Why Burke did not kill JonBenet

[BlueCrab]

It's going to be interesting to see if Wood sues Lee. My bet is that he won't. Whether he does or not will send a message. IMO

Dr. Henry Lee, IMO, has suspected Burke since even before the grand jury convened in September of 1998. Prior to Hunter finally asking for a grand jury to investgate the killing, the BPD put on a three-day presentation for the D.A. and the nation's VIP's, including Scheck and Lee, on June 1, 2 and 3, 1998.

When the BPD's presentations were over on June 3 the D.A. and others at the sessions, including Henry Lee, realized the police had no evidence to indict neither John nor Patsy Ramsey. However, in departing, Lee commented that (and I'm paraphrasing his remark) "I guess it comes down to the pineapple".

The pineapple points to Burke because his fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple on the downstairs table, and JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs with someone she didn't know to snack on pineapple and play games. The pineapple fingerprint evidence convincingly links Burke to the death of JonBenet. That's a fact, and Wood can't successfully sue Lee nor anyone else for saying so.

JMO

 

[Nehemiah]

Dr. Henry Lee, IMO, has suspected Burke since even before the grand jury convened in September of 1998. Prior to Hunter finally asking for a grand jury to investgate the killing, the BPD put on a three-day presentation for the D.A. and the nation's VIP's, including Scheck and Lee, on June 1, 2 and 3, 1998.

When the BPD's presentations were over on June 3 the D.A. and others at the sessions, including Henry Lee, realized the police had no evidence to indict neither John nor Patsy Ramsey. However, in departing, Lee commented that (and I'm paraphrasing his remark) "I guess it comes down to the pineapple".

The pineapple points to Burke because his fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple on the downstairs table, and JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs with someone she didn't know to snack on pineapple and play games. The pineapple fingerprint evidence convincingly links Burke to the death of JonBenet. That's a fact, and Wood can't successfully sue Lee nor anyone else for saying so.

JMO

It's taken me almost five years of studying this, but I am almost ready to get off the fence and onto your side, BlueCrab. There are some points of your theory that I do not agree with (such as kids writing the note & AEA) but for the most part, I think you are going in the right direction. Even though Lee's book doesn't tell us much new info, somthing about it has cemented in my mind that you are on the right track.

IF your theory is correct, do you think Wood knows the truth?

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

It's taken me almost five years of studying this, but I am almost ready to get off the fence and onto your side, BlueCrab. There are some points of your theory that I do not agree with (such as kids writing the note & AEA) but for the most part, I think you are going in the right direction. Even though Lee's book doesn't tell us much new info, somthing about it has cemented in my mind that you are on the right track.

IF your theory is correct, do you think Wood knows the truth?

IMO

Nehemiah,

IMO Lin Wood knows just about everything there is to know about this case.

In regard to Burke being able to pen the ransom note, it's interesting to me that Carol Piirto was one of the witnesses to appear in front of the grand jury. Ms. Piirto was Burke's third grade teacher.

I wonder what she would know that would interest the grand jury. Was she being quizzed on Burke Ramsey's writing style and ability?

JMO

 

[Ivy]

My guess is that Ms. Piirto was called before the GJ to testify as to whether she noticed any signs that would suggest Burke had been abused at home.

imo

 

[K777angel]

My guess is that Ms. Piirto was called before the GJ to testify as to whether she noticed any signs that would suggest Burke had been abused at home.

imo

Bluecrab - How did you find out that Burke's 3rd grade teacher was called in front of the grand jury?
If this is true, it is very curious as Burke would have been in the 4th grade - not the 3rd grade at that time.
He was 3 weeks shy of 10 yrs old. So unless he was held back a full year he would have been in 4th grade.

If this teacher were called to testify I don't think it would have been regarding Burke's handwriting. She is not a handwriting expert and her "opinion" would be pointless. She would however have an awful lot to say about her observations regarding Burke's behavior and actions.

Bluecrab - how did you find this out and who else was called that we haven't heard about?
Thanks.

 

[BrotherMoon]

It's taken me almost five years of studying this, but I am almost ready to get off the fence and onto your side, BlueCrab. There are some points of your theory that I do not agree with (such as kids writing the note & AEA) but for the most part, I think you are going in the right direction. Even though Lee's book doesn't tell us much new info, somthing about it has cemented in my mind that you are on the right track.

IF your theory is correct, do you think Wood knows the truth?

IMO

Ground good, fence bad. Experience good, avoidance bad (a void dance).
Belief irrational, knowledge rational.

 

[VespaElf]

BC nearly has me convinced too but I don't think a child(ren) wrote the note(I belive Patsy did as part of the cover-up she and John engaged in and thats regardless of who the murderer is).


In any event,it was a Ramsey(although it was likely Patsy or Burke) ,imo,and other than that "fact" the 'how' and the 'whys' etc are all pure speculation and theory...................

 

[BlueCrab]

Bluecrab - how did you find this out and who else was called that we haven't heard about?
Thanks.

This might be of interest: There were two sets of fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple -- Patsy Ramsey's and Burke Ramsey's. The grand jurors called George Herrera, the CBI's fingerprint expert, to testify.

Why wouldn't the jurors just take the detectives word for it that the fingerprints were those of Patsy and Burke? Why have the fingerprint expert testify under oath? It's obvious the jurors considered the fingerprints important and wanted more detailed information from the expert.


JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Bluecrab - How did you find out that Burke's 3rd grade teacher was called in front of the grand jury?

Thanks.

Angel,

I simply go Googling to find out most of this stuff. For the Carol Piirto thing I believed I typed in "Ramsey grand jury witnesses" and one of the selections that popped up was a Boulder (I think) publication that contained a list of all known witnesses called by the grand jury to that date, including Ms. Piirto. I already knew that Piirto had been Burke's 3rd grade teacher.

JMO

 

[sissi]

A question? While the detectives claimed they identified Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl, under the law must they include in their statements any prints that were found and not identifiable ?(or for that matter any that were found and identifiable,ex. the housekeeper's or the 409 cleanup crew's?)

 

[Jayelles]

A question? While the detectives claimed they identified Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl, under the law must they include in their statements any prints that were found and not identifiable ?(or for that matter any that were found and identifiable,ex. the housekeeper's or the 409 cleanup crew's?)

I think you are asking whether they are obliged or not to state whether Patsys and Burkes were the ONLY fingerprints found?

I recall that in the AMI book (forget title - NE book), we can look at the police interviews and I think it was Tom Haney questioning Patsy when he referred to the fingerprints.

I can't put my hand on the book right now because its in a box or I would look it up for you (we are having the house remodelled and extended). But I think that's where you will find horses's mouth quotes which might clarify the issue. I would imagine that since the police were interrogating the Ramseys and that they believed they were good suspects, their objective was to force both information AND reactions from the Ramseys. In that case, I think they wouldn't offer information about other fingerprints. In the context of police interviews, I think they have a degree of "poetic licence" in order to try an obtain confessions or to force the witness/suspect into slipping up. I think it would be a different matter in court. I also think it would be a different matter if they Ramseys were charged or formally labelled as suspects. I think that entitles them to full access to evidence.

Sorry - I realise this post is garbled. I have a tight schedule today and I'm grabbing a few moments to read whilst I have a quick caffeine fix!

 

[BlueCrab]

A question? While the detectives claimed they identified Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl, under the law must they include in their statements any prints that were found and not identifiable ?(or for that matter any that were found and identifiable,ex. the housekeeper's or the 409 cleanup crew's?)

Sissi,

Only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple.

Jayelles is correct about the questioning technique. During the police interviews Tom Haney was toying with Patsy, telling her that a Ramsey's fingerprint was on the bowl but not telling her whose print it was. He was trying to extract more information from her responses.

JMO

 

[Nehemiah]

In regards to Burke being whisked away from the home on the 26th....

it occurred to me that there would have been a lot more opportunity for Burke to have "talked" at home. Imagine being there when his sister was discovered--all the emotions and just the scene itself was overwhelming, I'm sure. It would have been safer to send him to the White's with the Nintendo, and instructions to the Whites to make sure no one mentions JBR around him for fear of scaring/upsetting him. So he's at the Whites basically in a cocoon while all H*** breaks loose at the R's home. A protected environment for him, which any parent would desire, but esp. if the BDI scenario is accurate. Just my opinion, of course, based upon the facts that we know to be true.

 

[BlueCrab]

In regards to Burke being whisked away from the home on the 26th....

it occurred to me that there would have been a lot more opportunity for Burke to have "talked" at home.

Nehemiah,

Correct. The Ramsey house was crawling with cops and John obviously didn't want them questioning Burke.

The houseguests at the White's house said that Burke kept quiet and didn't ask any questions about what was going on. Amazing. Woken at 7 o'clock, taken straight to the White's, and no questions.

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

In just looking at pictures of Burke (that is all I really have to base this on), he looks like he was totally obliviouis to a lot of things. He looks to me like the type of child that is super intelligent, yet doesn't have a whole lot of common sensibility to him. They kind of block a lot of things from their mind and just focus on things that they like to do (i.e., video games, etc.) There is one photo in particular in the book "Police Files" where he is seen coming from the chapel with his mother and he is laughing while no one else is laughing. I think he has disassociated himself with the whole thing.

He may well be guilty of this crime, but I would think that a child like the one I think he may be, would be feeling guilty and sad for having caused this. He just looks to me like a child that has been told what happened but it has not registered in his mind yet and he really doesn't know what is really going on and doesn't seem to have taken it seriously at that time. He may now though.

 

[sissi]

Of all the books written about the case, Singular's was the only one that suggested there may be an undercurrent or subculture within Boulder that deserved investigation. Although his focus was on the possible *advertiser censored* angle,and the lack of energy ,time ,and interest on the part of the BPD to investigate same, he left open the door that even more sinister activities ,founded in religish/cultish groups,could be going on in Boulder.
When ya' consider evil activities , it sure seems impossible to trump child *advertiser censored*, until child murder is factored in.
Within all religions, there are fanatics and rogue followers who may ,with a blending of sociopathy, psychopathy or even heavy drugs , waiver from the group ideology and use their god as an excuse for behaviors that are either psychotic or criminal in nature.
Those that believe Patsy committed this crime are clearly assigning this behavior to her,yet for an unknown reason can and do not consider it possible for another ,more clearly insane person ,to be the murderer.
In light of the current "Christian" mother murderers, Patsy has gained in the polls, yet Patsy exhibits none of the behaviors applicable to these other, very sad, women. These same polls have Burke running a close second. A child murderer is rare and those that have murdered are among another very sad group ,a group of neglected ,abused children ,children who have witnessed a lifetime of alcoholic,drug addicted violent homes.
I don't believe people are "idiots", I believe we all have looked at this case and have seen elements of fanaticism mixed with juvenile thoughts and behaviors ,likely we have profiled the criminal but haven't uncovered his identity. Could we apply these same items to anyone else other than a Ramsey? Are there juveniles in the area, living with abusive, drug addicted, fanatical ,abusive guardians....kids who were KNOWN problem children in the neighborhood? IMO I would "up the age" of the perp, putting him closer to 14, perhaps teamed with a manipulative adult. (often "problem" children are swooped up by adults who prey on their kind) IMO


IMO Twizzler has "profiled" Burke correctly, although I don't believe he is/was brighter than average ,at the time of the murder he seemed to be a very naive ,immature little guy.

 

[BlueCrab]

IMO I would "up the age" of the perp, putting him closer to 14, perhaps teamed with a manipulative adult.

Sissi,

I can agree with that opinion. One of my BDI theories has an older accomplice with Burke. I believe the ransom note reflects the writings of a male of about 14 years old.

However, Sissi, you cannot factor out a Ramsey directly involved in this crime. The Ramseys would not be lying, refusing to fully cooperate, and covering up for a non-family member unless a family member was also involved.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

For those of you who think that Burke could not have been involved in this crime (mainly the initial blow to the head that got it all started) you know nothing about child killers. And this one really is more in the category of an "accident" than an intentional murder.
Kids kill other kids, sadly, all the time. We had a 9 yr old boy near here not too long ago who shot his 6 yr old little sister because she was annoying the heck out of him. Killed her. The community was shocked as this was a nice intact family. It happens.

All the movements, decisions and actions on the Ramseys part especially, and particularly after the grand jury disbanded, fit perfectly into a "Burke did it and the parents covered it up but we can't CHARGE Burke with a crime because he was just under 10 yrs old at the time and no one in Colorado can be charged as an accessory to a crime unless someone is charged with the main crime itself" scenario. So they were left with the mental health angle to get him help. Which he did.

Even the FBI said that the molestation in the crime appeared to be just part of the staging.
That there was staging in the crime they had NO doubt. In fact, they said there was something called "staging within staging" in this crime. (Typical Patsy going beyond the limits necessary - as with the note).

Of course John did not want Burke around that morning with cops everywhere questioning him and finding out things they didn't want them to know. If there truly WAS some intruder who did it and John and Patsy believed that - they would NEVER have sent Burke away unsafe out of their sight. Never.

The evidence points to Burke having been involved and his parents staging an elaborate cover-up.
And I think in time we will know the truth.
~Angel~

 

[sissi]

Angel quote: Of course John did not want Burke around that morning with cops everywhere questioning him and finding out things they didn't want them to know. If there truly WAS some intruder who did it and John and Patsy believed that - they would NEVER have sent Burke away unsafe out of their sight. Never.

These are people who left Burke "home alone" at three ,while they drove to the hospital to deliver Jonbenet! They prioritize events , and trust God or whoever to tend to the least pressing issues. Careless, neglectful, IMO yes to both! IMO if they believed for a second that Burke was involved they would have kept him close and quiet. Fleet ,if anyone,was the odd player that morning, much of what he did could raise an eyebrow if we look more deeply. He ,likely, insisted on taking Burke ! John and Patsy were far too upset to make decisions concerning his care and considered Fleet and Priscilla friends who WOULD keep him safe . Considering this was going to be a long day, waiting for kidnapper calls, cops in and out, parents living a horror,certainly nothing they would want their child to witness,they let him go. Fleet maintained an element of control over the entire scene for days, and when he lost that control he apparently lost his "cool" ,indicating to some that HE was unbalanced. IMO

 

[Nehemiah]

In just looking at pictures of Burke (that is all I really have to base this on), he looks like he was totally obliviouis to a lot of things. He looks to me like the type of child that is super intelligent, yet doesn't have a whole lot of common sensibility to him. They kind of block a lot of things from their mind and just focus on things that they like to do (i.e., video games, etc.) There is one photo in particular in the book "Police Files" where he is seen coming from the chapel with his mother and he is laughing while no one else is laughing. I think he has disassociated himself with the whole thing.

He may well be guilty of this crime, but I would think that a child like the one I think he may be, would be feeling guilty and sad for having caused this. He just looks to me like a child that has been told what happened but it has not registered in his mind yet and he really doesn't know what is really going on and doesn't seem to have taken it seriously at that time. He may now though.

You could very well be correct, Twizzler. IF Burke was indeed responsible for JB's death, I think the parents concocted the intruder scenario also for his benefit. I think he was sent to bed that night and Patsy possibly then wrote the note w/John's assistance and the staging began. I think Burke awoke the next morning and got up, walked in on the Rs talking about the ransom note and Patsy making the 911 call, and that he didn't know what in the heck was occurring. I think if Burke were responsible, it was a horrible accident and the Rs didn't want him appearing involved; that's why they distanced him from it all by saying JB was asleep when arriving home from the Whites, no pineapple, etc... I think to this day, if the BDI theory is any where near correct, that Burke himself is confused about what really happened to his sister. At nine years old, they may have convinced him that JB was really okay and sent him up to bed, told him that they put her to bed, and then they "awoke to find the note", etc... and the day of the 26th went down in history. I believe that the Rs are caring parents who wanted to shelter him from those dreams, but they created a nightmare instead unintentionally. All this is my opinion, and may change by the next post.