It always leads back to Burke

It always leads back to Burke

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#1 Oct 24, 2011
In the relationship between JonBenet and Burke, it seems JonBenet was a stronger personality. Burke was timid, quite, reserved, and shy. JonBenet was boisterous, vocal, and a handful.

If there was an altercation that caused the invisible skull fracture perhaps JonBenet’s injury happened as Burke defended himself.

Burke killed JonBenet in self defense. Nothing done on purpose. Nothing planned.

Judged:

21

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: May 11

AOL

#2 Oct 24, 2011
pinker wrote:
In the relationship between JonBenet and Burke, it seems JonBenet was a stronger personality. Burke was timid, quite, reserved, and shy. JonBenet was boisterous, vocal, and a handful.
If there was an altercation that caused the invisible skull fracture perhaps JonBenet’s injury happened as Burke defended himself.
Burke killed JonBenet in self defense. Nothing done on purpose. Nothing planned.
Feasible..but who was molesting her?
BrotherMoon

Loveland, CO

#4 Oct 24, 2011
pinker wrote:
In the relationship between JonBenet and Burke, it seems JonBenet was a stronger personality. Burke was timid, quite, reserved, and shy. JonBenet was boisterous, vocal, and a handful.
If there was an altercation that caused the invisible skull fracture perhaps JonBenet’s injury happened as Burke defended himself.
Burke killed JonBenet in self defense. Nothing done on purpose. Nothing planned.
What is the evidence?
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#7 Oct 25, 2011
BrotherMoon wrote:
What is the evidence?
The invisible skull fracture and a self-defense motive by Burke have not been fully explored… the death has never been resolved. It is a logical scenario. The parents would not cover-up for anyone else. They obfuscated at every opportunity. It appeared they were trying to protect somebody. It appeared they knew the truth but it was too shameful to expose. They were so obstinate they accused and hurt other people yet never looked within themselves. Look at John Ramsey intervening when the police tried to question Burke early in the morning of 12/26. John shooed them away and said Burke didn’t know anything yet John’s movements were explored minute by minute from the 911 call and there is no time he ever spoke with Burke to ask him anything. John Ramsey lied; he did not have the information needed to say what Burke knew, unless it was all a hoax, a scam and a staged ‘crime’.

The most likely reason for the faux garrote is it was used to cover what was thought to be a broken neck. A real garrote is designed to snap the neck and sever the spinal cord. According to the autopsy there was no damage to JonBenet’s spinal cord. Had JonBenet's spinal cord actually been broken it would be assume the garrote was the cause. There was no way for John or Patsy to have known about the surprise hidden skull fracture if they did not witness the ‘fight’. The symptoms presented, a limp nearly lifeless body could be attributed to either.

… They were presented with an ‘almost corpse’… there was no visible head wound, they believed JonBenet had a broken neck. The staging with a faux garrote was to cover up that injury. Was it Burke versus JonBenet or JonBenet versus Burke, there is a difference. One would be self defense, giving Burke an even greater amount of sympathy from his parents, a greater desire to ‘protect’ him, lie for him, and do all in their power to defend him from the truth.

Look at the evidence of what Patsy did to this poor child while she was alive. JonBenet was developmentally delayed. She was 6 and could not even read. She still needed diapers. JonBenet would have had a host of emotional issues from the abnormal situations in her life, emotional issues breed behavioral problems. This was not an Ozzy and Harriet family. JonBenet had one dead half sibling that emotionally devastated her father, a mother who had undergone experimental medical treatments to fight a disease that is usually a death sentence, and the bizarre participation in the kiddie pageants requiring constant groundwork and even bleached hair. This would have been an aggressive disturbed child. She would have easily attacked and fought with Burke over minor issues.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#8 Oct 25, 2011
I can’t buy into your premeditation by psychosis theory. John Ramsey would not have been integral in thwarting and controlling what transpired so early on. Having Patsy make the 911 call was key, women are more believable and garner more sympathy. Had he not been involved he would have called. He also would have questioned Burke himself with police instead of purposely lying waving police away. He would have run to the mystery van he spotted faster than the speed of light had it been ‘real’. Premeditation would have not required a need to ‘clean-up’ the ‘crime scene’ and have Pam Paugh remove so many items. It’s possible the faux garrote cord came off the painting she removed and beyond extremely likely the duct tape came off an American Girl doll. They had to use what was around the house for the staging. There was no opportunity to do otherwise.

The duct tape was coated with tan cotton fibers. The dolls have a cloth torso of tan cotton. The doll company at one time had training for employees to tell customers they could use duct tape on the dolls if the string that hangs down the back gets tangled while brushing the hair. One of the dolls comes dressed in a skirt of navy wool felt. This is a specific fabric that sheds easily. Public reports are there were blue fibers found wiped on JonBenet’s vagina although the fiber content was never released but not many fabrics actually shed. You’d have to wipe hard enough to cause tissue damage to get most other materials to leave behind fibers. A duplicate doll was stealthily ordered and delivered to John Ramsey’s office after the death. Mail ordered almost to the hour of Pam Paugh removing items.

I am a real person with a verifiable connection to this Wisconsin doll company.
BrotherMoon

Loveland, CO

#9 Oct 25, 2011
You didn't present any evidence that Burke was involved.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#10 Oct 25, 2011
If either of the crime stagers; John and Patsy, had witnessed - let alone delivered the fatal blow - they would have known it was a hidden head injury not a broken neck.

They didn't see the kids bickering. Chances are they were in another part of the house. The kids had their own floor, their own playroom where they spent most of the time. John had an office downtairs and the parents bedroom was on the 3rd floor.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#12 Oct 25, 2011
Burke testified before the grand jury, unlike his parents. Under Colorado law, if someone is going to testify before the grand jury as a witness, you HAVE TO give them ALL evidence you have against them, which HAPPENED with Burke. If he had been a suspect, that would not have happened, as they did not call the Scams.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#15 Oct 25, 2011
candy wrote:
Burke testified before the grand jury, unlike his parents. Under Colorado law, if someone is going to testify before the grand jury as a witness, you HAVE TO give them ALL evidence you have against them, which HAPPENED with Burke. If he had been a suspect, that would not have happened, as they did not call the Scams.
Accidents may have a reponsible party but the term 'suspect' would never qualify.

All the evidence they had is the incomplete story of what happened that night. Not a single member of the family was ever been forthcoming with the truth.
the genius

UK

#16 Oct 25, 2011
KING: Are they looking at other suspects, by the way?

P. RAMSEY:(UNINTELLIGIBLE) paid John (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

THOMAS: Yes, they -- it's interesting. The Ramseys at this point -- of course, the Boulder police will look at any legitimate suspect that's brought to them. But at this point, until the Ramseys satisfy the Boulder Police Department that they are not involved in this case...

KING: You're asking them to prove their innocence?

CC knows more about the law than stievie boy wonder thomas. And our idol doesn't know how to tie his shoes.

This moron expected the boulder cops to start looking for suspects as soon as the Rs proved their innocence!

Shock and Awe. They made this utter idiot a lead investigator? Our tax dollars hard at work.

Judged:

12

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
TerryB

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Oct 25, 2011
pinker wrote:
In the relationship between JonBenet and Burke, it seems JonBenet was a stronger personality. Burke was timid, quite, reserved, and shy. JonBenet was boisterous, vocal, and a handful.
If there was an altercation that caused the invisible skull fracture perhaps JonBenet’s injury happened as Burke defended himself.
Burke killed JonBenet in self defense. Nothing done on purpose. Nothing planned.
Not feasible, read the autopsy report, she was strangled, blood pressure low to none when blow to her head happen, the force needed to damage her skull would be more that a typical 10 year old could deliver.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#19 Oct 25, 2011
TerryB wrote:
<quoted text>Not feasible, read the autopsy report, she was strangled, blood pressure low to none when blow to her head happen, the force needed to damage her skull would be more that a typical 10 year old could deliver.
Hi- Terry-- You got that right--It would be interesting to know the results of testing done on this subject.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#20 Oct 26, 2011
TerryB wrote:
<quoted text>Not feasible, read the autopsy report, she was strangled, blood pressure low to none when blow to her head happen, the force needed to damage her skull would be more that a typical 10 year old could deliver.


You must have graduated with Conrad Murray from Medical School.

The autopsy report says nothing about JonBenet’s blood pressure. You need a living being not a corpse to measure that. You'd be laughed out of court if you made a statement about her blood pressure on 12/25 without documentation to back it up. There was no medical personal at the scene with equipment to monitor her condition. There is no way to determine what came first the head injury or the strangulation. No two head injuries are alike. Head injuries are precarious. JonBenet’s blood pressure was likely all over the place, spiking and dropping to accommodate the brain injury. Had she not been macraméd to death she would have died eventually, suffered for hours, even days.

I have merely provided a plausible scenario for why the faux garrote was used. She was not garroted; her spinal cord was intact. The truth is JonBenet could have smashed in her brother's skull, it's not about force or the age, size, or weight of the assailant, it's about the weapon, which was never determined. It’s an impact wound.

I’m suggesting Burke killed JonBenet in self-defense, she was attacking him. John and Patsy were elsewhere doing their own thing. They were presented with the lifeless body, thought technically still ‘alive’ and thought she had a broken neck. The macramé garrote was to cover up that perceived injury.

The Ramseys have issues with the truth. John and Patsy’s relationship was predicated on a lie. When they first met John cowered behind the front door of the apartment while Patsy confronted his girlfriend claiming she didn’t know where he was. This was something John admired about Patsy.

If you want to understand what happened in this home you have to look at the family and how dang peculiar they were. The answers to people’s deaths are always tied together with their lives.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#22 Oct 26, 2011
The ability to write is a reflection of your ability to think, to reason, to problem solve; a reflection of who nurtured and raised you, your education and who you are. It’s a manifestation of your life experiences.

Your retorts are short and unintelligible, even vulgar. What type of parents did you have? What did they do to you?
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#23 Oct 26, 2011
I'm suggesting Burke was defending himself in an altercation with his sister when she accidentally suffered a catastrophic brain injury. If you see that as 'demonic' that's your issue. Kids fight and bicker all day long. This makes Burke normal than the brother who doesn't even ask questions when police show up at his house and can only say BEEP BEEP when questioned by an adultabout his missing sister.

JonBenet had a valid reason to be angry and act out. She was ritually abused by Patsy. The 'Mega JonBenet Thing' intervention was likely about for her behavior.

Patsy and John Ramsey did not have a valid reason to bring their pathological family issues into the public and accuse other people of murdering JonBenet. They had no right to use and waste taxpayer money in the hoax.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#26 Oct 26, 2011
What you suggest is far worse, a person with close intimate ties to the family purposely killed an adorbale child.

To have Burke be responsible for accidentally killing his sister with a hidden head injury is far less 'criminal'. It makes the Ramseys liars; not killers, and quite intelligent. The intruder version has a person so close they knew what stairs Patsy used, family language, and financial details. Thing is the investigation checked everyone the Ramseys associated with and turned up nill.

Do you think they were to dumb to pull it off?

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#27 Oct 30, 2011
candy wrote:
Burke testified before the grand jury, unlike his parents. Under Colorado law, if someone is going to testify before the grand jury as a witness, you HAVE TO give them ALL evidence you have against them, which HAPPENED with Burke. If he had been a suspect, that would not have happened, as they did not call the Scams.
Candy, I've read what you said here several times and it just doesn't make sense to me. I generally don't question what you say when it comes to law and procedure, but I have to wonder if you might have this backwards. Did you intend to say, "If he had been a WITNESS, that would not have happened..."? Are you saying that after Burke testified, they gave the Rams all the evidence they had against him?

It just seems that if an ordinary WITNESS was going to testify before a GJ, LE would not be REQUIRED to give them ALL evidence they had against them. What evidence? Being only a WITNESS, would there BE ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM?

However, a SUSPECT testifying before a GJ might be required to be given all evidence against them, since as a suspect, surely they would have evidence making him a suspect. This would make sense, IMO.

See what I'm saying?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#32 Feb 23, 2012
I think Burke is good for this as well. Probably not deliberate but he was the catalyst for this whole thing IMO. I think there was some inappropriate contact between the children, maybe not that night, but there was in their history. I don't think the parents had anything to do with it until she was already dead. I'm gonna save some of you the trouble before you ask me for "Evidence." The argument of what evidence points where is nonsense for it can go either way. That Arndt interview on youtube is very informative though. She was on the right path but I don't think there was any sort of an inappropriate relationship between John and his daughter.
Henri McPhee

Pershore, UK

#35 Feb 23, 2012
JimmyWells wrote:
I think Burke is good for this as well. Probably not deliberate but he was the catalyst for this whole thing IMO. I think there was some inappropriate contact between the children, maybe not that night, but there was in their history. I don't think the parents had anything to do with it until she was already dead. I'm gonna save some of you the trouble before you ask me for "Evidence." The argument of what evidence points where is nonsense for it can go either way. That Arndt interview on youtube is very informative though. She was on the right path but I don't think there was any sort of an inappropriate relationship between John and his daughter.
You must be joking. You cannot be serious.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#36 Feb 23, 2012
JimmyWells wrote:
I think Burke is good for this as well. Probably not deliberate but he was the catalyst for this whole thing IMO. I think there was some inappropriate contact between the children, maybe not that night, but there was in their history. I don't think the parents had anything to do with it until she was already dead. I'm gonna save some of you the trouble before you ask me for "Evidence." The argument of what evidence points where is nonsense for it can go either way. That Arndt interview on youtube is very informative though. She was on the right path but I don't think there was any sort of an inappropriate relationship between John and his daughter.
I agree with you Jimmy. There's a lot of crap that gets flung out to distract the real issues here and I also don't believe that John had an inappropriate relationship with his daughter...any of them.

Because you are right and the evidence can be disputed no matter what, this case cannot be solved...officially

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone believe the ramseys didn't do the crime?? 3 min robert 223
Burke Ramsey- INNOCENT victim of BORG 18 min Jolamom 60
News Boulder's notorious JonBenet Ramsey case sees T... 52 min pinker 12
20th anniversary: JonBenet Ramsey case 1 hr gotgum 39
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 1 hr icu2 501
Public Awareness 2 hr Blind Bat 1
Michael Helgoth - INNOCENT victim of Team Ramsey 2 hr Steve Eller 27
More from around the web