Why Burke did not kill JonBenet

[Barbara]

Good point, nanandjim, but some BDIers, myself included, don't believe that the strangulation and sexual trauma were part of the staging. We believe Burke is responsible for both the strangulation and sexual trauma, as well as the head injury. There would be no way the Ramseys could pass the strangulation and sexual trauma off as accidental.

IMO

Also, had they come forward and told the truth, it would have been ruled accidental due to Burke's age on a "criminal" level. But on another level, Burke would have possibly had some mandatory placement for a time in a juvenile facility of some sort, even if for emotionally disturbed or for some other psychological treatment.

This would tarnish the family and with parents like the Ramseys, they would rather cover it up than have people think that there was bad parenting involved, especially since Patsy was so involved with JBR. That would have (rightly or not) reflected on Patsy's parenting with Burke.

Then the authorities who oversee juveniles who have committed "bad acts" would have to follow up, etc. and I'll bet any amount that the Ramseys just wouldn't stand for such an arrangement. HENCE, a cover up.

 

[Shylock]

What I don't understand is if Burke did hurt his sister, why wouldn't the Ramsey's call for help right away? Burke was very young. It would be considered an accident. They could say that he was swinging the golf club to scare his sister or whatever and he accidentally hit her. I think that it would have been ruled accidental death.

I just don't see the parents staging an elaborate coverup unless something more sinister were involved.

Hello nanandjim, how's this for "more sinister": Two other things point to Burke, the molestation which is best described as "childlike", and the dictionary being open and dog-eared to the word "incest".

One theory is that Burke hit her over the head because she started crying when he hurt her while playing "doctor". Because of the wood sliver found inside her, there is reason to believe he may have even inserted the paint stick into her, perhaps as a "doctor's tool".

If JonBenet showed signs of sexual molestation the parents couldn't have called for help and just said it was an accident. They wouldn't have known what would happen to Burke. They even tried looking up "incest" in the dictionary, hoping to find out more information on what Burke might be guilty of.

Nothing could have explained the molestation, and Burke would live the rest of his life known as "the kid who killed his beauty queen sister while molesting her". Everything the Ramseys did was to protect Burke--and it worked perfectly.

 

[Ivy]

Even if John and Patsy had known (it's possible they didn't) that in Colorado no one under the age of 10 can be charged with a crime, they might have thought they'd be stigmatized by what Burke did if the truth became known to the public.

According to Colorado law Burke did not commit a crime, so maybe he wouldn't have been placed in a treatment facility. I don't know...and the Ramseys may not have known either.

IMO

 

[Nedthan Johns]

For one to believe that Burke was involved, then one MUST believe he is capable of inflicting an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture with ONE swing. While I think this is entirely possible with perhaps a golf club (which is still among my consideration as the weapon that was used to inflict the wound) I have to ask myself, would a 9 year old boy, on Christmas night, excited with all the new toys he had received, and was gone most of the evening not having a chance to have played with them, be interested instead of playing Doctor with his little sister? Had the golf clubs been the weapon, and were originally kept in the basement, would 2 young children, be allowed late at night to be playing in that cold basement with out adult supervision? Would they want to be in that basement at 9:30-10:00 at night ALONE? It just doesn’t seem LOGICAL to me, knowing the mind of a 9-year-old kid. To me the head would screams “deliberate” in the fact that the blow was meant for JonBenet by someone who was inflicting it in a RAGE. Think about it, not even an intruder would have needed to strike her in that fashion. That head wound tells me, that someone lost COMPLETE CONTROL. Now you have to ask yourself, WHOM in that household was most likely to lose control, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? That answer is very clear to me, Patsy and ONLY Patsy. She was the ONLY one under TRMENDOUS pressure that evening. Christmas, packing for Michigan, pageant coming up to prepare for, Big Red Boat trip to prepare for, 40th Birthday approaching… that’s a lot on one person. Now add in the mix of a uncooperative 6 year old, and you have your recipe for this crime.


p.s. Let me say something about the golf clubs and why they are so important to this case. Blue fibers. Put yourself in Patsy’s place. You just inflicted a fatal blow to your child, she is limp and you believe you have killed her. You devise a plan to cover up the crime, and you carry her to the basement, where you find the rope, tape, and paintbrush sitting right there in the paint tote outside the boiler room. Everything used in the commission of this crime is RIGHT there in reach. Except for Burke’s knife which was probably grabbed when Patsy went to grab the blanket to cover JB with. So why wouldn’t Patsy also use something within REACH to wipe down the body? Why are there blue fibers found on JB that match NOTHING else found in that home? Why did John Ramsey so suddenly following the murder, have a desperate need for his golf clubs in the middle of WINTER? Why does a millionaire, own thousands of dollars worth of clubs but have NO covers for them? Sure the golf clubs are important to this case, but we need to be asking ourselves WHY?

 

[Ivy]

Many posters are underestimating Burke and what his capabilities were. Dr. Cyril Wecht stated that there was nothing that was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Dr. Michael Baden said that Burke needs to be looked at.

As the mom of two sons, now grown, I know from experience that many 9- and 10-year-old boys--even slender boys--are capable of physical feats that might be considered extraordinary by some. Burke would have been capable of administering the head blow regardless of what object he used. The nonsense about the great strength required to do it is pure Ramsey spin. (Speaking of what weapon was used, Dr. Specht performed tests on cadaver skulls in which he struck them with Maglites. The fractures were identical to JonBenet's, which led Specht to believe that the Ramseys' Maglite was the weapon used to clobber JonBenet.)

Burke also would have been capable of tying the ligature knot. When my sons were both around eight years old, they could tie various types of knots they'd learned about in Cub Scouts. One of my sons could tie complex knots behind his back, and the other was a master at tying cooked spaghetti into all kinds of special knots. They were no different from their friends, who were also whizzes at tying knots.

This case would have been solved long ago if Burke hadn't been given a free pass.

IMO

 

[Nedthan Johns]

good post. I certainly don’t feel Burke should be given a free pass. I would have to say that Hunter’s comment during one interview that stated “We would be surprised who the killer is” to me could ONLY mean Burke. But reconstructing the events of that night, I just have a hard time facturing in his involvement

 

[vicktor]

1. As observed by at least 1 other poster, it would have been foolhardy and risky to send Burke over to Fleet Whites, while they and their friends stayed home and agonized.

2. From all the power plays between the Ramseys and their lawyers and the BPD, Patsy and John felt they were the targets, and the D.A. and BPD gave them no reason to think otherwise. As indicated by some of the questions , the Ramseys took it personally. They never said much, or did much about Burke. With the exception of the school guard, which doesn't seem too far out, Burke was sort of untouched. If Burke had been involved, consciously, or unconsciously, they would have been doing a lot of covering for him. It would have been noticable.

3. All the Ramseys knew they were leaving on a trip early the next day. Patsy and John would have made sure Burke and JB were in bed or almost there, before retiring, seeing as they had to get up very early the next day. IMO, Burke would have realized that the 26th was going to be an exciting day, with lots happening and he wouldn't stay up playing knowing he had to get up early.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Burke would have realized that the 26th was going to be an exciting day, with lots happening and he wouldn't stay up playing knowing he had to get up early.

Ned: That's a funny statement. How many kids do YOU know that go to bed when they are told? Especially given the excitement of their new toys?

IN FACT, Burke gives quite a different account of the evening, and contradicts his parents when he stated that JonBenet was awake and helped carry in gifts. I never know why the Ramsey supporters just slough off this little bit of important testimony.

 

[Shylock]

All the Ramseys knew they were leaving on a trip early the next day. Patsy and John would have made sure Burke and JB were in bed or almost there, before retiring, seeing as they had to get up very early the next day.

I think you're VERY wrong on that one Victor. Have you seen the Ramsey's private plane? Can you think of a worse torture for an adult than to be inside a tiny plane like that, for HOURS, with two wound-up kids who are bored to death?

If anything, John and Patsy would have wanted the kids to stay up as late as possible so they slept the whole flight the next morning.

This is also what makes BlueCrab's theory about Doug Stine returning home with them possible. If the Ramseys wanted Burke to stay up late, they very well may have invited Doug to come home with them to see Burke's new Christmas toys. They may have been planning to drop Doug off at home on their way to the airport.

 

[vicktor]

Ned: That's a funny statement. How many kids do YOU know that go to bed when they are told? Especially given the excitement of their new toys?

IN FACT, Burke gives quite a different account of the evening, and contradicts his parents when he stated that JonBenet was awake and helped carry in gifts. I never know why the Ramsey supporters just slough off this little bit of important testimony.

That can happen. JB would have been in bed before her parents went upstairs for the night. John probably told Burke to go to bed for the trip, and indicated in some way he also was. Its doubtful if a fourth grader would stay up and play when everybody else was in bed, and the parents might have walked by his room to make sure. In general 4th graders aren't good at supervising themselves.

Although the last post didn't mention JB, on at least 2 occasions, I have noted that JB could have been up when they got home and probably helped herself to the pineapple at some point. Perhaps you might read back to acquaint yourself how this idea differs from common RST thinking.

 

[BlueCrab]

Britt,

None of the arguments you have listed above in this thread can be considered as exculpatory in favor of Burke.

As you know, it was virtually impossble for an intruder, unknown to the Ramseys, to have been in the house that night. No intruder on the face of this earth would spend hours in an occupied house molesting a six-year-old girl, murdering her, staging the crime to make it look like an intruder (which ridiculously would be HIMSELF), including writing a 3-page fake ransom note and, after all that, exiting the house without leaving a hard clue as to his having been there.

There was no intruder. That means at least one of the three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, or Burke -- was directly involved in the death of JonBenet. John has exculpatory DNA evidence, handwriting evidence and lie-detector evidence in his favor; and Patsy has exculpatory DNA evidence, handwriting evidence, and lie-detector evidence in her favor. Burke has no exculpatory evidence in his favor.

The process of elimination tells us that BURKE was the one likely involved in the death of JonBenet.

JMO

 

[Seeker]

1. As observed by at least 1 other poster, it would have been foolhardy and risky to send Burke over to Fleet Whites, while they and their friends stayed home and agonized.

Not if they told him (and I bet they did) not to say anything to anyone for any reason. NO CHILD is going to quietly just go away from home esp when they are anticipating going to the airport, and not ask questions about why all those people are there, why the cops are there and where his sister is!

2. From all the power plays between the Ramseys and their lawyers and the BPD, Patsy and John felt they were the targets, and the D.A. and BPD gave them no reason to think otherwise. As indicated by some of the questions , the Ramseys took it personally. They never said much, or did much about Burke. With the exception of the school guard, which doesn't seem too far out, Burke was sort of untouched. If Burke had been involved, consciously, or unconsciously, they would have been doing a lot of covering for him. It would have been noticable.

I disagree. Burke LIED to the cop who interviewed him while he was at the White's the very day this all happened. Burke has been in therapy for literally years according to his parents. Burke is/was a weird kid who smeared his own feces on the wall and talked to himself at school and described how he thought about his sister in a series of nintendo game type beeps (talk about detachment!) Burke was probably told to tell anyone who asked him if he heard anything that he was asleep. Kids who are almost 10 years old ask a zillion and one questions about things, esp things that are happening in and around their home unless their parents instruct them to keep their mouths shut.

3. All the Ramseys knew they were leaving on a trip early the next day. Patsy and John would have made sure Burke and JB were in bed or almost there, before retiring, seeing as they had to get up very early the next day. IMO, Burke would have realized that the 26th was going to be an exciting day, with lots happening and he wouldn't stay up playing knowing he had to get up early.

You don't have kids do you? When kids are excited about upcoming events they usually don't fall right to sleep and sleep the entire night through. Often times they wake up in the middle of the night....

 

[Nedthan Johns]

what a contradictory statement:

Its doubtful if a fourth grader would stay up and play when everybody else was in bed, and the parents might have walked by his room to make sure. In general 4th graders aren't good at supervising themselves.

I have noted that JB could have been up when they got home and probably helped herself to the pineapple at some point. Perhaps you might read back to acquaint yourself how this idea differs from common RST thinking.

Ned: So one can be up out of bed to eat pineapple, but the other not to play his nintendo? Read the Ramsey's statement's again Vicktor,

The Ramsey’s claim that JonBenet was ASLEEP when they arrived home and Patsy put her into bed. Patsy admitted to being up packing for about another hour.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

This is also what makes BlueCrab's theory about Doug Stine returning home with them possible. If the Ramseys wanted Burke to stay up late, they very well may have invited Doug to come home with them to see Burke's new Christmas toys. They may have been planning to drop Doug off at home on their way to the airport.


Ned: Could be why the Stines, quit their job and moved across the country for the Ramsey's. By the way where are the Stines today?

 

[Britt]

None of the arguments you have listed above in this thread can be considered as exculpatory in favor of Burke.

Of course not, because no one who was known to be in the house that night can be exculpated since all of the evidence is circumstantial.

Not only that, it is a staged, phony crime scene.

There is no exculpatory evidence in favor of any of the three Ramseys because all of the evidence proves only who staged the crime scene and not who actually killed JB. And the staging hides/confuses the truth of what happened.

The phrase exculpatory evidence in this context is meaningless. Ditto the phrase process of elimination. None of the three Ramseys can be eliminated as the perp.

In fact, one of the items you use to "exculpate" Patsy does in fact inculpate her: that is, that she cannot be eliminated by any expert as the note writer. How you deem this "exculpatory" I have no clue. Even following your logic, it would be "almost" exculpatory, which is like being "almost" not guilty... laughably meaningless since you either are or you aren't

Circumstantial evidence is, obviously, evidence based on inference. The most direct interference we can make from staging is that the stager staged for herself. The fiber evidence entwined in the garrote, on the sticky side of the tape and all over the crime scene, as well as lack of exclusion as notewriter, prove Patsy is the stager. Therefore, she is the perp.

And to paraphrase BrotherMoon, since Patsy did it, Burke DIDN'T.

 

[Shylock]

The most direct interference we can make from staging is that the stager staged for herself. The fiber evidence entwined in the garrote, on the sticky side of the tape and all over the crime scene, as well as lack of exclusion as notewriter, prove Patsy is the stager. Therefore, she is the perp.

Britt, there's no way John Ramsey would have stayed with the woman who killed the second daughter he lost. Why would he, so she have a crack at killing his young son in the future too???

Patsy staged the crime scene alright--with John's help. The two of them concocted the whole "intruder/kidnapping" scenerio to protect someone. The logical conclusion is that someone is Burke.

 

[Britt]

Britt, there's no way John Ramsey would have stayed with the woman who killed the second daughter he lost. Why would he, so she have a crack at killing his young son in the future too???

Patsy staged the crime scene alright--with John's help. The two of them concocted the whole "intruder/kidnapping" scenerio to protect someone. The logical conclusion is that someone is Burke.

I agree with you, Shylock, but IMO the someones they were protecting were their own bad selves.

IMO John was molesting JonBenet. I believe it's even likely they both "killed" her, e.g. Patsy causing the initial near-death either by choking or head blow, and John finishing her off by one of the same two means.

But even if John didn't molest JB, I'm not so sure he wouldn't have stayed with Patsy anyway, especially if he thought JB's death was an accident not likely to be repeated with Burke... or if he thought Patsy was mentally ill and he proceeded to get her professional help and heavy medication and "fixed" the problem (typical arrogant CEO thinking, yes?).

However, in this circumstantial case, all that stuff is theory. In my post above, I was making the point that based solely on the known evidence and using logical inference, Patsy is the perp. IMO if the case were tried based on the known evidence, Patsy could easily be convicted even if the truth was more complicated. Know what I mean?

 

[BlueCrab]

Of course not, because no one who was known to be in the house that night can be exculpated since all of the evidence is circumstantial.

Britt,

The case against Burke is not based on circumstantial evidence.

DNA evidence is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke has never been excluded as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.)

Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple is not circumstantial evidence. (The prints put him downstairs with JonBenet about 2 hours before she died.)

Burke's voice on the 911 tape is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke lied to the cops about being in bed at 5:52 A.M.)

Burke's Hi-Tec bootprint next to JonBenet's body is not circumstantial evidence. (The Ramseys originally lied about the Hi-Tec boots even existing.)

The ransom note is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the writer.)

JMO

 

[Britt]

The case against Burke is not based on circumstantial evidence.

What, you got a videotape of the crime, or an eyewitness who's talking?

DNA evidence is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke has never been excluded as the contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.)

He is a Ramsey, is he not? The foreign DNA is reportedly male and not a Ramsey. If you're going to exclude Burke from that distinction, then you must also exclude John and John Andrew.

Besides, it can't be dated nor connected to the crime and it doesn't prove who killed JB.

Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple is not circumstantial evidence.

Patsy's prints are also on the bowl. How do the fingerprints on the bowl prove who the killer is? Fingerprints on the bowl, especially from two residents of the home, can't tell us how or when they got there, much less be connected to the crime.

(The prints put him downstairs with JonBenet about 2 hours before she died.)

How exactly do they do that? And what about Patsy? Why use the prints to implicate Burke and not Patsy? How do you know John wasn't there, too, but just didn't touch the bowl? The fact that JB ate pineapple two hours before her death certainly can't prove who killed her.

Burke's voice on the 911 tape is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke lied to the cops about being in bed at 5:52 A.M.)

John's voice is on the tape, too. John lied, too. How does this make Burke the perp and not John?

And how does it prove Burke did anything more than what his parents ordered him to do so they could cover for themselves? The enhanced 911 call also includes John's voice basically telling Burke to shut the hell up. How does the call prove anything more than John was controlling Burke and the kid did as he was told?

Burke's Hi-Tec bootprint next to JonBenet's body is not circumstantial evidence. (The Ramseys originally lied about the Hi-Tec boots even existing.)

Again, can't be dated nor connected to the crime.

The ransom note is not circumstantial evidence. (Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the writer.)

Where is the published analysis of Burke's handwriting?

In any case, the ransom note is absolutely circumstantial: it is connected to the cover-up but can't prove who the killer is.

Even if Burke did write it, Patsy's fibers are all over the crime scene, proving only that they were both involved in the cover-up. How would you know who did what? How would you know Burke didn't accidentally hit JB and Patsy or John strangled her, making one of them the actual killer?

 

[Britt]

IN FACT, Burke gives quite a different account of the evening, and contradicts his parents when he stated that JonBenet was awake and helped carry in gifts. I never know why the Ramsey supporters just slough off this little bit of important testimony.

Excellent question, Ned. Do Ramsey supporters think Burke is lying about that? Why would he lie? And if he did lie, then of course he could be lying about other things as well, right? Maybe even lying about his involvement in the crime. Question for Ramsey supporters: is Burke a liar or not?