Was Burke Involved # 5

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
k-mac said:
Woo woo up
Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
Patsy admitted to putting the long johns on her for bed.
This is not an impossibility as uk guy would like to dismissbut cant.
JBR had a bed wetting problem. Putting thick bottoms on hermakes perfect sense to me. Maybe just maybe she bought male long johns for JBRbecause they have extra padding in her wet spot. Whoknows? Nobody. Yes theycould be burkes. But they may not be. Hasn’t been proven by law enforcement.
there is far moreinnocence to that night and normality than most conspiritists around here wantto believe.
Click to expand...

k-mac,
Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
Click to expand...
Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

.
 
UKGuy said:
k-mac,

Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

.
Click to expand...
exactly as I asked..you got nothing but assumptions. as usual
 
k-mac said:
exactly as I asked..you got nothing but assumptions. as usual
Click to expand...

k-mac,
Sure and guess what, if you have read any of the published JonBenet books, Kolar, Thomas, et al, then they are full of assumptions.

That's what we are here for, speculation, we aint the FBI. You can leave proof and guilt to the Judge and Jury!

.
 
UKGuy said:
icedtea4me,
I just did in my last post where I described a subclass of PDI theorists who assume JR is a mind reader, e.g. Patsy's!

Some JDI theories do it in reverse, and have special cases for events like where Patsy goes ahead and dials 911, breaking with JR's expectations, otherwise Patsy reads JR's mind and falls in line so to accommodate his JDI.

.
Click to expand...

None of these statements is a direct quote from anyone stating Patsy communicated telepathically with John.
 
UKGuy said:
k-mac,
Sure and guess what, if you have read any of the published JonBenet books, Kolar, Thomas, et al, then they are full of assumptions.

That's what we are here for, speculation, we aint the FBI. You can leave proof and guilt to the Judge and Jury!

.
Click to expand...

well I figured that would be your reply uk guy.
smoke and mirrors works well for bdi.
but facts and proof not so much hey? ;-)
 
icedtea4me said:
None of these statements is a direct quote from anyone stating Patsy communicated telepathically with John.
Click to expand...

icedtea4me,
It's implied in the theory, it follows from what JR is supposed to know, but was not present to see, since the case is PDI.

i.e. there is no need for quotes it's implied in the theory.


The PDI theories have large holes in them, these are backfilled with hand-waiving and just so stories. Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is a good example.

Consider how ST's theory does not explain all the evidence, it just uses what's available to confirm his bedwetting assumption.

Put simply, people match Patsy's staging and the forensic evidence to their favorite PDI theory, neglecting that Patsy might have been staging for another family member?

.
 
k-mac said:
Woo woo up
Where is there proof that these long johns were burkes??
All I have been privy to is JBR was wearing male long johnsthat were too big for her little body.
This does not mean what is overly implied as fact. That theywere burkes. Specifically off burkes back then and there.
Patsy admitted to putting the long johns on her for bed.
This is not an impossibility as uk guy would like to dismissbut cant.
JBR had a bed wetting problem. Putting thick bottoms on hermakes perfect sense to me. Maybe just maybe she bought male long johns for JBRbecause they have extra padding in her wet spot. Whoknows? Nobody. Yes theycould be burkes. But they may not be. Hasn’t been proven by law enforcement.
there is far moreinnocence to that night and normality than most conspiritists around here wantto believe.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. The only downside might be a major rash with that fabric clinging to her, but it mighta been an experiment or maybe jbr woke up if she got wet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
UKGuy said:
icedtea4me,
Stranger things have happened in this case, Karr, etc. Whoever thought they would see Burke Ramsey interviewed on Dr Phil, even if it was fixed?*snip*
Click to expand...

Why do you think there would have been someone out there thinking "Burke Ramsey will never be interviewed by Dr Phil"?
 
UKGuy said:
k-mac,

Well they aint JR's, or the little boy's next door, maybe Patsy was into a bit of rossdressing, who knows anything is possible, lots of possible explanations, but the best, the one that makes most sense is that they belonged to Burke Ramsey!

The reason: Patsy is covering for BR, plain and simple. Its a no brainer unless you have read too many PDI books.

.
Click to expand...

What do you think is Burke's reason for redressing his sister in his long johns?
 
Ambitioned said:
And then when you're finished with those, watch a few videos including this one:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-o...e-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-blunt-force-trauma/

There was zero evidence of an intruder. IDI is dead.
Click to expand...

I don't play well with others.

That said, good to see that Dr. Spitz is sued again. Hopefully he loses, just like last time. He saw a pattern and fit there as well, unfortunately for him, there was neither such thing.

Lastly, and by the way, the skull on exhibit is not a living skull. Note the lacquer. Because dry and brittle and would decompose into dust in a few years past a decade. And so, no, the video proves no such thing, as the skull is dry and brittle, no marrow with fat there in the middle, and for the cherry on top, the experiment failed to replicate injury as there was no 8.5 inch part comminuted, part linear skull fracture. Here's where he lost, last time 'round:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/522/1343/1519147/

More specifically:

Two criminal complaints were filed against plaintiff. In the first complaint, he was charged with decapitation of the body of a woman named Glenda Reed. On this charge, the strongest evidence against him was a group of three cervical vertebrae found in his desk at the Wayne County Medical Examiner's office. Spitz fit these three vertebrae with a fourth vertebra taken from the body. Patrick Foley, the assistant prosecutor who investigated the charges against plaintiff, testified that Spitz "told us they fit like a puzzle, and I believe his statement was that they came from the same body." (Tr. 2/23/81, at 2123). He admitted that he relied on Spitz as a medical expert, and saw no reason to consult other doctors. (Tr. 2/23/81, at 2123 and 2130).


Later, at plaintiff's preliminary examination, the degree of certainty in Spitz's identification began to erode. On direct examination, he stated, "My opinion is that they [the vertebrae] match so perfectly that I am bound to believe that they do come from the same person." (Tr. 2/9/81, at 926; 2/25/81, at 22). On cross-examination, however, he stated, "(I)t is my professional opinion that they could very well come from the same person.... Nobody can say that [in fact, they come from the same body]. There is no way this can be established." (Tr. 2/25/81, at 23-24). He explained that his opinion was derived only from fitting the vertebrae together, because there was no other method to determine if they came from the same body. (Tr. 2/25/81, at 26-28). At trial, it became clear that other identification techniques exist. (Tr. 2/24/81, at 2234-35, 2245-54).


A person "initiates" a prosecution if he makes false statements to prosecuting officials or wilfully conceals facts from them, causing them to recommend issuance of a warrant. Renda v. U.A.W., 366 Mich. 58, 86-87, 114 N.W.2d 343, 357 (1962). From this evidence, the jury properly could have concluded that Spitz intentionally overstated his ability to identify the vertebrae from plaintiff's desk as part of the body of Glenda Reed.[SUP][8][/SUP] Foley admitted that he relied on Spitz's medical expertise. Thus, the jury properly could have found that Spitz "initiated" the prosecution.

So would appear that having lost already on a claim of malicious prosecution, now he's going for the losing end of a suit in tort for money damages for defamation.
 
SlappyMc said:
(4) by the way, Patsy did nothing here, at least initially, since she doesn't make the 911 when she did if she's involved, also means, by the way, that she didn't write the note.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you'd get an idea like that. Hey, the Menendez Bros. called 911. I guess we'd better let them go.

(9) and now for third time's the charm, you'd have to have a Mt. Everest of evidence to convince me that Patsy did anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Damn. All I have is the Matterhorn.

First, there is the 911 call, which you simply don't make when she did, if coverup is the plan,
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't know where you get that idea.

and second, some have said that sometimes the one parent knows and allows it, and that's true, but far more often than not is someone rather dependent on the other and the other usually doesn't have gazillions of dollars for you take in the divorce case. Let me put that this way, he was every gold-digger's dream. So no reason to not bail out when the need for the same arose.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Read Marilyn Van Derbur's story sometime. It'll blow this idea right to cinders.
 
icedtea4me said:
Why do you think there would have been someone out there thinking "Burke Ramsey will never be interviewed by Dr Phil"?
Click to expand...

icedtea4me,
If you care to do some homework, 100% of people would not have thought BR would be interviewed by Dr Phil, prior to 2002, as the Dr Phil show began in 2002.

Also the Dr Phil show is a celebrity makeover vehicle for celebs. They pay big money for him to smoother over the latest scandal. He is a modern day fixer via broadcast media, to this end he is richly rewarded as he is a multi-millionaire.

Since BR was no celeb, was assumed innocent, why would anyone think he needed to do Dr Phil?

You get my drift.

It might have been LW who advised the R's to do Dr Phil, he knows where the R's media capital is concentrated, and what pitfalls toavoid, except BR on Dr Phil was a car crash!

.
 
icedtea4me said:
What do you think is Burke's reason for redressing his sister in his long johns?
Click to expand...


icedtea4me,
Well it would not be the same as Patsy's would it?


Whoever dressed JonBenet had at least one of two motives: 1. Hide a prior assault, 2. Implicate Burke Ramsey.

Speculating I'll vote for 1. and assume JonBenet was in Burke Ramsey's bedroom, and he had been dressed in the long johns, i.e. he and JonBenet were in bed together, after JonBenet was sexually assaulted and whacked on the head Burke Ramsey went down to the basement, e.g. Dr Phil Show, and fetched the size-12's he had seen that afternoon, and dressed JonBenet in a pair of them, followed by his long johns as they were close to hand, he then either moved JonBenet down to the basement or into her bedroom?

.
 
UKGuy said:
icedtea4me,
If you care to do some homework, 100% of people would not have thought BR would be interviewed by Dr Phil, prior to 2002, as the Dr Phil show began in 2002.
Click to expand...

This is what you stated in post #401 of this thread:

UKGuy said:
icedtea4me,
Stranger things have happened in this case, Karr, etc. Whoever thought they would see Burke Ramsey interviewed on Dr Phil, even if it was fixed?
Click to expand...

Did you include the condition that it had to have occurred prior to 2002, yes or no?
 
UKGuy said:
icedtea4me,
Well it would not be the same as Patsy's would it?
Click to expand...

No, it would not.


UKGuy said:
Whoever dressed JonBenet had at least one of two motives: 1. Hide a prior assault, 2. Implicate Burke Ramsey.

Speculating I'll vote for 1. and assume JonBenet was in Burke Ramsey's bedroom, and he had been dressed in the long johns, i.e. he and JonBenet were in bed together, after JonBenet was sexually assaulted and whacked on the head Burke Ramsey went down to the basement, e.g. Dr Phil Show, and fetched the size-12's he had seen that afternoon, and dressed JonBenet in a pair of them, followed by his long johns as they were close to hand, he then either moved JonBenet down to the basement or into her bedroom
Click to expand...

In post #8564, you stated:

UKGuy said:
It looks like BR acting out some dysfunctional fantasy that included sexual assault, homicide and possibly some pathological post-mortem behavior, e.g. using the paintbrush, that brings BR to such an excitable state he looses his mind whacks JonBenet, and defecates in his pajama bottoms?
Click to expand...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...light=Burke+feces+pajama+bottoms#post13078029
 
k-mac said:
smoke and mirrors works well for bdi.
Click to expand...
It really is a magic trick.

It bashes the reader over the head continuously in post after post, thread after thread with the long johns and the bowl of pineapple while ignoring huge chunks of evidence. If you happen to post any rebuttal to those two items(a legitimate reason for the long johns/Patsy's prints on the bowl), its tossed aside like refuse and they simply repeat the long john/pineapple mantra over and over again.

They'll say the case looks PDI but this means its BDI......and in the next breath it doesn't look PDI at all...cause its BDI!

It attempts to place her parents(and anyone else) as background characters in the tragedy so the light can shine on Burke. The reader needs as few examples as possible that point to anyone but Burke. This is by design.

It's creating a false narrative and the amount of people leaving the Ramsey section with an echo chamber in their place shows you how well its working.


UKGuy said:
Aydrianna523,
She sure did. Burke Ramsey's long johns. There are people out there who believe Patsy's spiel about her dressing JonBenet in Burke's long johns, despite the millionaire's daughter owning a vast wardrobe of clothing.

Me, the minute I saw the long johns it was game over the case was BDI, along with the size-12's they were a massive Red Flag.
Click to expand...
This statement right here is exactly what I'm talking about. The last time I posted 1-2 weeks ago, we were literally discussing this one issue in multiple threads. You finally admitted that this wasn't a big issue at all but here you are again proclaiming it a "massive red flag"...in multiple threads.

It comes across as incredibly disingenuous.

Also a nice touch at not only downplaying PDI but making the reader think that to believe PDI requires someone to think they had to use " telepathic communication" for the theory to fly.....when the reality of the situation is that you're the only one who actually believes this.

I find this accusation comical coming from the person who believes that the ramseys didn't speak to one another before calling 911.....and you base this on five words buried in white noise on the 911 call.

The cherry on top is you yourself say the case looks PDI....might be PDI.....but then you mock those who believe it.


The only other alternative is the parents staged the wine-cellar crime-scene so to deliberately implicate BR, e.g. his penknife, his footprint, his long johns, those size-12's, his dna on the nightgown?
Click to expand...
The extra cherry on top....

If its not BDI....then it means the parents staged it to implicate Burke....which is completely absurd. Less than zero evidence to indicate such nonsense and be careful there.....you mentioned both John and patsy.....which would require "telepathic communication".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 4,246 (members: 169, guests: 4,077)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
4,078
Total visitors
4,247
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,847
Messages
17,959,950
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top