Why Not Burke?

So I keep wondering this...if a foreign faction attacked and murdered Jonbenet, why didn't they target Burke also or instead?

When I hear the words "foreign faction", I think of people who are non-Westerners. Certainly not Americans. Most cultures that are not Western are rather male-based and oriented, meaning the emphasis is placed on the importance of the male offspring over female. Why would a foreign faction attack the daughter and not the son of the business man they don't respect? I doubt they were Europeans, despite correct usage of French accent marks. It just seems odd to me that a foreign faction would go after the daughter in attempt to get the father, and not even touch the son. And considering he was only nine years old, I have a hard time seeing how a couple of people sneaking into a house on Christmas night and attacking a little girl would completely overlook the son that was right there sleeping away himself. Why not attack him, or both of them? Why not kidnap both children and really stick it to John Ramsey, if that was their goal? Why not demand double the ransom for both kids, if this was a kidnapping, and why not kill both children, if this was a murder? It would have been easy enough to slit his throat while he was asleep...for that matter, why not slit JR's throat while he sleeps, if he's the one they want to get?

There was no foreign faction. There was no kidnapping. Only a pathetic amateur Ramsey cover-up.

Nuisanceposter said:

So I keep wondering this...if a foreign faction attacked and murdered Jonbenet, why didn't they target Burke also or instead?

When I hear the words "foreign faction", I think of people who are non-Westerners. Certainly not Americans. Most cultures that are not Western are rather male-based and oriented, meaning the emphasis is placed on the importance of the male offspring over female. Why would a foreign faction attack the daughter and not the son of the business man they don't respect? I doubt they were Europeans, despite correct usage of French accent marks. It just seems odd to me that a foreign faction would go after the daughter in attempt to get the father, and not even touch the son. And considering he was only nine years old, I have a hard time seeing how a couple of people sneaking into a house on Christmas night and attacking a little girl would completely overlook the son that was right there sleeping away himself. Why not attack him, or both of them? Why not kidnap both children and really stick it to John Ramsey, if that was their goal? Why not demand double the ransom for both kids, if this was a kidnapping, and why not kill both children, if this was a murder? It would have been easy enough to slit his throat while he was asleep...for that matter, why not slit JR's throat while he sleeps, if he's the one they want to get?

There was no foreign faction. There was no kidnapping. Only a pathetic amateur Ramsey cover-up.

Click to expand...

Logic is a wonderful thing!:clap:

QUOTE>>Only a pathetic amateur Ramsey cover-up.<<

Well it wasnt that pathetic and amateurist. Their cover up worked! They have not been charged for his crime.

wasn't a target? That there might not have been a note brought in talking about a "son" and not a "daughter?"

narlacat said:

QUOTE>>Only a pathetic amateur Ramsey cover-up.<<

Well it wasnt that pathetic and amateurist. Their cover up worked! They have not been charged for his crime.

Click to expand...

Logistically, JBR was much further away from the parents. They may have seen signs that she was a beloved child--ie: pageant and picture evidence. Then again, if a sadistic pedophile, that preferred females, he wanted JBR--and she was smaller and more defenseless.

Maikai said:

wasn't a target? That there might not have been a note brought in talking about a "son" and not a "daughter?"



Logistically, JBR was much further away from the parents. They may have seen signs that she was a beloved child--ie: pageant and picture evidence. Then again, if a sadistic pedophile, that preferred females, he wanted JBR--and she was smaller and more defenseless.

Click to expand...

I think that sadist pedophile was John, JBR was killed in the process of sexually abusing her, that's why Burke wasn't targeted, and the Ramsey's covered it up.

LinasK said:

I think that sadist pedophile was John, JBR was killed in the process of sexually abusing her, that's why Burke wasn't targeted, and the Ramsey's covered it up.

Click to expand...

You are probably right about this. And Patsy went into overdrive to hide this unthinkable. Or she actually did this herself in a rage that Jonbenet would be so unthinking to her pain. Afterall, this was her husband not Jonbenet's. In any case, this is a very dysfunctional family. The only victim as far as I can see is Jonbenet Ramsey. A little girl.

QUOTE>>How do you know Burke
wasn't a target? That there might not have been a note brought in talking about a "son" and not a "daughter?" <<

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.....there was only one ransom note and it didn't mention the Ramsey's son, it mentioned their daughter.
We know Burke wasn't a target because he is alive and well, it wasn't him that ended up dead in the basement remember, it was his little sister.
In fact,seems to me his parents were not at all worried about the safety of their son that morning, they let him go with people they would later accuse of mudering their daughter.....they sent him back to school three weeks later with no LE protection.

concernedperson said:

You are probably right about this. And Patsy went into overdrive to hide this unthinkable. Or she actually did this herself in a rage that Jonbenet would be so unthinking to her pain. Afterall, this was her husband not Jonbenet's. In any case, this is a very dysfunctional family. The only victim as far as I can see is Jonbenet Ramsey. A little girl.

Click to expand...

Just finally finished DOI. I have never decided who did what, but I did find I did not like this family. I agree they were dysfunctional. But they seem to think they were leading a storybook life being involved in social functions.
Patsy felt God talked to her, sent her sister a vision from JonBenet. Even given that some people feel that way, she is a headcase. The children were put on show, Patsy was Johns trophy wife, IMO.
Making everything go thru their attorneys is what I think kept this case from being solved. I don't know if it was done because of guilt or arrogance. Though they say they cooperated it was thru attorneys for when where and how they wanted things set up. If they had just at down or went to the police station and answered questions openly and they were innocent he police would have eventually moved away from focusing on them. I don't recall ever seeing a parent lawyer up within a few days that were innocent.
Like I say, it may just be the way they thought it was what they should do having some money and all.
They seemed to relish getting one over on the press. Every outing was planned to change cars or someone wear a wig to look like Patsy. Devious ways. If you run you will be pursued. If like Mark Lunsford you call on the press to help they will put out the word for you. These poor parents that loose their children want media coverage. They all feel like the police suspect them because they are suspects. Family always is. But they bite back their anger and deal with it. Steve Groene felt very upset being told he failed a polygraph. He wasn't one to talk much in public but he did go on talk shows. He set up a time and I think even had an attorney but he talked openly with the police. He had to be grief stricken during that time. Lost his ex wife a son and 2 other children missing.
There was no foreign faction of course, the murder was sexual. There certainly maybe an intruder, but the R's actions were indications of what a guilty person would do. And women do stay with men that molested their children or even murdered them. I can see her covering up for it just because she didn't want anyone to know. Women choose husbands over their children all the time.

Here are some people who lawyered up (including the Ramseys.) Emphasis mine.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/chamberlain1/8.html

The Chamberlains moved to their new home in Cooranbong, close to Avondale College, only days before the inquest was to begin in Alice Springs. After they had been interviewed by the police, they sought legal advice from a friend of Michael's in Innisfail. He advised them that the inquest would be a simple affair with no need for a solicitor to represent them.

Dr. Magnusson from Avondale College, who had helped them with the arrangements for their move, was shocked when they told him of the advice they had been given. With their permission, he rang a lawyer friend who was adamant that, because of the tone of the police inquiry, they should get someone to represent them immediately.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/30/national/main692164.shtml

Attention in the case has turned to fiancé John Mason, a 32-year-old office manager who teaches a Sunday school class and coaches his church's youth basketball team. Mason has refused to take a police polygraph test except under conditions outlined by his attorney, Belcher said.

The fiancé's lawyer turned in results from a privately administered polygraph, which family members said he passed, but Belcher said police still wanted to talk to him.

The fiancé and his lawyer have requested the police polygraph to be videotaped, something Belcher said no law enforcement agency "that's worth anything" would do. Belcher said negotiations about the polygraph would continue. Mason's lawyer did not immediately return phone calls to elaborate.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30385

Greta is planning to cover this tonight...
Taylor Behl's loved ones have their worst fears confirmed: Using dental records, Virginia police positively identified the body of 17-year-old college student.

We'll be joined by Taylor's mother, Janet Palesara, and her attorney, George Peterson.

Plus, we'll get an update on the investigation from Richmond Police Chief Rodney Monroe.

more at link



http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/lindbergh/crime_2.html

By this time, Lindbergh's lawyer and friend, Henry C. Breckinridge, had arrived.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

At that point, John and Patsy were placed under police protection but were largely unaware of the mounting suspicion against them. One man, however, saw the early warning signs and acted. Mike Bynum, a lawyer friend of John's hired Brian Morgan to act as their personal council. In the same documentary Bynum defended his appointment, stating: -

"It is foolish to blindly throw oneself into the maw of the justice system and to trust the result. One simply must be thoughtful about the way one acts, especially in a case of media attention that reaches the point of near hysteria and especially in a case of media attention which, from the outset, portrays certain people as clearly guilty."

He also defended the need for legal representation: - "If you're guilty, you want to think about having a lawyer, and I want to tell you what, if you're innocent you better have a lawyer - there is no difference."

narlacat said:

QUOTE>>How do you know Burke
wasn't a target? That there might not have been a note brought in talking about a "son" and not a "daughter?" <<

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.....there was only one ransom note and it didn't mention the Ramsey's son, it mentioned their daughter.
We know Burke wasn't a target because he is alive and well, it wasn't him that ended up dead in the basement remember, it was his little sister.
In fact,seems to me his parents were not at all worried about the safety of their son that morning, they let him go with people they would later accuse of mudering their daughter.....they sent him back to school three weeks later with no LE protection.

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is, if ransom was a motive, Burke could have been the original target, but once the perp(s) entered the house and saw the layout, switched to JBR, because she was further away and easier to get to. There was a lot of planning and preparation that went behind Burke's returning to school---done so as to not alarm the children.

Getting Burke out of the house was a smart thing to do---so he wouldn't be traumatized by what was going on---and there were plenty of people at the White's.

Regardless of IDI or RDI, I have always wondered about the statement: "We do respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves." "Bussiness" seems to go with "kissiness" and seems consistent with a suspect who really wanted to hurt JR by hurting his daughter. That suspect would know about JR's past loss of his other daughter. After all, the last paragraph implies that the suspect knew JR personally.

Maikai said:

What I'm trying to say is, if ransom was a motive, Burke could have been the original target, but once the perp(s) entered the house and saw the layout, switched to JBR, because she was further away and easier to get to. There was a lot of planning and preparation that went behind Burke's returning to school---done so as to not alarm the children.

Getting Burke out of the house was a smart thing to do---so he wouldn't be traumatized by what was going on---and there were plenty of people at the White's.

Click to expand...

Why ask for such a pidly amount of money if ransom was the motive??
John Ramsey was a multi millionaire....he could most certainly have scraped up more than $118 000.

Rupert said:

Regardless of IDI or RDI, I have always wondered about the statement: "We do respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves." "Bussiness" seems to go with "kissiness" and seems consistent with a suspect who really wanted to hurt JR by hurting his daughter. That suspect would know about JR's past loss of his other daughter. After all, the last paragraph implies that the suspect knew JR personally.

Click to expand...

Wow and I thought I had a vivid imagination!
How you get "kissiness" out of "bussiness" is a connection I never would have made!
How do you come to the conclusion that "kissiness" seems consistent with someone wanting to get at John Ramsey by hurting his daughter??

Maikai said:

What I'm trying to say is, if ransom was a motive, Burke could have been the original target, but once the perp(s) entered the house and saw the layout, switched to JBR, because she was further away and easier to get to. There was a lot of planning and preparation that went behind Burke's returning to school---done so as to not alarm the children.

Getting Burke out of the house was a smart thing to do---so he wouldn't be traumatized by what was going on---and there were plenty of people at the White's.

Click to expand...

Obviously the perp was completely unafraid of waking the adults and being caught, what with serving JonBenet pineapple, and sexually assaulting her in her own home, and killing her, and writing the mother of all ransom notes and staging the crime scene. I really doubt that if s/he was that comfortable moving about in the Ramsey home while the others slept upstairs that s/he would have shied away from going into Burke's room and taking him to molest/kidnap/kill also. I also believe a "foreign faction" would have wanted to target the son, regardless of how much more difficult it would have been to get to him. They're out to get John Ramsey, they've broken into his home and have his daughter without anyone awakening...why stop there? And why request such an obscure and paltry amount to money for ransom? If they know him well enough to address him as they do in the note, they were well aware that he could afford to dish out more than $118,000.

There was NOT a lot of planning that went into Burke returning to school...they sent him back almost right away, with a security guard. That was too obtrusive, so they began having *a parent* of one of the children in Burke's class follow the class around, having whatever parent believe that there may be an attacker who could attack their son at any time. They knew there was no attacker - would you send your ten year old son to school with only someone's parent as a guardian (and I've never heard of any of these parents having gone through any training to know how to deal with an attacker who might appear and target Burke), knowing this supposed attacker had ruthlessly molested and strangled and bashed to death your younger child? My son would have been home-schooled from that point on. They could have afforded a private tutor for Burke. And socializing be damned...I'd far rather have my son safe and alive than worry about whether he's back in school in a "normal routine". Nothing was ever normal with the Ramsey family.

As for sending him to the Whites'...as far as John and Patsy supposedly knew, there was a foreign faction that had kidnapped their daughter watching the house - the note says they will be watching closely - so how could they possibly feel okay about sending their son out with God knows who keeping surveillence on them, regardless of who they're sending him out with? How could they be sure that he wasn't being abducted himself while they sat in their house, unable to watch over him for themselves? My son NEVER would have left my house if my younger child was suspected of having been kidnapped. The Ramsey house was big enough, and there were enough guests over the morning of the 26th, that someone could have kept him occupied upstairs away from the melee ongoing on the main floor. Jeez, just the fact that they called 911 and had the cops come over tells me they were completely unafraid of retribution meted out by some "foreign faction" - the note said their daughter would be beheaded if they did such a thing. Now who's going to go and not only call police but all of their friends over if there was a ransom note saying "If you talk to a stray dog, she dies"? Someone who knew for a fact that the ransom note was totally fabricated and there was no one watching them.

The Ramseys knew there was no kidnapper/killer out there because one of them killed JonBenet. Their actions from minute one scream out their guilt. I call this a pathetic amateur cover-up because most people have been able to see straight through it and are convinced of Ramsey guilt.

If I had just lost my daughter I wouldn't have let go of my son for a minute. It's as simple as that to me. For his sake as well as mine.

Eve

narlacat said:

Why ask for such a pidly amount of money if ransom was the motive??
John Ramsey was a multi millionaire....he could most certainly have scraped up more than $118 000.

Click to expand...

As some have said, it could be a reference to the bonus, with the message being this is what this is all about---you didn't deserve it. $118,000 isn't a piddly amount if someone thought the Ramseys would not call police---would immediately come up with the money, and pay the ransom. In the perps mind, it would all be over within a couple of hours.

In the movie "Ransom" Mek Gibson asks the FBI guy, why only $2M? Don't they know what I'm worth. FBI guy responds--it's smart--they know you have it. In the perp's mind, he/she may have thought the money could be raised easily. That might not have been the end of it. People have robbed and killed for a lot less.

Rupert said:

Regardless of IDI or RDI, I have always wondered about the statement: "We do respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves." "Bussiness" seems to go with "kissiness" and seems consistent with a suspect who really wanted to hurt JR by hurting his daughter. That suspect would know about JR's past loss of his other daughter. After all, the last paragraph implies that the suspect knew JR personally.

Click to expand...

The relationships of bussiness and kissiness is Hodges stupid theory. Possession was also misspelled. The perp made a point of correcting spelling in "denied" (he first wrote dinied). I think the writer had a problem with double consonants. The ransom note implies a personal relationship....but he never referred to JonBenet by name---I don't think he knew it. Some of the other things could have been gleaned from the Access article 5 days earlier, including the slam against southern common sense. (reference in article to Dixieland jazz band) Going back to "Ransom", the perp in that movie referred to Mel Gibson by his first name a lot...and I think "Ransom" was the inspiration for the crime.

Maikai said:

As some have said, it could be a reference to the bonus, with the message being this is what this is all about---you didn't deserve it. $118,000 isn't a piddly amount if someone thought the Ramseys would not call police---would immediately come up with the money, and pay the ransom. In the perps mind, it would all be over within a couple of hours.

In the movie "Ransom" Mek Gibson asks the FBI guy, why only $2M? Don't they know what I'm worth. FBI guy responds--it's smart--they know you have it. In the perp's mind, he/she may have thought the money could be raised easily. That might not have been the end of it. People have robbed and killed for a lot less.

Click to expand...

People certainly have.
IMO, the amount specified in the ransom note is just another attempt by the Ramsey's to shift the suspicion off themselves and onto someone else. That someone else being someone who was close enough to the Ramsey's to have known that John Ramsey had been given that amount as a bonus. Adding to John's theory of an 'inside job'.
If it really was written by someone representing a foreign faction, why all the lines from american movies?
"The Nick of Time" had been on christmas night I believe, one of the White's guests talks of watching it. I think the line 'listen carefully' comes from that movie, I forget now, the movie was about a political faction kidnapping a 6 yr old girl. Coincidence??
Who really knows?? Noone. Well, noone that's talking.
Would Patsy and John Ramsey really have been so stupid as to leave such a big piece of evidence that maybe could have had them charged with murder??
Maybe, if they didn't think they had a choice. Maybe, if they thought it was going to explain what happened to their daughter. They took a gamble and won.

narlacat said:

Wow and I thought I had a vivid imagination!
How you get "kissiness" out of "bussiness" is a connection I never would have made!
How do you come to the conclusion that "kissiness" seems consistent with someone wanting to get at John Ramsey by hurting his daughter??

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment. Actually I have no conclusion yet. Butt a buss is a kiss.

A buss is also a square sail. The RN author could be saying that he respects JR's sailing abilities (having square sails) but he doesn't respect the country that the square sails serve, ie., his boat which is no kidding named: "Miss America"! And wasn't JonBenet going to be Miss America after little Miss? Maybe the author could be hinting at who he is.

Then again, a buss is also a bus spelled wrong. Just like the bus in Dirty Harry.

I think JonBenet might have been targeted because she represented Miss America. Burke did not have that aura. He wasn't exposed or symbolic.

I have little imagination compared to whomever killed JonBenet. He is laughing at us.

Maikai said:

The relationships of bussiness and kissiness is Hodges stupid theory. Possession was also misspelled. The perp made a point of correcting spelling in "denied" (he first wrote dinied). I think the writer had a problem with double consonants. The ransom note implies a personal relationship....but he never referred to JonBenet by name---I don't think he knew it. Some of the other things could have been gleaned from the Access article 5 days earlier, including the slam against southern common sense. (reference in article to Dixieland jazz band) Going back to "Ransom", the perp in that movie referred to Mel Gibson by his first name a lot...and I think "Ransom" was the inspiration for the crime.

Click to expand...

Maikai,
Please explain the connection between Dixieland article and southern common sense. I never heard that one before.