Was Burke Involved? # 4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gigitmdy said:
Have not thought of it that way. I think you are right on Fedfan. It was because it obviously was not an accident. They had a horror to deal with.
Click to expand...

I'm with both of you on this. Well said.
 
Heymom said:
I am glad to see that Ms. Maui is now a former member.

Hooray and thank you to the mods!
Click to expand...

Oh, thank goodness. I must not have been the only one who begged for this poster to be checked. Everyone's blood pressure can now return to normal.
 
Thank you. This is such an unfortunate line of thinking. But, the little things are now falling into place. I'm not sure how to feel though. I suppose that some of the righteous indignation that I have always held when pondering this case, and the red hot anger towards John and Patsy Ramsey, have abated to some degree. I know first hand what a person will do to protect someone whom they love more than life. I also know firsthand the lengths a person will go to to disregard indicators of a disturbed mind. Most of us are just lucky that something so extreme does not happen as a result. I look at Burke, and I see a fragile child caught up in a world of chaos. But, having said that, it does no one a lick of good to pretend that this did not happen in the way that it did. Lessons must be learned. A little girl lost her life, many innocent bystanders were irrevocably harmed, and the justice system permitted wealth and privilege to reign supreme. That cannot be permitted to stand.
 
elmomom said:
I'll bite. Insofar as child abuse goes, yes I believe a child can commit child abuse if said child is the older of the two. OTOH Burke, at 9.9 years old could neither commit murder, nor commit child abuse, due to the fact that he could not form a criminal intent at his young age, according to the law. So, it would have been equally valid, in my mind, to either infer he did both, or neither.
Click to expand...

Burkes birthday was in January. He would have been 9.11 at the time of her death, not 9.9
 
Good Evening,

Members have been timed out or banned on this thread tonight.

Let me clear up a few things.

If you see a snarky post please do not respond or quote the post. That makes things so much harder for the mods. Then we have to go looking to see who quoted the snarky post and responded to it and take that post down. Please hit the Alert button and move on.

Remember scrolling is your friend:)

You do not have to believe Burke did it. You can have a mature discussion with members on this thread and this site if you believe Burke didn't do it.

The only thing that is not allowed is the Intruder Theory because it is a fabrication of the Ramsey's and their various lawyers.

Websleuths will not be used to spread false information made up by the Ramsey camp.

If you still feel an intruder is a legitimate topic there are many discussion forums you can go to.

All I am doing is applying the same rules to the Ramsey forum that we apply to other forums on Websleuths. You are not allowed to make up a scenario based on nothing and then accuse someone of a crime.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Tricia
 
ThinkHard said:
Burkes birthday was in January. He would have been 9.11 at the time of her death, not 9.9
Click to expand...

Yes, the tragic irony in the subjective idea of age in this outdated, completely disproven reasoning for this particular law/statute... Burke was 30 some odd days away from being chargeable/culpable and potentially accountable. Poor Jonbenet. Patsy and John are lucky they didn't have a true budding serial killer on their hands- just imagine that scenario.

Somehow I still don't see Burke as normal, nice or changed by what I think he did. I see more of a man/boy who got away with murder... the murder of his childhood nemesis. Fricken Heartbreaking. MOO
 
akh said:
No, I don't believe that either.
I believe he strangled her with the garrote and hit her over the head with the flashlight. I don't think it was an accident at all. I think the garrote potentially came first, the flashlight because she struggled, and then he finished with the garrote. I think he fantasized about a life without JBR and for whatever reason, that night was the moment he made it happen. And if there was sexual abuse, I think that was him as well.
IMO... The parents' role in the coverup was actually probably trying to hide the SA by cleaning her up. Which indirectly and unintentionally fed into the coverup. And their real intention for a coverup was the ransom note and statements. The tape and tied wrists could go either way as to who did that. But I don't believe the parents finished the job or did anything to disrespect her body as part of any coverup.
So if you've misread me on that point previously then again that is another reason to keep the discussion going. It's a different angle and one that answers how the parents could do some of the things that people against the BDI claim they don't understand. IMO they simply didn't do those things... BR did them. It wasn't an accident IMO. In fact had it been an accident, or even had the chance to have been seen as an accident, the parents would've went with that. The garrote especially, and potentially past actions, made the accident story impossible.

That's about as clear as I think I can make it.
I'm more confused why you think people shouldn't discuss it?
Click to expand...

Ok, so just a thought....if Burke was playing sex games with his sister, it's because someone started playing these games with him first.....we aren't sure who, maybe JAR, maybe JR....but what if that was part of the reason for the coverup.

Say for a minute that the parents were savvy enough to recognize that if Burke had done sexual things to his sister, they had been done to him....and if the police learned that Burke was the one abusing JBR....a logical path they would have looked into is who was abusing Burke.....and maybe that was a trail they really didn't want to take the police or public down.
 
Tawny said:
That is my instinct as well as to pursue justice for children who have been harmed or killed.
Click to expand...

Protecting children is all well and good. But one does nothing to protect them by denying the truth.

That's like when parents live in denial about LD's and refuse to get their kid's proper resources because the LD doesn't fit their vision of the child. Yet because no one wants to see the reality of what the child is dealing with, that child is forced to continue to suffer even longer.

Denying Burke is who he is.....by his own words and actions...is not protecting him, it's simply being blinded to a truth one doesn't want to see.

No matter how troubled a child or adult is, the best thing you can do for them is get to the bottom of it, not sweep it under the rug.

Ps. Btw this was in agreement with you, not against you. It's just frustrating to hear (other) people who claim to have expertise in neglect and abuse claim they are defending Burke because they care about children.
 
Frigga said:
Yes, the tragic irony in the subjective idea of age in this outdated, completely disproven reasoning for this particular law/statute... Burke was 30 some odd days away from being chargeable/culpable and potentially accountable. Poor Jonbenet. Patsy and John are lucky they didn't have a true budding serial killer on their hands- just imagine that scenario.

Somehow I still don't see Burke as normal, nice or changed by what I think he did. I see more of a man/boy who got away with murder... the murder of his childhood nemesis. Fricken Heartbreaking. MOO
Click to expand...

You don't suppose Burke knew this do you?
 
Frigga said:
Well holy *advertiser censored*- I never even considered that. Wow. I have to ponder this...
Click to expand...

He lacks in certain areas for sure, but often kids like that can be very strong in other areas of intelligence or learning.....I'm curious what his fluid reasoning skills were and if he would have been able to connect those dots.
 
jamesrav said:
somebody on YT posted this link from the NY Times. Almost difficult to read to be honest. I admire parents who are dealt a rough hand and persevere, and do their best to raise 'good' kids. But in some cases it sounds like the genetics are against you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html
Click to expand...

When there is a learning disability, psychiatric, developmental issues etc, the most common reason is because that is just who the kid is, they are literally ingrained in their genes. No there is no gene for each condition....that is not how genetics works....but genes that effect hormone regulation, and dopamine levels are a huge focus in the field of epidemic research regarding such issue.

Interesting gense work on a dimmer switch and can be turned up or down based on environmental influences such as food, medications, toxins, stress....and on and on.

When kids do have issues, it's often because their perception of what is going on around them is vastly different that it appears to everyone else....and when no one sees the world the way you do it can be very frustration.

Humans have survival instincts, we develop coping mechanism even unhealthy ones to deal with things in our lives.....the earlier an issue is noticed and addressed and understood, the earlier the child can develop healthy coping skills. The longer you wait you have to work on undoing a lot more bad habits so to speak.

and when you don't understand what the problem is, that's an incredibly difficult thing to do. Understanding what is motivating a child's behavior is HUGE in being able to correct it. If you don't understand where it's coming from, it's very difficult to teach the child an alternative, because the alternative is not satisfying the need that being met within that child during that action.

It's tricky, every kid is different, literally every kid. Even with the best help some kids will simply never live normal lives and the focus must come to keeping them safe from themselves and keeping others safe from them.
 
Image from http://cdn.dick-blick.com/items/233/05/23305-0000-3ww-l.jpg.

Hmm otg. The black might be due to the plastic roller for the tape. Or even part of the Asian doll - such as a kimono.

It's such a shame the few BPD photos leaked are of such low quality. Likewise, it's such a shame BPD doesn't release ALL of the ones they showed Patsy in her June 1998 interview.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0016.JPG
    IMG_0016.JPG
    26.4 KB · Views: 73
elmomom said:
I'll bite. Insofar as child abuse goes, yes I believe a child can commit child abuse if said child is the older of the two. OTOH Burke, at 9.9 years old could neither commit murder, nor commit child abuse, due to the fact that he could not form a criminal intent at his young age, according to the law. So, it would have been equally valid, in my mind, to either infer he did both, or neither.
Click to expand...

Thanks for biting. I wonder what is in the COUNTS that we do not have. I wonder if the GJ determined that one, or both, of the parents were the murderer(s), but unable to determine which, indicted both. I have seen this happen to two men who beat one of their wives to death but no one could determine which one struck the blows. Both were charged and convicted of murder. It is possible that one of the COUNTS was Murder in the First Degree, isn't it?

Without being able to read all the counts I can only guess that they covered for Burke and knew that he was a danger to his sister but failed to heed warnings.

Then I want to know who warned them that Burke was a danger to his sister? It seems that the GJ must have had some evidence of a warning in order to 'True Bill" Count IV.

Who would be able to testify that Burke posed a risk of bodily harm and even death to his sister?
 
TeaTime said:
Thanks for biting. I wonder what is in the COUNTS that we do not have. I wonder if the GJ determined that one, or both, of the parents were the murderer(s), but unable to determine which, indicted both. I have seen this happen to two men who beat one of their wives to death but no one could determine which one struck the blows. Both were charged and convicted of murder. It is possible that one of the COUNTS was Murder in the First Degree, isn't it?

Without being able to read all the counts I can only guess that they covered for Burke and knew that he was a danger to his sister but failed to heed warnings.

Then I want to know who warned them that Burke was a danger to his sister? It seems that the GJ must have had some evidence of a warning in order to 'True Bill" Count IV.

Who would be able to testify that Burke posed a risk of bodily harm and even death to his sister?
Click to expand...

I'd guess the family dog who moved next door, but it's not talking - the dog probably got a gag order too!

It does seem like a psychologist or psychiatrist might have to give such a warning. But maybe there were enough events that others were warning the family and they refused to listen.
 
Oh sorry. I have no clue how my tape dispenser comment got on this "was Burke involved" thread, lol.

I'll try to add a pertinent comment - always thought it was Patsy, but the Dr Phil and CBS shows converted me to BDI. It would be so helpful to see ALL of Burke's interviews - anyone know how the interview portions we saw became public?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 190 more.
Total: 4,397 (members: 191, guests: 4,206)

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
4,206
Total visitors
4,397
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,644
Messages
17,972,335
Members
228,850
Latest member
Dena24
Back
Top