What do Burke's interviews tell us?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by eileenhawkeye, Jul 14, 2011.

  1. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We don't know for sure exactly what the murder weapon was. However, one of the forensic specialists who studied the case did an experiment using the identical flashlight and found that it left a rectangular depression identical to the depressed fracture on JB's skull. The fact that the R's flashlight was wiped down, and (this is VERY suspicious) that the batteries were removed and wiped down as well, tells me this flashlight played a bigger part in the crime than being used for light. I believe it was the weapon used to bludgeon her.
    Neighbors reported seeing "strange moving lights" in the R kitchen window- I believe that was the killer/stager walking with the flashlight.

    The coroner, as we know, was unable to determine whether the strangulation or head blow was the primary cause of death. I am amazed that he did not take the flashlight and test it against the hole in JB's skull to determine whether it could have been the murder weapon.
    We all recall the chief of police- his requests that the coroner keep JB's body a little longer, see if there was anything they might have overlooked. This would have been a perfect matter to test- does the suspiciously wiped down flashlight found in the home match the skull fracture? What could be more basic? Yet it was not done, nor did the coroner ever determine officially a time of death. Same is true of the suspicious round "abrasions/stun gun marks. WERE they stun gun marks? There IS a way to test them to see if they are consistent with an electrical burn, which would be consistent with use of a stun gun. That wasn't done either. Yet the police chief was vilified for "holding her body hostage". All he wanted was to have the parents agree to be interviewed by LE first, and then they might have a better idea what to have the coroner take a second look at.
    They were all so anxious to get her in that pageant dress and tiara in an open coffin while she still looked perfect (Patsy's words, spoken to BR at the coffin side).
    NO, here we have a sexual assault/child murder and they treated her body like a hot potato- they couldn't get her in the ground fast enough, where then, of course, the parents refused to allow an exhumation and the gutless DA refused to get a warrant to override them.
     


  2. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just went back and reread this thread, and it still amazes me, because I can't believe how flat BR was. For those of you who are new to the case, you might find it interesting, because whether you think he was involved or not, or you're on the fence, this is important information to this case. It's a rare insight into the dynamics of the Rs, especially BR, and personally, I didn't like what I saw. I think this was just a glimmer of what was gong on in that family. Also, one thing that I found interesting, was BR saying he could hear, from his room, the refrigerator door being opened. Considering the controversy with the pineapple, his statement kind of jumped out at me. He could hear the refrigerator, but not a scream? MOO.
     
  3. qtc

    qtc Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes, it is mind boggling how many inconsistencies/things that dont make sense, there are with this case.
     
  4. dodie20

    dodie20 New Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes, and what's unsettling about the refrigerator, is from the way the paper is written, it looks like BR made the association between the crime and the refrigerator...which IMO, doesn't leave much doubt that they were connected. So, connecting the dots, I'm guessing the kitchen played a big part, as did the pineapple. MOO
     
  5. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. Just trying to go a little deeper into this.

    I wonder why JR would leave the RN writing to PR ? The purpose is to make authorities believe it was a kidnapping, so the silliness (and it was silly) tends to damage it's effectiveness. It's hard to believe JR didn't at least read it when it was done. Why then wasn't it revised? Lack of time?

    I'm not sure JR couldn't have written it - I mean at least dictated it. Part of the plan may have been to make it seem as if the perp were a young immature person who would write something like that?

    As for the panties, this too might be deliberate, even though out of character. The boogey-man intruder of course wouldn't bother redressing JB, but if he did, he might not care that the panties were too big.
     
  6. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It depends on who you ask and what theory of the case they prefer.

    First, it's not really certain they "wanted" BR out of sight. If my home were a crime scene I think I'd like my minor children to go with a trusted friend/neighbor. So maybe there is nothing sinister here anyway. IOWs it's not that they wanted him out of sight, it's that they wanted him away from a crime scene. (And of course, we know that the Rs know that the body is going to be found, so they don't want him seeing that)

    Then, depending on one's perspective, the Rs either want BR away so he doesn't say something to the police, or they would want him close by so he doesn't say something to police, therefore he doesn't know anything. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
     
  7. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think this is at all unusual in the circumstances of the case. He must have overheard, or been told, some elements of what happened after he left the house. He has been able to learn that JB was found. Maybe he has also learned that his father placed her on the floor in the living room. He's put 2 and 2 together and knows his father must have found her. So he asks where? Something along these lines. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

    For BDI theorists, if BR is involved - why does he need to ask?
     
  8. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,819
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DeeDee249,
    ITA. Although I am not certain about the flashlights role. That is, was the head trauma a failed homicide attempt or was it indeterminate staging?

    The flashlight must have come in contact with JonBenet, else why bother wiping it clean?

    .
     
  9. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Intermediate staging. Interesting. That would put the strangulation first, blow to the head second? That would also imply that BR didn't strike the blow?

    I've pondered over the murder weapon for years and it's been discussed endlessly. Then you come along and make a very simple straightforward observation that puts it in perspective. It must have come in contact with JB, else why wipe it down. Including the battery.
     
  10. JenniferTx

    JenniferTx Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have always believed that Burke was the one responsible for her death. I know so many people just don't think that a 9 year almost 10 year old would have been capable of such a thing but I do. I think John and Patsy both did what they did to cover for Burke. I think Burke was very jealous of his sister because I'm sure she got the majority of her mothers attention. Please don't attack me for saying I believe that Burke did this horrible crime....JMO
     
  11. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I don't think anyone will attack you. It is certainly possible for a 9 year old boy to cause the death of a 6 year old girl. BDI does explain why JR/PR are pulling in team.

    IMO it was not BDI, but I wouldn't rule it out.

    Now, this is not an attack, but do we really know that JB got most of the attention and BR didn't get enough? Or is that just an assumption that has been made ? Remember that in his interview with the child psychologist (I think she was a psychologist) BR said his mother gave him lots of hugs and kisses.

    JR was a driven man who was working most of the time, but I'm sure that's not an unusual experience and it doesn't cause most boys to act out by bludgeoning their sister.

    I'm sure PR was a bit more interested in the things JB was doing, as would be natural. JB was doing girly things which PR could understand and relate to. But I'm not sure if the notion that BR was not getting enough attention really holds water. Maybe you have a source such as one of the books about the case, or some transcripts that I have not read?
     
  12. MissMar

    MissMar New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    New to the forum, have been following the JB case for a few years on and off, hi everyone.

    I think the flashlight was used to check JB's pupils after she was hit in the head. Fixt and unreactive pupils is a sign of death/brain death. Since the flashlight was in contact with the crime scene, and since the person using it was probably not wearing gloves at that point before the strangulation and staging, it was wiped clean of any fingerprints and/or DNA traces.

    It was left openly visible in the kitchen and also forgotten about since it was not the murder weapon and did not play any direct part in the strangulation and staging that came later after checking her pupils. I also think John Ramsey was the one using the flashlight (regardless of who struck JB), since Burke was too young to know about pupil reactions, and Patsy would not have been so rational, whether she was the one who discovered JBs body or the one who actually struck her in the head herself.

    Just my personal thoughts.
     
  13. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You make a very good point, MissMar about the reason behind the wiped flashlight -- something that has puzzled most and misled many (IMO). I don't believe the flashlight could have caused the "divot" in JonBenet's skull. So why was it there and why was it wiped clean of fingerprints? I think you may be right that it was used to check pupils early on when her body was first discovered. Later cleanup probably included it simply because of the mental connection. I can think of no other explanation for the Rs to deny their ownership.

    And welcome to the forum. I think you'll be a nice asset.
    .
     
  14. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,819
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chrishope,
    Some things cannot be established beyond doubt. But it seems credible that the flashlight played some role.

    Thats not really the problem, which is, was the flashlight used to bludgeon JonBenet or was it used at a later stage to assist with the staging, where it came in contact with JonBenet.

    Also why would Burke be carrying a flashlight around his own house, e.g. it has lights.

    Currently I reckon the best theory, until evidence emerges to the contrary, is that much of what you have in the wine-cellar is staging.

    As per our previous discussion, the R's rolled the dice, opted for staging, and in the main it paid off.

    So, as we can see, the staging of JonBenet was comprehensive, so there is nothing to prevent the assumption that her head injury might also be staging, but from the R's perspective, ineffective, that is visually it never worked, so they came up with the garrote, the latter which is not necessary!

    Alternatively, the head injury represents a sequence of failed attempts to actually kill JonBenet?


    .
     
  15. KoldKase

    KoldKase New Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For anyone who doesn't have Kolar's book, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?, or if you'd like to use some quotes from it in discussion, I've posted a section he wrote on "Sexual Behavior Problems" including some of the research and evidence we haven't seen before here:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=190987&posted=1#post190987

    You're welcome to quote Kolar's book, of course; just give him credit.
     
  16. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,819
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MissMar,
    The flashlight was Ramsey property, if it never came in contact with JonBenet there is no need to wipe it clean.

    The only other reason to wipe it clean might be if a person who would never be expected to use the flashlight had their dna or fingerprints on it?

    I reckon the flashlight played some role in the death of JonBenet, because the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, the flashlight has been removed and wiped clean to remove the person who killed JonBenet from being linked to the crime-scene.

    Also it occurred to me, as a long shot, the flashlight was used over a period of hours, so the batteries had to be changed, hence the wiping clean of the batteries. Simples!


    .

    .
     
  17. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting idea. Using it to check pupils would suggest a calm and rational approach to the situation.
     
  18. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Or, even if the batteries were fresh and didn't need replacing, the batteries were probably wiped to suggest the intruder had brought the flashlight. Can't really belong to the intruder if it's got Ramsey fingerprints on the battery.

    If my memory serves didn't they deny owning the flashlight? Or at least develop Ramnesia when asked about it?
     
  19. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If the blow to the head were an ineffective attempt at staging why not just hit her again?
     
  20. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,819
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chrishope,
    Why not, ask the stager?

    Sometimes in homicides you have stepwise refinement in reverse, particularly in staged crime-scenes.

    Otherwise how else do you explain the obvious multiple attempts at asphyxiation, a head injury, followed by a staged garrote asphyxiation?

    That is assuming BDI, we have a failed manual strangulation, followed by an ineffective head injury, then lastly by a garrote asphyxiation, with the intention of fooling you completely!


    .
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice