Was Burke Involved? # 4

[Heymom]

I am now to the point where I believe Burke definitely did it all. For years, many of us believed that Burke would eventually turn state's evidence against his parents. Now it is clear that his long silence was self-serving like everything he did. The fact that Burke stuck to the lame cover story all these years is a de facto confession. I am satisfied that we know the who and the why. Even the how. We know the crime scene/body was cleaned. All that remains are questions relative to how culpable the parents were in the abuse. We do know they allowed their son to be a dangerous predator. Moo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As awful as the consequences were, I am not ready to condemn John and Patsy - yes, they made mistakes and didn't protect JonBenet adequately, but I'm certain they did not know or believe that Burke was capable of such horrible things. At what point do you remove a child from your home? They may have gotten medical evaluations and were told by psychiatrists that this jealousy/anger problem could be addressed and fixed. Patsy's phone calls to the pediatrician's office on Dec. 17th to me suggest that something had happened that day and she was in need of guidance. Maybe the phone call to 911 on the 23rd was the next escalation and they played that off because it was almost Christmas. Maybe they were hoping that things would calm down after Christmas and after all, they were going on a cruise and there would be a lot of distractions for the children.

Patsy had her own health problems and was likely overwhelmed with her responsibilities, and John traveled a lot and was an absent father. Not the kind of family where a very troubled child would be supervised adequately enough.

And yes, they did the wrong thing once they found JonBenet dead - out of panic and a desire to hide what had happened. They lawyered up and tried to protect Burke, which meant that JonBenet died and was dishonored in her death (can't fight back, she's already out of our reach so let's get on with our lives & do what we can to at least salvage Burke).

Now, mind you, if JR had been abusing JBR, my speculations are invalidated. There's a different scenario in that case, but I won't go into that here.

 

[Heymom]

The "how exactly everything happened" is really irrelevant at this point. We know every single Ramsey played a part. We know this case will never be brought to trial. There will be no judicial justice for JonBenet, just the karma of living the rest of their days under that umbrella of suspicion- Patsy died under it and so will John & Burke.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Poor JonBenet. She was the first person to be thrown under the bus to protect her brother.

 

[ThinkHard]

IMO, it's totally discrediting, TO ME. There, fixed it. I could care less what geniuses couldn't spell. To me, it's hard to take anyone serious when they can't spell a word/subject they claim to know so much about. But that's just me.[emoji6] Back to JBR.

saying I have direct hands on experience working with these types of children is a world away from claiming I'm a professional on the subject and have written APA papers on it. Perhaps if I had claimed the later you would have grounds for casting doubt.

But the truth is when you are working directly with a 4 year old child, how much would I really need to be writing down that word? And how would a failure to spell it correctly have any impact on my ability to help the child who is experiencing the problem or in helping me understand the problem? It doesn't, period.

 

[HarmonyE.]

As awful as the consequences were, I am not ready to condemn John and Patsy - yes, they made mistakes and didn't protect JonBenet adequately, but I'm certain they did not know or believe that Burke was capable of such horrible things. At what point do you remove a child from your home? They may have gotten medical evaluations and were told by psychiatrists that this jealousy/anger problem could be addressed and fixed. Patsy's phone calls to the pediatrician's office on Dec. 17th to me suggest that something had happened that day and she was in need of guidance. Maybe the phone call to 911 on the 23rd was the next escalation and they played that off because it was almost Christmas. Maybe they were hoping that things would calm down after Christmas and after all, they were going on a cruise and there would be a lot of distractions for the children.

Patsy had her own health problems and was likely overwhelmed with her responsibilities, and John traveled a lot and was an absent father. Not the kind of family where a very troubled child would be supervised adequately enough.

I'll condemn them instead.

I get what you are saying, but there is more to the narrative of the Ramseys. Left and right they threw people they knew to be innocent under the bus, accusing them of pedophilia and murder. Some of those people had cared very much about JonBenet and them. And how many TV interviews did these people do over the years? I understand that they'd want to keep up appearances early on - show the world what nice, rich people they were - but it went on far longer than necessary with John continuing right up to a few weeks ago. And then there's Patsy carrying around a blue dress so she could always be ready for her close-up. At some point it seems they began to enjoy the attention - and no doubt the money from interviews and books. Then there is the aggressive suing of any person who dared use his First Amendment right and hint that their story stunk a little.

I don't think they were/are good people. And that's where much of this begins and ends. It's one thing to have had a "psycho" son they couldn't or wouldn't control. Quite another to stage their own little girl's murder and then quite consciously spend the next 10 - 20 years in the limelight lying their asses off about it.

 

[Heymom]

I'll condemn them instead.

I get what you are saying, but there is more to the narrative of the Ramseys. Left and right they threw people they knew to be innocent under the bus, accusing them of pedophilia and murder. Some of those people had cared very much about JonBenet and them. And how many TV interviews did these people do over the years? I understand that they'd want to keep up appearances early on - show the world what nice, rich people they were - but it went on far longer than necessary with John continuing right up to a few weeks ago. And then there's Patsy carrying around a blue dress so she could always be ready for her close-up. At some point it seems they began to enjoy the attention - and no doubt the money from interviews and books. Then there is the aggressive suing of any person who dared use his First Amendment right and hint that their story stunk a little.

I don't think they were/are good people. And that's where much of this begins and ends. It's one thing to have had a "psycho" son they couldn't or wouldn't control. Quite another to stage their own little girl's murder and then quite consciously spend the next 10 - 20 years in the limelight lying their asses off about it.

That's true. I am probably giving them more credit than they are due - when I think of how they threw JonBenet under the bus first, not treating her like a child they loved, but as a broken doll left under the Christmas tree while they walked away....she deserved better than that.

And then how they IMMEDIATELY began to throw their good friends and people who had done nothing more than help them and were loyal to them, like LHP, who was a good, innocent person who cared very much for JonBenet...yeah, OK, that was bad.

It's the idea that they should have known ahead of time that JonBenet was in danger - I'd have to see the GJ evidence that caused them to indict John and Patsy for child endangerment - it's possible that it was VERY clear that BR was a threat to her safety, and likely that I am being too empathetic. We went through some very rough times with one of our sons, and at one point when he straight-up said, "I am NOT going to follow your rules," that I wondered if I were going to need to put him into an out-of-home placement. Every day was more drama and stress, and a lot of the time, I was completely out of my parenting depth, so I can understand how things go wrong without a lot of parental foresight. But perhaps JR & PR *did* know, and chose to just ignore it and hope that it would go away? Only the GJ knows and probably ever will know.

I now wonder at times if JR weren't the original abuser and he forced Patsy into helping him cover up the abuse....I guess if that is the case, we might still hope for a BR confession after Dad is gone...but by then BR will have lived a lie for most of his life, so it's probably a useless hope.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I now wonder at times if JR weren't the original abuser and he forced Patsy into helping him cover up the abuse....I guess if that is the case, we might still hope for a BR confession after Dad is gone...but by then BR will have lived a lie for most of his life, so it's probably a useless hope.

I don't think Burke will ever confess, even long after John is dead. He may not even know what the truth is now. I wonder sometimes about Ramsey's other kids though. They must have some clue.

The household was clearly dysfunctional, but if there's no evidence that JBR and/or Burke were molested by John, I'm not inclined to assume he's a pedophile without a hint of prior or later behavior. Once a pedophile (as an adult), always a pedophile. It is quite possible, if not likely in the absence of any other evidence, that Burke was the only person abusing his sister. It happens more frequently than people realize and it often does not necessarily stem from prior abuse of the abuser. Anecdotal, I know, but a single mother in my neighborhood was horrified when she found out her 11 year old son was molesting her little daughters and a couple of their little friends. She immediately turned him in to get help for him and all of the kids involved. Years later she told me he'd never been molested himself or ever seen *advertiser censored* but started because he was "curious" and then couldn't stop. Think of the sexually repressive Duggar family on TLC. Their young son was molesting their younger daughters and friends over a period of years despite having zero knowledge about girls and not having been abused himself.

So I'm not willing to assume anyone was molesting either kid just to fit a narrative that Burke may have been a victim or that he wasn't molesting his sister. It seems more likely to me that he was a bad seed in a difficult environment who never got the intensive intervention he needed.

 

[Djoop]

Well, BR could make a ton of money on his biography or summit. But hoping for a conviction seems useless. If either John or Burke did it, they could easily blame Patsy at this point in time.
I'm beyond Who, I just wanna know Why JBR was killed.

 

[ConcernedinDC]

I was thinking about the ropes and I lean toward John because in his interview he claimed he didn't know any sailing knots.

One thing I thought of was patsy said jonbenet was signed up for rockclimbing. Is is possible Burke and her were somehow using the paintbrush and rope tied around her wrists to climb something? The rope isn't strong enough but, to a six year old it might seem sufficient. Or that was the plan and Burke got mad and tied her neck instead?

 

[ThinkHard]

I don't think Burke will ever confess, even long after John is dead. He may not even know what the truth is now. I wonder sometimes about Ramsey's other kids though. They must have some clue.

The household was clearly dysfunctional, but if there's no evidence that JBR and/or Burke were molested by John, I'm not inclined to assume he's a pedophile without a hint of prior or later behavior. Once a pedophile (as an adult), always a pedophile. It is quite possible, if not likely in the absence of any other evidence, that Burke was the only person abusing his sister. It happens more frequently than people realize and it often does not necessarily stem from prior abuse of the abuser. Anecdotal, I know, but a single mother in my neighborhood was horrified when she found out her 11 year old son was molesting her little daughters and a couple of their little friends. She immediately turned him in to get help for him and all of the kids involved. Years later she told me he'd never been molested himself or ever seen *advertiser censored* but started because he was "curious" and then couldn't stop. Think of the sexually repressive Duggar family on TLC. Their young son was molesting their younger daughters and friends over a period of years despite having zero knowledge about girls and not having been abused himself.

So I'm not willing to assume anyone was molesting either kid just to fit a narrative that Burke may have been a victim or that he wasn't molesting his sister. It seems more likely to me that he was a bad seed in a difficult environment who never got the intensive intervention he needed.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this, and is why I have spoken so adamantly about being cautious with our assumptions. I'm glad to hear the mother in your story handled things the way she did. When people assume sexual behavior from children is always rooted in prior sexual abuse done to that child, it can prevent some parents from seeking help because they are afraid fingers will be pointed at them.

 

[ThinkHard]

I was thinking about the ropes and I lean toward John because in his interview he claimed he didn't know any sailing knots.

One thing I thought of was patsy said jonbenet was signed up for rockclimbing. Is is possible Burke and her were somehow using the paintbrush and rope tied around her wrists to climb something? The rope isn't strong enough but, to a six year old it might seem sufficient. Or that was the plan and Burke got mad and tied her neck instead?

I don't know what johns sailing history was,but if he had only been exposed to big boat sailing that statement might be true. There are plenty of sailors who only know big boats, and know their part on a big boat.....but who when placed in a dinghy would be lost.

If however you learn to sail as a child, like Burke did, you start off in dinghys and you learn things like points of sail, and weight distribution, and sail theory, and knot tying. It takes more hands to sail a big boat, but it takes more sailing skill and knowledge to sail a dinghy. Big boat sailors know more things in relation to navigation, and using equipment like radar and depth meters, dinghy sailors rely on reading wind and water and "feeling" the boat to make adjustments. Not every sailor is experienced in both areas.

 

[otg]

They hair is around the OUTSIDE of the knot, not inside the knot. Hair doesn't magically appear around the outside of a knot if the knot was tied after the twisting. Just look at the picture? How does the hair get around the outside of the knot if the knot as tied after? Clearly this knot would have had to be in place before that hair twisted around it.

No I think the knot was on that paint brush long before the strangulation, and I think when she was being strangled and it was twisted her hair was caught up in but mostly twisted around the outside of the knot. It is possible to get hair twisted into a knot, especially one done with nylon material that slides easier. Her hair being stuck inside parts of the knot, does not mean the knot was tied around her hair. If that were the case you would have seen more hair in the knot and imbedded deeper in the knot, as in btw the line and the paintbrush, instead of just btw two pieces if line.

So I'm trying to understand why you casually dismissed another poster's suggestion of what might have happened because of something you think you see in a single photo taken of the paintbrush contraption after the ME had cut it free from her hair, while at the same time ignoring the photo taken in situ showing two strands of hair being pulled by the device without being twisted around it. I think I'm getting the idea (by this dialog and other posts you've made) that you think the device was somehow twisted by the person who used it. Is that right?

 

[ThinkHard]

So I'm trying to understand why you casually dismissed another poster's suggestion of what might have happened because of something you think you see in a single photo taken of the paintbrush contraption after the ME had cut it free from her hair, while at the same time ignoring the photo taken in situ showing two strands of hair being pulled by the device without being twisted around it. I think I'm getting the idea (by this dialog and other posts you've made) that you think the device was somehow twisted by the person who used it. Is that right?

To me that is what it looks like. That the knot had been in place before the strangulation and that during the strangulation someone twisted the garrot to tighten it around her neck and in doing so caught strands of hair in the knot. To my eyes it does not appear to be possible that the paintbrush was knotted to the line post strangulation.

 

[otg]

To me that is what it looks like. That the knot had been in place before the strangulation and that during the strangulation someone twisted the garrot to tighten it around her neck and in doing so caught strands of hair in the knot. To my eyes it does not appear to be possible that the paintbrush was knotted to the line post strangulation.

So tell me how twisting this piece of paintbrush attached to the end of a 17" long piece of cord tightens the ligature around her neck

 

[ThinkHard]

So tell me how twisting this piece of paintbrush attached to the end of a 17" long piece of cord tightens the ligature around her neck

If it was somehow looped with the other end of the line. Twisting it would tighten the garrote. Is that not how a garrote works?

 

[johnjay]

So tell me how twisting this piece of paintbrush attached to the end of a 17" long piece of cord tightens the ligature around her neck

I could see how one would wrap the extra length of cord around the stick in the way you wind kite string, figure eight style and the twist.

 

[otg]

If it was someone looped with the end if the line. Twisting it would tighten the garrote. Is that not how a garrote works?

"If it was someone looped with the end if the line"? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've thought out how this device found on her neck (it isn't a "garrote") could have been used. If that's the case, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss someone else's theory based on your own misconceptions. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I'm truly trying to understand what you're saying.

More about the device that strangled JonBenet:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Strangulation-Devices&p=5721057#post5721057

 

[ThinkHard]

One serious hang up I have with this case is this dang garrote! How does it fit? Where does it fit?

Almost every angle seems totally crazy if you believe she died of strangulation. I mean to think that parents, a brother, anyone, would go so far as to strangle a dying child or even a dead child at that point seems so out there. I mean seriously, that is way way crazy town.

I get protecting Burke, I get covering up....I even think they are all a little "unique" for sure, but that step just seems nuts.

So here's one possibility perhaps, maybe the kids were playing a game with that rope, maybe it was something as innocent as playing kitty's and JBR was in a leash, like someone else suggested, or as extreme as sexual aggression.

But then something happens she starts to choke and can't get it off her or isn't is and doesn't try and end up snacking her over the had with the flashlight to get her to stop. The ME report talked about how the trachea was swollen.

My thought was perhaps after she was choked, btw the decreased BP from the head injury, and the swelling in her trachea from being strangled....could she have died of asphyxiation this way? Too much swelling, too little pressure...accounting for the time lapse btw the head blow and death?

 

[ThinkHard]

"If it was someone looped with the end if the line"? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've thought out how this device found on her neck (it isn't a "garrote") could have been used. If that's the case, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss someone else's theory based on your own misconceptions. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I'm truly trying to understand what you're saying.

More about the device that strangled JonBenet:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Strangulation-Devices&p=5721057#post5721057

I'm simply stating that in my opinion I don't think that knot could have been tied after she was chocked, I think it was already in place at that time. That is my opinion from viewing the photographic evidence. We don't have to agree, you and others are perfectly welcome to see it differently. There is no harm in that.

 

[YouWho]

Well, BR could make a ton of money on his biography or summit. But hoping for a conviction seems useless. If either John or Burke did it, they could easily blame Patsy at this point in time.
I'm beyond Who, I just wanna know Why JBR was killed.

If someday he did come clean (no chance), could the BPD sue him to recoup all the money they spent on the investigation? Team Ramsey outspent them. From '96 to ''01 their total expenditures were $1,705,251.21 (Foreign Faction). Dunno, maybe that's a factor as to why he'll never tell.

 

[johnjay]

"If it was someone looped with the end if the line"? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you've thought out how this device found on her neck (it isn't a "garrote") could have been used. If that's the case, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss someone else's theory based on your own misconceptions. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I'm truly trying to understand what you're saying.

More about the device that strangled JonBenet:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Strangulation-Devices&p=5721057#post5721057

Well I'd be happy to just call it a tourniquet.