Why do so many RDI's think Burke did it
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#867 Oct 26, 2011
I think Burke accidentally killed JonBenet while defending himself from her coming at him. I'm not trying to vilify JonBenet, that's not the issue... She was a 6 year old girl who had been emotionally tortured by Patsy to the point she couldn't even use the toilet in a normal fashion. Any child abused in that manner will be angry and frustrated and it manifests itself in their behavior.

Look at the big picture and include everything, especially the pathological and psychological things that happened within the family while JonBenet was alive.
vickilo

Lubbock, TX

#868 Sep 1, 2012
Not a member here but been reading since topix is a top google search result: i agree about the psychological stuff in that family. If patsy strangled a live child to cover up an accident, then that is the ultimate manipulation. I can't imagine the torture burke has lived with if that happened. Never knowing for sure and knowing what his mom would be capable of. Kolar confirms that there were dozens of secrets. Both kids could have endured terrible psychological abuse and confusion plus neglect that led to the whole thing happening. I don't believe anyone thought jonbenet was dead from the head wound but just didn't want things to be found out.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#869 Sep 1, 2012
vickilo wrote:
Not a member here but been reading since topix is a top google search result: i agree about the psychological stuff in that family. If patsy strangled a live child to cover up an accident, then that is the ultimate manipulation. I can't imagine the torture burke has lived with if that happened. Never knowing for sure and knowing what his mom would be capable of. Kolar confirms that there were dozens of secrets. Both kids could have endured terrible psychological abuse and confusion plus neglect that led to the whole thing happening. I don't believe anyone thought jonbenet was dead from the head wound but just didn't want things to be found out.
Yes, dark secrets can kill...and did, in this case.

I agree the Ramsey children were in dire straits, and possibly from the trauma of Patsy's fight with cancer.

Kolar points out that if Patsy lost Burke, if he were taken from the family for treatment, she was unable to have more children. She'd lost her entire reproductive system to cancer.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#870 Sep 2, 2012
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, dark secrets can kill...and did, in this case.
I agree the Ramsey children were in dire straits, and possibly from the trauma of Patsy's fight with cancer.
Kolar points out that if Patsy lost Burke, if he were taken from the family for treatment, she was unable to have more children. She'd lost her entire reproductive system to cancer.
I and others have been saying that for years only to have fallen on so many deaf ears. While Burke would never have been prosecuted or charged with the crime as a minor, he certainly would have been mandated to undergo treatment, probably in a residential environment for a time and that would not only have ruined Burke in their eyes, but would have truly stained his reputation and the family name.

I'm sure the kids were traumatized when Patsy had cancer and that may account for some of the dysfunctional family issues but I'm sure that there was already a foundation for the dysfunction by nature of who Patsy and John were as people and as parents, absorbed in their own priorities which sadly didn't include the emotional well being of their children

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#874 Oct 22, 2013
Most people who think the Ramseys did it seem to think that Burke was the one who, at the very least, struck JonBenet on the head. I'm not one of those because I think there is little or no evidence that he was involved. Ironically, this lack of evidence is often cited as evidence that Burke is guilty so what can you do?

On the issue of Burke's sleeping through the assault on JonBenet, the head blow might have taken happened on the first floor. It was probably pretty quiet after that.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#875 Oct 22, 2013
I don't think Burke did it. The reason is that he was only 11 years old, and even adult criminals di bit clam up about their deeds.

One thing for sure though, even if Burke did it, the parents had to help with at least the coverup.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#876 Oct 22, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
Most people who think the Ramseys did it seem to think that Burke was the one who, at the very least, struck JonBenet on the head. I'm not one of those because I think there is little or no evidence that he was involved. Ironically, this lack of evidence is often cited as evidence that Burke is guilty so what can you do?
On the issue of Burke's sleeping through the assault on JonBenet, the head blow might have taken happened on the first floor. It was probably pretty quiet after that.
There is very little "evidence" in its formal sense that any of the Ramseys are involved other than the lack of intruder evidence and the fact that they were all there that night. For me, any one of the three and ALL three know exactly what happened that night, Burke included, regardless of what really happened

I think part of the mystique of the Burke scenarios is his odd, uncomfortable and very eery detachment from his sister and his parents which did not seem unusual or due to the circumstances. They seemed very comfortable in the lack of warm and fuzziness displayed so it stands to reason IMO that this was their usual relationship

I believe that Burke holds all the answers and FW is next in line with all the answers but that is JMO

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#877 Oct 22, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
Most people who think the Ramseys did it seem to think that Burke was the one who, at the very least, struck JonBenet on the head. I'm not one of those because I think there is little or no evidence that he was involved. Ironically, this lack of evidence is often cited as evidence that Burke is guilty so what can you do?
On the issue of Burke's sleeping through the assault on JonBenet, the head blow might have taken happened on the first floor. It was probably pretty quiet after that.
To me, there is no way to know exactly who struck the head blow.

There is some circumstantial evidence that can lead to suspicion that Burke might have done that:

Children fight, even in the best of families; he had hit JB before in the head with a golf club; he was in the home--opportunity; he had the ability/means to do the damage with a golf club, a bat, or even the heavy, long Maglite; he also had the opportunity to have been involved in the prior molestation.

Then we learned through Kolar's book that the boys' size and style pajama bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom were most likely Burke's, as it's hard to imagine another boy taking them off in her room, especially without Patsy knowing about it.

Also the parental Ramseys' strange stories about how they never talked with Burke about that night, the crime, and especially their claim they never woke him to ask him if he knew anything about the ransom note or heard anything add to suspicion.

Burke's Swiss knife was found near the body, as well, and it has been reported--in Wecht's early book on the case, I think?--that glue from the duct tape was found on its blade (which may or may not be true, but that's the rub as ever, isn't it?)

Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl and tea glass, as well. With the Ramseys initial story they put a sleeping JB to bed when they got home, that's a hard one to ignore with the pineapple from that bowl found in her small intestine, ingested approx. 30 min's. to an hour before her death, more or less.

Those are some of the reasons Burke is still suspected of being involved.

Of course, many convincing arguments for any of those in the home striking that blow exist. Even if all of the above did make a strong case that it was Burke, in the end, it still could have been Patsy or John who caused the head injury in some freak reaction or miscalculation or...sigh...in a state of fanatical or apoplectic religious psychosis.(Dont' ever say I don't hear you, Brother Moon.)

So this is why I think it's so hard to determine who struck the blow or tied the ligature: they all lived there, they all had means, opportunity, and, with the prior sexual abuse needing to be covered up if the head injury was the result of a rage or outburst, motive.

Anyhow, this is the crux of it to me. I haven't ruled out any of them for any of the abuse or strangulation.

But I have ruled out an intruder.

Just my opinion, of course.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#878 Oct 22, 2013
koldkase wrote:
To me, there is no way to know exactly who struck the head blow.
There is some circumstantial evidence that can lead to suspicion that Burke might have done that:
Children fight, even in the best of families; he had hit JB before in the head with a golf club; he was in the home--opportunity; he had the ability/means to do the damage with a golf club, a bat, or even the heavy, long Maglite; he also had the opportunity to have been involved in the prior molestation.
Then we learned through Kolar's book that the boys' size and style pajama bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom were most likely Burke's, as it's hard to imagine another boy taking them off in her room, especially without Patsy knowing about it.
Also the parental Ramseys' strange stories about how they never talked with Burke about that night, the crime, and especially their claim they never woke him to ask him if he knew anything about the ransom note or heard anything add to suspicion.
Burke's Swiss knife was found near the body, as well, and it has been reported--in Wecht's early book on the case, I think?--that glue from the duct tape was found on its blade (which may or may not be true, but that's the rub as ever, isn't it?)
Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl and tea glass, as well. With the Ramseys initial story they put a sleeping JB to bed when they got home, that's a hard one to ignore with the pineapple from that bowl found in her small intestine, ingested approx. 30 min's. to an hour before her death, more or less.
Those are some of the reasons Burke is still suspected of being involved.
Of course, many convincing arguments for any of those in the home striking that blow exist. Even if all of the above did make a strong case that it was Burke, in the end, it still could have been Patsy or John who caused the head injury in some freak reaction or miscalculation or...sigh...in a state of fanatical or apoplectic religious psychosis.(Dont' ever say I don't hear you, Brother Moon.)
So this is why I think it's so hard to determine who struck the blow or tied the ligature: they all lived there, they all had means, opportunity, and, with the prior sexual abuse needing to be covered up if the head injury was the result of a rage or outburst, motive.
Anyhow, this is the crux of it to me. I haven't ruled out any of them for any of the abuse or strangulation.
But I have ruled out an intruder.
Just my opinion, of course.
But there's no evidence that he hit her intentionally with the golf club. It's pretty easy to swing a golf club into someone who wanders near you.

You know what I think about the pajama bottoms: not necessarily pajamas, not necessarily his, not necessarily worn by him, not necessarily left in her room by him, not necessarily sinister. My daughter's pajama bottoms can be anywhere in the house except for her bedroom.

Why would Patsy wake him up and ask him what happened, if she did it herself? She might do it for show in front of the police, but she didn't.

The housekeeper said the knife had been hidden from Burke because of his out-of-control whittling.

Fingerprints interesting, but can't be dated. The dishes might have been used earlier in the day.

Since: May 11

AOL

#879 Oct 22, 2013
I don't think Burke did it. He'd have to be the world's best liar, and the coolest little cat under pressure. The police questioned him at FW's that day and seems he convinced them of his innocence just fine.
it is my belief JonBenet is dead because of the molestation (and I don't think Burke was interested in that). 911 wasn't called after the whack to her head because of the fact she'd been molested. Everyone can say they don't examine a child's privates for a head injury, but they do..and as Dr Wecht said, they would have arrested JOHN RAMSEY on the spot.
I think the Ramseys WANT the public to think Burke did it..it's far better to have you think 'boys will be boys' and that he accidentally killed her while rough houseing and his devoted parents covered it up to 'save' him, then to think her father was molesting her and his wife walked in on it and started swinging..which is what I think happened.
Just Wodering

Sophia, WV

#881 Oct 23, 2013
I am a BDI but reconsidering John.

I have a difficult time tying one item into the BDI and Patsy covered it up theory--and that is the garrote. I cannot see a woman thinking to use a garrote, much less knowing how to fashion one. I would have grabbed up pantyhose, a scarf, anything but a garrote would have come to mind. Even a piece of rope. But nothing as sophisticated and menacing as a garrote.

Also if Patsy staged the cover-up, that means she has had to have known about the chronic sexual abuse. Otherwise, unless she came in on Burke molesting Jonbenet that night, why would she think to use the sexual predator tactic? And who wiped Jonbenet down that night? Burke or Patsy?

When I think of my son ACCIDENTALLY killing his sister, and if I had known that he needed psychological help and I had failed to get him that help, I would also then feel partially responsible for her death. Probably, I would cover for him--not wanting his life to be ruined and to lose my only remaining child whom I love. However, on deeper reflection, if I had to wipe down my daughter knowing that son had molested and killed her, my protectiveness toward him would probably wane and my guilt would dissipate. My anger would certainly flare up. Afterwards, to scramble and prepare a garrote and write a three page ransom note that made any kind of sense, I am not sure I would go that far.

Some considerations that are swaying me to the most unlikely of the three Ramseys, is the fact that during the interviews with the authorities, I noticed John would on the one hand defend Patsy, and on the other hand point a finger at her. It was very subtle. No one seems to think John could be the guilty party. But as in the Agatha Christie novels--it was always the one least suspected who had committed the crime.

John would have known how to tie knots and more than likely would know how to make a garrote--and was savvy enough to know not to make it look too professional. He also knew where to find Patsy's paintbrushes. He was familiar with Patsy's handwriting as well as her idiosyncrasies. He came to bed after Patsy. He handed the authorities the very pad that the ransom note was written on--which happened to be Patsy's. Coincidental? He was capable of handling the body with ease. He took the tape off her mouth (he probably would have known where to find duct tape in the house that night), struggled with the ropes, and carried her body, thereby assuring that his fingerprints and fibers could be accounted for. He had Patsy call 911, and he was heard saying to Burke that morning, "We're not talking to you." He was accustomed to being in charge. He was cool and calm. He did not stay by the phone awaiting the kidnappers' call. He was (purposely?) overheard to remark, "Then this is an inside job?" Suggesting that if he were indeed the guilty party, he would not have made such a statement.

He also had easy access to his daughter; he would have known a cover-up suggesting sexual molestation would be needed if it were he who was molesting her; he would know to wipe her down; but he didn't know "chronic" molestation would show up in an autopsy.

Maybe Burke is the guilty party--there is the evidence of his knife being found at the scene. And there indeed could have been sibling rivalry or sibling sexual abuse. Parents would possibly cover for their children--but not one another. Surely not!

I suppose all three could have been involved. Patsy wrote the note John dictated, he made the garrote. Burke necessitated the cover-up because of a fight turned deadly. But evidence of JonBenet being wiped down existed. Someone had to be aware of the molestation that had taken place. Was it Burke or John? Perhaps Brother Moon is right, and it was Patsy. But, as a parent, again, I might cover for my son, but I can't see myself covering for my spouse and vice versa.

So much conflicting evidence. How WOULD one prosecute this case?
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#882 Oct 23, 2013
I am a BDI but am reconsidering John.

I have a difficult time tying one item into the BDI and Patsy covered it up theory--and that is the garrote. I cannot see a woman thinking to use a garrote, much less knowing how to fashion one. I would have grabbed up pantyhose, a scarf, anything but a garrote would have come to mind. Even a piece of rope. But nothing as sophisticated and menacing as a garrote.

Also if Patsy staged the cover-up, that means she has had to have known about the chronic sexual abuse. Otherwise, unless she came in on Burke molesting Jonbenet that night, why would she think to use the sexual predator tactic? And who wiped Jonbenet down that night? Burke or Patsy?

When I think of my son ACCIDENTALLY killing his sister, and if I had known that he needed psychological help and I had failed to get him that help, I would also then feel partially responsible for her death. Probably, I would cover for him--not wanting his life to be ruined and to lose my only remaining child whom I love. However, on deeper reflection, if I had to wipe down my daughter knowing that son had molested and killed her, my protectiveness toward him would probably wane and my guilt would dissipate. My anger would certainly flare up. Afterwards, to scramble and prepare a garrote and write a three page ransom note that made any kind of sense, I am not sure I would go that far.

Some considerations that are swaying me to the most unlikely of the three Ramseys, is the fact that during the interviews with the authorities, I noticed John would on the one hand defend Patsy, and on the other hand point a finger at her. It was very subtle. No one seems to think John could be the guilty party. But as in the Agatha Christie novels--it was always the one least suspected who had committed the crime.

John would have known how to tie knots and more than likely would know how to make a garrote--and was savvy enough to know not to make it look too professional. He also knew where to find Patsy's paintbrushes. He was familiar with Patsy's handwriting as well as her idiosyncrasies. He came to bed after Patsy. He handed the authorities the very pad that the ransom note was written on--which happened to be Patsy's. Coincidental? He was capable of handling the body with ease. He took the tape off her mouth (he probably would have known where to find duct tape in the house that night), struggled with the ropes, and carried her body, thereby assuring that his fingerprints and fibers could be accounted for. He had Patsy call 911, and he was heard saying to Burke that morning, "We're not talking to you." He was accustomed to being in charge. He was cool and calm. He did not stay by the phone awaiting the kidnappers' call. He was (purposely?) overheard to remark, "Then this is an inside job?" Suggesting that if he were indeed the guilty party, he would not have made such a statement.

He also had easy access to his daughter; he would have known a cover-up suggesting sexual molestation would be needed if it were he who was molesting her; he would know to wipe her down; but he didn't know "chronic" molestation would show up in an autopsy.

Maybe Burke is the guilty party--there is the evidence of his knife being found at the scene. And there indeed could have been sibling rivalry or sibling sexual abuse. Parents would possibly cover for their children--but not one another. Surely not!

I suppose all three could have been involved. Patsy wrote the note John dictated, he made the garrote. Burke necessitated the cover-up because of a fight turned deadly. But evidence of JonBenet being wiped down existed. Someone had to be aware of the molestation that had taken place. Was it Burke or John? Perhaps Brother Moon is right, and it was Patsy. But, as a parent, again, I might cover for my son, but I can't see myself covering for my spouse and vice versa.

So much conflicting evidence. How WOULD one prosecute this case?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#884 Oct 23, 2013
You made a remarkable post Just Wondering and there is nothing that is impossible about any scenario amongst the three people in the house that night.

However, as a BDI myself, I do believe that Burke was the person responsible for the prior abuse/experimentation, and that both Patsy and John were aware of it and had either addressed the problem or were still addressing it.

I think the cover up of the molestation was considered after "whatever" happened that night, knowing that during autopsy, it "might" be revealed that she had been previously molested.

You have to realize that although Patsy and John were more than likely, IMO, aware that it had happened, they would have no way of exactly knowing what would be uncovered in an autopsy and to what extent the damage was from the "priors".....there is also the speculation that Dr. Beuf knew there was damage, but he's not talking either. Any "exam" that he may have done at Patsy's request after realizing what was happening would be cursory and not anywhere near as revealing as it is during an autopsy

Without more information and some detailed facts, that is the main reason this case was never brought to a jury for prosecution. They don't know who did what and they can't just prosecute "The Ramseys"

I also agree 1000% that Patsy would not cover for anyone other than HER son.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#885 Oct 23, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
You made a remarkable post Just Wondering and there is nothing that is impossible about any scenario amongst the three people in the house that night.
However, as a BDI myself, I do believe that Burke was the person responsible for the prior abuse/experimentation, and that both Patsy and John were aware of it and had either addressed the problem or were still addressing it.
I think the cover up of the molestation was considered after "whatever" happened that night, knowing that during autopsy, it "might" be revealed that she had been previously molested.
You have to realize that although Patsy and John were more than likely, IMO, aware that it had happened, they would have no way of exactly knowing what would be uncovered in an autopsy and to what extent the damage was from the "priors".....there is also the speculation that Dr. Beuf knew there was damage, but he's not talking either. Any "exam" that he may have done at Patsy's request after realizing what was happening would be cursory and not anywhere near as revealing as it is during an autopsy
Without more information and some detailed facts, that is the main reason this case was never brought to a jury for prosecution. They don't know who did what and they can't just prosecute "The Ramseys"
I also agree 1000% that Patsy would not cover for anyone other than HER son.
Hi Capricorn,
There is another person that Patsy would cover up for. That is herself.
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#886 Oct 23, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
There is another person that Patsy would cover up for. That is herself.
AK
:):):)

Well, HELLO THERE BAKATARI

It is so nice to see you around again. Hope you and the family are well and enjoying life

LOL, you are quite right about the other person Patsy would cover for. I should have mentioned that

Welcome back

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#888 Oct 23, 2013
[continued from previous post]

But here's the thorn: if Alex Hunter hadn't blocked those phone record subpoenas, the BPD might have found calls made from the Ramsey phones that night; they would have been brought in for questioning and the question of who was doing the molesting could have led to that being determined.

It could also have led to the truth being revealed and appropriate charges being filed in this case.

Then Hunter would have plea-bargained all of it down to a vacation in Spain and it would have all been over long ago.

At least no innocent people would have had their lives disrupted and damaged with the cover-up, finger-pointing, and bitter, vengeful "paybacks" that came from Team Ramsey all these years.

I've said this before: from the evidence, I can see different possibilities exist as to which of the members of the Ramsey family were involved in abusing and killing JonBenet.

I have my doubts that we will ever know exactly what happened, as far as who did what.

Except I believe the handwriting analysis and linguistics are heavily in favor of Patsy having written the note.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#889 Oct 23, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
Most people who think the Ramseys did it seem to think that Burke was the one who, at the very least, struck JonBenet on the head. I'm not one of those because I think there is little or no evidence that he was involved. Ironically, this lack of evidence is often cited as evidence that Burke is guilty so what can you do?
On the issue of Burke's sleeping through the assault on JonBenet, the head blow might have taken happened on the first floor. It was probably pretty quiet after that.
Let me take a stab at this, Fr. B. When there are multiple, conflicting theories, one is best served by going with the simplest explanation. Most of the evidence points to an "inside job". Yet, none of us can prove, of those who were present in the house that night, struck the first blow. We do know, however, the parents did not cooperate which means that at least one knew who did it. I believe it highly unlikely that PR would cover for JR if she knew he killed their daughter. I believe it highly unlikely that JR would cover for, and turn BR over to a child murdering mother, if he knew PR was guilty. There is only one person that both would cover for and that is BR.

If PR struck first blow, and JR covered, then, it must be that JR was the one guilty of abuse and he could not finger her for fear of exposure. If JR struck first blow, then, PR would never cover for him. PERIOD. If JR did it, then, PR was ignorant of that fact.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#890 Oct 23, 2013
Good posts, koldkase. I want to copy one of your
paragraphs, here:

"Like the head-blow, I don't think we know who was the sexual abuser of JonBenet before that night. It could have been another male family member not even present that night, as far as I know."

I have a theory that might be my number one theory if I didn't believe PR is the most likely RN author. My theory is based upon who I believe most likely abused JBR. It's, also, based upon this person, readily, producing evidence for an alibi days after the murder. People, who need an alibi, frequently keep movie ticket stubs, etc. for proof they couldn't have been at the crime scene. I believe JAR is the most likely abuser. Access; semen on blanket; flirty half-sister who is made to look older; a half-sister who wasn't afraid to ask others to "clean" her; drinker.
He had access to the pen and note pad and could've written the note in advance of the "plan". The ransom note had an adolescent bent to it with movie references, etc. In this scenario, he would've hired a friend to do the dirty work; a friend who JBR was acquainted with and trusted. The friend did the deed while JAR went to a movie and produced the "evidence" days later. In this scenario, JR woud have slowly pieced together the puzzle may, perhaps, figured out who the abuser was prior to that night. This would explain his actions as he knew it was an "inside job" and knew the cops would know that.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#891 Oct 24, 2013
learnin wrote:
Let me take a stab at this, Fr. B. When there are multiple, conflicting theories, one is best served by going with the simplest explanation. Most of the evidence points to an "inside job". Yet, none of us can prove, of those who were present in the house that night, struck the first blow. We do know, however, the parents did not cooperate which means that at least one knew who did it. I believe it highly unlikely that PR would cover for JR if she knew he killed their daughter. I believe it highly unlikely that JR would cover for, and turn BR over to a child murdering mother, if he knew PR was guilty. There is only one person that both would cover for and that is BR.
If PR struck first blow, and JR covered, then, it must be that JR was the one guilty of abuse and he could not finger her for fear of exposure. If JR struck first blow, then, PR would never cover for him. PERIOD. If JR did it, then, PR was ignorant of that fact.
But if Patsy wrote the note, then the very simplest explanation is that Patsy is responsible for all of it.

There is probably evidence that John got out of bed, took a shower and shaved and there is probably a lack of evidence that Patsy put on her makeup that morning or even slept that night. If John woke up unaware of what happened, he certainly wouldn't know for sure who had done what. He wouldn't even know JonBenet was dead until he found the body. He might suspect Patsy was responsible, but how would he know she wouldn't point the finger back at him? From all reports, they didn't much like each other.

In John's place, I think I'd do the same thing; get everybody out of the house, get lawyers, take their advice and stonewall.

I'm not sure to what extent John turned Burke over to Patsy afterwards. I think John had a lot of free time on his hands. And there does seem to be some evidence that Patsy had terrible fights with JonBenet, but not with Burke.

We may get more idea about the evidence from the indictment. Those eighteen pages must be about something.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#892 Oct 24, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
:):):)
Well, HELLO THERE BAKATARI
It is so nice to see you around again. Hope you and the family are well and enjoying life
LOL, you are quite right about the other person Patsy would cover for. I should have mentioned that
Welcome back
Hi Capricorn,
Actually, I was never "gone". I lurked, but didn't see much to respond to. This subject has gone over the mill many times, and it will never end.

Anyway, there will always be an IDI, and I doubt that there are any, who haven't changed there mind, who ever will. Some people think the Lou Smit was an angel, and I see him as a person who was on the take. It is too bad that not everyone involved had to take polygraphs, because I would be very interested in a few, and Smit is one of them.
Aloha.
AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Patsy Ramsey x Christmas Day 11 min kauna 254
My theory 32 min Steve Eller 1,615
Intruder theories ONLY 2 hr Spraguestephens 144
Burke did everything 3 hr jonnie B 135
Missing Strand of Christmas Lights! 4 hr Non-state Actor 22
First read of PMPT and this quote sticks out... 15 hr Anti-K 40
Marionetts and Living Dolls 22 hr Spraguestephens 28
"We're not speaking to you" Thu Anti-K 48
More from around the web