Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS #2

New Posts

andreww,

There are 2 sets of prints on the pineapple bowl. Patsy's and Burke's.

BODE tested four areas on the nightgown. Of three of the four areas Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded as possible contributors.

Cannot be included or excluded means inconclusive.

Decoding the DNA reports in the JonBenet Ramsey case

John and NOT Burke admitted to using the flashlight that night. (EDIT: John did NOT admit this. Dr. Phil said John said it. Phil was either mistaken or got an inside scoop from John.)

I don't ever remember anyone asking Burke whether or not he remembers being present during the 911 call.

An alternative explanation for John and Patsy coming together so quickly to stage is that both were responsible for the homicide. Remember, there were two elements to the murder.
 
Last edited:
Swirlz said:
I've been shocked by the judgement and anger that have been heaped on Burke Ramsey and especially on a forum like this one where people tend to be sensitive to child victims. I don't think there is any proof at all to support that he committed the homicide. I can't believe the way he's been torn down for stuff like not being able to recognize pineapple or for squirming and acting anxious as a child during police interviews.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. Bottom line at the moment no one on this board knows for sure what happened but lets say he did not do it and I do not think he did what a nasty thing to have happen to you. First you have your sister murdered and live in the shadow of this and then you are accused of the murder by people who frankly should know better(by this I mean former FBI Agents).
 
Swirlz said:
andreww,

There are 2 sets of prints on the pineapple bowl. Patsy's and Burke's.

BODE tested four areas on the nightgown. Of three of the four areas Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded as possible contributors.

Cannot be included or excluded means inconclusive.

Decoding the DNA reports in the JonBenet Ramsey case

John and NOT Burke admitted to using the flashlight that night.

I don't ever remember anyone asking Burke whether or not he remembers being present during the 911 call.

An alternative explanation for John and Patsy coming together so quickly to stage is that both were responsible for the homicide. Remember, there were two elements to the murder.
Click to expand...
Sorry, been a few years since I've studied this case.

But yes, Burke is confirmed by fingerprints (not DNA) to be in the breakfast area eating pineapple.

I seem to recall that Burke's DNA was definitely on one of the pieces of clothing JBR had on that night? Can someone clarify?

John admitted that he left the flashlight in Burke's room. How it got down to the kitchen is the big question.

Burke first said he was sleeping during the 911 call, then he was fake sleeping, then his voice showed up on the enhanced 911 call.
 
Why couldn't the bowl of pineapple have been out there all afternoon (or longer, given Patsy's housekeeping)? Fingerprints alone can't place Burke at the table at the same time as JonBenet.

His DNA on the nightgown found in the blanket is interesting, but it's unlikely that JonBenet was actually wearing that at the time of the crime. Photos from Christmas morning show JonBenet wearing thermals. And she was probably put to bed Christmas night in what she was going to wear on the plane.

If Burke was awake at the time of the call, it doesn't mean he was awake all night.

People decided that Burke did it and then looked for "evidence" to support that position. Kolar as much as said this is what he did: no evidence of an intruder; John was asleep upstairs; Patsy wouldn't kill her kid over bedwetting. Who does that leave?

Patsy did some of it, as evidenced by the ransom note, and she could have done all of it.
 
Last edited:
Swirlz said:
andreww,

There are 2 sets of prints on the pineapple bowl. Patsy's and Burke's.

BODE tested four areas on the nightgown. Of three of the four areas Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded as possible contributors.

Cannot be included or excluded means inconclusive.

Decoding the DNA reports in the JonBenet Ramsey case

John and NOT Burke admitted to using the flashlight that night. (EDIT: John did NOT admit this. Dr. Phil said John said it. Phil was either mistaken or got an inside scoop from John.)

I don't ever remember anyone asking Burke whether or not he remembers being present during the 911 call.

An alternative explanation for John and Patsy coming together so quickly to stage is that both were responsible for the homicide. Remember, there were two elements to the murder.
Click to expand...
 
For the sake of veracity, BR tDNA is on all four areas of the nightgown that were tested. Cannot be excluded is powerful DNA evidence. Said persons DNA is mixed with another profile. It means said persons DNA is present.

BR told the Grand Jury in 1999, that the voice on the 911 tape sounded like his.
 
I hope Cold Justice can work this case.
Kelly Siegler Rocks,and team Rock.
 
Cottonstar said:
For the sake of veracity, BR tDNA is on all four areas of the nightgown that were tested. Cannot be excluded is powerful DNA evidence. Said persons DNA is mixed with another profile. It means said persons DNA is present.

BR told the Grand Jury in 1999, that the voice on the 911 tape sounded like his.
Click to expand...

I can't even recognize my voice on tape now. My current voice. What are the chances I could reliably identify my voice as a child?

But of course, chances are that if there is a boy's voice on the tape, it's Burke's. What of it? With an uproar going on, it would be more suspicious if he stayed in bed. If he did in fact say, "What did you find?" that actually goes toward innocence because nobody would have been finding anything. They would have spent the whole night covering up a murder that all three know has happened.

I guess we're assuming the nightgown had been washed, that DNA was destroyed in the wash/dry cycle so any DNA must be new and additionally that placement of the DNA is suspicious? How about transfer of Burke DNA from Patsy to the nightgown? Maybe Patsy planted Burke's DNA. The first conviction based on DNA was in 1987.
 
fr brown said:
I can't even recognize my voice on tape now. My current voice. What are the chances I could reliably identify my voice as a child?

But of course, chances are that if there is a boy's voice on the tape, it's Burke's. What of it? With an uproar going on, it would be more suspicious if he stayed in bed. If he did in fact say, "What did you find?" that actually goes toward innocence because nobody would have been finding anything. They would have spent the whole night covering up a murder that all three know has happened.

I guess we're assuming the nightgown had been washed, that DNA was destroyed in the wash/dry cycle so any DNA must be new and additionally that placement of the DNA is suspicious? How about transfer of Burke DNA from Patsy to the nightgown? Maybe Patsy planted Burke's DNA. The first conviction based on DNA was in 1987.
Click to expand...
You seem to be just making theoretical excuses for things that we know to be fact? You are correct in doing so, however, the Ramsey's clearly stated the Burke was not present during the 911 call and that he didn't get out of bed until John got him to go to Fleet White's. In this case, I find many times its not what did or didn't happen that is important, its why the Ramsey's chose to lie about those things. My guess, in the case of Burke, was that he was up with his parents. He couldn't be trusted to keep his story straight so he was told to go to bed and say he didn't know anything prior to whoever coming to wake him up. Simple as that.
 
andreww said:
You seem to be just making theoretical excuses for things that we know to be fact? You are correct in doing so, however, the Ramsey's clearly stated the Burke was not present during the 911 call and that he didn't get out of bed until John got him to go to Fleet White's. In this case, I find many times its not what did or didn't happen that is important, its why the Ramsey's chose to lie about those things. My guess, in the case of Burke, was that he was up with his parents. He couldn't be trusted to keep his story straight so he was told to go to bed and say he didn't know anything prior to whoever coming to wake him up. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which facts you're talking about. It's true that I'm advancing alternate plausible explanations for things that other people are taking for granted. I don't actually care who did it, but in the unlikely event it turns out to be an intruder I will feel big remorse.

I looked at John's first interview. Unless I'm missing it, he isn't actually asked if Burke was present during the 911 call. The narrative John gives is that when he discovered the ransom note, he went to check on Burke, found him asleep, and then went back downstairs. Later in the interview he says that Burke was "still asleep" upstairs. You could argue that's implying that Burke didn't get up at all, but Burke did go back to bed because a policeman found him there and I think Burke was either sleeping or just play sleeping.

Patsy is asked in her first interview and she does explicitly deny that Burke was present for the 911 call.

I'm wondering if you have children because I don't think anything could keep my daughter up all night, not even murdering someone. But say Burke was up all night (and I'm not admitting that he was because I can't make anything out of that tape at all), why would someone who has been present for the whole thing and knows what's going on ask, "What did you find?" It's not to mislead the 911 operator because Patsy had ostensibly hung up.
 
fr brown said:
Why couldn't the bowl of pineapple have been out there all afternoon (or longer, given Patsy's housekeeping)? Fingerprints alone can't place Burke at the table at the same time as JonBenet.

His DNA on the nightgown found in the blanket is interesting, but it's unlikely that JonBenet was actually wearing that at the time of the crime. Photos from Christmas morning show JonBenet wearing thermals. And she was probably put to bed Christmas night in what she was going to wear on the plane.

If Burke was awake at the time of the call, it doesn't mean he was awake all night.

People decided that Burke did it and then looked for "evidence" to support that position. Kolar as much as said this is what he did: no evidence of an intruder; John was asleep upstairs; Patsy wouldn't kill her kid over bedwetting. Who does that leave?

Patsy did some of it, as evidenced by the ransom note, and she could have done all of it.
Click to expand...

1. What does it matter how long it was there? JBR consumed pineapple AFTER they arrived home. Further, the bowl was almost full, so whoever was going to have pineapple became distracted and didn’t finish. JBR and BR and PR are all connected to that bowl of pineapple. Add to that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied about putting the pineapple there, recognizing the dishes associated with the pineapple, and even pretending not to know it is pineapple!!

2. Interesting? It is more than that. On DNA samples from the nightgown, PR and BR could not be excluded as contributors. On the other sample, BR could not be excluded as a contributor. So, why is BR’s DNA on four spots of the nightgown that also has bloodstains on it? Now we have two circumstances that tie PR, BR and PR together near the time she was killed.

3.OK, but it does mean that he is in the room during the 911 call and knows something is going on; probably even that JBR is ‘missing.’ Why then, just a few minutes later, when the police arrive, is he back in bed pretending to be sleeping. Obviously he is put there by his parents. Why are they putting him out of sight? They should all be looking through the house for JBR. They should be asking him what he knows; if he heard anything. They should be hugging him and squeezing him and thinking the heavens above that he has not been kidnapped as well.

4. You could say the same thing for ‘IDI.” There is no evidence of an outsider! People could not fathom a mother or father or brother being responsible for such horrible acts. The Ramsey’s were a loving, Christian family! Their DNA is everywhere because they live there and it’s just a coincidence that their DNA and fibers are directly embedded into incriminating pieces of the crime scene!! The Ramsey’s were affluent and had connections; Politics took over and IDI was invented. Pro-Ramsey folk jumped headfirst onto that bandwagon courtesy of LS. They just had to make up some evidence to support it. The intruder who forgot to bring even one thing that he needed for his kidnapping/assault plan. The Ramsey house turned out to have everything he needed! He even took some souvenirs with him; I guess that’s why he forgot to take JBR’s body, because his hands were full. So much for the ransom money. No sense calling between 8 and 10 am anymore. Absolutely stellar how he was in the house for so many hours and left not a trace of evidence.

As to Mr. Kolar, he was an investigator on this case. It was his job to delve into the behavior and dynamics of those who were in the house that night. During his investigation he learned of BR’s scatological behavior and was compelled to learn more about this disorder. His research led him down many dark paths and his conclusion was drawn from the information that he gathered and interpreted, as well as the evidence, as it all logically related to this crime.

You can’t eliminate BR just because he is a child! That is just not good enough. You have to look at physical evidence, behaviors, inconsistencies and lies. He is connected to the pineapple ‘set-up’ and the DNA on the Barbie Nightgown. He was witnessed to have a volatile temper, even hitting JBR once before with a golf club. He had a problem with depositing fecal matter throughout the house. This child had some behavioral issues whether you want to believe it or not. .

5. Agreed. PR is involved to some extent, as is JR.
 
jaejae said:
Good post. Of course I do not know but I am in the intruder camp. I know there are others that may not agree but I believe Lou Smit more or less solved the case but just did not have the suspect to put to his theory.
Click to expand...

But it looks like Patsy wrote the ransom note, right? There's the handwriting and the changes she made in her handwriting after she got a copy of the ransom note. In addition to that there is the link between SBTC in Psalm 35 and Patsy's "life-saving" psalm, Psalm 57. The Ramseys could argue that an intruder came across the Bible open to Psalm 35 and used it for his sign-off. They could argue that, but they don't. Patsy acts like she doesn't even know what they're talking about when the Bible is brought up. When she finally acknowledges that there's a Bible that lived in the study next to her bedroom, she denies ever reading it and ties that Bible pretty tightly around John's neck. Everybody on the Ramsey side tries to ignore that Bible and SBTC in Psalm 35.

In The Other Side of Suffering, John says he read Psalm 34 to Patsy on her deathbed. Psalm 34 in the NIV Study Bible shares a page with Psalm 35. It's not something you'd read to a beloved wife who is dying young. For one thing it says that if you want to have a long, happy life, you should keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. No wonder she was, as John tells us, crying when he finished reading it.
 
NanaNZA said:
1. What does it matter how long it was there? JBR consumed pineapple AFTER they arrived home. Further, the bowl was almost full, so whoever was going to have pineapple became distracted and didn’t finish. JBR and BR and PR are all connected to that bowl of pineapple. Add to that with the fact that the Ramsey's have lied about putting the pineapple there, recognizing the dishes associated with the pineapple, and even pretending not to know it is pineapple!!
....
You can’t eliminate BR just because he is a child! That is just not good enough. You have to look at physical evidence, behaviors, inconsistencies and lies. He is connected to the pineapple ‘set-up’ and the DNA on the Barbie Nightgown. He was witnessed to have a volatile temper, even hitting JBR once before with a golf club. He had a problem with depositing fecal matter throughout the house. This child had some behavioral issues whether you want to believe it or not. .

5. Agreed. PR is involved to some extent, as is JR.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're not serious because Burke did not have a problem with "depositing fecal matter throughout the house." He was accused of smearing poop on his bathroom wall once when he was six.

In order for Burke to have struck JonBenet (for stealing pineapple, in Kolar's vivid imagining) he had to be present. If Burke's prints were put on the bowl earlier in the day, he isn't necessarily there at the same time as JonBenet when she was struck.

I wouldn't eliminate Burke, I just don't see evidence that he was involved. The police (even Kolar originally) think John slept through the night. That's probably because they found evidence corroborating John's version of getting up and taking a shower, shaving, etc. If the Ramseys' alibi is that they were both in bed sleeping when events were taking place, it's striking that neither one of them looked like they'd just gotten out of bed. I'd make sure we were both in pajamas clutching teddy bears before I made the 911 call.
 
fr brown said:
But it looks like Patsy wrote the ransom note, right? There's the handwriting and the changes she made in her handwriting after she got a copy of the ransom note. In addition to that there is the link between SBTC in Psalm 35 and Patsy's "life-saving" psalm, Psalm 57. The Ramseys could argue that an intruder came across the Bible open to Psalm 35 and used it for his sign-off. They could argue that, but they don't. Patsy acts like she doesn't even know what they're talking about when the Bible is brought up. When she finally acknowledges that there's a Bible that lived in the study next to her bedroom, she denies ever reading it and ties that Bible pretty tightly around John's neck. Everybody on the Ramsey side tries to ignore that Bible and SBTC in Psalm 35.

In The Other Side of Suffering, John says he read Psalm 34 to Patsy on her deathbed. Psalm 34 in the NIV Study Bible shares a page with Psalm 35. It's not something you'd read to a beloved wife who is dying young. For one thing it says that if you want to have a long, happy life, you should keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. No wonder she was, as John tells us, crying when he finished reading it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply. We all have our theories but I do no believe Patsy wrote the Ransom Note I believe an intruder wrote the note before the crime basically as a sick 'joke'. That is my belief but of course I do not know and she may have. Would just like to add I do not believe the study of handwriting is a precise science so it could easily have been a male who wrote the note.
 
jaejae said:
Thanks for the reply. We all have our theories but I do no believe Patsy wrote the Ransom Note I believe an intruder wrote the note before the crime basically as a sick 'joke'. That is my belief but of course I do not know and she may have. Would just like to add I do not believe the study of handwriting is a precise science so it could easily have been a male who wrote the note.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. You obviously haven't studied the letter. I did an extensive letter by letter comparison between the ransom note and a sample of Patsy's handwriting prior to the crime. There were certain letters that she wrote very distinctively and they each matched the ransom note to a tee. Then I compared a post crime sample of her handwriting, and guess what. Every single one of those distinct characters had changed. Patsy wrote that note, and if studied properly, even a two year old could see it.
 
Tortoise said:
I can recommend listening to this Weblseuths Radio show featuring Tricia's interview with Cina Wong - handwriting expert who analysed the ransom note. I think it may change your mind if you don't think Patsy wrote the note.
Websleuths Radio and JonBenet
Click to expand...

The early edition of Sex, Lies, and Handwriting by Michelle Dresbold contain a lot of Cina Wong's comparisons (unattributed). Later editions won't have them because Wong objected (rightly so).

When Patsy provided her first exemplar of the note, Arndt dictated it to her without providing hints about spelling or punctuation (if she followed standard practice). On that pass, Patsy wrote the sentence containing "situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will" just as it appears in the ransom note--every comma and period in place--except that she failed to capitalize Police and did capitalize being. (Patsy shares a penchant for random capitalization with the ransom note writer.) Her exemplars two and three Patsy probably copied from her first exemplar. And though she didn't capitalize police on her first pass, she does capitalize it on the third--but now she's also removing the periods from F.B.I.

After that session on January 4, Patsy's lawyers are provided with a xerox of the ransom note. Patsy comes back on February 28 for two more exemplars. Having studied a copy of the ransom note she writes:

situation such as police, FBI, etcetera will

and

situation such as police, FBI etcetera, will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 4,038 (members: 174, guests: 3,864)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
3,864
Total visitors
4,038
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,844
Messages
17,959,924
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top