Where Did JR Go To Check Mail?

[madeleine]

madeleine,


So would Patsy be that immature as to be jealous of a six-year old girl, and end up whacking or semi-strangling her?


.

not necessarily immature...maybe just sick...add to this being ill and tired and having a bad temper ....and feeling UNWANTED....kaboom,it's easy and it happens so often

I never believed strangulation was an accident or just pure staging,it was real and the evidence supports it,she was alive when strangled.

And to me it looks like an overkill,someone was very angry with JB.

Now if JR was the one molesting her....why would he be the angry one?if it was about jealousy then my money is on PR or BR....who would hate JB because she was the center of attention (especially in daddy's eyes?)

 

[LynnField]

The intruder theory is total bs,
no intruder takes the time to feed his victim pineapple then abuse her, bash her head in, take some time to build an improvised garotte, then strangles the victim en then taking his time to write a 3 page ransom letter, play around with some blankets screw around take all the time i need, finally clean up and stage a crime scene make it look nice and tidy, all while that family is asleep upstairs?

Intruder must have thought something like: "O my gosh she died I did not meant to skull fracture and strangle the last breath out of her, now I gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, **** happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it."

Medical examiners already stated that if JBR was brought to the ER in the condition she was in, the father would've been arrested right there and then because the chronic abuse was just so obvious.

Wasn't strangling the poor kid and stage a kidnap much more convenient for their perfect image.

Anyways, good luck sending your chronically abused child, who has just suffered a head trauma, to the emergency room for medical checkup, that will do.

These parents dressed their kid up like a doll send her of to plastic surgery on her 4th, they treated the kid as their property to do with it as they please tells tale.

Patsy treated her own daughter like a regular barbie doll and, well, daddy used her like a different kind of doll.

It's just a question of this kid who shows all the warning signs of being a chronically abused child and what you choose you're going to believe whether some magic intruder theory did it.

 

[madeleine]

JOHN: We worry about Burke longer term. We had him spend time with a child specialist. Kids have ways to bury this and it's black and white and they put it aside. Where it is going to affect Burke probably more so is when he is 40 years old and that's when we worry about it, long term.

SCOTT: When he is what?

JOHN: Forty. When he's older.

actually,I totally agree with him,but I see it this way: if he was abused,if he killed his sis,if his sister was abused,if their mom was sick or if their dad was sick.....eventually the signs will be there...not NOW,he is way too young but definitely later....no matter how much therapy,no matter how deep you bury something so dark...it will come out one day,I am sure of it....if one of the above BR is the only hope left...

 

[UKGuy]

I can't forget something I read in PMPT,it always comes back....I read that PR always used to say"take it down to the basement,I don't wanna see it anymore" whenever she wanted to get rid of something....

makes you think,is this the reason JB was taken(dumped?) to the basement?
was the location subconsciously chosen?

madeleine,
Very good point. The location may have been subconsciously chosen, it certainly fits with Patsy being the driving force behind the staging, your point reinforces this belief.



.

 

[UKGuy]

not necessarily immature...maybe just sick...add to this being ill and tired and having a bad temper ....and feeling UNWANTED....kaboom,it's easy and it happens so often

I never believed strangulation was an accident or just pure staging,it was real and the evidence supports it,she was alive when strangled.

And to me it looks like an overkill,someone was very angry with JB.

Now if JR was the one molesting her....why would he be the angry one?if it was about jealousy then my money is on PR or BR....who would hate JB because she was the center of attention (especially in daddy's eyes?)

madeleine,

not necessarily immature...maybe just sick...add to this being ill and tired and having a bad temper

I do not think I have seen any remarks regarding Patsy's frame of mind that night, e.g. at the White's.

And to me it looks like an overkill,someone was very angry with JB.

Yes, unless its mostly staging.

Now if JR was the one molesting her....why would he be the angry one?if it was about jealousy then my money is on PR or BR....who would hate JB because she was the center of attention (especially in daddy's eyes?)

If PDI, then I reckon Patsy was complicit, she was aware what was going on, so why be jealous of something that has your approval?

This motive and the bedwetting while plausible lack coherence for me.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Here's a different way to look at it. BR asks "What did you find?"

Instead of asking about forensic evidence, it may be he was asking a simple open ended question, because he knew his parents were looking for something. IOWs one parent might have said something along the lines of "I'll check the basement" and BR asks, "What did you find?" Or one parent might have said "Look! I just found this" (This might have been said in reference to the RN) it would be natural for BR to ask what was found.

Chrishope,

Instead of asking about forensic evidence, it may be he was asking a simple open ended question, because he knew his parents were looking for something.

Sure, that is my point, the question presupposes prior knowledge. Regardless of the something sought for.

It cannot be JonBenet otherwise Burke would have named her as the object of the search.

Or one parent might have said "Look! I just found this" (This might have been said in reference to the RN) it would be natural for BR to ask what was found.

Although apparently plausible, why question what is in plain sight, e.g. RN, some consequent query might seem more applicable, e.g. What does it say?

Also Burke's question is in past tense, not present, and John's reply is in First person plural!

From this I assume Burke knows John has undertaken a search, but is ignorant regarding the result?

Assuming John, Patsy and Burke are in close proximity to each other, then Burke knows his mother is using the phone, so he is not expecting his mother to reply, a more innocent explanation might be if John said I've looked in the basement, with Burke then asking, "What did you find?"


So either John has already voiced that he has been searching somewhere or Burke knows from a prior interaction that John left to search some area of the house?




.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Sure, that is my point, the question presupposes prior knowledge. Regardless of the something sought for.

Yes, exactly. But the query doesn't have to be about a specific piece of evidence that BR is concerned about.

It cannot be JonBenet otherwise Burke would have named her as the object of the search.

Agreed.

Although apparently plausible, why question what is in plain sight, e.g. RN, some consequent query might seem more applicable, e.g. What does it say?

Maybe. But he's 9, so he may have put it the way he did. IOWs he might have been asking what the note was.

Also Burke's question is in past tense, not present, and John's reply is in First person plural!

True.

From this I assume Burke knows John has undertaken a search, but is ignorant regarding the result?

That's what I'm thinking. And BR may have been wondering if they found something specific linking him, but it need not be the case.

Assuming John, Patsy and Burke are in close proximity to each other, then Burke knows his mother is using the phone, so he is not expecting his mother to reply, a more innocent explanation might be if John said I've looked in the basement, with Burke then asking, "What did you find?"

Very possible.

So either John has already voiced that he has been searching somewhere or Burke knows from a prior interaction that John left to search some area of the house?

Very possible. It could also be in response to something PR said.

 

[LynnField]

Yes, exactly. But the query doesn't have to be about a specific piece of evidence that BR is concerned about.

Quote:
It cannot be JonBenet otherwise Burke would have named her as the object of the search.
Agreed.

Quote:
Although apparently plausible, why question what is in plain sight, e.g. RN, some consequent query might seem more applicable, e.g. What does it say?
Maybe. But he's 9, so he may have put it the way he did. IOWs he might have been asking what the note was.

Quote:
Also Burke's question is in past tense, not present, and John's reply is in First person plural!
True.

Patsy and John supposed to just have found the ransom note and according to Patsy she screamed at John she found something whether it was staged or not it is much more likely they kept Burke in the loop.

(If my mom was screaming to my dad "I found a ransom note" and I am in my bedroom just hearing the word "Found" I would ask them what did you find also.)

Burke: "What DID you find?"

The ransom note maybe?

Most reasonable and logical explanation for this is that Burke was just asking what his parents found in regard to the ransom note.

or you've got to go with stuff like this:

John Ramsey: "Yeah Burke now me and Patsy are going to cleanup your mess and search the house whether you was to sloppy and left some evidence behind maybe the murder weapon or some of your semen.."

Patsy Ramsey: "Look John, the kid screwed up real good!"

Burke: "What DID you find?"

These wild conspiracy theories just take the "I am going to involve my 9 year old son in a staged murder scene and make him my accomplice and rely on a kid" for granted.

John Ramsey: "We are NOT talking to you!"

Maybe like in this is not your business?

What would you tell your kid if it's asking annoying questions, while you are busy staging a crime scene and focusing on synchronizing statements with your wife?

John Ramsey: "Don't worry kid we don't want to upset you but we just read a ransom note, now were calling the police your sister got kidnapped but don't worry all is good?"

Most would be really upset and pissed if someone kidnapped their daughter while they were asleep and most would be even more pissed and upset if they were the ones who killed her and have to worry about getting their stories straight or getting caught.

There are certain similarities between the Lindbergh case and the Ramsey case.

The Lindbergh and Ramsey cases have at least one very important theme in common, in each case, the "kidnapper" was able to successfully bring about a breakdown of normal police procedure into what should have been routine domestic homicide investigations.

Instead, the police were tricked into believing the crime to be a kidnapping, instead of a murder, with devastating consequences for the destruction and contamination of potential crime scene evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy and John supposed to just have found the ransom note and according to Patsy she screamed at John she found something whether it was staged or not it is much more likely they kept Burke in the loop.

(If my mom was screaming to my dad "I found a ransom note" and I am in my bedroom just hearing the word "Found" I would ask them what did you find also.)

Burke: "What DID you find?"

The ransom note maybe?

Most reasonable and logical explanation for this is that Burke was just asking what his parents found in regard to the ransom note.

or you've got to go with stuff like this:

John Ramsey: "Yeah Burke now me and Patsy are going to cleanup your mess and search the house whether you was to sloppy and left some evidence behind maybe the murder weapon or some of your semen.."

Patsy Ramsey: "Look John, the kid screwed up real good!"

Burke: "What DID you find?"

These wild conspiracy theories just take the "I am going to involve my 9 year old son in a staged murder scene and make him my accomplice and rely on a kid" for granted.

John Ramsey: "We are NOT talking to you!"

Maybe like in this is not your business?

What would you tell your kid if it's asking annoying questions, while you are busy staging a crime scene and focusing on synchronizing statements with your wife?

John Ramsey: "Don't worry kid we don't want to upset you but we just read a ransom note, now were calling the police your sister got kidnapped but don't worry all is good?"

Most would be really upset and pissed if someone kidnapped their daughter while they were asleep and most would be even more pissed and upset if they were the ones who killed her and have to worry about getting their stories straight or getting caught.

There are certain similarities between the Lindbergh case and the Ramsey case.

The Lindbergh and Ramsey cases have at least one very important theme in common, in each case, the "kidnapper" was able to successfully bring about a breakdown of normal police procedure into what should have been routine domestic homicide investigations.

Instead, the police were tricked into believing the crime to be a kidnapping, instead of a murder, with devastating consequences for the destruction and contamination of potential crime scene evidence.

LynnField,

Most reasonable and logical explanation for this is that Burke was just asking what his parents found in regard to the ransom note.

That could be it. So why does John not reassure Burke instead of refusing to answer him?

Why is Burke sent back to bed with instructions to play asleep until told otherwise?

John later relocates Burke to Fleet White's guardianship at the earliest opportunity.


Of course the question I am posing is how does Burke know there is anything to be found, the ransom note is existentially self evident, and does not communicate itself telepathically as a guide to Burke, that something was found?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, exactly. But the query doesn't have to be about a specific piece of evidence that BR is concerned about.



Agreed.



Maybe. But he's 9, so he may have put it the way he did. IOWs he might have been asking what the note was.



True.

That's what I'm thinking. And BR may have been wondering if they found something specific linking him, but it need not be the case.



Very possible.




Very possible. It could also be in response to something PR said.

Chrishope,

Yes, exactly. But the query doesn't have to be about a specific piece of evidence that BR is concerned about.

Bingo! But it may refer to any forensic evidence the R's presumed to be relevant? Burke need not know John was checking for red-flags, just that he was looking, and John alike any cautious perpetrator does not want anyone else to know more than is required, hence We are not speaking to you?

Very possible. It could also be in response to something PR said.

But she is on the phone as Burke asks his question!



.

 

[DeeDee249]

Many people feel the Lindberg case was also an accidental death staged to look like a kidnapping and murder. In this case as well, there was very shaky evidence to point to Bruno Hauptmann. The victim was later found dead on the property, I believe? And the authorities cowed under pressure from a wealthy, well-known man.

 

[Flatlander]

According to ST pg. 187: Because we had the enhancement of the 911 tape to prove that their son, Burke was awake when the call was made, I wanted Patsy to confirm her earlier statement that he had been asleep, and she did so several times.
She said she aked John, "Oh my God, what about Burke? He (John) told me that he (Burke) was OK."
Later she was asked again, "Did all the commotion wake Burke up at all?" She said it did not.
In an hour I returned to the same point. "Obviously Burke was OK, he was still asleep through this until he was later awakened, is that right?"
"Right."
When we asked John Ramsey the same question, we got the same answer. "When you checked on Burke ... did he wake up at all?" Ramsey answered, "No, he was alseep still."

I remember John stating that he immediately went to check on Burke but I do not recall if it was before he was on his hands and knees reading the note or not. What I find interesting is that Patsy stated that John moved the note to the floor. John's fingerprints weren't found on the note.

So IMO, Burke was said to be asleep because he knew nothing, saw nothing scenerio, except his Dad on his hand's and knee's reading the RN .... as the story goes. For John to snap @ Burke "we're not talking to you," is an anger response not a worried and relieved one. This is all assuming your actually reading the RN and believe your daughter was kidnapped. Which we know neither is the case. I just find it odd that of all the questions Burke would ask is not what is going on, but what did you find?

 

[4Jacy]

If one of my children had been truly kidnapped, I would not send the other child off to a friend or neighbor. I would hold onto him and not let him out of my sight unless with my husband. When the police asked questions, each of us would go into a room separately, while the other remained with the child.

Of course, the R's weren't worried about the kidnapper. They knew exactly what happened to JBR, where she was, and what their story would be.

 

[UKGuy]

According to ST pg. 187: Because we had the enhancement of the 911 tape to prove that their son, Burke was awake when the call was made, I wanted Patsy to confirm her earlier statement that he had been asleep, and she did so several times.
She said she aked John, "Oh my God, what about Burke? He (John) told me that he (Burke) was OK."
Later she was asked again, "Did all the commotion wake Burke up at all?" She said it did not.
In an hour I returned to the same point. "Obviously Burke was OK, he was still asleep through this until he was later awakened, is that right?"
"Right."
When we asked John Ramsey the same question, we got the same answer. "When you checked on Burke ... did he wake up at all?" Ramsey answered, "No, he was alseep still."

I remember John stating that he immediately went to check on Burke but I do not recall if it was before he was on his hands and knees reading the note or not. What I find interesting is that Patsy stated that John moved the note to the floor. John's fingerprints weren't found on the note.

So IMO, Burke was said to be asleep because he knew nothing, saw nothing scenerio, except his Dad on his hand's and knee's reading the RN .... as the story goes. For John to snap @ Burke "we're not talking to you," is an anger response not a worried and relieved one. This is all assuming your actually reading the RN and believe your daughter was kidnapped. Which we know neither is the case. I just find it odd that of all the questions Burke would ask is not what is going on, but what did you find?

Flatlander,
Bingo!


.

 

[UKGuy]

If one of my children had been truly kidnapped, I would not send the other child off to a friend or neighbor. I would hold onto him and not let him out of my sight unless with my husband. When the police asked questions, each of us would go into a room separately, while the other remained with the child.

Of course, the R's weren't worried about the kidnapper. They knew exactly what happened to JBR, where she was, and what their story would be.

4Jacy,
Also they must have felt confident that Burke would not reveal his part in the staging. The 64K question, is of course, did Burke abuse and then whack JonBenet on the head, the latter the kind of reaction you might expect from an immature 9-year old?


.

 

[chemgirl]

A bit confused here...did Burke say,"What did you find?" or "What DID you find?" with the emphasis on the word "did"? If the latter, it seems a response to someoneone saying something like:"Well, I didn't find such-and-such.." or "I didn't find any such-and-such.."

 

[sandover]

A bit confused here...did Burke say,"What did you find?" or "What DID you find?" with the emphasis on the word "did"? If the latter, it seems a response to someoneone saying something like:"Well, I didn't find such-and-such.." or "I didn't find any such-and-such.."

According to those who claim to be able to hear it (we should stress that I don't think anyone can say with 100% confidence that Burke even appears on the 911 call at all) the emphasis is on "did" -- "What DID you find?"

If this is the case, it may still refer to Burke's general state of mind (confusion, curiosity) rather than something specific (JR coming up from the basement etc).

For example, if Burke is asking his father, "What's happening?" while his mother is on the phone, JR might have responded, "Your sister is missing."

Burke: "Did you find her?"

JR: "We haven't found her yet."

Burke (referring to the note or at least to the fact that they must have found SOMETHING to indicate she's gone): "What DID you find?"

JR: "We're not speaking to you."

 

[UKGuy]

According to those who claim to be able to hear it (we should stress that I don't think anyone can say with 100% confidence that Burke even appears on the 911 call at all) the emphasis is on "did" -- "What DID you find?"

If this is the case, it may still refer to Burke's general state of mind (confusion, curiosity) rather than something specific (JR coming up from the basement etc).

For example, if Burke is asking his father, "What's happening?" while his mother is on the phone, JR might have responded, "Your sister is missing."

Burke: "Did you find her?"

JR: "We haven't found her yet."

Burke (referring to the note or at least to the fact that they must have found SOMETHING to indicate she's gone): "What DID you find?"

JR: "We're not speaking to you."

sandover,
Your em, reasoning is inconsistent.

If this is the case, it may still refer to Burke's general state of mind (confusion, curiosity) rather than something specific (JR coming up from the basement etc).

Burke still knows something has been found, not that something is absent, e.g. JonBenet!

Burke (referring to the note or at least to the fact that they must have found SOMETHING to indicate she's gone): "What DID you find?"

How can Burke refer to the note, its in Patsy's hands?

What did you find cannot refer to JonBenet per se, as we all know she was lying in the wine-cellar. So it must refer to something else, e.g. forensic evidence?


.

 

[sandover]

sandover,
Your em, reasoning is inconsistent.


Burke still knows something has been found, not that something is absent, e.g. JonBenet!


How can Burke refer to the note, its in Patsy's hands?

What did you find cannot refer to JonBenet per se, as we all know she was lying in the wine-cellar. So it must refer to something else, e.g. forensic evidence?


.

UKGuy, it is possible that his father has told him JB is missing but that she has not been found. Burke's question needn't refer to anything else. It MAY but it needn't.

Burke can see the note -- whether Patsy is holding it or it's still spread out on the floor. If a boy sees his father looking at something he might easily wonder what it is, he might surmise that the note has been "found."

 

[sandover]

A further question. Let's assume, as I do, that either PR or JR or both are guilty of staging the murder.

*If* Burke were awake that AM, why would they then lie about that to police?

Why not just say, "Burke woke up, hearing his mother screaming -- he came downstairs and we sent him back up to bed."

To me, very little points to "BDI" but if indeed Burke is on the 911 tape we have to wonder if indeed the fatal "accidental" blow could have come either from Burke or in the presence of Burke (the pineapple could also point in this direction).

The only other logical thing I can think of about lying is that PDI and John was totally innocent but that morning figured out pretty quickly that something was going on that didn't smell right -- and wanted to protect Burke so told him to go back to his bedroom and then got him out of the house ASAP. In this scenario JR is a "good guy" to an extent, trying to protect his son from the trauma of seeing his mom arrested, of Burke being questioned about what he saw that morning, etc...

We also have to consider the possibility that the claim that JR and BR are on the tape is apocryphal. Certainly I can't hear a damn thing that sounds like a male adult or a male child voice.