handwriting was "disguised" and not a true sample. A professional or expert examiner would know this ... thus, there can be no 100% conclusive proof the ransom note handwriting matches ANY sample from ANY suspect.

Third, let's look at this from a reverse viewpoint to see the logic, or lack of it. You accept the examiner's idea that Burke could not be excluded as the ransom note author, and say that is proof he wrote it. The examiners also said they could not exclude Patsy as the ransom note writer, but you do not accept that as proof she wrote the ransom note. Based on the same evidence, you accept one, and exclude the other. If their word is good on Burke, then it must be good on Patsy also. You cannot quote what the examiners say to further your argument for Burke as the ransom note writer, and exclude Patsy.

Fourth, a person must look at the whole picture, not just take one "expert" opinion and say it is law. The linguistics in the ransom note is the linguistics of Patsy Ramsey. Many linguistic experts have said so, and there is no dissension otherwise. The handwriting of the ransom note is NOT the only avenue available for analysis; thus, handwriting experts do not have the final say on the ransom note author. The ransom note linguistics, structure, punctuation, and handwriting taken TOGETHER all point to Patsy Ramsey.

You can have your BDI, BlueCrab, that's fine. But you are beating a dead horse to insist that anyone other than Patsy wrote the ransom note. If you believe Patsy and John are covering for Burke, then why is it so hard for you to believe she wrote the ransom note as part of that cover? It does not take anything away from your BDI theory to believe so.


IMO

 

[Britt]

No official statement has been released saying that ALL male Ramseys have been excluded as the donor of the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

John's DNA analysis was revealed and it doesn't match the male foreign DNA in JonBenet's panties.

Where do we find John's DNA analysis? Are you saying John's DNA analysis has been officially released and he was officially excluded?

John Andrew has been cleared.

Cleared based on alibi. What about his DNA? Any official word on that?

We know his sperm/DNA was found on the blanket in the suitcase. We've also heard (or do we know for a fact?) that fibers from that blanket were found on JonBenet. Could there be a connection there? JAR's DNA on the blanket transferred to JB's underwear, perhaps while the perp was dressing her?

 

[BlueCrab]

1. ... you never address the fact the handwriting was "disguised" and not a true sample. A professional or expert examiner would know this ... thus, there can be no 100% conclusive proof the ransom note handwriting matches ANY sample from ANY suspect.

2. You accept the examiner's idea that Burke could not be excluded as the ransom note author, and say that is proof he wrote it.

3. The linguistics in the ransom note is the linguistics of Patsy Ramsey.

4. If you believe Patsy and John are covering for Burke, then why is it so hard for you to believe she wrote the ransom note as part of that cover?

IMO

1. Then why do you insist Patsy wrote the ransom note?

2. I have never said that Burke's being unable to be excluded as the writer is proof he wrote it.

3. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not qualified to say.

4. Because the CBI's professional examiners don't think Patsy likely wrote it. And in my amateurish judgment the note has juvenile written all over it.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Britt,

As you know, a lot of what information the public gets about the JonBenet case is stuff that's been leaked or casually commented upon by someone "close to the investigation", or mentioned during depositions, or transcribed from interviews. Very little good information is officially released by the authorities.

From these varied unofficial sources it is generally believed that the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is male, but not John's. JAR's DNA was taken and he was cleared as a suspect in the crime; therefore his DNA couldn't have been a match. Burke's DNA was taken but nothing has been officially released about it and he has not been cleared.

There was no intruder. Therefore, by the process of elimination, unless there was an invited fifth person in the house that night, a male, the DNA in JonBenet's panties is from Burke.

But who knows "for sure"? We are all flying by the seat of our pants because of questioned sources.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

1. Then why do you insist Patsy wrote the ransom note?

2. I have never said that Burke's being unable to be excluded as the writer is proof he wrote it.

3. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not qualified to say.

4. Because the CBI's professional examiners don't think Patsy likely wrote it. And in my amateurish judgment the note has juvenile written all over it.

JMO

1. I do not insist Patsy wrote the ransom note based on what ANY so called experts or examiners have said about it. I've told you before it's based on my own analysis which is comprised of three factors:

a. linguistics
b. handwriting analysis of the personality behind the strokes (graphology)
c. handwriting similarity

Any attempt to disguise handwriting may keep a forensic document examiner from concluding authorship at a 100% level, but it cannot keep a well trained graphologist, or linguist, from determining authorship.

There is a difference between handwriting analysis for personality, and handwriting analysis for matching strokes. There is a difference between linguistic analysis and handwriting analysis. We are talking about three distinct areas of analysis ... two of which were not addressed by the alleged experts.

* The ransom note matches Patsy linguistically.

* The ransom note handwriting matches Patsy's personality.

* The ransom note handwriting matches Patsy's handwriting even with an attempt at disguise.

Patsy wrote the ransom note.

Speaking of which, it was not a note, but a three page verbal essay. Thankfully, it WAS that long, because it provided enough text for competent analysis. It was long enough that no one could have forged Patsy's linguistics, or handwriting, for that long and been successful. There is enough variation in some of the strokes to show it could not have been copied as part of a forgery where they make all the letters exactly the same way.

2. Yes you have. You include it in every post you make about Burke (or some other boy) being the ransom note writer.

3. Well, I AM qualified to say.

4. Wrong. The CBI's examiners never said Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note. They could not say conclusively that she wrote it. That stupid Hunter "4.5 out of 5" myth never dies. There is no way to know the points on that scale. Everyone else could have been a 4.6 - 5.0 on that scale ... leaving Patsy as the mostly LIKELY writer of the ransom note.

For examply, Ubowski said he thought Patsy wrote the ransom note, but he wasn't prepared to say it in a court of law at 100%. That doesn't sound like "4.5 out of 5" to me, or that she "likely didn't write it." In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Those four CBI examiners are just that ... examiners. Other linguistic experts and handwriting experts have stated Patsy wrote the ransom note. What those four said is NOT certifiable evidence. It is their opinion, and it is varied at that. We have not seen their full reports, only someone's "spin" on their reports. You cannot take a few quotes and say THAT IS THE LEGAL, GOSPEL, TOTAL, FINAL TRUTH.

And that's my point. Those four are NOT the final say on the ransom note. To keep quoting them AS SUCH is ludicrous.


IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

1. I do not insist Patsy wrote the ransom note based on what ANY so called experts or examiners have said about it. I've told you before it's based on my own analysis which is comprised of three factors:

a. linguistics
b. handwriting analysis of the personality behind the strokes (graphology)
c. handwriting similarity

Cherokee,

I'm sure you have stated your qualifications on this site prior to this, but would you mind doing it again? I apologize for not paying closer attention. You've perked my interest, and there are likely others who might appreciate being reminded. Please forgive me for sounding condescending while asking the following questions, but it's the only way to find out. For instance:

1. Do you have a degree or certificate in the linguistics field?

2. Are you certified as a linguistics expert?

3. How long have you been doing this kind of work?

4. Is it your primary source of income? Or part time? Or sort of like a super hobby? (Nothing wrong with the latter.)

5. Have you testified in court as a linguistics expert?

Thanks,

BlueCrab

JMO

 

[Britt]

From these varied unofficial sources it is generally believed that the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is male, but not John's.

I thought it was generally believed to be male but not Ramsey. When did it become only "not John's"?

JAR's DNA was taken and he was cleared as a suspect in the crime; therefore his DNA couldn't have been a match.

Not necessarily. JAR was cleared based on alibi. Alibis also cleared some people whose handwriting couldn't be excluded.

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

I'm sure you have stated your qualifications on this site prior to this, but would you mind doing it again? I apologize for not paying closer attention. You've perked my interest, and there are likely others who might appreciate being reminded. Please forgive me for sounding condescending while asking the following questions, but it's the only way to find out. For instance:

1. Do you have a degree or certificate in the linguistics field?

2. Are you certified as a linguistics expert?

3. How long have you been doing this kind of work?

4. Is it your primary source of income? Or part time? Or sort of like a super hobby? (Nothing wrong with the latter.)

5. Have you testified in court as a linguistics expert?

Thanks,

BlueCrab

JMO

Thank you for asking. Although I have stated my qualifications before, I do not mind posting them again. If you missed them previously, then I can understand your hesitancy to accept my analysis.

1. Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science in Education with a double major in English (emphasis in Linguistics) and History, and a minor in Psychology, along with other course work in those fields.

2. Linguistics is not a field governed by official certification (such as accounting and CPAs). There are linguistic experts in many different fields of study such as regional speech variation, language acquisition, mechanics of speech, etc. Most are in academia, and have many years of field study or research work.

3. Since 1979.

4. It was my primary source of income at one time, and now is a continued field of study.

5. No.

 

[BlueCrab]

Thank you for asking. Although I have stated my qualifications before, I do not mind posting them again. If you missed them previously, then I can understand your hesitancy to accept my analysis.

1. Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science in Education with a double major in English (emphasis in Linguistics) and History, and a minor in Psychology, along with other course work in those fields.

2. Linguistics is not a field governed by official certification (such as accounting and CPAs). There are linguistic experts in many different fields of study such as regional speech variation, language acquisition, mechanics of speech, etc. Most are in academia, and have many years of field study or research work.

3. Since 1979.

4. It was my primary source of income at one time, and now is a continued field of study.

5. No.

Cherokee,

Thanks for posting that information. I reviewed the curriculum vitae of the examiners used by the CBI and it doesn't appear that any of them are considered experts in the linguistics field.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

I thought it was generally believed to be male but not Ramsey. When did it become only "not John's"?

As far as I can remember, it was only "not John's" from the very beginning of the leaks and continues to the present. For instance, the National Enquirer published an article on 1/20/04 "from a source close to the investigation" that the blood DNA sample found on JonBenet's underwear does not match the people who have been at the center of the case from the very beginning.

Among the individuals whose DNA does not match:

Chris Wolf

Bill McReynolds

John Ramsey

Patsy Ramsey

Gary Oliva

Why would they leave out that Burke's DNA didn't match? Burke's name is conspicuous by its absence in the above list because John, Patsy, and Burke were the only known people in the house that night.

The authorities, the press, and others, also constantly muddy the waters by referring to the R's as "the Ramseys", leaving it unclear who's specifically included in that term "the Ramseys".

JMO