Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    The Networks Know Who Did It

    In my opinion the networks know who killed JonBenet -- their conduct gives them away. For example:

    Professional enhancement of the 911 tape positively identified a young voice in the background, and Burke Ramsey was the only young person in the house at 5:52 A.M. Therefore, common sense tells us Burke was up and talking to his parents when the parents claimed he was asleep -- a lie to shield him.

    But when NBC's Katie Couric played the 911 tape for the nation to hear and make up its own mind, she deliberately talked over the crucial final few seconds of the tape following the dispatcher's "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!" Katie Couric knew better; she had been following the case for years. She made it appear there was nothing more on the tape -- so it was a charade .

    CBS refused to go along with the charade because they knew there WAS something on the tape after the "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!" But CBS didn't refute what they knew was going on; they quietly bowed out instead.

    The networks give Lin Wood and Lou Smit frequent opportunities to present their one-sided opinions of the evidence without rebuttals. The networks gave widespread coverage of Judge Carnes warped opinion on the evidence, even though she was commenting about a murder case while conducting a civil case.

    It appears to me the networks have been told the truth -- that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet and very young children are involved in the killing and it's against Colorado law to even reveal the names of the children. Burke was 9 years old, he is not culpable because of his age, he's protected by the court, and there's nothing the authorities or the media can do about it except help by conspiring to put the case to bed. They don't have any other choice.

    The networks wouldn't conspire to protect an adult killer; but they would for a child, especially when they would be violating a court protective order to do otherwise. I think the networks know that Burke killed JonBenet.

    Just my opinion.

    BlueCrab


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Let's pretend this murder is solved,it's solved through the efforts of the grand jury,through Fleet's testimony,through leaks to the press,why then, is Boulder spending tax payers' money to continue an investigation. It's all just a big coverup to protect a killer child? Sorry I can't buy this as remotely conceivable.
    I discussed the other day,the tactics used by the police ,asking Patsy if previous to 1996 did she buy compass laced hi-techs for Burke. There were several prints,not just the one in the mold,suggesting an adult shoe,and previous to 1996, the child would have been eight years old,that interogation was a ludicrous ploy aimed at undermining Patsy's credibility . Burke was slight of build,look at his feet in pictures at age 8,I am certain his shoe size was no bigger than a boys 4,(would bet the bank on it).
    Burke didn't kill his sister,he didn't take cord,a section of the paint brush,duct tape,and the stun gun out of the house. Patsy didn't write the note to cover for her baby killing son. This device,the garotte,was constructed by someone very familiar with it's purpose and use,even the little knot at the wrist was similar to the one at the neck,no one staged this,the killer knew exactly what he was doing and was comfortable in the task.
    jmo


  3. #3

    LOL BlueCrab

    LOL Bluecrab. The reason the networks don't go near the BDI theory is BDI HAS BEEN SUED SUCCESSFULLY EVERY TIME IT'S ON TV OR IN PRINT.

    Mike Kane has also said Burke had nothing to do with this crime, that he was never a suspect.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Let's pretend this murder is solved,it's solved through the efforts of the grand jury,through Fleet's testimony,through leaks to the press,why then, is Boulder spending tax payers' money to continue an investigation.
    The taxpayers aren't spending any money on the case. No active investigation has been financed since the Ramsey grand jury disbanded in 1999.

    The authorities are going through the motions to pacify the public. They have no choice. To do otherwise would expose the truth.

    JMO


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by candy
    LOL Bluecrab. The reason the networks don't go near the BDI theory is BDI HAS BEEN SUED SUCCESSFULLY EVERY TIME IT'S ON TV OR IN PRINT.

    Mike Kane has also said Burke had nothing to do with this crime, that he was never a suspect.

    Candy, the networks go near the BDI theory every time the Ramsey camp wants them -- such as the enhanced 911 tape fiasco.

    Burke was never a suspect because NO-ONE was ever a suspect, not even John or Patsy. Officially, they're all considered "witnesses". It's a play on words. Burke has never been cleared.

    JMO


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi

    sissi, that Crime Library article is chock full of mistakes. They don't even have the correct picture of the basement window.

    JMO


  8. #8
    You know, Bluecrab, that I've often thought that you may have this crime pegged down. Also, it seems that Patsy could have known right from the start and covered up for Burke.

    If your theory is correct, do you think that John knew at the time of her death that Burke did this?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    But when NBC's Katie Couric played the 911 tape for the nation to hear and make up its own mind, she deliberately talked over the crucial final few seconds of the tape following the dispatcher's "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!" Katie Couric knew better; she had been following the case for years. She made it appear there was nothing more on the tape -- so it was a charade .
    This isn't correct, BlueCrab. There are TWO versions of the 911 tape that was made public. People on this and other forums have received the exact same versions from Keenan's office, and both are available online.

    The first version was released on audio tape. This was the version Wood gave NBC and they had tested. The audio tape ended prematurely at the point you mentioned above where Couric starts talking. There was nothing after the "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy" recorded on the audio tape Keenan released.

    It's the second version, released on CD, that is the problem because someone in Keenan's office screwed up and released a different version then what is on the audio tape. This version does not end in the same location. It continues past the "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy" and you can clearly hear Patsy then say "Help me, Help me Jesus, Help me Jesus".
    After that, there is a 4-second blank spot before the sound returns and the tape ends. Because this version of the tape perfectly follows Steve Thomas' transcript, it can only mean that the 4-second gap is where John and Burke's voices appear.

    While Keenan's office refuses to admit it, both versions they released are redacted using different methods and the public has yet to hear the COMPLETE 911 call.


    IMO/JMO


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,543
    BlueCrab, I must say that after all these years of reading your theory, you make the most sense to me if the murder involved a family member. I have one question for you and only want you to answer "yes" or "no"; that will suffice.

    Do you have inside knowledge of the case that you are unable to divulge?


  11. #11
    ST wrote on the enhanced 911 call. Just because Burke was on it DIDN'T MEAN he was involved in the crime. No investigators believed Burke was involved.


  12. #12

    Burke not involved

    http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa051800a.htm

    crimeADM
    Is it your opinion that Burke was asleep when JonBenet was killed?
    SteveThomas
    I certainly do not know anything to lead me to believe that Burke was present or aware that his sister was being
    assaulted/killed


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Just because investigators didn't believe Burke was involved doesnt mean he wasn't. The reasons Hunter and others (including Thomas) gave for not believing Burke did it are laughable.


  14. #14

    More

    crimeADM
    Do you agree with the Ramseys' lawsuit against the Star?

    SteveThomas
    I agree that Burke Ramsey did not commit any of the crimes perpetrated in the house that night. i do not feel this kid
    should have been subjected to what he has suffered.
    crimeADM
    So you agree they should have sued?

    crimeADM
    Two questions, neither of them very new: WAS that Burke's voice on the 911 tape, and was there actually evidence
    of sexual molestation?
    SteveThomas
    re: suing on behalf of Burke, I think it was irresponsible of some publications to put this kid in such a situation.
    Remember, this is a boy who will go to high school, date in college, presumably one day marry. he is scarred for life.
    What can repair that?
    SteveThomas
    Re burke on the 911 tape -- the detectives are unanimous on that point, me included. We were not in some sort of
    great conspiracy. Re: evidence of prior vaginal trauma, my answer is too loong the site reminds me. I have to refer
    you to the book.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks, Candy, but your posts only show that Steve Thomas, a staunch PDIer, didn't believe that Burke killed JonBenet. That's all. He, like the other investigators, thought Burke was too young and too small to have done it. Cyril Wecht and Michael Baden disagree.


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •