Was Burke involved?

Was Burke involved in JB's death?

  • Burke was involved in the death of JBR

    Votes: 377 59.6%
  • Burke was totally uninvolved in her death

    Votes: 256 40.4%

  • Total voters
    633
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has been many years since I posted on this case. I have always thought that Burke was involved. It is the only thing that makes any sense when viewing how John and Patsy acted. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Midnight_Wolf
 
K777angel said:
Bluecrab - They said there were "indications" that Patsy Ramsey WROTE the ransom note!! Hello!!!!!!!!!
A big fat DUH!!!!

And they DID examine Burke Ramsey's handwriting and said it wasn't even "probable" that he wrote it.

Move on! He did NOT write that note!! His mother did.


angel,

There were "indications" that John did not write the note. So where are the "indications" that Burke did not write the note? There are none, or Ubowski would have stated so. He waffled by saying "probably", and the authorities have stayed silent on the subject ever since.
 
BlueCrab said:
angel,

There were "indications" that John did not write the note. So where are the "indications" that Burke did not write the note? There are none, or Ubowski would have stated so. He waffled by saying "probably", and the authorities have stayed silent on the subject ever since.
i am open to the possibility that Burke wrote the note, but i am also open to the possibility that his mom wrote it.

in fact BC has mentioned that it was said that "whoever wrote those captions wrote the ransom note".

To me, the "logical" case that can be made that Burke was somehow INVOLVED in the death of JBR is much stronger than any case that can be made that he wrote the note.

However i also think that people who dismiss the possibility of Burke's authorship are being too closed-minded. An intelligent 9 / 10 year old certainly COULD have written the note, and if he had help from another "private individual" then it is even easier to believe he wrote it.

however what i am asserting is that the fundamental idea that Burke is who J & P are covering for is a very strong idea (as many people have stated, the behavior of the Rams doesnt make a lot of sense unless they are covering for someone they love).

But BC don't you agree that Patsy could have written the note to explain something horrible that Burke did to his sister?

With Epstein saying that he is not 50% sure, not 99%, but 100% sure (!!) that P wrote the note; and with such phraseological evidence as "and hence", which seems to point straight at Patsy or John, don't you agree that a scenario where P wrote the note to cover for B is a definite possibility?
 
BlueCrab said:
angel,

There were "indications" that John did not write the note. So where are the "indications" that Burke did not write the note? There are none, or Ubowski would have stated so. He waffled by saying "probably", and the authorities have stayed silent on the subject ever since.

Bluecrab - As I am sure you are aware, in handwriting analysis there would be a heirarchy of 'diagnosis' - for lack of a better word - in their evaluation determinations. For example, at the bottom of the list of course would be "did not write it" (no match). At the top of the list would be "wrote it" - or a match.
In between you have different levels of evaluation. "Not probable" that a particular person wrote the document in question is obviously way at the bottom of the list.
Do you have an official list of CBI's evaluation terms?
If not - you cannot just state as fact that because they stated that in comparing Burke's handwriting sample to the note that it "WASN'T PROBABLE" that he wrote the note that that means they are fudging because they did not use the word "indication."
Not until you indicate where "indication" and "not probable" fall on the list.
 
GuruJosh said:
With Epstein saying that he is not 50% sure, not 99%, but 100% sure (!!) that P wrote the note;


GuruJosh,

Gideon Epstein was torn apart by Lin Wood during his deposition (in the Wolf v Ramsey defamation lawsuit) -- so much so that Darnay Hoffman officially withdrew him as an expert witness before the deposition was even finished.

Besides, in contrast to Epstein's assertion, the CBI's six experts included Richard Dusak, the U.S. Secret Service examiner, who said straight out, "There was no evidence that Patsy wrote the note."

And the CBI's private examiner Howard Rile said that Patsy is rated between "probably not" and "eliminated" as the writer.

And the CBI's private examiner Edwin Alford, Jr. said, "Examination has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy as the writer".

The CBI's other three examiners, Ubowski, Speckin, and Cunningham, concluded individually that, although they couldn't eliminate Patsy as the writer, it wasn't likely that she wrote it.

So I'll go with the consensus of the six CBI experts and say that it's highly unlikely that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Those experts eliminated John as the writer; and since one of the three Ramseys had to have written it, that leaves Burke.

BlueCrab
 
Since I have never taken the ransom note too seriously, other than considering it to be a part of the crime scene staging, its difficult to go from ransom note author to killer.

Burke may have been involved. Patsy may have composed the note aloud while Burke penned it down, this may account for the duality of attribution.

If as one version of BC's BDI suggests, that there was another person in the house that night, and taking into account the foresight and planning that has gone into the ransom note. Then why mess it up forensically and allow Burke or Patsy to pen it, why not ask the other person to do it , prior to them exiting?

One obvious assymetry in the case and the forensic evidence is the degree of planning and construction that has been undertaken wrt the ransom note, as distinct from the crime-scene in the wine-cellar.

This does lend itself to BC's BDI since the disorganized aspect of the wine-cellar and her redressing, contrasts with the neat, pointed ransom note, suggesting a juvenile element to the former and an adult hand in the latter.




.
 
UKGuy said:
Burke may have been involved. Patsy may have composed the note aloud while Burke penned it down, this may account for the duality of attribution.




.[/QUOTE}]
C'mon please. This just gets so carried away. No wonder the R's need lawyers.

Hey maybe the dog wrote the note.
Or maybe they made poor JBR write it before they finished her off.
Maybe they all wrote it. Each one printing a different word or letter.
Duality of attribution? Maybe because it was written by a crazed psychopath.
 
Zman said:
UKGuy said:
Burke may have been involved. Patsy may have composed the note aloud while Burke penned it down, this may account for the duality of attribution.




.[/QUOTE}]
C'mon please. This just gets so carried away. No wonder the R's need lawyers.

Hey maybe the dog wrote the note.
Or maybe they made poor JBR write it before they finished her off.
Maybe they all wrote it. Each one printing a different word or letter.
Duality of attribution? Maybe because it was written by a crazed psychopath.
Just give that dog a bone then ...

Duality of attribution: I'm trying to explain how elements of Burkes hand-writing and Patsy's adult grammar, along with her neat planning can be incorporated into what I would describe as an after the event crime-scene staging or a son assisting his mother to help coverup. Why, because some people think burke was involved!


.
 
UKGuy said:
Just give that dog a bone then ...

Duality of attribution: I'm trying to explain how elements of Burkes hand-writing and Patsy's adult grammar, along with her neat planning can be incorporated into what I would describe as an after the event crime-scene staging or a son assisting his mother to help coverup. Why, because some people think burke was involved!


.
I want to know what happend that night as much as anyone else. I suppose every avenue and possibility must be explored. I just think some of these threads border on utter nonsense. What elements? People see what they want to see. They make up their own facts. What "neat planning"? Everything about that morning is haphazard. A "neat plan" would not include having your son write out a ransome note. How in the world could any "neat planner" conclude that her 9 year old son could not be cracked by police interrogation/questioning? Thats not a very good plan.
 
Zman said:
I want to know what happend that night as much as anyone else. I suppose every avenue and possibility must be explored. I just think some of these threads border on utter nonsense. What elements? People see what they want to see. They make up their own facts. What "neat planning"? Everything about that morning is haphazard. A "neat plan" would not include having your son write out a ransome note. How in the world could any "neat planner" conclude that her 9 year old son could not be cracked by police interrogation/questioning? Thats not a very good plan.
Careful, Zman. Someone might accuse you of having an independent thought!
 
Zman said:
I want to know what happend that night as much as anyone else. I suppose every avenue and possibility must be explored. I just think some of these threads border on utter nonsense. What elements? People see what they want to see. They make up their own facts. What "neat planning"? Everything about that morning is haphazard. A "neat plan" would not include having your son write out a ransome note. How in the world could any "neat planner" conclude that her 9 year old son could not be cracked by police interrogation/questioning? Thats not a very good plan.
Zman,

Just review the evidence, look how many people analyse and attempt to unmask JonBenet's killer via the ransom note.

JonBenet's killer has never been brought to justice.

Whilst you may consider Thats not a very good plan.

It worked, the killer is at large, the plan , whatever it was, has been a success!
 
UKGuy said:
Zman,

Just review the evidence, look how many people analyse and attempt to unmask JonBenet's killer via the ransom note.

JonBenet's killer has never been brought to justice.

Whilst you may consider Thats not a very good plan.

It worked, the killer is at large, the plan , whatever it was, has been a success!
The killer roams free because of the worst police work in history. Not because of any "neat plan".
 
capps said:
Where do you think the killer may be,BlueCrab?


capps,

I don't know where the killer is. It's just a hunch, but I don't think he's roaming free.
 
Any thoughts on Jubie's theory (see members' theories), that the ropes and sexual/torture aspects were added NOT to convince authorities that JBR had been molested & tortured, but to convince BURKE, after he had (apparently, to the parents) killed her by smashing her skull with the flashlight?

A very interesting point of view IMO, well done Jubie! I love these new angles ;)
 
The main reason as I see it, for people suspecting that Burke was involved is that they suspect one or both of the parents as being involved in a cover up which they must only be doing in order to protect someone.

I agree with them in that I think that one of the parents is most definitely involved in the cover up and they are doing it to protect someone.

But then people conclude that the ONLY person the parents would be likely to protect is someone in their very own family.

I think people are making a big mistake here.

I can think of many other people that Patsy (not John) would protect and these are the people who were her friends. The ones who had been involved in the sexual abuse of JonBenet for most of her short life and which deep, deep down Patsy knew about but pretended to herself that she didn’t.
 
aussiesheila said:
The main reason as I see it, for people suspecting that Burke was involved is that they suspect one or both of the parents as being involved in a cover up which they must only be doing in order to protect someone.
And if people can just get over thinking that the R's were involved in a cover up then you don't have to waste your time thinking Burke was involved. There would be many easier ways to "cover-up" this tragedy then the incrediblebly indiscriminate, careless and unsystematic way the home was left that morning.
 
Zman said:
There would be many easier ways to "cover-up" this tragedy then the incrediblebly indiscriminate, careless and unsystematic way the home was left that morning.
After nearly 10 years of hindsight, that's easy to say.

Try making the cover-up decisions in one night, while tired as hell, crying your eyes out, hysterical, scared, unable to write without shaking....

In my opinion, that's why the coverup was "unsystematic".

Whoever killed JonBenet had never killed before and has never killed since, IMO. The FBI said the same thing.

and... it still worked! Neither the pro-Rams nor the anti-Rams are any closer to proving who the killer was. Crime of the decade.
 
GuruJosh said:
After nearly 10 years of hindsight, that's easy to say.

Try making the cover-up decisions in one night, while tired as hell, crying your eyes out, hysterical, scared, unable to write without shaking....

In my opinion, that's why the coverup was "unsystematic".

Whoever killed JonBenet had never killed before and has never killed since, IMO. The FBI said the same thing.

and... it still worked! Neither the pro-Rams nor the anti-Rams are any closer to proving who the killer was. Crime of the decade.
Still the "clever" "well educated" R's would have more time. They gave it to themselves.
1. We will call..10:00am.
2. Do not call police.
They had plenty of time to cancel there flight arrangments and proceed with the cover up for at least 4 more hours. They could of always said they were waiting for instructions and when they recieved no call from the kidnappers they then called police.
Maybe even gotten JBR's body out of the house.

(If you believe any of that nonsense.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,656
Total visitors
2,854

Forum statistics

Threads
580,435
Messages
17,755,608
Members
225,064
Latest member
Drew17
Back
Top