Was Burke Involved ? # 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZooSleuth

Former Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
1,420
Reaction score
22
I understood most of what the documentary was saying, but I didn't understand how there was blood in her underwear without sexual assault that night. Did anyone get that part?

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

Maybe they had explained that in further detail before the 2 hours were cut from the documentary?
 

debbiegarcia36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1,538
Hello , due to the absence of bleeding at the wound the train track abrasions were found to have been made post mortem , they theorize that it was an effort to check for a response to see if she was still alive .
The horror
Yes, the whole staging of the crime reeks of horror.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

debbiegarcia36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1,538
I understood most of what the documentary was saying, but I didn't understand how there was blood in her underwear without sexual assault that night. Did anyone get that part?

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
Yes, strange that it was glossed over.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

Sunshine4Me

New Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
118
Reaction score
2
Yes, the whole staging of the crime reeks of horror.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
For real. A simple lie would have been so much easier and less horrifying and everyone except Jonbenet could have lived happily ever after. "Hello 911 my son threw a flashlight from the 2nd floor landing down to his sister on the 1st floor and she didn't catch it and we think she's dead come quickly! Help me Jesus help me Jesus!"

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
 

Petal

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
17
Reaction score
30
CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke. Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body.


Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 4783-4785). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.
 

Ellie9

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
For real. A simple lie would have been so much easier and less horrifying and everyone except Jonbenet could have lived happily ever after. "Hello 911 my son threw a flashlight from the 2nd floor landing down to his sister on the 1st floor and she didn't catch it and we think she's dead come quickly! Help me Jesus help me Jesus!"

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

Makes me think it wasn't only a flashlight to the head Burke had done, then. He must have done something worse, maybe something sexual or some kind of attempt at strangulation before the garrote?
 

Sunshine4Me

New Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
118
Reaction score
2
Makes me think it wasn't only a flashlight to the head Burke had done, then. He must have done something worse, maybe something sexual or some kind of attempt at strangulation before the garrote?
I think you're right, I have to be missing something still. There must be more in the two hours they cut from the documentary, it can't simply be a blow to the head. If it was that easy Patsy should have been able to have found a better excuse than a pedophile, intruder, kidnapper, murderer.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
 

txsvicki

Active Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
14,192
Reaction score
88
Website
Visit site
Spitz said it could have been transferred to the panties, I think, but he said that after Kolar asked about the blood spot in the panties. I remember posting several years ago when Kolar's book came out, and wondering if those panties could have been on JonBenet a few days earlier and she was assaulted and got the blood on them then. More staging.
 

Chewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
1,576
The reason I don't think Burke was involved is because his parents allowed the police to interview him. These people had lawyers and could easily have said something like "We don't want to traumatize him further." If Burke was involved he would have done something that the parents would have had to cover up. Anyone that has a kid that age knows that even if a kid is lying there are things they accidentally let slip. So I don't think they'd ever let him be interviewed by the police if he was involved. It would be too easy to get caught.

I also think that unless Burke had a long term history of abusing his sister, the parents would react like normal parents if he accidentally hurt her. They would call 911. So this cover up has to be connected to some sort of long history that they wanted to cover up, not a one time accident.
 

fullmoon

Active Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
111
Reaction score
30
For real. A simple lie would have been so much easier and less horrifying and everyone except Jonbenet could have lived happily ever after. "Hello 911 my son threw a flashlight from the 2nd floor landing down to his sister on the 1st floor and she didn't catch it and we think she's dead come quickly! Help me Jesus help me Jesus!"

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

I agree. I am having problems with the scenario that the parents covered up an accident by choking their daughter, binding her hands together, and making it look like a homicide. They could have staged an accident so much more easily. But why a homicide? They would have had to have known a homicide would generate a ton of publicity compared to an accident. Unless they were trying to cover up something more, knowing that an autopsy might indicate a history of molestation. Then they would have had to have gone with the kidnapping/ homicide scenario.
 

Chewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
1,576
I agree. I am having problems with the scenario that the parents covered up an accident by choking their daughter, binding her hands together, and making it look like a homicide. They could have staged an accident so much more easily. But why a homicide? They would have had to have known a homicide would generate a ton of publicity compared to an accident. Unless they were trying to cover up something more, knowing that an autopsy might indicate a history of molestation. Then they would have had to have gone with the kidnapping/ homicide scenario.

I agree. They could easily have just thrown her in the bathtub and started running water on her and say that she slipped. Or if they were worried about somehow crime labs figuring out what happened they could say that he accidentally hit her and as they were trying to wash the wound she fell again in the shower.

I don't see parents mutilating their child's body to cover up a kid killing his sister unless there was some very long term problem going on.


I would find it far more likely to find out later that John and Patsy were involved in something illegal and reputation destroying (like a pedophile ring) and someone who knew told them ahead of time that they were going to harm their daughter. They find her in the house and realize that evil guy kept true to his word and wrote the ransom note to send the cops off in a different direction. But for a parent to go to all these lengths for an accident just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
 

andreww

Former Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,710
Reaction score
4,039
The reason I don't think Burke was involved is because his parents allowed the police to interview him. These people had lawyers and could easily have said something like "We don't want to traumatize him further." If Burke was involved he would have done something that the parents would have had to cover up. Anyone that has a kid that age knows that even if a kid is lying there are things they accidentally let slip. So I don't think they'd ever let him be interviewed by the police if he was involved. It would be too easy to get caught.

I also think that unless Burke had a long term history of abusing his sister, the parents would react like normal parents if he accidentally hurt her. They would call 911. So this cover up has to be connected to some sort of long history that they wanted to cover up, not a one time accident.

I think by that point in his life Burke was already a pretty accomplished liar. I think it was made very clear to him before he left that he was asleep. He was a very deep sleeper you know.

As for the bolded part - Although many people have defended Burke hitting JB with the golf club as an accident, I have always maintained that it was intentional. What most people fail to realize about that incident is that she was also hit in the leg, so she was actually struck twice. Patsy admits this in her police interview. Now we have a family friend saying that Patsy admitted that Burke had struck her out of anger. Lets not forget about the multiple incidents of feces smearing, including what was found on a box of candy that JB had received only days before. On Christmas day, the day she died, it has been reported that JB did not play with the neighbourhood kids that had gathered at her house, they all played with Burke. This is not normal for a child on Christmas day. There was something going on between Burke and JB during that period in time. Seeing all that footage from his interviews (then and now) shows quite clearly that Burke was happy she was gone. DP makes excuses for his demeanour saying he is socially awkward, however you will notice that when DP asks him about his mother's death there is genuine sadness in his eyes and that stupid grin disappears from his face. This kid is quite capable of emotion, it just that he has none for Jonbenet.
 

Chewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
1,576
I think by that point in his life Burke was already a pretty accomplished liar. I think it was made very clear to him before he left that he was asleep. He was a very deep sleeper you know.

As for the bolded part - Although many people have defended Burke hitting JB with the golf club as an accident, I have always maintained that it was intentional. What most people fail to realize about that incident is that she was also hit in the leg, so she was actually struck twice. Patsy admits this in her police interview. Now we have a family friend saying that Patsy admitted that Burke had struck her out of anger. Lets not forget about the multiple incidents of feces smearing, including what was found on a box of candy that JB had received only days before. On Christmas day, the day she died, it has been reported that JB did not play with the neighbourhood kids that had gathered at her house, they all played with Burke. This is not normal for a child on Christmas day. There was something going on between Burke and JB during that period in time. Seeing all that footage from his interviews (then and now) shows quite clearly that Burke was happy she was gone. DP makes excuses for his demeanour saying he is socially awkward, however you will notice that when DP asks him about his mother's death there is genuine sadness in his eyes and that stupid grin disappears from his face. This kid is quite capable of emotion, it just that he has none for Jonbenet.

Right but then why would they ever let him talk to the police? Police are trained to ask people to repeat the story over and over again to catch discrepancies in their stories if they are lying. There's simply no way a young boy no matter how accomplished a liar he is to his parents is going to stand up to a police interrogation. The Ramseys were lawyered up at the wazooo. They could easily have gotten away with saying "My son is traumatized by the death of his sister and we don't want to put him through more stress. You can't talk to him. "

Yet they let him talk to the police. It doesn't make sense. It seems to me that when people develop these theories they never follow it all the way through. I've pointed this out for years on here. People will carry their theory all the way up to the police showing up to the house but then they ignore everything that comes of the investigation except the "evidence."

Why would they let him talk to the police when they had every reason not to, and the lawyers to intervene on their behalf. Why implicate themselves in such a horrific cover up and then let the kid talk to the cops. It doesn't make any sense.
 

andreww

Former Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,710
Reaction score
4,039
I agree. They could easily have just thrown her in the bathtub and started running water on her and say that she slipped. Or if they were worried about somehow crime labs figuring out what happened they could say that he accidentally hit her and as they were trying to wash the wound she fell again in the shower.

I don't see parents mutilating their child's body to cover up a kid killing his sister unless there was some very long term problem going on.


I would find it far more likely to find out later that John and Patsy were involved in something illegal and reputation destroying (like a pedophile ring) and someone who knew told them ahead of time that they were going to harm their daughter. They find her in the house and realize that evil guy kept true to his word and wrote the ransom note to send the cops off in a different direction. But for a parent to go to all these lengths for an accident just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The problem with your scenario is that you aren't taking time in to account. What time do the parents actually discover that Jonbenet is dead? We know the Ramseys left the Whites at 8:30, so why would she be slipping in the shower at 1:00 am? They had to be out of the house by 6:15 am, those kids should have been in bed as soon as they got home.
 

RL2

Active Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
129
Reaction score
128
I don't think Burke was involved. I used to be a little flip-floppy on it in the past year or so, but after seeing his Dr. Phil interviews (so far) I'm even less convinced he was involved. The revelations that a) John used the flashlight that night to put Burke to bed and b) Burke admits to going downstairs to play with a new toy are huge to me. Burke only says that he went down to play with his new toy, not that he actually ended up playing. Also, it's super weird to me that John would put his kid to bed using a flashlight rather than turning a light on. I think Burke was telling the truth about going back downstairs to play, but he omitted the truthful timeline of events. I think he went downstairs hoping to sneak in some playtime but came upon his parents instead. John had the flashlight in his hand (either because he'd recently just used it to hit Jonbenet or because he took it from Patsy after she'd used it on Jonbenet) and took Burke back up to bed with it, not turning on any lights on the way in hopes of keeping Burke from seeing any more of a scene he shouldn't be seeing or possibly blood on John's hands/clothes.

Burke, in my opinion, is innocent of Jonbenet's death, but he sure as hell knows his parents are responsible for it and he's had to live with that secret for decades now.

Also, in regards to possibly hearing Burke on the end of the 911 call - it's hard to tell what, if anything, is being said there when we've been fed what to listen out for on the recording in advance. But it DOES sound like Burke saying "what did you find?" If that's the case, to me, it helps prove he wasn't involved in what happened to Jonbenet. If he'd been the culprit and talking about the ransom note, he probably would've said something along the lines of, "what is that?" because he would already know what happened to his sister and wouldn't be expecting there to be a note "left". But the fact that he may be saying, "what did you find?" seems to me like he's asking a general question, like, 'what's going on'/'what happened'/'what did you find that's causing you to act like this'.


I agree
 

andreww

Former Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,710
Reaction score
4,039
Right but then why would they ever let him talk to the police? Police are trained to ask people to repeat the story over and over again to catch discrepancies in their stories if they are lying. There's simply no way a young boy no matter how accomplished a liar he is to his parents is going to stand up to a police interrogation. The Ramseys were lawyered up at the wazooo. They could easily have gotten away with saying "My son is traumatized by the death of his sister and we don't want to put him through more stress. You can't talk to him. "

Yet they let him talk to the police. It doesn't make sense. It seems to me that when people develop these theories they never follow it all the way through. I've pointed this out for years on here. People will carry their theory all the way up to the police showing up to the house but then they ignore everything that comes of the investigation except the "evidence."

Why would they let him talk to the police when they had every reason not to, and the lawyers to intervene on their behalf. Why implicate themselves in such a horrific cover up and then let the kid talk to the cops. It doesn't make any sense.

Remember, this is all coming from the Ramseys. John says he and Patsy were interviewed for 8 hours on the 25th and for 2 hours on the 26th. We know that the Rs were just play acting on the 25th and as far as I know, there was no meaningful interview on the 26th (please prove me wrong). So if cops talked to Burke on the 25th, it was likely before JB was found, and it likely consisted of one question; "Did you see or hear anything?".
 

andreww

Former Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,710
Reaction score
4,039
I agree. I am having problems with the scenario that the parents covered up an accident by choking their daughter, binding her hands together, and making it look like a homicide. They could have staged an accident so much more easily. But why a homicide? They would have had to have known a homicide would generate a ton of publicity compared to an accident. Unless they were trying to cover up something more, knowing that an autopsy might indicate a history of molestation. Then they would have had to have gone with the kidnapping/ homicide scenario.

No matter how bizarre what the Ramseys did seems, nobody can argue the fact that it worked. 20 years later and none have been charged. They still have their mansions and yachts, and they still have plenty of people that are willing to believe them and be their friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top