Who Has Heard Burke's Voice on The 911 Tape?

BR was in bed when LE arrived, and his father with FW, woke him up right after LE got there. JR and FW ushered BR, out of the house so fast they left skid marks on the carpet....

Agatha_C said:

What did BR change into? Did they get his night close or just those worn to the party? Did he carry a book-sack out?

Why is it, I don't know if LE got BR's PJ's?

Click to expand...

Hmmm, Burke's pj's. That's a really good question. Also, I wonder if there was a way to know if he had actually worn them all night? If he were involved, I bet what he wore to bed is not what he was found in when the police went upstairs. Why does this case have so many questions and so few answers. This case alone make me understand why Colorado does not have the "Sunshine" law. Just imagine if it did. The things we would not have to wonder about any more.

otg said:

The recording only has Burke speaking the first part of “What did you...”, before it is cut off. And since you use Audacity, you can see that the space after that is dead silence and then white noise. So what it appears to be is that they were trying to cut out John’s voice only.

Why cut out just that portion? John (as well as Patsy) could be prosecuted for the cover-up -- altering the scene of a crime. Burke, under 10yo, could not be prosecuted for anything. I believe they wanted to save the evidence against John for future prosecution, and for that reason, cut out his voice on the recording that was released to the public. I don’t know that, it’s just my guess. In any event, that by itself is not enough to stand up alone in court as proof of any guilt. I know SuperDave will say there is a lot more circumstantial evidence in addition to any one thing, but we’re talking about a District Attorney who had never prosecuted any major cases, and who had usually at best only worked out plea deals with suspects for reduced sentencing. He also knew the dream team of lawyers that the Ramseys had already assembled to fight anything he did. So nothing ever became of it..

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm with you 100%

wonderllama said:

So, and I'm being a little lazy here, where was Burke when the police arrived...who was the first to SEE him after the 911 call?

Click to expand...

BR was up in his bedroom, NOT asleep, as we now know. JR eventually admitted that BR was in fact, awake and BR himself said that he heard "loud talking and running around". JR said that they felt it was best to just say BR was asleep and "keep him out of it". Right. Your daughter is kidnapped from a room just down the hall from your son and you don't feel you need to ask him if he heard or saw anything unusual? Not only that, you want LE to solve the crime and yet deny access to the one person who (allegedly) could have seen or heard an intruder.
The way I see it, BR was told to stay in his room until someone came to get him. And in his (BR) own words, all he was worried about even AFTER he knew something terrible had happened to his sister was that "now we aren't going away". Lovely.
All this ALONE tells me they are lying.
JR and (I believe) FW were the first ones to see BR after the 911 call, when they went to his room to get him.

Accepting all that, it would seem that they were trying to protect him from the trauma of that morning. Sounds completely reasonable...IF it was a murder right away.
You don't really want your child seeing his dead sibling.

A friend of mine had to identify his brother's body after he was hit by a car...he was a wreck for quite some time.

So I think I'm prepared to accept in this scenario that the Rs were trying to protect their son from all that went on, be it the commotion during the initial search for JB, the 911 call, the shipping him off to the neighbours. While the last bit is a little odd, I can accept in the R version of events that this is a reasonable/acceptable story.

Provided.....at the very least that they THEMSELVES asked Burke what he may have heard, seen, noticed...and I don't see them saying that anywhere in their statements or interviews.

wonderllama said:

Accepting all that, it would seem that they were trying to protect him from the trauma of that morning. Sounds completely reasonable...IF it was a murder right away.
You don't really want your child seeing his dead sibling.

A friend of mine had to identify his brother's body after he was hit by a car...he was a wreck for quite some time.

So I think I'm prepared to accept in this scenario that the Rs were trying to protect their son from all that went on, be it the commotion during the initial search for JB, the 911 call, the shipping him off to the neighbours. While the last bit is a little odd, I can accept in the R version of events that this is a reasonable/acceptable story.

Provided.....at the very least that they THEMSELVES asked Burke what he may have heard, seen, noticed...and I don't see them saying that anywhere in their statements or interviews.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that BR should have been forced to see his dead sister. But remember that at that time of the day, when he was "shipped off", they were not supposed to know she WAS dead. At that point, the Rs out it out there that they were dealing with a kidnapping. Yes, they wanted BR out of the house and out of the commotion and highly stressed environment. But they also didn't want him questioned, and didn't ask him anything himself, and for me, that tips the scale in favor of having something to hide.

Remember the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? This was a genuine kidnapping, and the spotlight was on the parents in the beginning. But they were always willing to talk to police. Elizabeth also had a sibling- her younger sister who was in the room with her when the kidnapper (a former handyman) got in and took Elizabeth, threatening her with a knife and threatening the sister and her family if she told anyone. She didn't. But as time went on, the little girl remembered that the man who took her sister resembled the handyman she had seen around the home (she mentioned him by name, but I forgot it).
My point is that a child present (or nearby) when a sibling is kidnapped CAN have valuable information for LE and the family. Thank God Elizabeth was found alive, and she came through an unspeakable horror with dignity and grace.

Agreed....as I said, I can understand/appreciate that they may have thought it was the right thing to do....or at least according to their story I can.

Doesn't mean I believe it.

otg said:

(otg edit)
...we’re talking about a District Attorney who had never prosecuted any major cases, and who had usually at best only worked out plea deals with suspects for reduced sentencing. He also knew the dream team of lawyers that the Ramseys had already assembled to fight anything he did. So nothing ever became of it.

Click to expand...

Something I should add to the above circumstances about the U.S., which may not be the case in other countries, and which would add to a prosecutor’s desire to have a strong case before proceeding in court, is the constitutional guarantee against “double jeopardy”. If a person is once acquitted of a particular crime, he/she cannot be tried again for the same offense. Therein lies the quandary for any prosecutor with a questionable case.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown (Simpson) and Ron Goldberg. That means that he can never again be tried for that crime, even if he were to later admit his guilt (which essentially he did in the book he later wrote). Had he been found guilty, he could appeal the verdict; but the prosecutor does not have that option. This of course gives the advantage to a defendant, in that he can appeal multiple times until he might have a chance to get an acquittal. Once he does, it’s game over for the prosecution -- no appeals or retrials for them. The intent behind this principle is to try and make certain an innocent person is not convicted wrongly -- even to the extent that in some cases (again, as with OJ), guilty people are allowed to walk free.

I looked up the Australia laws so I could relate to what you might be more familiar with, wonderllama, and found that double jeopardy in Oz is a statutory protection; and even then, there are certain conditions that have to be met. Some of your states and territories are apparently even now looking at changing the laws that govern this principle. This can be done in individual jurisdictions of Oz because of the fact that it is statutory, as opposed to here in the States where it is constitutional. There is lots more detail on this at Wikipedia, if anyone cares to read ([ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy[/ame]).
.

More on double jeopardy in Australia:

http://www.autrefoisacquit.info/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ble-jeopardy-law/story-e6frg6oo-1111114670438

http://www.nswccl.org.au/unswccl/issues/double jeopardy.php
.

DeeDee249 said:

No one is suggesting that BR should have been forced to see his dead sister. But remember that at that time of the day, when he was "shipped off", they were not supposed to know she WAS dead. At that point, the Rs out it out there that they were dealing with a kidnapping. Yes, they wanted BR out of the house and out of the commotion and highly stressed environment. But they also didn't want him questioned, and didn't ask him anything himself, and for me, that tips the scale in favor of having something to hide.

Remember the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? This was a genuine kidnapping, and the spotlight was on the parents in the beginning. But they were always willing to talk to police. Elizabeth also had a sibling- her younger sister who was in the room with her when the kidnapper (a former handyman) got in and took Elizabeth, threatening her with a knife and threatening the sister and her family if she told anyone. She didn't. But as time went on, the little girl remembered that the man who took her sister resembled the handyman she had seen around the home (she mentioned him by name, but I forgot it).
My point is that a child present (or nearby) when a sibling is kidnapped CAN have valuable information for LE and the family. Thank God Elizabeth was found alive, and she came through an unspeakable horror with dignity and grace.

Click to expand...

In the Smart case the police have a witness to the kidnapping and if you remember the little sister was having a lot of trouble remembering details as she was scared, and stayed in bed. I'm sure the police were quickly convinced she was telling the truth and that is what cleared both parents right away. The witness was still scared at the time police interview her and that is why she didn't remember when she saw the man, who he was he had effectively threatened her enough to make her block out the memory. She reported no fear of her parents and was insistent the person was male and not her dad. The pressure of police interrogations on a traumatized child has to be very carefully done.

Barbara Kostanik reported the secret Santa comment to the police and even commented later that the Ramsey investigators got far more information out of her daughter than the police did. They asked a lot more probing questions of Meagan than the police did.

I wonder if anyone has considered taking Burke out for a beer or 12....

otg said:

Yes, to all of the above, IMO.

But to add to your query... If they admit that he was in the room and in the conversation, the next question would be what else were they "disingenuous" about? And if Burke was there when the 911 call was made, why did they send him straight to his room to be asleep before anyone got there?

See? One question just leads to another. Best to just say "no" (you know, when the police come calling).
.

Click to expand...

Herein lies the problems of the case, from day one. The R's should never have been allowed to evade questions, get away with lies, or use Ramsey speak and Ramnesia. They admitted they lied about BR being awake. This calls for needed explanations.

They should have been declared suspects, the case been completely investigated and hopefully if you are a Ramsey, cleared.

Anyone in a home where a dead family member is found, is a suspect. It;s the nature of the beast. To deny this fact is absurd. The R's should have wanted to fight long and hard to clear themselves. Unless they were not innocent. And imho, they are not innocent.

wonderllama said:

I wonder if anyone has considered taking Burke out for a beer or 12....

Click to expand...

I remember before Burke went to college, people being sure that he would confess all at a party. Well, he was in college for five years and I'm sure he went to his fair share of parties yet nothing has ever came out that he said anything. However, I do wonder if he knew his limit to where he would start saying things that he would regret? Like perhaps he made sure that he would never get super drunk? But then for all we know, he could be someone who doesn't really party.

OMG, You all are cracking me up tonight!! Wonder that was almost as funny as HOTYH's secret service theory.... LOL...

BR, parties. I saw pictures online of his homecoming (he wasn't partying there) but the girl that posted had other pictures of her and other friends and they were getting high. Also, I once found a site that lets you know where Techno bands were playing, and you had to RSVP on the site, he was a member. I would say he parties, let me see if I can still find those, if you like I can post the links?

If you can find them, I would like to see the links.

Yeah, I assumed he partied since he went to a big state school but I'm in college now and I know people who don't party at all so I didn't want to make any assumptions.

I just did a search for Burke Ramsey Purdue and one of the first links is how Burke is a DJ now. Or was back in '09.

http://family.webshots.com/photo/1270690859065500100xSxMvz

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~puraves/burke_ramsey.html

http://www.meetup.com/AtlantaEDM/members/12802551/

Agatha_C said:

http://family.webshots.com/photo/1270690859065500100xSxMvz

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~puraves/burke_ramsey.html

http://www.meetup.com/AtlantaEDM/members/12802551/

Click to expand...

Burke Ramsey






Heyya AC.

Daft Punk, classic, upbeat ie Da Funk video

But M.I.A. intense techno, video Born Free features military political violence, M.I.A - BORN FREE VIDEO OFFICIAL (real and explicit version)
includes a child assassination and mass killing.

Hey Tad! Music is so subjective...hey I used to listen to Skinny Puppy and Ministry and I am not craaazy....guess I am old now cause I have never heard of M.I.A!

GingBreade said:

Hey Tad! Music is so subjective...hey I used to listen to Skinny Puppy and Ministry and I am not craaazy....guess I am old now cause I have never heard of M.I.A!

Click to expand...

This must make me ancient as I have never heard of Skinny Puppy or Ministry either! :waitasec: