Was Burke Involved ? # 3
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
Here is what I've read. Again, not sure whether or not this is allow on this forum seeing I'm fairly new. I hope this doesn't break the rules here and if so, I apologize in advance:
I stared at that picture trying to think, if I didn't already know what it was, would it be obvious? I don't know.
If they found child *advertiser censored* on JR's computer, why wouldn't they at least prosecute him for that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only speculation but maybe because it was overseas and in another country?
Besides, powerful influential people (like John Ramsey) can often buy unlawful privileges (why aren't half our politicians locked up? just sayin')
Besides, powerful influential people (like John Ramsey) can often buy unlawful privileges (why aren't half our politicians locked up? just sayin')
Also just to clear what I think the situation was:
It was found on his business server computer but because of the rumor of JB POSSIBLY being involved in some child sacrifice, it really lends more credence to that rumor.
Besides....this would be align to finding kiddie *advertiser censored* on a Ford Motor computer then trying to lock up Lee Iacocca. Bad analogy but I think you get my gist
Leomoon80
Well-Known Member
Watched the new 2 night special of Cold Case Behavioral Scientists with a large team of other experts.
Doesn't look good does it?
1)She was not hit with the stun gun afterall and the weapon was found finally, inside of the house according to their overall agreement, a toy made those distinctive marks. They matched it up very well. This included 2 Forensic autopsy experts.
2)It was not an intruder but an inside job (overall consensus reached)
Too much to recall now.
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/09/123355/jon-benet-ramsey-cbs-new-dna-evidence
the nitty gritty:
http://www.eonline.com/news/796127/...he-murder-here-s-who-investigators-say-did-it
Doesn't look good does it?
1)She was not hit with the stun gun afterall and the weapon was found finally, inside of the house according to their overall agreement, a toy made those distinctive marks. They matched it up very well. This included 2 Forensic autopsy experts.
2)It was not an intruder but an inside job (overall consensus reached)
Too much to recall now.
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/09/123355/jon-benet-ramsey-cbs-new-dna-evidence
the nitty gritty:
http://www.eonline.com/news/796127/...he-murder-here-s-who-investigators-say-did-it
missgulfsouth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 3,004
- Reaction score
- 53
I haven't followed this case for many, many years ... way too convoluted and conspiracy theories just aren't my thing. That said, I absolutely do not believe that her 10 year old brother garroted her, or that someone in the house planted someone else's DNA in her underwear and proceeded with one of the biggest murder cover-ups in US history. I just don't buy any of it. Burke is odd ... he has a very strange affect ... emotionless. But ... that entire family was strange. JMO
This is what I think. Burke had caused marks on her neck that they couldn't explain away so they did the garrote..(fibers from Patsy's red sweater were in the knot)..to look like an intruder did it. They had to account for those marks on her neck someway. I think that is the reason they tried to make it look like a sexual crime by an intruder. And just the ransom note was to point it away from the family members in the house that night. That's MY opinion at this time.
I understand your thoughts here but if they had refused to let the police speak with Burke it may have thrown suspicions his way. Hope I make some sense here.
Chewy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 2,340
Again this theory doesn't make any sense if you follow it all the way through. Basically it means that the Ramseys were totally blindsided by Burke killing her that night, panicked and created a huge cover up and then just left him to talk to the police no problem. It doesn't make any sense. If they were scrambling to cover up what he had done, then when they thought about it later they would worry that they had made a mistake that could get them caught. Again for the umpteenth time, there is no legal reason that they had to let him talk to the police. So what if they thought he did it? They thought the Ramseys did it for years and still couldn't convict them. Why risk it?
I posited another theory elsewhere that I think solves some of the things that don't add up in this case. What if they knew who killed her. What if the Ramseys were being blackmailed by someone who could implicate them in something really damning, like a pedophile ring or something like that. The "evil guy" threatens blackmail and the death of their daughter if they don't pay up. Maybe the guy tells them exactly what he'll do to her. The evil guy can't go to the cops to rat them out because he's also involved in the illicit activity. So when they don't pay he kills her and then threatens to kill the rest of them if they don't pay.
So they know who killed her and yet they can't point them out to the police without risking revealing their own illicit activities and the evil guys motives. So they write the ransom note to throw the police off their trail. That's why it's forged and that's why when Patsy Ramsey is being interviewed she seems fake when she's saying "We will find you." Because the evil guy knows she's lying because she knows exactly who did it so why the need to go on asking people for information?
That's always been a HUGE question of mine.
debbiegarcia36
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,318
- Reaction score
- 1,540
Watch his reaction and his comment when he finally realizes the photo is of the bowl of pineapple (which I believe is connected to the chain of events). His body language changes abruptly as he recognizes what it is and says ohhh, but can't bring himself to say that it's a bowl of pineapple.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
moonriverfarm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 10,953
Burke tried to crawl out of his own skin when faced with the pic of the pineapple. He identified the tea in the glass, even the tea bag, but could not make himself utter the word "pineapple". He finally choked out the word "fruit". His body language is so completely inappropriate in each interview. Age-inappropriate, socially inappropriate, the nervous manifestation of holding back the truth.
Leomoon80
Well-Known Member
True. A highlight of the 4 hours, to see he simply could not bring himself to speak the word "pineapple" out loud.
He was 9 at the time of the "accident", but the video tape was the following year, almost 1 yr. anniversary. His prints were on the bowl, the spoon as were Patsy's fingerprints.
They dispelled the sexual abuse theory out of hand too. Transfer put that foreign substance in her panties.
The railroad track end made those marks (wasn't there also a set of them on her back as well as neck?)
Testing to see IF she was still alive, "after the fact" of death. Strange behavior indeed. Totally objectifying.
As for the parents? I think they did what many might consider, they only had 1 child left. They didn't want the child's life destroyed at 9 years old for an accident. But pointing to the housekeeper, old Santa next door, even Fleet White's wife, is a stretch. To sacrifice any number of others for the sake of your own?
In all due respect, what's make you think the Ramsey's (Burke in this case) were completely unaware of what this interview contained and what questions would be asked? I don't buy for a moment he was caught off guard.
No one talks unscripted on television anymore. All guests (especially talk shows) are briefed on what line of questions to expect.
Long gone are impromptu television shows (like Johnny Carson) where everything was more or less, unrehearsed and live. Now a days, everyone, famous or infamous who agrees to go on television knows beforehand what will be asked especially on Larry King show.
Also in the day and age of law suits, I'm also pretty sure Burke had an attorney (and body guard) with him as well. So what we're seeing in all likelihood is someone acting, forgetting or someone who I think is brainwashed and doesn't process thoughts like most of us do.
He definitely looks broken and catatonic.
secretlymorbid
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
After watching Dr. Phil and the CBS doc I am even more convinced that BDI and Patsy covered it up. However, while I believe that PR wrote the ransom note, I am not convinced that was not a part of a small cover up instead of her carrying out the brutal portions of what happened that night. In my opinion Burke has a personality disorder, perhaps a disassociative disorder and possibly ODD. I never knew of the family's movie obsession. I think Burke was getting more and more aggressive with JBR as he got older. I don't think its unreasonable for Burke to have made the garrot, not intentionally to kill her, but in play and it went too far. Then PR began the cover up with the RN. Moving the body, etc. Boys watching violent movies, with annoying sister's that take all of mom's attention and dad's that are always at work, plus a personality disorder equals an accident waiting to happen. I don't think Patsy did the violent acts on her baby. Have you ever watched Toddler's and Tiara's? Those girls are little Queens, thousands of dollars are spent.on costumes， and they are with their mom's constantly, I just think it's too hideous that she would do that. I think Burke did it all as play and ended up killing her, Patsy covered it up. just my opinion
secretlymorbid
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
He wasn't able to be interviewed for quite some time, plus why would they have a choice? He was a POI as he was in the house. They did everything they could to avoid any of them being interviewed. Plus, as they pointed out last night he was coached before the interview.
Chewy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 2,340
Yes they can. That's lawyer 101. Shut up and lawyer up and don't talk to the cops. There is absolutely no reason in the world ANY OF THEM had to talk to the police. Obviously the parents are doing to if they are trying to show they are innocent. But they didn't have to let the police talk to Burke. They could have said, give us the questions and we'll have a private psychologist ask him the questions. A million times reasonable and the psychologist is bound by doctor client privilege. Then they could have edited the replies.
Do any of you actually know the way police interviews work? Have you not heard of the Miranda warning? Have you not heard that when you are involved in a crime shut up and do not talk to the police. Ask them to go through your lawyer.
They knew this and they had really good lawyers. These aren't some rednecks from suburbia that don't have the means or understanding. There is absolutely no reason in the world they had to let Burke talk to the police.
And if he did it, they had a million reasons not to risk it. Look how y'all are interpreting his response to pineapple. And maybe he's just freaked out by it. But that what police are trained to look for and to pick apart. You cannot convince me that his parents walked in on a savage attack and murder of his sister, panicked and covered it up and then let him talk to the police as a 9 and 11 year old kid.
It's completely illogical to think this happened. Because at this point, not only is it possible for him to implicate himself, he can implicate both of them as well.
- Status