Was Burke Involved? # 4

[DrollForeignFaction]

Talking of that clown Lou Smit.....he did inadvertently hand us a true gem when he asked JR this question......

Lou Smit: "You must have a mental picture of the type of person this is?"

John Ramsey: "My first instinct is, it was a man, but because of the similarities in Patsy's handwriting I wondered if it was a woman".

Whay-hay! There is is......John admitting that the ransom note resembled Patsy's writing!

Hahaha. And then in his deposition in the Wolf case (which hinged on proving Patsy wrote the note) he acts like there are no similarities whatsoever. In fact, he says she couldn't have written it because her handwriting is so "feminine"! The video is on Youtube, it's kind of funny to watch him scramble.

Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Ramsey, I am going to ask you to, once again, look at it. And I am going to ask you, in looking at it, whether or not you see any similarity between your wife's handwriting and the handwriting in the ransom note; you personally.
A. Absolutely not.
Q. None at all?
A. No.
Q. Not even a little bit?
A. Not even a little bit.
Q. Now, Mr. Ramsey —
A. Patsy writes very neatly. She is a feminine writer.
Q. Right.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-Ramsey-Deposition-Wolf-Case-December-12-2001



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annapurna]

How about some evidence that she wasn't? She was found wearing that soiled pair of panties so its safe to assume she was wearing them. The claim that she wasn't uses a pair of panties as evidence that doesn't seem to even exist.

They couldn't even find the panties she was supposedly wearing before she was supposedly redressed. JUst because BPD didn't find something doesn't mean it wasn't there.


UK....

Maybe the poop hit the fan before the top came off?

Haven't we already been told she sometimes wore Burke's clothes?



Indeed. I find it bizarre how she goes 'off the grid' at several points that day/night.



Kanz....


That's no excuse. I read Stephen King's IT in a matter of days years ago. While one person spending that much time reading 40k pages would be difficult, its certainly possible(wouldn't take a lifetime, more like a month, maybe 2-3 tops) and I assume he would have help going through it.

So basically he thinks Burke did everything even though he didn't even go through all the evidence. Fantastic. If anyone had a reason to dig through all of it, it's him. He's the one with the alternate theory that lacks any real evidence and he was in a position to find it. Having said that, I know he faced many obstacles.


Userid....


I agree. It's a non issue.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying in your first paragraph


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miz Adventure]

BBM - Quoted text by me - sounds familiar :wink:
I :heartluv: this post!

So, I wanted to see when and where LS said this. It was on CNN's Larry King Live 05/28/2001:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

Incredible!

Kanzz - did I plagiarize your post? Well they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Lol

I tend to C&P comments and bits and pieces that I find interesting or relevant and post them into my notes file under the appropriate headings. That was one I had put under Lou Smit's name.. I must have liked that one!


And DFFaction - I also had that other comment of JR's in my file. I use it to demonstrate what a liar he is. First he says one thing and then he says another.

And we thought Pinnocchio was a liar!

 

[kanzz]

Kanzz - did I plagiarize your post? Well they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Lol

I tend to C&P comments and bits and pieces that I find interesting or relevant and post them into my notes file under the appropriate headings. That was one I had put under Lou Smit's name.. I must have liked that one!


And DFFaction - I also had that other comment of JR's in my file. I use it to demonstrate what a liar he is. First he says one thing and then he says another.

And we thought Pinnocchio was a liar!

Oh, Miz, I am totally flattered! Luv it! Use it all you want.
:winkkiss:

 

[singularity]

Kanzz I've had discussions with you before so of course I know what your screen name is. It was a really long day, I logged in to read all the messages backed up the past week, respond to a few, so apologies that I forgot to type the second z in your name.

Sure, one might be able to read 40K pages in approximately one - three months.. if they weren't required to do anything else but read. But he was. He had a job that involved other things besides just reading. And what good would it do to "have help going through it"? That wouldn't put that material into his brain.

So you think detectives, FBI agents, etc. don't have help solving their cases and that no one else reads the files? Wow. No cases would ever get solved if it all depended on one single person.

. I guess he saw enough evidence to convince him. He's certainly seen more of it than anybody here has - and yet, people here have opinions.

Or he reached that conclusion without seeing enough. Of course people have opinions and no one is saying KOlar cant have his own.

I don't know that his theory lacks any real evidence. Actually, nobody knows that.

Of course it lacks evidence. Even the theory's biggest supporters will concede that point.

No arguments on Smit. I think he should've walked out of that John interview in handcuffs or in the least fired on the spot.

 

[UKGuy]

Talking of that clown Lou Smit.....he did inadvertently hand us a true gem when he asked JR this question......

Lou Smit: "You must have a mental picture of the type of person this is?"

John Ramsey: "My first instinct is, it was a man, but because of the similarities in Patsy's handwriting I wondered if it was a woman".

Whay-hay! There is is......John admitting that the ransom note resembled Patsy's writing!

----------------------------------------------------

Quote from Lou Smit on LKL 05-28-2001:

"I believe that perhaps they should get in fresh minds and fresh eyes, experienced people that can take a look at this case with an unbiased view point. That means getting rid of perhaps even the detectives that are working on it now. Getting rid of Lou Smit. Let somebody else in there that can objectively take a look at that case."
So even Lou Smit admitted he was biased and suggests sombody else should be looking at the case objectively. Yet his biased "hypothisis" was allowed to be accepted by Judge Carnes as "fact."

Of all the red herrings in this case - Lou Smit was one of the worst. He created many of them.



　


Don't know - that depends doesn't it?

I know the answer to these two questions though....

Q. What came first the chicken or the egg?
A. It depends on which one you ordered first.

Q How long is a piece of string?
A. Twice as long as it is from the end to the middle.

Miz Adventure,

Lou Smit: "You must have a mental picture of the type of person this is?"

John Ramsey: "My first instinct is, it was a man, but because of the similarities in Patsy's handwriting I wondered if it was a woman".

Wow, hand writing to gender, how does that work?

Don't know - that depends doesn't it?

It's not a trick question.

.

 

[kanzz]

Kanzz I've had discussions with you before so of course I know what your screen name is. It was a really long day, I logged in to read all the messages backed up the past week, respond to a few, so apologies that I forgot to type the second z in your name.

Right. But still. It's "kanzz", singularity. No Capitol Letter. I was only trying to be just a tid bit fussy. Sometimes it seems to be the mode-o-day. :wink:

So you think detectives, FBI agents, etc. don't have help solving their cases and that no one else reads the files? Wow. No cases would ever get solved if it all depended on one single person.

I didn't say that. What I said was, "That wouldn't put that material into his brain." Sure, he would've gotten input. But I believe that for the most part he was trying his best to absorb this material himself.

Or he reached that conclusion without seeing enough. Of course people have opinions and no one is saying KOlar cant have his own.

Well, he certainly saw more of it than we ever will.

Of course it lacks evidence. Even the theory's biggest supporters will concede that point.

No, I won't concede that point. How would anyone know that his theory lacks any real evidence? We don't know what is in those files in Boulder.

No arguments on Smit. I think he should've walked out of that John interview in handcuffs or in the least fired on the spot.

Thank you. Agree.

 

[flourish]

Right. But still. It's "kanzz", singularity. No Capitol Letter. I was only trying to be just a tid bit fussy. Sometimes it seems to be the mode-o-day. :wink:


I didn't say that. What I said was, "That wouldn't put that material into his brain." Sure, he would've gotten input. But I believe that for the most part he was trying his best to absorb this material himself.


Well, he certainly saw more of it than we ever will.


No, I won't concede that point. How would anyone know that his theory lacks any real evidence? We don't know what is in those files in Boulder.


Thank you. Agree.

(to be fair, the poster capitalized the first word of a sentence which happened to begin with your screen name. I'm "flourish," but folks here frequently address me as "Flourish," so I do get it.)

 

[kanzz]

(to be fair, the poster capitalized the first word of a sentence which happened to begin with your screen name. I'm "flourish," but folks here frequently address me as "Flourish," so I do get it.)

oh yeah, I get it... that's why I said, "I was only trying to be just a tid bit fussy. Sometimes it seems to be the mode-o-day."
Or maybe even demonstrate a little something about nit-picking. KWIM? :wink:

 

[flourish]

oh yeah, I get it... that's why I said, "I was only trying to be just a tid bit fussy. Sometimes it seems to be the mode-o-day."
Or maybe even demonstrate a little something about nit-picking. KWIM? :wink:

A-ha! Finally got it

 

[kanzz]

A-ha! Finally got it

Maybe I was a lil to vague/cryptic. I can be that way sometimes. :abnormal:

 

[Rott Mom]

I have watched (and read) all of this "case". What I can't quote, but I do remember BR being asked about
what he remembers about JBR that Christmas morning - he responds - along the lines of - I remember
she fell ON her bike. Not nothing about his new toys.

 

[TeaTime]

Show me any evidence that supports the claim she was put to bed in the big panties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Start with PR and JR insisting that PR dressed JBR for bed, add that PR is the only one in the house, besides JBR, who knew such panties were in the house and where they were stored.

Then add that PR couldn't remember a thing about the panties from the prior night's dressing for bed. Were they too big or did they fit? She just couldn't remember.

Then recall that PR never stated that she changed JBR into fresh panties after the party.

I suggest that JBR dressed herself in those panties, wore them to the party and stayed in them that night and that her panties were never changed and that she was never redressed.

Add that the huge panties were urine stained as were the long johns, which she forgot to mention were BR's in her 'dressing JBR for bed" story.

Then ask yourself why panties would have to be changed at all. Were the ones she wore to bed freshly soiled with urine/feces/blood? They weren't found in the house - anywhere.

There is NO evidence to suggest that she was redressed and there is no logical reason to invent a redressing. It is a red herring. It was invented by people who think that an 'IDI', or that BR found them in the basement when he was molesting his sister or those who think that PR would never dress her child in huge undies or her brother's cast offs. POPPYCOCK. JBR may have dressed herself in those panties and we know that PR dressed JBR in BR's hand me downs.

It seems foolish to invent a redressing that has no basis in fact and then go round and round and round about who did it.

 

[icedtea4me]

I have watched (and read) all of this "case". What I can't quote, but I do remember BR being asked about
what he remembers about JBR that Christmas morning - he responds - along the lines of - I remember
she fell ON her bike. Not nothing about his new toys.

*heavy sigh*

He was asked what he remembers about JonBenet that Christmas morning and he responded "I remember she fell on her bike." Why would he say anything about his new toys when he wasn't asked about his new toys?

 

[lisasalinger]

Hi all...

We've got some pretty compelling stuff to share in regards to Burke's knife...

https://shakedowntitle.com/2016/12/07/jonbenet-ramsey-case-insights-1-burkes-knife/

 

[BoldBear]

Hi all...

We've got some pretty compelling stuff to share in regards to Burke's knife...

https://shakedowntitle.com/2016/12/07/jonbenet-ramsey-case-insights-1-burkes-knife/

I tried to find a good source that claimed the paintbrush handle had been whittled and couldn't find it. I also tried to find a source that described the knot as a "prusik hitch" and couldn't find that either except when it was discussed on sites like WS and reddit. For me, the author of the page jumps to too many conclusions. The logic here being: Burke liked to whittle. Burke was a Boy Scout. The paintbrush handle was whittled and the knots tied could be found in the Boy Scout Manual; therefore, Burke did it. Okay, if that's what creator of the webpage wants to believe, then fine.

I ran across another web site the other day that was playing fast and loose with the facts. I thought it was great until I started realizing that the author of the website was getting details wrong. That site claimed that the rope found in JAR's bedroom was just sitting uncovered on the floor. I wasn't able to find a reliable source for that either. Too bad. Wouldn't it have been great if it was true?

 

[Tortoise]

Hi all...

We've got some pretty compelling stuff to share in regards to Burke's knife...

https://shakedowntitle.com/2016/12/07/jonbenet-ramsey-case-insights-1-burkes-knife/

I found it interesting in your link (I've seen reference to this before in mention of JBR's medical records) that Patsy reported to Dr Beuf in August 1996 that JonBenet was asking about sex roles and reproduction.

I've also seen it mentioned in Dr Hodges' book A Mother Gone Bad that JonBenet had a dream that she had a baby, and I think if I remember correctly, in the dream she was in a castle with Patsy. I need to go back and look again to see if he mentions how he came to know about that information about her dream.

I know it's not about the knife, but this got me to thinking about why a 6 year old would be preoccupied enough (if it was around about the same time frame as the doctor visit) to have a dream about having a baby. It'd be different if the family was having a new baby but I would think quite extraordinary otherwise in the life of a 6 year old.

 

[Tortoise]

From PMPT

In the summer of "96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper type underpants-Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed.

So she also regressed in her toilet training that same summer. What had happened?

 

[Userid]

Start with PR and JR insisting that PR dressed JBR for bed, add that PR is the only one in the house, besides JBR, who knew such panties were in the house and where they were stored.

Then add that PR couldn't remember a thing about the panties from the prior night's dressing for bed. Were they too big or did they fit? She just couldn't remember.

Then recall that PR never stated that she changed JBR into fresh panties after the party.

I suggest that JBR dressed herself in those panties, wore them to the party and stayed in them that night and that her panties were never changed and that she was never redressed.

Add that the huge panties were urine stained as were the long johns, which she forgot to mention were BR's in her 'dressing JBR for bed" story.

Then ask yourself why panties would have to be changed at all. Were the ones she wore to bed freshly soiled with urine/feces/blood? They weren't found in the house - anywhere.

There is NO evidence to suggest that she was redressed and there is no logical reason to invent a redressing. It is a red herring. It was invented by people who think that an 'IDI', or that BR found them in the basement when he was molesting his sister or those who think that PR would never dress her child in huge undies or her brother's cast offs. POPPYCOCK. JBR may have dressed herself in those panties and we know that PR dressed JBR in BR's hand me downs.

It seems foolish to invent a redressing that has no basis in fact and then go round and round and round about who did it.

No, there are other options. I'm RDI, and I agree with you that JBR most likely dressed herself in the bloomies, but another possible scenario is that, she had wet the bed and perhaps PR changed her right then into the bloomies -- because obviously, JBR had wet herself at least twice that night: once in her bed, and sadly, once she was murdered.

 

[Userid]

I tried to find a good source that claimed the paintbrush handle had been whittled and couldn't find it. I also tried to find a source that described the knot as a "prusik hitch" and couldn't find that either except when it was discussed on sites like WS and reddit. For me, the author of the page jumps to too many conclusions. The logic here being: Burke liked to whittle. Burke was a Boy Scout. The paintbrush handle was whittled and the knots tied could be found in the Boy Scout Manual; therefore, Burke did it. Okay, if that's what creator of the webpage wants to believe, then fine.

I ran across another web site the other day that was playing fast and loose with the facts. I thought it was great until I started realizing that the author of the website was getting details wrong. That site claimed that the rope found in JAR's bedroom was just sitting uncovered on the floor. I wasn't able to find a reliable source for that either. Too bad. Wouldn't it have been great if it was true?

It's fantasy. It's taking what is known and trying to fit it into the evidence, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Like you say, if that's how some want to approach the case, so be it, but I don't agree with that approach.