BlueCrab
New Member
... then Burke likely murdered JonBenet.
Carnes: "... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
Judge Carnes, if right, has exonerated Patsy and thus narrowed the list of likely suspects to three -- John, Burke, and an intruder.
But the probability of the crime being committed by a lone intruder who was unknown to the Ramseys is close to zero. For example:
o an intruder would not have known the private family information he included in his naive three-page fake ransom note;
o he would not have spent hours in an occupied house after committing a murder;
o he would not have sat at the breakfast room table and snacked on pineapple with JonBenet two hours before she died;
o he would not have made himself a glass of tea while JonBenet snacked on the pineapple;
o he would not have wrote a fake ransom note trying to cast suspicion on an intruder (which would be himself);
o he would not have left the body in the house;
o he would not enjoy the lies and coverup perpetrated by Ramsey family members trying to shield his identity;
o he would not have been able to commit a rape/murder without leaving forensic evidence at the crime scene; and
o he would not have crept upstairs to find clean underwear (ridiculous size 12's) to put on JonBenet while cleaning up the victim in an obvious attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime.
There are many other reasons that indicate the killer of JonBenet was not an unknown intruder. There is, of course, a possibility that a fifth (or even a sixth) person was in the house that night, but he would had to have been there with the full knowledge of at least one of the remaining three Ramseys in the house (John, Patsy, or Burke).
With Patsy eliminated by Judge Carnes, and common sense based on the points listed above eliminating an intruder, that would leave just John and Burke.
John was exonerated by handwriting experts. Burke was not.
John was exonerated by the Gelb lie-detector exams. Burke was not.
Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. John's were not.
Conclusion:
If Judge Carnes is right and Patsy didn't do it, and the evidence is clear and convincing that an intruder didn't do it, leaving just John and Burke as suspects, then the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that Burke murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John did so.
JMO
Carnes: "... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
Judge Carnes, if right, has exonerated Patsy and thus narrowed the list of likely suspects to three -- John, Burke, and an intruder.
But the probability of the crime being committed by a lone intruder who was unknown to the Ramseys is close to zero. For example:
o an intruder would not have known the private family information he included in his naive three-page fake ransom note;
o he would not have spent hours in an occupied house after committing a murder;
o he would not have sat at the breakfast room table and snacked on pineapple with JonBenet two hours before she died;
o he would not have made himself a glass of tea while JonBenet snacked on the pineapple;
o he would not have wrote a fake ransom note trying to cast suspicion on an intruder (which would be himself);
o he would not have left the body in the house;
o he would not enjoy the lies and coverup perpetrated by Ramsey family members trying to shield his identity;
o he would not have been able to commit a rape/murder without leaving forensic evidence at the crime scene; and
o he would not have crept upstairs to find clean underwear (ridiculous size 12's) to put on JonBenet while cleaning up the victim in an obvious attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime.
There are many other reasons that indicate the killer of JonBenet was not an unknown intruder. There is, of course, a possibility that a fifth (or even a sixth) person was in the house that night, but he would had to have been there with the full knowledge of at least one of the remaining three Ramseys in the house (John, Patsy, or Burke).
With Patsy eliminated by Judge Carnes, and common sense based on the points listed above eliminating an intruder, that would leave just John and Burke.
John was exonerated by handwriting experts. Burke was not.
John was exonerated by the Gelb lie-detector exams. Burke was not.
Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. John's were not.
Conclusion:
If Judge Carnes is right and Patsy didn't do it, and the evidence is clear and convincing that an intruder didn't do it, leaving just John and Burke as suspects, then the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that Burke murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John did so.
JMO
