A New Look at Intruder Theories

[Holdontoyourhat]

Is JR on the right or on the left?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is JR on the right or on the left?

Of where? The Gates of Hell? He's still on this side as of the moment.

 

[Ames]

Of where? The Gates of Hell? He's still on this side as of the moment.

LOL :clap:

 

[Toltec]

I recall the interview Burke had with law-enforcement psychologist...odd is putting it mildly. When asked how he felt about JonBenet's death, he was matter-of-fact, aloof, acted very childish and at times innapropriate. Afterwards Patsy asks Burke how the interview went and how was he doing and Burke responds "This is the most boring thing I've ever done."
When asked if he had any questions or concerns, Burke responds by saying "Is that a real Rolex you're wearing?"

I believe it was the former nanny Suzanne Savage who said that Burke was getting all Patsy's attention because JonBenet was too young....Burke was wetting his bed at the time. As soon as JonBenet became old enough to participate in Patsy's dream, Burke was no longer important to Patsy and he stopped wetting the bed.

 

[Ames]

I recall the interview Burke had with law-enforcement psychologist...odd is putting it mildly. When asked how he felt about JonBenet's death, he was matter-of-fact, aloof, acted very childish and at times innapropriate. Afterwards Patsy asks Burke how the interview went and how was he doing and Burke responds "This is the most boring thing I've ever done."
When asked if he had any questions or concerns, Burke responds by saying "Is that a real Rolex you're wearing?"

I believe it was the former nanny Suzanne Savage who said that Burke was getting all Patsy's attention because JonBenet was too young....Burke was wetting his bed at the time. As soon as JonBenet became old enough to participate in Patsy's dream, Burke was no longer important to Patsy and he stopped wetting the bed.

That's the first time that I had ever heard those things that Burke said..that are highlighted in red. I do know, however, that when Burke was asked by the psychologist to draw a picture of his family, he left JB completely out. The psychologist even said that it was odd, because in almost all cases, the dead sibling is still included in the picture, when the surviving sibling is asked to draw a picture of the family...even if the death had occurred years earlier. I also found it weird, that when Burke left that morning, before JB's body was found....he took his Nintendo 64 with him. His sister is "missing" and he wants to play games. I don't believe that he had anything to do with the murder...but, it didn't look like he missed her too much.

 

[DeeDee249]

I really don't know how I feel about BR as far as his part in this. It certainly seemed that morning as he left for the White's that he hadn't a care in the world, almost as if he was glad his sister was gone.
His behavior is suspicious in a lot of ways. Sibling rivalry is very common, and it is also common for big brothers to look upon little sisters as pesky brats. But to be totally oblivious and even calm upon being told your kid sister is missing...to me that is a kid who is either missing a sensitivity chip, guilty somehow in the disappearance and hiding the fact, or detached from life (as in some psychological disassociative disorder). In a word- it is strange behavior.

 

[BBB167893]

Is JR on the right or on the left?

I take it you mean politically? Well, he's been a Republican most of his life. He ran in Michigan on the Republican ticket and said he's a big fan of George W. Bush (more on THAT later).

Just what difference does it make?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I take it you mean politically? Well, he's been a Republican most of his life. He ran in Michigan on the Republican ticket and said he's a big fan of George W. Bush (more on THAT later).

Just what difference does it make?

Well, I don't remember investigators or profilers ever saying how the RN was aligned politically, despite some explicit political references. Myself, I always thought it was polarized to the left. I never knew JR's political orientation until you just said it. He's polarized to the right. Go figure.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I don't remember investigators or profilers ever saying how the RN was aligned politically, despite some explicit political references.

Right, they didn't. Think about that.

Myself, I always thought it was polarized to the left. I never knew JR's political orientation until you just said it. He's polarized to the right. Go figure.

It was an attempt to sound like a far-leftist by someone who had no idea what they were doing. Politics is one of my hobbies. I've never heard the extremist left sound like that. Although, I will grant that once you get to those fringes, the language starts to sound very familiar. I mean, Ron Paul's not that far away from Ward Churchill, but I digress.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Right, they didn't. Think about that.

Can I think about what nobody ever said while I think about how nobody has ever been charged?

It was an attempt to sound like a far-leftist by someone who had no idea what they were doing. Politics is one of my hobbies. I've never heard the extremist left sound like that. Although, I will grant that once you get to those fringes, the language starts to sound very familiar. I mean, Ron Paul's not that far away from Ward Churchill, but I digress.

This is your claim, an attempt to explain a pheonomenon that you admit exists in the RN. The idea that this could somehow be inferred from the RN from someone who was otherwise not predisposed to RDI is absurd. IOW there isn't any fact base that can be used to demonstrate how it was in fact an 'attempt' by someone who 'had no idea what they were doing'.

I can see how someone who has already decided RDI could easily draw that conclusion , though.

 

[Tadpole12]

Can I think about what nobody ever said while I think about how nobody has ever been charged?



This is your claim, an attempt to explain a pheonomenon that you admit exists in the RN. The idea that this could somehow be inferred from the RN from someone who was otherwise not predisposed to RDI is absurd. IOW there isn't any fact base that can be used to demonstrate how it was in fact an 'attempt' by someone who 'had no idea what they were doing'.

I can see how someone who has already decided RDI could easily draw that conclusion , though.

Hi. HOTYH.

Can I think about what nobody ever said while I think about how nobody has ever been charged?

Yes. I did it. There was a little twinge, but I'm over tired.

 

[BBB167893]

Can I think about what nobody ever said while I think about how nobody has ever been charged?

It's a free country. I don't see how that means anything to this conversation.

This is your claim, an attempt to explain a pheonomenon that you admit exists in the RN.

I admit nothing. I'm saying that it could be interpreted that way. It may be my claim, but I have a solid basis for it, considering that the person couldn't make up their mind one way or another as to what they were!
A while ago you asked me why certain scenarios were written off, with the implication that there must not have been anything to it. Since the idea of any sort of political or foreign involvement was very quickly written off by Ron Walker (among others), I have to ask you the same question.

The idea that this could somehow be inferred from the RN from someone who was otherwise not predisposed to RDI is absurd.

Well, unless you're saying that the FBI had already made up their minds about RDI within the first eight hours, it ain't that absurd after all.

IOW there isn't any fact base that can be used to demonstrate how it was in fact an 'attempt' by someone who 'had no idea what they were doing'.

Tell that to the agents.

I can see how someone who has already decided RDI could easily draw that conclusion , though.

That's not even worth responding to.

 

[angelwngs]

I really don't know how I feel about BR as far as his part in this. It certainly seemed that morning as he left for the White's that he hadn't a care in the world, almost as if he was glad his sister was gone.
His behavior is suspicious in a lot of ways. Sibling rivalry is very common, and it is also common for big brothers to look upon little sisters as pesky brats. But to be totally oblivious and even calm upon being told your kid sister is missing...to me that is a kid who is either missing a sensitivity chip, guilty somehow in the disappearance and hiding the fact, or detached from life (as in some psychological disassociative disorder). In a word- it is strange behavior.

Narcissistic.......???

We know BR was awake and knew his sister was "missing". Yet he stays in his room and "pretends to be asleep". What could possible keep a nine year old child in his room quiet when police are all over your house and your sister is "missing"? He wasn't pretending to be asleep any more than the man in the moon. He was playing with his Nintendo 64....... He even takes it with him to Fleet White's.

Remember JR saying that Christmas in Michigan was his idea and that PR didn't really want to make the trip to Michigan but that she finally 'came around'... Obviously this must have been discussed quite a bit by PR and JR prior to Christmas. Could BR have been privy to many of these conversations?

A nine year old boy gets the gift of his dreams for Christmas and then has to fly to Michigan and afterwards has to take a Disney cruise to celebrate his mother's 40th birthday. (This is the way the R's presented the cruise to everyone pubically as a celebration of PR's 40th birthday...) By then Christmas vacation is over and he has to go back to school. When is he going to get to play with his new game and all the other cool things he got for Christmas?

24/7 if something happens to eliminate the trip to Michigan and the cruise.

A narcissistic personality might just think that getting ticked off with his younger sister and knocking her up side her head might give him exactly what he wants for Christmas.

 

[UKGuy]

Narcissistic.......???

We know BR was awake and knew his sister was "missing". Yet he stays in his room and "pretends to be asleep". What could possible keep a nine year old child in his room quiet when police are all over your house and your sister is "missing"? He wasn't pretending to be asleep any more than the man in the moon. He was playing with his Nintendo 64....... He even takes it with him to Fleet White's.

Remember JR saying that Christmas in Michigan was his idea and that PR didn't really want to make the trip to Michigan but that she finally 'came around'... Obviously this must have been discussed quite a bit by PR and JR prior to Christmas. Could BR have been privy to many of these conversations?

A nine year old boy gets the gift of his dreams for Christmas and then has to fly to Michigan and afterwards has to take a Disney cruise to celebrate his mother's 40th birthday. (This is the way the R's presented the cruise to everyone pubically as a celebration of PR's 40th birthday...) By then Christmas vacation is over and he has to go back to school. When is he going to get to play with his new game and all the other cool things he got for Christmas?

24/7 if something happens to eliminate the trip to Michigan and the cruise.

A narcissistic personality might just think that getting ticked off with his younger sister and knocking her up side her head might give him exactly what he wants for Christmas.

angelwngs,
Burke is just part of the staging, he was awake when JonBenet walked into the house thats his own testimony, he was awake when JonBenet was snacking pineapple and he was drinking tea, and he was awake if JonBenet ever went to bed. Since he would be expecting to rise early for the flight the next day he would be awake and hear any noise and talking. He would be awake to ask about what had been found if those words apply to that time frame. So Burke knows he is part of a conspiracy, albeit not premeditated, so I reckon he is just a necessary part of the staging. That he had killed JonBenet given what we think we know about JonBenet would be some story!


.

 

[angelwngs]

angelwngs,
Burke is just part of the staging, he was awake when JonBenet walked into the house thats his own testimony, he was awake when JonBenet was snacking pineapple and he was drinking tea, and he was awake if JonBenet ever went to bed. Since he would be expecting to rise early for the flight the next day he would be awake and hear any noise and talking. He would be awake to ask about what had been found if those words apply to that time frame. So Burke knows he is part of a conspiracy, albeit not premeditated, so I reckon he is just a necessary part of the staging. That he had killed JonBenet given what we think we know about JonBenet would be some story!


.

In all honesty, UKGuy, my humble opinion is that the R's, all three of them, created reasonable doubt. Hunter did not know, nor could he prove which one or more of them was indeed responsible.

For a moment lets pretend one of them went to trial and the process was not looking good for him/her... When an intruder theory was exhausted beyond its usefullness, what do you think their attorneys would have suggested to be thrown into the mix to create reasonable doubt and insure an acquittal or a mistrial for the individual being prosecuted?

 

[JMO8778]

In all honesty, UKGuy, my humble opinion is that the R's, all three of them, created reasonable doubt. Hunter did not know, nor could he prove which one or more of them was indeed responsible.

For a moment lets pretend one of them went to trial and the process was not looking good for him/her... When an intruder theory was exhausted beyond its usefullness, what do you think their attorneys would have suggested to be thrown into the mix to create reasonable doubt and insure an acquittal or a mistrial for the individual being prosecuted?

esp. as far as the GJ was concerned,that's what I've wondered all along !

 

[BBB167893]

In all honesty, UKGuy, my humble opinion is that the R's, all three of them, created reasonable doubt. Hunter did not know, nor could he prove which one or more of them was indeed responsible.

For a moment lets pretend one of them went to trial and the process was not looking good for him/her... When an intruder theory was exhausted beyond its usefullness, what do you think their attorneys would have suggested to be thrown into the mix to create reasonable doubt and insure an acquittal or a mistrial for the individual being prosecuted?

That's a classic strategy. "Plan B," I think it's called. My book expands on that:

There is more evidence against the Ramseys than there was against Scott Peterson, and he's on Death Row. He had no violent history either. But the Ramseys had one thing going for them that Scotty didn't: each other. That's the big reason why they never went to prison: because there was never enough evidence to charge one with the actual killing and the other with cover-up charges. As Schiller phrased it in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, two suspects equals no suspects. It's a simple legal fact, which everyone from Alex Hunter to Wendy Murphy to Vincent Bugliosi agrees on: you can't charge two people with the same crime. You have to charge one with the killing and one with the cover-up. As Bugliosi himself said, quote:
"If we come to the conclusion that JonBenet was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which parent did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, 'Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up...' There is no case to take to the jury unless the DA could prove beyond a reasonable doubt which one of them did it." Bugliosi also echoed Pete Hofstrom by saying, "Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder."
In her book, And Justice For Some, Murphy calls this the "cross-finger pointing defense." She elaborates by saying, quote:
"If police believe John killed JonBenet, Patsy's seeming involvement in aspects of the crime would frustrate prosecution efforts because of the very real risk that John could prevail at trial by pointing the finger at Patsy.
"Even if the prosecutors felt confident about the evidence, they had to worry about what jurors would think--and as an ethical matter, they couldn't proceed unless they believed they could persuade a jury about one parent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Boulder authorities were dealt a bad hand in another way: under Colorado law, no lesser charges could have been filed as long as the murder charge hadn't been filed, which meant that lesser offenses like obstruction of justice, making false statements and tampering with evidence, which could have easily been brought in this case, were not an option.

 

[angelwngs]

That's a classic strategy. "Plan B," I think it's called. My book expands on that:

There is more evidence against the Ramseys than there was against Scott Peterson, and he's on Death Row. He had no violent history either. But the Ramseys had one thing going for them that Scotty didn't: each other. That's the big reason why they never went to prison: because there was never enough evidence to charge one with the actual killing and the other with cover-up charges. As Schiller phrased it in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, two suspects equals no suspects. It's a simple legal fact, which everyone from Alex Hunter to Wendy Murphy to Vincent Bugliosi agrees on: you can't charge two people with the same crime. You have to charge one with the killing and one with the cover-up. As Bugliosi himself said, quote:
"If we come to the conclusion that JonBenet was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which parent did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, 'Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up...' There is no case to take to the jury unless the DA could prove beyond a reasonable doubt which one of them did it." Bugliosi also echoed Pete Hofstrom by saying, "Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder."
In her book, And Justice For Some, Murphy calls this the "cross-finger pointing defense." She elaborates by saying, quote:
"If police believe John killed JonBenet, Patsy's seeming involvement in aspects of the crime would frustrate prosecution efforts because of the very real risk that John could prevail at trial by pointing the finger at Patsy.
"Even if the prosecutors felt confident about the evidence, they had to worry about what jurors would think--and as an ethical matter, they couldn't proceed unless they believed they could persuade a jury about one parent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Boulder authorities were dealt a bad hand in another way: under Colorado law, no lesser charges could have been filed as long as the murder charge hadn't been filed, which meant that lesser offenses like obstruction of justice, making false statements and tampering with evidence, which could have easily been brought in this case, were not an option.

:clap::clap::clap: Very well said, my favorite Super Hero!!!

...and that my dear friend is why JR is a free man today and given the choice to appear on Oprah. It is also why PR went to her grave without prosecution on this Earth. May we continue to hope and to pray that there is justice for JBR in the afterlife. I do not see it happening on this Earth in our lifetime.

 

[BBB167893]

:clap::clap::clap: Very well said, my favorite Super Hero!!!

...and that my dear friend is why JR is a free man today and given the choice to appear on Oprah. It is also why PR went to her grave without prosecution on this Earth. May we continue to hope and to pray that there is justice for JBR in the afterlife. I do not see it happening on this Earth in our lifetime.

Thank you.

The afterlife promises justice in a way we humans cannot even imagine.

 

[UKGuy]

In all honesty, UKGuy, my humble opinion is that the R's, all three of them, created reasonable doubt. Hunter did not know, nor could he prove which one or more of them was indeed responsible.

For a moment lets pretend one of them went to trial and the process was not looking good for him/her... When an intruder theory was exhausted beyond its usefullness, what do you think their attorneys would have suggested to be thrown into the mix to create reasonable doubt and insure an acquittal or a mistrial for the individual being prosecuted?

angelwngs,
Not knowing who did it does not prevent Hunter from charging both parents as being part of conspiracy to kill JonBenet Ramsey, remove and obscure evidence at a crime-scene, all intending to defeat the ends of justice etc etc.

Thats the usual tactic along with charging the woman with serious offences then offering her a plea bargain, including going witness against the man, usually works every time.

This was not done because local politics were involved, all the legal eagles knew each other, the Ramsey's had some serious money to put on the table, including their house, which eventually was sold to local investment group.

For a moment lets pretend one of them went to trial and the process was not looking good for him/her... When an intruder theory was exhausted beyond its usefullness, what do you think their attorneys would have suggested to be thrown into the mix to create reasonable doubt and insure an acquittal or a mistrial for the individual being prosecuted?

At trial all the evidence would have been debated to death, since it was all mainly of domestic origin, this the defense would claim is not unexpected and generates reasonable doubt, leaving room for the intruder theory to be promoted. Lou Smit would be called to the stand to offer some of his clairvoyance skills.

That aside just consider what a public airing of the molestation evidence would have done, we would have heard from Coroner Meyer, with the Ramseys buying in alternative expert opinion.


.