Burke Burke Burke

OK now I'm not saying that he did or didn't do it. I don't really know about him as of now. Though according to the who killed JonBenet poll or whatever many of u think he did do it. Could you all please explain your theories of that night. I'm just wondering how you believe he did it and why.

ManInTheBox said:

OK now I'm not saying that he did or didn't do it. I don't really know about him as of now. Though according to the who killed JonBenet poll or whatever many of u think he did do it. Could you all please explain your theories of that night. I'm just wondering how you believe he did it and why.

Click to expand...

ManInTheBox,

There are dozens of items of evidence and circumstances that point to Burke as being directly involved in the death of JonBenet. To begin with, for the sake of brevity, I'll single out just three of these items:

1. There was no credible evidence of an intruder. And Burke was one of three known individuals -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- in the house that night. John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor, including DNA analyses, handwriting analyses, and polygraph examination analyses. Burke has no known exculpatory evidence in his favor.

2. JonBenet ate pineapple at the Ramsey's breakfast room table approximately one hour before she died. The bowl of pineapple from which she snacked from was left out all night on the table. It had two sets of fingerprints on it -- Patsy's and Burke's. Patsy's prints were on it because it was she who had to have removed the bowl from the dishwasher and put it away in an overhead kitchen cabinet at an earlier time. Burke's prints were on it because it was he who had to have removed the bowl from the cabinet, spooned out fresh pineapple from a container in the refrigerator, and put the bowl on the breakfast room table. Burke and JonBenet had obviously snuck downstairs together in the middle of the night. JonBenet had pineapple (one of her favorite snacks), and Burke had a glass of tea (he was the resident tea drinker). The glass with a spent tea bag in it was left on the table next to the bowl of pineapple. The bowl of pineapple and the waterglass were at the respective seats at the table where JonBenet and Burke usually sat.

3. All three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- lied about the whereabouts of Burke at 5:52 A.M. when Patsy made the 911 call. In separate police interviews they all had the same story, that Burke was in bed and had never been up, and therefore he knows nothing. The enhanced 911 tape had Burke's voice on it, proving that Burke was up at 5:52 A.M. and was engaged in conversation with his parents. The lies showed a conspiratorial effort to protect Burke by trying to distance him from the murder. The lies also destroyed the Ramseys credibility with regard to whatever else they said took place that morning.

JMO

Blue Crab

That is very interesting. I have never heard of the tea bag at all. Though not that I am trying to defend Burke by any means but isn't it possible that they lied about Burke's actions because they didn't want him to be involved with the investigation by any means. If that means defending evidence pointing to Patsy or John then so-be-it. Though I'm sure being pounded with questions such as Michael Crowe was is very emotionally stressful. Were the Ramsey's lying for that specific purpose...that is unclear but the possibility is there. Speaking of the rest of the Ramsey's I didn't hear anything of a polygraph test actually being taken and handwriting tests clear John but not Patsy. It seems as though the police were running around in big circles with their investigation.

Please read Alex Hunter's affidavit about Burke located here.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4778

ManInTheBox said:

Blue Crab

That is very interesting. I have never heard of the tea bag at all. Though not that I am trying to defend Burke by any means but isn't it possible that they lied about Burke's actions because they didn't want him to be involved with the investigation by any means. If that means defending evidence pointing to Patsy or John then so-be-it. Though I'm sure being pounded with questions such as Michael Crowe was is very emotionally stressful. Were the Ramsey's lying for that specific purpose...that is unclear but the possibility is there. Speaking of the rest of the Ramsey's I didn't hear anything of a polygraph test actually being taken and handwriting tests clear John but not Patsy. It seems as though the police were running around in big circles with their investigation.

Click to expand...

ManInTheBox,

o About the tea bag, from the 1998 interviews:

TOM HANEY: "Anybody else in the house drink any tea?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Burke drinks iced tea in the summer time."

TOM HANEY: "Can you tell me about the glass and the tea bag, how those got to be there?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I don't know. I don't know."

o About lying:

It was the opening minutes of the investigation to find their kidnapped daughter, and the Ramseys were already lying to the cops. Burke was sleeping on the same floor as JonBenet and police would have questioned him intently about what he may have heard or saw, but the lies short-circuited this possible source of crucial information. The Ramseys said Burke was asleep and knows nothing. There's no legitimate excuse for lying, other than to shield Burke by trying to distance him from the crime.

o About the polygraph examination:

This was administered by private examiner Ed Gelb, a nationally known person who instructed FBI classes on how to use the polygraph. The Ramseys were examined between May 6 and May 17, 2000. Neither John nor Patsy showed deception as they denied killing or hurting JonBenet; denied knowing who killed her; and denied writing the ransom note ( Patsy only was quizzed on the writing of the RN).

o About the handwriting examinations:

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation examined the handwriting exemplars of 72 suspects, including John, Patsy, and Burke. John was eliminated as the possible writer of the ransom note. Patsy, with a score of 4.5 (5.0 is elimination) was almost eliminated as the writer. Burke could not be eliminated as the writer of the RN.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

ManInTheBox,

o About the tea bag, from the 1998 interviews:

TOM HANEY: "Anybody else in the house drink any tea?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Burke drinks iced tea in the summer time."

TOM HANEY: "Can you tell me about the glass and the tea bag, how those got to be there?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I don't know. I don't know."

o About lying:

It was the opening minutes of the investigation to find their kidnapped daughter, and the Ramseys were already lying to the cops. Burke was sleeping on the same floor as JonBenet and police would have questioned him intently about what he may have heard or saw, but the lies short-circuited this possible source of crucial information. The Ramseys said Burke was asleep and knows nothing. There's no legitimate excuse for lying, other than to shield Burke by trying to distance him from the crime.

o About the polygraph examination:

This was administered by private examiner Ed Gelb, a nationally known person who instructed FBI classes on how to use the polygraph. The Ramseys were examined between May 6 and May 17, 2000. Neither John nor Patsy showed deception as they denied killing or hurting JonBenet; denied knowing who killed her; and denied writing the ransom note ( Patsy only was quizzed on the writing of the RN).

o About the handwriting examinations:

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation examined the handwriting exemplars of 72 suspects, including John, Patsy, and Burke. John was eliminated as the possible writer of the ransom note. Patsy, with a score of 4.5 (5.0 is elimination) was almost eliminated as the writer. Burke could not be eliminated as the writer of the RN.

JMO

Click to expand...

Once again not that I'm trying to completely defend him but If they passed the lie detector test when they denied knowing who killed JonBenet then either the lie detector test was given badly or they don't know that their own son killed their daughter (from the perspective of a person believing Burke did kill JonBenet)

ManInTheBox said:

Once again not that I'm trying to completely defend him but If they passed the lie detector test when they denied knowing who killed JonBenet then either the lie detector test was given badly or they don't know that their own son killed their daughter (from the perspective of a person believing Burke did kill JonBenet)

Click to expand...

ManInTheBox,

Good point, and you're right. It's been discussed many times here on WS. IMO the answer is the parents don't know FOR SURE who killed JonBenet.

My theory has two or more juvenile perps, one of whom is Burke Ramsey, and no one, including John and Patsy, knows FOR SURE which of them actually killed JonBenet. They only know that one of them did it, but they don't know FOR SURE which one.

Polygraph expert Ed Gelb's questions were designed with input from Lin Wood, the Ramsey's attorney, and, IMO, the questions were cleverly formatted to legitimately allow John and Patsy to pass the exam but still shield Burke as being involved in the death of JonBenet. It worked, and the results were checked and verified as accurate by Cleve Backster, considered the father of the polygraph.

Here's the questions that were asked separately of John and Patsy. They successfully answered NO to all of the questions without showing deception.

Series 1: (John and Patsy, answering separately)

1. Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death?

3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you?

Series 2:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?

Series 3: (Patsy Ramsey only)

1. Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?

2. Regarding the ransom note, did you write it?

3. Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?

So the results of the polygraph exams leave John and Patsy innocent in the killing of JonBenet and leaves Patsy innocent in the writing of the ransom note. But where does it leave Burke? Of course, that's a rhetorical question, because I know where it leaves Burke, and so should you.

JMO

Tricia said:

Please read Alex Hunter's affidavit about Burke located here.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4778

Click to expand...

Tricia,
You said on another thread that BAD was banned for "naming" her suspect, who you believe is innocent and it is a "bizarre" tale.

What is different about people "naming" Burke with a "bizarre" tale? To me, this is even worse! Not only is he a victim, too, as it was HIS SISTER that was killed in HIS HOME, but he was a child!

Please explain the difference. Is it okay to accuse children but not adults?

Could you please source where it says anywhere that Burke could not be eliminated as the author of the note?

Thank you.

I dont know how to do links but this is from the Rocky Mtn News.

Rocky Mtn. News, May 21, 1999

"Burke is not a suspect" said Suzanne Laurion, a spokeswoman for Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter.
"To this day he is not a suspect", Laurion said.

Fran Bancroft said:

Tricia,
You said on another thread that BAD was banned for "naming" her suspect, who you believe is innocent and it is a "bizarre" tale.

What is different about people "naming" Burke with a "bizarre" tale? To me, this is even worse! Not only is he a victim, too, as it was HIS SISTER that was killed in HIS HOME, but he was a child!

Please explain the difference. Is it okay to accuse children but not adults?

Click to expand...

Fran,

The difference is that the BDI theory on WS is based on the known evidence and credible published accounts of the case against Burke. Age of the suspect, whether 9 or 90, carries little weight if evidence and circumstances against the suspect is credible.

IMO the case against Burke, based on the evidence and published accounts, is more credible than any other theory. Please review your own theory to make sure YOUR perception of the BDI theory is not somewhat biased because it doesn't fit YOUR image of what likely happened in the house that night.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

Fran,

The difference is that the BDI theory on WS is based on the known evidence and credible published accounts of the case against Burke. Age of the suspect, whether 9 or 90, carries little weight if evidence and circumstances against the suspect is credible.

IMO the case against Burke, based on the evidence and published accounts, is more credible than any other theory. Please review your own theory to make sure YOUR perception of the BDI theory is not somewhat biased because it doesn't fit YOUR image of what likely happened in the house that night.

JMO

Click to expand...

Burke could be the killer , Patsy could be the killer, John could be the killer .

Intruder could be the Killer.

The killer here is money.

Tricia said:

Could you please source where it says anywhere that Burke could not be eliminated as the author of the note?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Tricia,

From an article in the 11/22/97 Daily Camera (as a result of reporting about a warrant to search the Ramsey's Charlevoix house):

"Handwriting analyses conducted prior to the March search revealed 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, according to documents released Friday".

IOW, according to the Daily Camera, John Ramsey was eliminated as the writer, but Patsy and Burke could not be eliminated. Since then, as a result of a deposition in another civil case, it was revealed that Patsy was very close to being eliminated as the writer with her score of 4.5. Assuming there was no intruder, by the process of elimination, that would leave Burke as the likely writer. Nothing more has been publicly reported on the results of Burke's handwriting analyses, IMO because of the Colorado Children's Code preventing the disclosure of the names of juveniles involved in a major crime.

I have other evidence, supported by qualified document examiners, that points to Burke as the probable writer of the ransom note.

JMO

BlueCrab said:

Tricia,

From an article in the 11/22/97 Daily Camera (as a result of reporting about a warrant to search the Ramsey's Charlevoix house):

"Handwriting analyses conducted prior to the March search revealed 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, according to documents released Friday".

IOW, according to the Daily Camera, John Ramsey was eliminated as the writer, but Patsy and Burke could not be eliminated. Since then, as a result of a deposition in another civil case, it was revealed that Patsy was very close to being eliminated as the writer with her score of 4.5. Assuming there was no intruder, by the process of elimination, that would leave Burke as the likely writer. Nothing more has been publicly reported on the results of Burke's handwriting analyses, IMO because of the Colorado Children's Code preventing the disclosure of the names of juveniles involved in a major crime.

I have other evidence, supported by qualified document examiners, that points to Burke as the probable writer of the ransom note.

JMO

Click to expand...

This is an example of BC's non logic. The first paragraph says probable, not, for Burke and possible for Patsy. Which you turn into can't be eliminated for both. The second sentence mentions Patsy but not Burke. You have gone on to use your remote viewing techinique to divine the intentions of the GJ.

BC, you continually make an end run around logical progression and resort to convenient insertions of irrelevant data, and unsupported assumptions. Your comments show a lack of insight and knowledge of human nature.

There is no case for BDI. There is no case for IDI.

The only relevant question in this case is "who did what between John and Patsy?"

BDIers and IDIers quickly leave the straight line of logic to employ fancy and fantasy in their self serving construction of the events of this case.

A poster was recently banned for doing what you do on only a slightly more benign level.

The crime scene was staged. That is a well established fact by the FBI and other forensic experts involved in the case.
This alone excludes some unknown "intruder." Although there is much more that excludes an intruder.

So given that, the next logical question is: Who would stage the crime and why?
Obviously a crime scene is staged in an attempt to divert attention away from the REAL perp and what REALLY happened.
In this case the fake ransom note is the most obvious and critical piece of evidence. Of all those whose handwriting was examined, Patsy Ramsey cannot be excluded as the author. The 'handwriting' is NOT the only thing considered when evaluating that note. The note was written in a panic, with the left hand instead of right hand in a desperate attempt to again disguise and divert attention away from real author/stager/perp.
The note has many linguistic indicators that point to Patsy Ramsey as well.
Common words and phrases to HER - but not common to most people in everyday langauge. "And hence"; "gentlemen"; "southern common sense"; "fat cats"; not to mention the 'ransom' amount equalling her husband's most recent bonus.
Also the "tone" of the note was not that of a true hateful and greedy kidnapper (foreign faction at that) - but instead, one of a woman or genteel man as the FBI put it.
As the note went on, it became rather "wifey". It went from beginning with "Mr. Ramsey" and carelessly slipped into the more familiar "John" and got even more intimate sounding with the "when you get home...."
Patsy's personal preference for exclamation points were also found in the note as well as her fondness for using acronyms. (S.B.T.C.)
The sheer length of the note was very Patsy. She has an over-the-top personality where she overdoes everything. Her home, her children, her decorating, etc. She once gave a luncheon for John's company with a "Gone With the Wind" theme spending an outgrageous $30,000 on it!
And how ironic (or is it?) that not only do all of these facts FIT with Patsy Ramsey and the fake ransom note - but of all the 6 Billion people in the world she is one of 3 that just happened to be at the scene of the crime in the house that night. This cannot be overlooked. All of it. And it hasn't been.

Now, establishing that Patsy Ramsey, mother of the victim wrote the diversion letter thus establishing she was knee deep in the staging of the crime, the next question is - WHOM was she covering for??
Herself?
Her husband?
Or - her other child?

From all that is known of Patsy she is not the type that would cover for her husband had he killed her child. Nor is there much evidence that John would lash out at his child.
While there has been a small amount of speculation as to whether Patsy was "rough" on her daughter (bruises on her arms), most who know her say she was indulgent rather than punitive.
So that leaves Burke. JonBenet's nearly 10 yr old brother.
What evidence then turns the eye toward him?
One of the major points of suspicion is the LYING about whether he was awake or not that morning.
He was and the lied and said he was not. WHY??
It would make absolutely NO difference if he were awake or not if he had nothing to do with the crime. Even if Patsy or John were the perp - it would not affect anything were Burke asleep or awake.
Yet - they NEEDED him to be "asleep." Not present. Uninvolved. WHY?
His voice is heard on the 911 tape and his father is heard on the tape speaking very sharply to Burke. "We weren't speaking to YOU!"
Then they shuffle him off quickly out of their sight and presence to another home.
After they "discover" JonBenet dead - do they rush to Burke? Rush to not only protect him from these foreign faction kidnappers who bungled the first attempt at getting some ransom money and now might be brazen enough to go an nab their other child who is left unprotected?? NO!!
They wait HOURS at a friend's house before finding it important enough to re-unite with him! Hours where someone else other than them could have told him the "news." Hours where he could have been kidnapped himself.

Patsy Ramseys physical evidence (fibers from her clothing) is found in the garrotte around JonBenet's neck and in the paint tote where the broken paint brush used in the garrotte was found.
SHE was definitely involved in the cover-up.
But the question still remains: WHOM was she actually covering for?
That is the million dollar question.
That is why no arrests have been made. In Colorado you cannot charge someone for accessory to a crime unless someone has been charged for the actual crime (murder) first.
To know who killed JonBenet - you must know who dealt that deadly blow to her head that got the whole mess rolling......

Do not pay attention to the polygraphs. The Ramseys PAID for them and refused to submit to an official polygraph by the FBI where there would be measures taken to insure that no drugs were used to alter the results.
The Ramseys refused. WHY???
Other parents of murdered children have no problem submitting to one.
Not only that, but they had to "shop around" to finally take one they felt comfortable announcing publicly with the results.
The first one they took didn't look good for Patsy. She came up as "inconclusive." And did as well the first time with Ed Gelb.
The police and FBI have stated that these paid for polygraphs by the Ramseys are useless.

There is much more - including the way the Ramsey jumped on suing to squelch any publications mentioning Burke as perp. The publications - like the NY Post - said they stood by their stories and sources.
No lawsuit by the way has ever been filed on behalf of John Ramsey.... which I find very interesting.

Also, it is important to note what psychologists stated regarding their interviews with Burke shortly after the murder.
They said his "lack of affect was pronounced" and that he seemed "indifferent" about it.
This fits right in with the Ramseys own words on how Burke reacted (or failed to) when they finally re-united with him the night of her death.
Patsy puts her arm around him and tells him she is dead and in heaven.
Does Burke cry, cling and ask a million questions?? "Why her and not me?" "Are they coming to get me too?" "How did she die" "Who did it?" "I'm SCARED!!"
NO!!!!!
He - "nodded his head and ran off to PLAY!"
Now I have children of my own. A son the exact same age as Burke.
There is NO WAY that a child who is 3 weeks shy of 10 yrs old is not going to be interested in what happened or scared!!
I have never once heard the Ramseys say that Burke became so frightened after the murder. Never.
But all the OTHER children in Boulder were terrified and many insisted on sleeping in mom and dad's room.

So many things when pieced together in this puzzle fit more to a Burke-did-it-and-parents-covered-up than anything else.
IMO.
~Angel~

Man, I have bounced around on who may have did it for years and years. However, all I can say with any certainty of fact is that 4 people went to bed in that house that night and only 3 of them were alive the next morning.

Fran Bancroft said:

Tricia,
You said on another thread that BAD was banned for "naming" her suspect, who you believe is innocent and it is a "bizarre" tale.

What is different about people "naming" Burke with a "bizarre" tale? To me, this is even worse! Not only is he a victim, too, as it was HIS SISTER that was killed in HIS HOME, but he was a child!

Please explain the difference. Is it okay to accuse children but not adults?

Click to expand...

THe fact that she named her suspect is fine with me. Especially if that one suspect is confessing as she says. That would be jsut like naming Fleet WHite as a suspect. U are naming him as a suspect but no one bothers to change his name to protect the "innocent" except Dr. Lee (not that I believe Fleet did it he was just an example)

BlueCrab said:

ManInTheBox,

Good point, and you're right. It's been discussed many times here on WS. IMO the answer is the parents don't know FOR SURE who killed JonBenet.

My theory has two or more juvenile perps, one of whom is Burke Ramsey, and no one, including John and Patsy, knows FOR SURE which of them actually killed JonBenet. They only know that one of them did it, but they don't know FOR SURE which one.

Polygraph expert Ed Gelb's questions were designed with input from Lin Wood, the Ramsey's attorney, and, IMO, the questions were cleverly formatted to legitimately allow John and Patsy to pass the exam but still shield Burke as being involved in the death of JonBenet. It worked, and the results were checked and verified as accurate by Cleve Backster, considered the father of the polygraph.

Here's the questions that were asked separately of John and Patsy. They successfully answered NO to all of the questions without showing deception.

Series 1: (John and Patsy, answering separately)

1. Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death?

3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you?

Series 2:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?

Series 3: (Patsy Ramsey only)

1. Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?

2. Regarding the ransom note, did you write it?

3. Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?

So the results of the polygraph exams leave John and Patsy innocent in the killing of JonBenet and leaves Patsy innocent in the writing of the ransom note. But where does it leave Burke? Of course, that's a rhetorical question, because I know where it leaves Burke, and so should you.

JMO

Click to expand...

This is true BC I do know where it leaves Burke. It is incredibly wrong that he wasn't considered, Though the note was written from someone point of view who had a pretty decent vocabulary. Even though they made some errors (whether those errors were made on purpose is a matter of debate) However I don't believe a nine year old even in a perfectly normal state of mind could write a note of that length and vocabulary. I dunno...wouldn't that also be a lot on a little kids concience (sp?)

Fran Bancroft said:

Tricia,
You said on another thread that BAD was banned for "naming" her suspect, who you believe is innocent and it is a "bizarre" tale.

What is different about people "naming" Burke with a "bizarre" tale? To me, this is even worse! Not only is he a victim, too, as it was HIS SISTER that was killed in HIS HOME, but he was a child!

Please explain the difference. Is it okay to accuse children but not adults?

Click to expand...

As seeker has pointed out 4 people went to sleep that night. 3 woke up.

Until you can exclude the people in the house you can't go naming people with ZERO evidence pointing to their involvement.

No matter what people will think BDI. I do not think that for one minute. I have even posted Alex Hunter's affidavit stating Burke did not do it.

However, since Burke's parents are the ones 100 percent responsible for the justice fiasco concerning the death of his sister, then Burke's parents must deal with the fact that people, incorrectly in my opinion, think he killed his sister.

This Jan. Burke will be 18. I hope someday he tells us what he knows.

Seeker said:

Man, I have bounced around on who may have did it for years and years. However, all I can say with any certainty of fact is that 4 people went to bed in that house that night and only 3 of them were alive the next morning.

Click to expand...

Wow that cracks the case wide open doesn't it. Call the Boulder Police with that observation ! j/k