Burke was cleared

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#41 Sep 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
True, but I was actually referring to the Midyettes who did take their son to the doctor for being lethargic, and it was the doctors who saw through that to the abuse perpetrated by the parents on the child. That led to the arrest and conviction of the Midyettes.
<quoted text>
Exactly Seuss and that speaks to the reasons Dr. Beuf is not held in very high regard for most of us.

The Midyettes, whose family name was as much, if not more, "respected" and certainly more "powerful" in the community, did what doctors are supposed to do and report and investigate ANY symptom of abuse or even SUSPECTED abuse

Sadly for that baby, the intervention came too late. Sadly for the Ramsey baby, there was no intervention at all

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#42 Sep 18, 2013
Your point is excellent and very well stated.

Hard to discuss this case anymore with all the underlying personal insinuations and attacks isn't it?
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
You beat me to it Seuss
Karr is the ONLY example of a circumstantial case that "was" OFFICIAL. He was the only ever official suspect that actually was touted as the killer. He is the only person that can and should be mentioned without the issue of defaming or libeling
HE made himself a suspect and reveled in his popularity, albeit undeserved.
Discussion of Karr just because a particular poster has him as their favored suspect, does not mean a personal attack or stirring the pot. However, the response does indicate the need to stir the pot in your direction (as always) LOL
I guess it's ALWAYS about THEM

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#43 Sep 18, 2013
Burke was cleared because he didn't write the ransom note. Period. He couldn't be charged for murder and he didn't take part in the coverup so,
what are you going to charge him with? Think about it. The ransom note author is the one they were after.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#45 Sep 18, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>
When I spoke of IDI suspects, I didn't mention names, so why you specifically brought Karr into the discussion, I don't know. Unless you're trying to stir the pot with another poster and using your response to MY post to do so? If so, you're wasting your time as I don't think she's even reading the forum at the moment.
You need to get over yourself Lynette. Why don't YOU name a better suspect (that actually was a suspect by the police) for comparison. Seuss was talking about circumstantial cases and depicted how Karr's LIES held about as much water as a sieve in the effort to build a circumstantial case, coupled with the DNA non existent evidence.
Biz

Port Richey, FL

#46 Sep 18, 2013
moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what you think - you're sexually uninformed and repressed if you think Jonbenet was decked out in any sort of bondage scene. The wrist cords were so loosey goosey they slipped off. Her death had nothing to do with sex.
<quoted text>
An oxymoron from a moron - normal christian step children
Look at the bigger picture - they weren't a normal loving Christian family. It was dysfunction junction.
John cheated on his first wife ending that marriage (that's one of the ten commandments) lost a job due to irregular finances of an expense account (another commandment) and already had one dead daughter.
Patsy was physically ill - so sick she needed experimental treatment to stay alive. She was a nutter who sexualized Jonbenet - dressed her up like a hooker, bleached her hair, and taught her to wiggle her fanny on stage looking sultry. That didn't make it into the commandments because they never though a mother would do that. Patys did not get accolades from her strp kids - JAR said whe was flashy (rhymes with trashy) and please post a link to whet the stpe daughters had to say about her.
Burke and Jonbenet were so traumatized by the events of their lives and the calamity in their family didn't use the toilet.
You have no evidence for your accusations. So what are you some sort of porn star expert that you verify this as "fake" bondage???? Well I researched it. It's a contraption commonly used in bondage. The device is made to work together...to tighten and released.....they enjoy experience of bringing a person to the brink of death from erotic asphyxiation and then watching them "come back". Sometimes they don't come back and they die. It's all a sick twisted game.
Patsy would still be alive had it not been for this murder. She had survived stage 4 cancer. Hardly anyone does that. She was clear. But stress can bring cancer back. She certainly had plenty of that.
Jonbenet was dressed in high style. I don't think that she looked like a hooker at all. The media slowed down her performances to make them appear seductive when they were really an awkward little girl.
Lots of pageant girls go on to become Miss America, famous actresses, newscasters, and even fight world causes.
How dare you talk about Patsy that way you. You are a very miserable jealous person. What makes you hate her so much. She lost her beloved child. Why can't you find compassion for that?
I know for a fact that Burke cared for his sister very much. I have talked to those close to him.
As I recall in interviews both Melinda and JAR said that Patsy was a good mother to Jonbenet. They had no issues with her and there are plenty of photos of the family showing how much they cared for one another. I found this surprising for children from a previous marriage. To me it said a lot about the way Patsy treated her step children. She treated them the same as her own children and they noticed that.
John had terrible remorse for his affair during his first marriage. And to his defense he was not the aggressor. Everyone makes mistakes. I think he learned from it. There is no evidence that it happened with Patsy.

Since: May 11

AOL

#48 Sep 18, 2013
Rsaw wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment makes sense to me. Since Burke was only 9 years old, I can't see him writing the note.
Also I think that no one actually named Patsy as the note writer. And I wonder why it's assumed there was a coverup. If Burke didn't kill her, why would there be a coverup?
And since, as you say, the ransom note writer was the one they were after, it was obviously not Burke.
I don't understand why this keeps being brought up time and again. Brought up by the same ones who complain about others doing the same.
Cover up was because of the previous molestation. Any one of them could have clobbered her, but which one could molest her?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#49 Sep 19, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Cover up was because of the previous molestation. Any one of them could have clobbered her, but which one could molest her?
Hi RT,

You are exactly correct. The cover up required more than the actual scene of the crime. The reasons were for the prior molestation, etc. and to protect their son IMO

It should be obvious that Burke did not write the note, but whoever DID write the note has all the answers. If you find the writer of the note, you have your case solved.

The theory of whoever wrote the note, did the deed would be fitting in many cases but in this case, it may have just been written on behalf of the "culprit" to throw the police off the trail of what really happened.

The truth will always be brought up again and again

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#50 Sep 19, 2013
Burke couldn't be charged with anything, ever. Burke was cleared because the Ramsey attorneys outgunned the very inexperienced Boulder DA office. The Ramsey's and they're attorneys wanted Burke out of the limelight for two reasons 1) He was the catalyst for the events that transpired that night. And 2) If someone got two him he's a child and would spill the beans. And when John Ramsey dies the only reason Burke won't sell his story for millions is because he was fondling his little sister. No amount of money is worth divulging something that damaging.
learnin wrote:
Burke was cleared because he didn't write the ransom note. Period. He couldn't be charged for murder and he didn't take part in the coverup so,
what are you going to charge him with? Think about it. The ransom note author is the one they were after.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#51 Sep 19, 2013
Biz wrote:
You have no evidence for your accusations. So what are you some sort of porn star expert that you verify this as "fake" bondage???? Well I researched it. It's a contraption commonly used in bondage. The device is made to work together...to tighten and released.....they enjoy experience of bringing a person to the brink of death from erotic asphyxiation and then watching them "come back". Sometimes they don't come back and they die. It's all a sick twisted game.
If it was functional as you say and not the stage prop professional Law Enforcement claims how come John didn’t just release it when he found her? Whay did the coroner have to cut it?

Your research skills are under par. Most links with erotic asphyxiation and bondage include the word SELF. Jonbenet did not do that to herself.
Biz wrote:
Patsy would still be alive had it not been for this murder. She had survived stage 4 cancer. Hardly anyone does that. But stress can bring cancer back. She certainly had plenty of that.
Patsy died from Ovarian cancer years after Jonbenet but the reality is Jonbenet would likely still be alive if Patsy had died when originally diagnosed. It's very stressful to live a lie and that likely contributed to Patsy's failing health.
Biz wrote:
As I recall in interviews both Melinda and JAR said that Patsy was a good mother to Jonbenet. They had no issues with her and there are plenty of photos of the family showing how much they cared for one another. I found this surprising for children from a previous marriage. To me it said a lot about the way Patsy treated her step children. She treated them the same as her own children and they noticed that.
What interviews? You didn’t provide statements from Patsy Ramsey’s step children about Patsy being a wonderful parent. You can’t even provide words from Burke, his mouth was taped shut when he was 9 and he hasn’t spoken since. He can’t even chat with police to help identify the killer. The family situation was so horrific for Jonbenet people that actually knew and smelled what was going on with these children had planned to step in and intervene but it was planned for after Christmas.

I stand my ground, you are a moron.

You think it perfectly normal for children the ages of Jonbenet and Burke to not use the toilet but it is a disorder of monumental consequence. Jonbenet’s autopsy showed she had been the victim of ‘chronic’ sexual assaults through her short life, the likely cause for her soiling herself. For Burke there is no autopsy and again, he’s too scarred, to scared, to speak about the atrocities of what happened to him before Jonbenet died.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#52 Sep 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I figured I would address your OFF-TOPIC insinuation separately.
I brought up Karr because he was the most prominent example of circumstantial evidence cases – which was the point to which I was speaking!
How could you possibly misinterpret the fact I was talking about CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASES vs DNA cases, when what I said was:
“If the DNA is removed from the equation (which it must be until it is sourced) then the rest of the case is circumstantial. But nonetheless, it is a case. Hunter was too chicken or stupid to believe it though and that is why we are where we are today in this case. If you replace stupid Karr with the Ramseys, there isn’t a circumstantial case that ties him to the crime, inclusive of him not even being in Boulder at the time! So yeah, with or without his DNA, he is excluded. So that DNA door DOES swing both ways justifiably – just like Karr, LOL.”
It appears you are the one trying to stir the pot bringing up things I wasn’t even talking about, LOL.
I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. But you'd already made your point, i.e. that the DA had a circumstantial case against the Ramseys (if you remove the DNA from the equation) which he did nothing about, so why bring Karr into the discussion at all? I felt, and still do, that your intention was to bait another poster, which I've seen you do before.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#53 Sep 19, 2013
moonjack wrote:
Nobody will bother to source a thing for you.
IOW, you cannot source it because you sucked that story right out of your thumb!

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#54 Sep 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
So you are insinuating you and everyone else in the world is normal? I wonder why we have any crime at all? Who are all these people occupying prison cells?
I KNOW I am normal, but no, I can't speak for everyone else, lol! I don't believe though, that a person who commits a crime is necessarily not normal. It depends on the criminal and the crime. What are you suggesting? That the Ramseys were capable of committing this crime because they were not normal people? If so, you need to provide evidence in support of your assertion, else it's just baseless speculation.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#55 Sep 19, 2013
The information comes from multiple sources, books, one written by the Ramseys themselves, their interviews which are publically documented and from detectives working for Jonbenet.

Sources you can't comprehend, you claim are biased.

Another moron.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#56 Sep 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
And Patsy had CANCER. Are you thinking that isn’t a stressor? I think it qualifies just as much as depression, if not more. Interesting you left out the Midyettes, which was the closest comparasion!
With your blind defense of every Ramsey move, I am not confident you even know what “normal’ is to even speak to those discussion points.
<quoted text>
No, Patsy no longer had cancer. Her cancer was in remission and had been for some time. As far as is known, there were no major stressors in Patsy's life at the time JonBenet died. They'd weathered the worst and life for them was better than it had been in a long while. They'd also just celebrated a very pleasant Christmas day with friends and had a holiday to look forward to. There was no reason for her to "lose it" and behave violently, nor is there any evidence she'd ever behaved that way in the past. There is no evidence at all that she had a volatile temperament. But what exactly is your theory, BDI, PDI, or just any theory as long as it's RDI? If BDI, why would there necessarily have to be a stressor to stage a cover-up? It actually takes a very calm and calculating mind to do such a thing.

There is nothing "interesting" about me not addressing the Midyette issue. They did not fit the profile of parents who kill, yet they were convicted of murdering their baby. So? There are also other cases of parents who did not fit the profile of parents who kill and who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I don't "blindly" defend every Ramsey move, but I do try to keep things in perspective and present "the other side of the story", because there are those of you so blinded by prejudice you're unable to see the wood for the trees and all you do is attack, attack, attack, no matter how unfairly.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#57 Sep 19, 2013
Biz wrote:
Jonbenet was dressed in high style. I don't think that she looked like a hooker at all. The media slowed down her performances to make them appear seductive when they were really an awkward little girl.
http://www.cdapress.com/news/world_news/artic...

Patsy would have gone to prison in France, the very place synonomous with high style. Jonbenet would probably be alive had Patsy not compounded her emotional issues by sexualizing her with kiddie pageants.

Sexual abuse is survivable, look at Burke.

Since: Sep 11

Germiston, South Africa

#58 Sep 19, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to get over yourself Lynette. Why don't YOU name a better suspect (that actually was a suspect by the police) for comparison. Seuss was talking about circumstantial cases and depicted how Karr's LIES held about as much water as a sieve in the effort to build a circumstantial case, coupled with the DNA non existent evidence.
Why are you involving yourself in this, Legal Eagle? Seuss IS capable of speaking for himself and I have already addressed his post. He'd made his point as to the circumstantial evidence in THIS case and I still maintain he brought Karr into the discussion for no reason other than to bait another poster. That is my opinion, but maybe I'm wrong. Now shall we drop it or allow that one comment to disrupt this whole thread?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#59 Sep 19, 2013
If you took my post to mean anything other than a circumstantial case post with a prime example, then you misinterpreted it. You have made two off-topic posts so far on this subject accusing me of something “I” did not bring up, and one accusing L_E of interfering just because she chose to respond to your silliness.

YOU are the only one straying from the subject matter and/or information used as an example. My post was about a topic, and not a poster.

Having said that, my personal opinion is that you lied anyhow about people YOU brought into the conversation saying they are not ‘reading the board’, unless they are just posting here without reading, cause I could have sworn that I "Er Uh saw" them post a couple of times, but of course I could be mistaken, LOL!

So, if you want the inferences stopped regarding other posters, then YOU need to STOP posting about it. No one else is! Please stop your nonsense and stick to the discussion at hand.

Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. But you'd already made your point, i.e. that the DA had a circumstantial case against the Ramseys (if you remove the DNA from the equation) which he did nothing about, so why bring Karr into the discussion at all? I felt, and still do, that your intention was to bait another poster, which I've seen you do before.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#60 Sep 19, 2013
What I am saying is I think you have a skewed sense of ‘normal’ both mostly in your glorification of the Ramseys and also pertaining to people who commit crimes. Ted Bundy appeared to be a normal member of society, as did BTK.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> I KNOW I am normal, but no, I can't speak for everyone else, lol! I don't believe though, that a person who commits a crime is necessarily not normal. It depends on the criminal and the crime. What are you suggesting? That the Ramseys were capable of committing this crime because they were not normal people? If so, you need to provide evidence in support of your assertion, else it's just baseless speculation.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#63 Sep 19, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you involving yourself in this, Legal Eagle? Seuss IS capable of speaking for himself and I have already addressed his post. He'd made his point as to the circumstantial evidence in THIS case and I still maintain he brought Karr into the discussion for no reason other than to bait another poster. That is my opinion, but maybe I'm wrong. Now shall we drop it or allow that one comment to disrupt this whole thread?
To the best of my knowledge I am allowed to answer any post on this board, the same as you. At least in my post I stayed on topic, which is more than I can say for yours.:)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#64 Sep 20, 2013
I think you need to do the math on Patsy’s illness, and in remission doesn’t always mean Cancer free. She was diagnosed in 1992 with Ovarian Cancer, and she died in 2006 of Ovarian Cancer that had also metastasized to other organs including her brain. In 93-94 she was still being treated, so by 1996 she had only reached the two-fifths mark for 5-year survival. That is also assuming she really had Stage IV (which was only verified by her) and only had a 20% chance of survival up to 5 years. So, Patsy was not a cancer survivor she was a patient who succumbed to Ovarian Cancer. And don’t forget, she said she was healed only by prayer!
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> No, Patsy no longer had cancer. Her cancer was in remission and had been for some time. As far as is known, there were no major stressors in Patsy's life at the time JonBenet died.
You are using the wrong idiom. Can't see the forest for the trees or can't see the wood for the trees has nothing to do with prejudice, it has to do with details vs big picture.
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't "blindly" defend every Ramsey move, but I do try to keep things in perspective and present "the other side of the story", because there are those of you so blinded by prejudice you're unable to see the wood for the trees and all you do is attack, attack, attack, no matter how unfairly.

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
A staged crime scene leaves only two real possi... 14 min InterestedParty 88
Do intruder theorists accept the ransom note at... 24 min MakeTheArrest 149
How far is the phone from stairs? 1 hr Just Wondering 22
News Laurence L Smith Releases Updated Version of 'T... 23 hr robert 64
Ramsey vs Duggar Thu rainbow 34
What I believe is close to what happened Thu Sig 270
For the BDI's Thu california_demon 27
More from around the web