1276 users online (273 members and 1003 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    If Judge Julie Carnes Is Right ...

    ... then Burke likely murdered JonBenet.

    Carnes: "... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."

    Judge Carnes, if right, has exonerated Patsy and thus narrowed the list of likely suspects to three -- John, Burke, and an intruder.

    But the probability of the crime being committed by a lone intruder who was unknown to the Ramseys is close to zero. For example:

    o an intruder would not have known the private family information he included in his naive three-page fake ransom note;

    o he would not have spent hours in an occupied house after committing a murder;

    o he would not have sat at the breakfast room table and snacked on pineapple with JonBenet two hours before she died;

    o he would not have made himself a glass of tea while JonBenet snacked on the pineapple;

    o he would not have wrote a fake ransom note trying to cast suspicion on an intruder (which would be himself);

    o he would not have left the body in the house;

    o he would not enjoy the lies and coverup perpetrated by Ramsey family members trying to shield his identity;

    o he would not have been able to commit a rape/murder without leaving forensic evidence at the crime scene; and

    o he would not have crept upstairs to find clean underwear (ridiculous size 12's) to put on JonBenet while cleaning up the victim in an obvious attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime.

    There are many other reasons that indicate the killer of JonBenet was not an unknown intruder. There is, of course, a possibility that a fifth (or even a sixth) person was in the house that night, but he would had to have been there with the full knowledge of at least one of the remaining three Ramseys in the house (John, Patsy, or Burke).

    With Patsy eliminated by Judge Carnes, and common sense based on the points listed above eliminating an intruder, that would leave just John and Burke.

    John was exonerated by handwriting experts. Burke was not.

    John was exonerated by the Gelb lie-detector exams. Burke was not.

    Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. John's were not.

    Conclusion:

    If Judge Carnes is right and Patsy didn't do it, and the evidence is clear and convincing that an intruder didn't do it, leaving just John and Burke as suspects, then the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that Burke murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John did so.

    JMO

  2. #2
    Either that BC or we can simply come to the conclusion that judge Carnes did not have ALL the information regarding this case in front of her therfore came to the ONLY conclusion logical due to the little evidence she had to go on.

    IMO no way could a 9 year old pen that note. My daughter is 10 now and she could not pen that note

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    I just dont buy the Burke did it theory either.

    I know 9 yearold can/have/do commit murder/molestation,but I just dont get that feeling in this case............I also didnt get the theory that Burke had friends involved (can anyone expand on that theory?) as youd think LE wouldve investigated said friends/their parents.


    I think the Judge ruled against Patsy because she lacked all the evidence and I still cant rule Patsy out.
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Carnes: "... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
    Post Of The Day.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    866

    Quote of the day is right !!

    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
    This is priceless !!


    ==================================================
    I respectfully ask not to be called "candy" or "rose" as my screen name is ACandyRose (aka ACR)
    Remember, when telling a secret, that your best friend may have a best friend who is not your best friend.

    Erica Lynn Parsons Missing Timeline (Salisbury, NC)
    http://www.acandyrose.com/erica_parsons_timeline.htm

    Drew Peterson Trial 07/31/12 (Will he get a 2nd Trial?)
    http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_names.htm
    Casey Anthony's 31 Days Timeline Archive
    http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days.htm
    JonBenet Ramsey Case History Archive
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-15thStreet.htm

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
    Excellent analogy, Britt.

    Judge Carnes didn't have access to all the case evidence. Therefore, her ruling is worthless and a joke. To be more accurate, her "ruling" should be called an "uninformed opinion based on partial and one-sided evidence."


    IMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    To be more accurate, her "ruling" should be called an "uninformed opinion based on partial and one-sided evidence."
    Exactly, Cherokee. Can you imagine if her ruling exonerated an intruder? Ya think the RST would be extolling her brilliance then? lol

    Not that BlueCrab is RST... hardly... but I am a little worried that he's one BlueCrab step away from declaring that Judge Carnes thinks Burke did it.

    (Wow, guys, thanks... )
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    BlueCrab,
    Carnes has nothing to do with this case. Carnes was presented half a story because the other half was represented by a complete moron who shouldn't even be representing people in parking ticket court.

    So anything "Carnes" related doesn't advance your BDI (or any other - including "intruder") theory.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
    Wrong Britt. If your anology was correct, Lin Wood would have to remove all the blue M&M's while Darnay Hoffman stands by with his thumb up his ass asking what the color "blue" looks like...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee

    Judge Carnes didn't have access to all the case evidence. Therefore, her ruling is worthless and a joke. To be more accurate, her "ruling" should be called an "uninformed opinion based on partial and one-sided evidence."IMO

    I agree, but you are missing my point.

    The Ramseys are playing Carnes' tricky words for all they are worth and getting away with it. The truth of the matter is Carnes' words and Keenan's endorsement of the words is working for them and helping to publicly clear ALL of the Ramseys and put the case permanently to rest, not just clear Patsy.

    So what do the words actually imply? Carnes' words imply that Patsy didn't do it, but that's all they imply. What about John and Burke? For instance, Carnes' says nothing about the evidence being more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John or Burke did so.

    Why didn't Carnes include John and Burke in her statement while comparing evidence against them to the evidence of an intruder? Why just Patsy?

    Is it because Carnes knows Burke did it, so it was necessary to use only Patsy's name and not all of the Ramseys? Please remember that no one of authority has cleared Burke in the killing of JonBenet and all are careful NOT to officially say Burke is cleared, including Carnes and Keenan.

    JMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Shylock
    Wrong Britt. If your anology was correct, Lin Wood would have to remove all the blue M&M's while Darnay Hoffman stands by with his thumb up his ass asking what the color "blue" looks like...
    ROFLMAO... oh Shylock, thanks for that visual. I stand corrected
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Why didn't Carnes include John and Burke in her statement while comparing evidence against them to the evidence of an intruder? Why just Patsy?

    Is it because Carnes knows Burke did it, so it was necessary to use only Patsy's name and not all of the Ramseys?
    Or is it because Carnes "knows" JOHN did it?
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Or is it because Carnes "knows" JOHN did it?

    If Carnes knew John did it then the case would be closed and John would be in prison.

    If Carnes knew Burke did it then there's nothing she nor anyone else could do about it because Burke would be protected under the Colorado Childrens Code that prevents children under 10 years old to be charged with a crime and even prevents the child's name to be revealed.

    JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    If Carnes knew John did it then the case would be closed and John would be in prison.
    ??? How on earth do you figure that? Carnes presided over a civil case in a whole other jurisdiction. She has no power whatsoever in any Boulder criminal case.

    If Carnes knew Burke did it then there's nothing she nor anyone else could do about it...
    There's nothing Carnes could do about it anyway. Like I said, see above.

    Besides, she didn't even have access to police files. Carnes knows nothing... actually, less than nothing... she knows Ramseyfied "evidence."
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast