Actually, Melanie Stanton (the neighbor who head the scream) told police she routinely slept with a window cracked open a little in winter. Still, she lived across the street and still heard it.
What do Burke's interviews tell us?
- Thread starter eileenhawkeye
- Start date
Actually, Melanie Stanton (the neighbor who head the scream) told police she routinely slept with a window cracked open a little in winter. Still, she lived across the street and still heard it.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
Great question. We will likely never know for sure, but I think we can theorize. IF Burke was a homicidal rapist who either accidentally or deliberately killed his sister, and IF mom and dad decided to cover it up, is it more likely that...
A. They would want him away from them, where in his isolation he might crack under pressure and confess everything, or even possible attack someone else, or run away, or attempt suicide?
Or is it more likely that...
B. They would keep him next to them where they could offer moral and psychological support? Where they could make sure he didn't confess, or hurt anyone else, or himself, or screw up their coverup by saying the wrong thing?
The only scenario in which it makes sense (to me) that he was sent away is if:
1. They KNEW it was not an intruder who murdered their daughter
2. They had had plenty of time to talk with Burke about the consequences should Burke reveal this truth (Daddy and Mommy going to prison, foster care, poverty, no more toys or planes or nintendo, etc)
3. They had a reasonable belief or desperate hope that the little guy really didn't much care what happened to his sister anyway.
Woah!! I don't think that Burke is a homicidal rapist. I do however, think he may have been involved in his sisters death, more as a manner of sexual exploration that got out of hand.
The R's definately shuffled him out of the house a.s.a.p. I think it was two fold. The death was staged, to look as if some sick pervert was involved. I think they believed this would 1) buy time to set up their stories/school Burke. In the meantime, the R's and their law team could, 2) distance themselves and Burke from getting involved in the investigation.
They succeeded at this so well, that the case has never been 'solved'.
Funny, how they could play cya so well, allowing the death of their daughter to go unpunished. But, funny thing happened on the way to the cover up. Their precious daughter may not have died at the hands of their son. It may have been Mom and Dad that dealt the 'final blow', strangling the last breath from their daughter, in the attempt to cover up what they thought was the the true crime.
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 31,866
- Reaction score
- 7,458
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 130
Maybe John and Patsy wanted Burke out of the house because they knew that JonBenet's body would be brought up from the basement eventually, and they didn't want him to be there when it was found?
Zephyr
Member
Yes, I think that's it. The Ramseys could be fairly certain that no one was going to be talking to Burke about what happened to JonBenet. And they also knew that Burke was a quiet, reserved child who would not ask questions or volunteer any information. JMO
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
From the parent's persective, in which of the following scenarios is it MORE likely that you would send your kid off to a friend's house...
Scenario One Christmas Eve. After an exhausting night partying with family and friends you are jolted awake by the shrill scream of terror and agony from your little baby girl. You rush first to your daughters room. It's empty. Then to your son's room. He is gone as well. You yell their names and your boy answers from the kitchen. You run downstairs in a panic, heart hammering in your chest, and find Burke clutching a lit flashlight, tiny droplets of blood on the lens glowing like neon lights in tavern window.
Trying to keep the horror from your voice, to pretend that everything is okay, you ask, "Where's JonBenet?" No answer. "Burke, where's JonBenet! Where?" On it's own your voice has risen until you are yelling. You can't seem to tear your eyes away from the flashlight, it's pointed at the floor now and you can see what appears to be a tangle of hair stuck to the end. Red hair. Only it didn't start off red, and you know it.
"She's in the cellar. We were playing and she... she fell."
In the basement you find your baby. Her eyes are open but you don't think she can see you. Her pants and underwear are gone. Her groin is bloody. Her breathing is coming in sharp stuttering gasps, her entire body seizing with each inhalation. Breath... pause....breath.... pause... You find yourself holding your breath with every pause, waiting for her to breath again, knowing that soon, maybe this next breath, the pause will stretch on forever. What happened here is clear to you. You boy, your beloved little guy, he did this.
You decide to cover it up. You head back upstairs, take the flash from your little maniac and send him to bed -- he's had a busy night after all, and you have work to do. You have already decided to stage a fake kidnapping and buy some time... Sure, maybe your little guy might break down in a tearful confession, or maybe say the wrong thing, or he might even decide to attack someone else, but that's a risk you are willing to take.
Scenario Two: Christmas Eve. After an exhausting night partying with family and friends you are jolted awake by the shrill scream of terror and agony from your little baby girl. Sitting up, you see that the bed is empty next to you. You rush first to your daughters room. Nothing. Then to your son's room. He is siting up in bed, looking at you with bleary eyes. "What's going on Mom?" You don't know so you tell him to go to sleep.
You find your husband with your daughter in the basement. She is naked and bloody. He is crying. "I-I'm sorry," he says. Your entire life is on the line, your husband might be a pervert and a maniac, but he is yours and you love him, and in any case he's your meal ticket and the damage is already done. You decide to cover it up with a fake kidnapping. You know enough from movies to know how a kidnapper might sound, and if you can get the police away from you long enough you can surely stash the body somewhere. The only problem is Burke. He knows something is going on. You just need to have a talk with him, tell him that JobBenet was kidnapped -- he might suspect something else, so you tell him that if he says anything to anyone his mommy and daddy will go to prison and he will go to an Orphanage and he will lose his house and plane and nintendo and money and friends.
Scenario One Christmas Eve. After an exhausting night partying with family and friends you are jolted awake by the shrill scream of terror and agony from your little baby girl. You rush first to your daughters room. It's empty. Then to your son's room. He is gone as well. You yell their names and your boy answers from the kitchen. You run downstairs in a panic, heart hammering in your chest, and find Burke clutching a lit flashlight, tiny droplets of blood on the lens glowing like neon lights in tavern window.
Trying to keep the horror from your voice, to pretend that everything is okay, you ask, "Where's JonBenet?" No answer. "Burke, where's JonBenet! Where?" On it's own your voice has risen until you are yelling. You can't seem to tear your eyes away from the flashlight, it's pointed at the floor now and you can see what appears to be a tangle of hair stuck to the end. Red hair. Only it didn't start off red, and you know it.
"She's in the cellar. We were playing and she... she fell."
In the basement you find your baby. Her eyes are open but you don't think she can see you. Her pants and underwear are gone. Her groin is bloody. Her breathing is coming in sharp stuttering gasps, her entire body seizing with each inhalation. Breath... pause....breath.... pause... You find yourself holding your breath with every pause, waiting for her to breath again, knowing that soon, maybe this next breath, the pause will stretch on forever. What happened here is clear to you. You boy, your beloved little guy, he did this.
You decide to cover it up. You head back upstairs, take the flash from your little maniac and send him to bed -- he's had a busy night after all, and you have work to do. You have already decided to stage a fake kidnapping and buy some time... Sure, maybe your little guy might break down in a tearful confession, or maybe say the wrong thing, or he might even decide to attack someone else, but that's a risk you are willing to take.
Scenario Two: Christmas Eve. After an exhausting night partying with family and friends you are jolted awake by the shrill scream of terror and agony from your little baby girl. Sitting up, you see that the bed is empty next to you. You rush first to your daughters room. Nothing. Then to your son's room. He is siting up in bed, looking at you with bleary eyes. "What's going on Mom?" You don't know so you tell him to go to sleep.
You find your husband with your daughter in the basement. She is naked and bloody. He is crying. "I-I'm sorry," he says. Your entire life is on the line, your husband might be a pervert and a maniac, but he is yours and you love him, and in any case he's your meal ticket and the damage is already done. You decide to cover it up with a fake kidnapping. You know enough from movies to know how a kidnapper might sound, and if you can get the police away from you long enough you can surely stash the body somewhere. The only problem is Burke. He knows something is going on. You just need to have a talk with him, tell him that JobBenet was kidnapped -- he might suspect something else, so you tell him that if he says anything to anyone his mommy and daddy will go to prison and he will go to an Orphanage and he will lose his house and plane and nintendo and money and friends.
Chris TX, either one of those scenarios is a possibility, as well as about 20 others. I think a lot of what you say is right on!! Whatever happened, I don't believe that Patsy slept through it. Not a teenie tiny bit of Mother's instinct in her body if she did, after a loud scream.
Also, and I am in no way shape or form trying to aide the R's defense, but, in the wine cellar or train room, there is an open vent, of sorts, that when LE saw it, prompted the experiment of the whistle, in the movie PMPT.
This was talked about in the book and Steve's book also, if I am not mistaken. This is how they knew the scream could have been heard across the street, as Lou Smit yelled or whistled and the officer across the street could hear it loud and clear.
Thing is, that the officer UPSTAIRS also heard it without any problems. If I understand correctly, even though the R's slept on another floor, it was basically pretty open, as she said she could hear the children from her bedroom.
Also, and I am in no way shape or form trying to aide the R's defense, but, in the wine cellar or train room, there is an open vent, of sorts, that when LE saw it, prompted the experiment of the whistle, in the movie PMPT.
This was talked about in the book and Steve's book also, if I am not mistaken. This is how they knew the scream could have been heard across the street, as Lou Smit yelled or whistled and the officer across the street could hear it loud and clear.
Thing is, that the officer UPSTAIRS also heard it without any problems. If I understand correctly, even though the R's slept on another floor, it was basically pretty open, as she said she could hear the children from her bedroom.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks. And I agree, eitehr scenario or dozens of others are all possible. I don't really believe either of the ones I posted, but odds are reasonably good that something like one of those two happened, at least in the important details as far as Burke is concerned. Which raised the question: under which of thiose two scenarios are the parents more likely to send their kid away.
Are they more likely to send a potentially remorseful killed out to face the world and potential questions alone? Or, are they more likely to send a kid who really doesn't know for sure what happened?
If the former, consider that they do not KNOW that Burke wont immediately break down and confess his crimes (and in process land his parents is serious trouble), they don't know whether or not he will say something that blows their stories completely out of the water, they don't even know if he wont head over to the White house and start stabbing the hell out of people. Yet still they sent him away. This makes no logical sense.
If the later, we have a sleepy Burke, probably roused by the activity in the home, but he doesn't KNOW anything. It's not like the parent's trooped him downstairs to look at his sister's corpse. All he knows is that something woke his parents, they were very upset, and his kid sister is gone. It is even likely that the parent's began lying to him about a kidnapping from second one, regardless of the time. He might SUSPECT all kinds of things, he might even have guessed or even KNOWN that his daddy was molesting his kid sister, but he knew enough to keep his mouth shut. And his parent's likely (and correctly) assumed that he would.
SuperMom1995
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Messages
- 474
- Reaction score
- 0
I am new to this forum. How did you learn the neighbor across the street heard a scream that night? What source was it from?
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
Go here and spend as much time as you can. It is an enormous store of info on this case. Make sure you go to the JonBenet Ramsey section and click on that. All your questions will be answered there. This way when you read here, you'll have a general idea of the case. There are many photos, lots of background info and many pages of police interviews with the parents. You should also consider reading a few books (all available in paperback), like "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" By Lawrence Schiller (also available in DVD form), and Steve Thomas' book as well.
http://www.acandyrose.com
Leomoon80
Well-Known Member
I use to think Burke was the only one in the house that hadn't been questioned by LE and early on, had his own lawyer.
However, when we think about it, and put ourselves into their shoes, I suppose it makes sense to want to protect your 9 yr. old (wasn't he about 9 at the time?) from prying eyes, horrible news, awful stuff to come.
The more I read, the more I think it was an intruder.
The intruder theory isn't just a theory,......but perhaps may be the person who did this was involved with others.
There was the Amy case, that occurred around the same time as Jon Benet, and the paretns were asleep when their daughter yelloed out, they ran to her room and saw a many exiting, running out of her room,
This wasn't all that far from the Ramsey home as I recall (vaguely).....
Steve Thomas book is all about pointing the finger at Patsy.
I think it was someone else who had it in for this family and knew the Ramseys in some manner.
Perhaps a business deal gone sour.
There was also talk about a plot of land that the dead guy or his buddy had interest in, and Access Graphics also had interest in the same plot of land.
However, when we think about it, and put ourselves into their shoes, I suppose it makes sense to want to protect your 9 yr. old (wasn't he about 9 at the time?) from prying eyes, horrible news, awful stuff to come.
The more I read, the more I think it was an intruder.
The intruder theory isn't just a theory,......but perhaps may be the person who did this was involved with others.
There was the Amy case, that occurred around the same time as Jon Benet, and the paretns were asleep when their daughter yelloed out, they ran to her room and saw a many exiting, running out of her room,
This wasn't all that far from the Ramsey home as I recall (vaguely).....
Steve Thomas book is all about pointing the finger at Patsy.
I think it was someone else who had it in for this family and knew the Ramseys in some manner.
Perhaps a business deal gone sour.
There was also talk about a plot of land that the dead guy or his buddy had interest in, and Access Graphics also had interest in the same plot of land.
There is also CO law, that states that if someone is under 10, they can not even be named as a suspect, let alone prosecuted for the crime. Is it possible, as I asked on another thread, that all of this time, the DA KNEW that by confession of Burke or the parents, that Burke committed this crime, the parents attempted to cover it up, but that made it un-prosecutable crime?
You can not prosecute the parents for protecting their child, who is the murderer, if this is the case. It would explain the DA;s actions, although not the fact that he was such an awful person in the way he went about it.
You can not prosecute the parents for protecting their child, who is the murderer, if this is the case. It would explain the DA;s actions, although not the fact that he was such an awful person in the way he went about it.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
Obviously it COULD have been an intruder. Assuming that he broke in earlier in the day or evening he would have had the run of the house and hours to poke around writing ransom notes and constructing weapons. He might very well have heard them talking about all kinds of things. So yeah, it could have been an intruder.
But it almost certainly wasn't.
When a kid is mollested or abused or ends up dead the crime was almost always perpetrated by someone in the child's family or someone who knew the child very well. Despite the movies and the internet stalker fear campaigns, in the real world the boogeyman is almost always known and trusted by the kid. It's that child's family, a close neighbor, a priest, a trusted family friend. Sometimes it isn't, and that's the way the fiction writers and government officials like to spin it, but usually that's the first and best place to look.
In this case we have more than that to go on. We have the evidence of prior abuse. We have the redressing, including the fact that she was dressed in underwear only someone in the home knew existed. We have the "War and Peace" fake ransom note. We have physical forensic evidence such as the fibers from dad's clothing found inside JB's new (and incorrect) underwear. We have the Ramsey's own behavior. The list goes on and on.
And on the other side of the coin, the IDI side, we have basically nothing. We have no solid means of entry. No real motive for the zany behavior and redressing other than "crazy." No plausible explanation for the novella length note. No good explanation for the insider knowlege of the family's finances or inside jokes. No suspects. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." It is true here as well.
As for the other home invasion case in Boulder... the police have been very clear in saying that the two cases are unrelated. They really never appeared to take the other case all that seriously. I suspect for good reason.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
I am confident that the law which protects children from prosecution does not require the police and DA's to pretend they have no suspects or suspect someone else. Nor would such a law require that they ignore the crimes of a kid who murders other kids. Ifthe DA's office knew Burke did it he would have been whisked off into the mental health system / child protective services system before the day was out -- that one's EASY to do, you dont need a jury or grand jury for that, just a judge or doctor.
As for how the DA's office would have spun it... obviously that's trickier. They would simply say that they have a confession and, as the subject is a minor they are not going to release any more details at this time. Or something along those lines. They don't have any responsiblity to guarantee that no one guesses or knows who did it, they just can't use the name themselves.
Your point is well -taken, but this wasn't just ANY case. The DA, governor's office, politically powerful defense firm ALL would have played a part in sweeping it under the rug and any evidence against BR would not see the light of day.
As far as prosecuting the parents for protecting the child, well, if they tampered with the evidence/body, that is ITSELF a crime, so it probably could have been prosecuted.
Similar to the Casey Anthony trial- the jury heard and believed Mrs. Anthony when she said she was the one who did the Google search for how to make chloroform, not Casey. These searches were made from the home computer at the Anthony home, yet it was PROVEN that Mrs Anthony was in fact, at work that day at the time of the searches. There was some talk of charging her with perjury, though that has not been done at this point. So what does that tell us (and the jury)? If she didn't do it, then Casey did. Yet the jury based their verdict on believing it was Mrs. Anthony.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
I am not at all convinced of this. There are some who (correctly) recognize that A. JB was seemingly a victim of chronic abuse; and B. that the most likely perpetrator was someone who knew her well (as is almost always the case); and C. that the murder whoch accompanied her final abuse narrows the field so significantly that the most plausible suspects are limited to her immediate family, which includes Burke.
HOWEVER, beyond this there is literally nothing linking him to the crime and a great deal of evidence that supports his innocence. Using the sort of mental gymnastics rarely seen outside Washigton, some say that this lack is evidence in itself.
In truth, homicidal kids don't have political pull. This is america: we LOVE our wealthy and celebrities but what we really love is tearing them down. The most the Ramsey's wealth and connections might have gotten them was exceptional lawyers and a boy who likely would have been released at age 18. A boy with no official record of course, but an unofficial one for sure -- assuming anyone remembered or cared.
Certainly -- assuming that there was some actual evidence that Burke killed JB and they covered it up.
Once something gets in front of a juror anything is possible. In that case we had some masterful razzle dazzle on the part of the defense team, a jury that cared so little about the evidence that they never even bothered to review or discuss it (and when interviewed after the fact ofter get many of the critical facts wrong), and a prosecution so smug in the case and facts they presented that they took their eye off the ball.
Obviously the same could easily have happened in this case. Getting a conviction would have been tough -- even assuming the DA's office was interested in trying. The evidence was (and is) there, but good luck trying to get a jury to see and remember it with a team of defense lawyers throwing out a thousand whacky scenarios a day. Even here the RDI and IDI factions cannot agree.
The sad part about this case is that it will never be "solved." There will be no justice for Caylee or JB, ever.
ITA. Sad, yes. But I'd at least wanted to see them TRY. Put in front of jury on the witness stand, questions could have been asked that never were during the interviews, and people like the coroner could also have been questioned about his decisions to leave out his opinions on the findings or at least he did not make them public. (his opinion on digital penetration, for example, mentioned to Det. Arndt but left put of the report) also his odd decision to put the time she was FOUND as the TOD, when the TOD could easily have been quite closely estimated by the stage of rigor mortis and the contents of the small intestine.
If I could have picked one person to put on the witness stand, it'd be Coroner Meyer.
Chris_Texas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 3
The only real hope at this point is that some solid piece of evidence will come to light tying John to the actual murder. There's all kinds of evidence linking him to the coverup, but nothing definative linking him to the murder itself. If anything, there is probably more evidence against Patsy than against John. HER fibers were found wrapped up in the garrot, his were found inside underwear she she almost certainly never wore while living.