10-15-2010, 01:17 PM #1
Burke Ramsey, has no interest in once again answering questions
Supporters of the family call it harassment. The brother, Burke Ramsey, has no interest in once again answering questions he has answered for many investigators many times, said the attorney, Lin Wood, of Atlanta, Georgia.
And yet the mere hint of activity in one of the nation's most famous cold cases has headlines swirling.Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "
10-15-2010, 01:18 PM #2
But police will have to keep waiting. Wood says his client has declined their latest request to talk.Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "
10-15-2010, 01:22 PM #3
You don't wanna know what my opinion is right now.
Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "
10-15-2010, 01:26 PM #4
SHAME ON YOU
You're old enough to make your own decisions,why are you hiding behind daddy's lawyers.I never heard you come and speak about your sister or how much you loved her.I never heard you say you want the killer found.You and your family are avoiding this from day one,why if you're all innocent?COWARDS,I am done with you and trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.I really tried,everybody here's a witness.I am done.Shame on you!
10-15-2010, 01:28 PM #5
he has answered for many investigators many times
HUH?He was 9 FGS.
10-15-2010, 01:31 PM #6
Will police ever solve the JonBenet Ramsey case?
bottom of the page
10-15-2010, 01:42 PM #7
I voted NO.It's over IMO.
M.Lacy made sure that this case will stay open so that the public will never have access to all the files.
God knows where they got that DNA sample from,might be even from a dead person and we'll all die sitting here waiting for a dna match LMAO.
It's not like we never heard of planting evidence before,and after everything that happened in this case,well excuse me if I get a little paranoid!
This "new" DNA "evidence" and the scenario around it............a masterpiece!
And the killer is free and out there licking his lips on Oprah.I wanna puke.
I don't even buy your "God will forgive or judge" crap cause I don't think YOU believe in it,it's just propaganda and it worked with religious people like L.SMit but not with me.I can smell people like me who don't believe in such things.The difference is YOU use religion in your dirty game and I am not.
Ok done here....and SORRY for the rant guys.
10-15-2010, 02:07 PM #8
I voted no too, sadly. We knew Burke wouldn't have anything to say but it still stings when you see it is official. Unless someone confesses and their DNA matches the transfer DNA I don't see this getting solved.
10-15-2010, 02:23 PM #9
I am so not going to judge Burke on this. I can see how this can be spun as showing some guilt or indifference on his part but I can also see the other perspective; maybe the Burke perspective...the BPD targeted him, and his parents and failed his sister miserably. It's not Burke's fault that the BPD botched this investigation from minute 1. He has been asked questions and at a time when it was fresh. He may have a serious mistrust of the police - I know I do and I would in his case. And the smart thing to do is to have a lawyer - there's nothing cowardly about it - that's Lin's job and he is very good at it. Burke probably believes they are going to go down the same old path and try to implicate his parents again - or him for that matter. His entire life has been lived in the shadow of his sister's death and the umbrella of suspicion. Maybe he's just let go, had enough, believes JonBenet is at peace and with his mother and just wants to live a normal life. I can see that.
Not everybody handles things head on (I do, but Bless the hearts of the people God has put into my life to teach me that what I do and what I think should be done is not going to change how others deal with difficult situations).
I honestly don't think that HE believes the police want justice for his sister; I think HE believes they want a Ramsey to be arrested and tried. If I had that belief I'd tell them to go pound sand too...or rather I would have my attorney or family attorney speak on my behalf. That doesn't make my way right either, but I can see that perspective.
The problem with this case is that practically everything, if you are going to be very honest, can go either way depending upon your notions of who you think killed JonBenet. It's really why it is so frustrating for everyone.
I can see the RDIs being furious with Burke because of their notions. But I bet no RDIs can see the other side or even try.__________________
Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.
10-15-2010, 02:27 PM #10
10-15-2010, 02:38 PM #11
I've said it before,it's an irony,but this is a great piece of profiling that makes me lean heavily towards RDI.Again.It was written by John Douglas,so there's no more excuse like "it's an RDI biased expert talking".
When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look for behavioral "clues" left by the offender. This is when investigators attempt to find answers to several critical questions. How did the encounter between the offender and victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her? Did the offender use ligatures to control the victim? What was the sequence of events? Was the victim sexually assaulted before or after death? When did the mutilation take place--before or after death? Did the offender place any item at the crime scene or remove something from the crime scene?
As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them. These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in the perpetration2 of the crime and obscure the underlying motive of the crime. This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging. Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.
Reasons for Staging
Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.
The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim. For example, a husband may redress or cover his wife's body, or in the case of an autoerotic fatality,3 a wife may cut the noose or the device suspending the body of her husband.
Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock that may be brought about by the position, dress, or condition of the victim. In addition, they will often stage an autoerotic fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even writing a suicide note. They may even go so far as to the make it appear to be a homicide.
For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders and autoerotic fatalities, investigators need to obtain an accurate description of the body's condition when found and to determine exactly what the person who found the body did to alter the crime scene. Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime scene dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true circumstances surrounding the deaths.
Finally, at some crime scenes, investigators must discern if the scene is truly disorganized or if the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only helps to direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, recognition of staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be difficult. Investigators must examine all factors of the crime if they suspect it has been staged. This is when forensics, victimology, and minute crime scene details become critical to determine if staging occurred.
Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall "big picture" of the crime scene will begin to appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the "red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided.
To ensure this doesn't happen, investigators should scrutinize all crime scene indicators individually, then view them in context with the total picture. Crime scene indicators include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method of entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.
When exploring these issues, investigators should consider several factors. For example, if burglary appears to be the motive, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime scene? In one case submitted to the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars killed him as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the crime scene determined that the offenders did not steal anything, although it did appear that they started to disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.
Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they left smaller, and easily transported, items of far greater value (jewelry, coin collection, etc.). The police subsequently determined that the victim's wife paid the burglars to stage the crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having an affair with one of the suspects.
Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry make sense? For example, did the offender enter the house through a second-story window, even though there was an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could have been used? Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by potential witnesses who might alert authorities?
Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area. If the crime scene is a place of residence, they should also evaluate any obvious signs of occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the driveway, etc.
Forensic "Red Flags"
Forensic results that don't fit the crime should also cause investigators to consider staging. Personal assaults should raise suspicion, especially if material gain appears to be the initial motive. These assaults could include the use of a weapon of opportunity, manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (overkill). In other words, do the injuries fit the crime?
Sexual and domestic homicides usually demonstrate forensic findings of a close-range, personal assault. The victim, not money or property, is the primary focus of the offender. However, this type of offender will often attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide that appears to be motivated by personal gain. This does not imply that personal assaults never happen while a property crime is being committed, but usually these offenders prefer quick, clean kills that reduce the time spent at the scene.
Forensic red flags are also raised when there are discrepancies between witness/survivor accounts and forensics results. For example, in one case, an estranged wife found her husband in the tub with the water running. Initially, it appeared as if he slipped and struck his head on a bathroom fixture, which resulted in his death by drowning. However, toxicological reports from the autopsy showed a high level of valium in the victim's blood. Also, the autopsy revealed several concentrated areas of injury or impact points on the head, as if the victim struck his head more than once.
Subsequently, investigators learned that the wife had been with the victim on the evening of his death. She later confessed that she laced his dinner salad with valium, and when he passed out, she let three men into the house. These men had been hired by the wife to kill the victim and to make it look like an accident.
Often, investigators will find forensic discrepancies when an offender stages a rape-murder, that is, positioning the body to infer sexual assault. And if the offender has a close relationship with the victim, he will only partially remove the victim's clothing, never leaving her completely nude. However, despite the position of the body and the removal of some of the victim's clothes, an autopsy can confirm or deny whether any form of sexual assault took place, thereby determining if the crime scene was staged.
If investigators suspect a crime has been staged, they should look for signs of association between the offender and the victim. Or, as is frequently the case with domestic violence, the involvement of a third party, who is usually the one who discovers the victim. For example, in the case involving the husband who staged his wife's murder to make it look like the crime was committed by an intruder, the husband did not immediately check on his wife and daughter once he regained consciousness. Instead, he remained downstairs and called his brother, who went upstairs and discovered the victim. Offenders will often manipulate the discovery of victims by a neighbor or family member, or conveniently be elsewhere when the victim is discovered.
10-15-2010, 03:13 PM #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
10-15-2010, 03:16 PM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
How about Burke has always known that JonBenet was killed by relative, and that he was given a story to stick to, otherwise just keep quiet. Which feeds into the characterisation of him as being weird for seeming to lack empathy?
He told investigators that, on returning from the Whites, he watched JonBenet walk into the house. The parents stated JonBenet was carried in sleeping. He would be still awake just prior to JonBenet being killed, he may have been in the next room, playing models? He may have sipped tea opposite Jonbenet as she snacked pineapple, she may have been wearing her barbie nightgown. He was awake when he said he was asleep, so he knows what took place the next morning. He would know all these things to be true or false, this why the lea wish to question him, he has some answers that can break the case, but he knows those answers might just see his father in court, so the status quo prevails, silence!
10-15-2010, 03:26 PM #14Inactive
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
I say leave the guy alone. He was 9 years old at the time? I don't believe he was ever told a "story", as 9 year olds have a hard time keeping things to themselves. He's been questioned many times. What does LE want from him?
Now LE will come out of the woodwork and say he's not cooperating, and term him as a person of interest. ICK.
10-15-2010, 03:26 PM #15
Supporters of the family call it harassment.
Well,well,well,how do they all know that LE doesn't hope Burke might remember something about an intruder?noises,voices,maybe he even saw him,they,whatever but no one helped him sort those memories out?
no,they are assuming it has to be about RDI.oh why is that??
and by assuming (or knowing?oh i wonder why again?) this they aren't helping LE to look for their intruder,right?
how is this about justice and finding the killer,hm?
it doesn't fly anymore.
Burke might be a witness,no matter whether RDI or IDI,so by REFUSING to answer questions,he REFUSES to help catch the "intruder".How's that?
But his refusal,pardon,JR's refusal to let him co-operate tells me there was no intruder.Why?Cause no one in Jonbenet's family wants this intruder caught.
By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi AriasReplies: 1567Last Post: 03-08-2013, 01:41 PM
By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi AriasReplies: 3115Last Post: 03-07-2013, 08:09 PM
By Salem in forum Lisa IrwinReplies: 1315Last Post: 02-07-2012, 01:59 PM
By Salem in forum Lisa IrwinReplies: 1250Last Post: 12-04-2011, 07:53 PM
By nursebeeme in forum Lisa IrwinReplies: 780Last Post: 11-22-2011, 02:03 PM