Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it must be his son from a previous marriage, since his daughter from that married was also killed (in a car crash)... Poor man! BTW, John also has that "perma-smile" that Burke has. It's sort of like resting b*tch face in reverse. Involuntary and meaningless.
It's amazing to me that so many cling to the unlikeliest of scenarios (Burke did it and the parents covered it up) rather than entertain the logical scenario: an intruder. Is that because it makes us feel less vulnerable in our own homes? But maybe that'd be a question for the "Psychology" forum... I'd say Burke went on the defensive because this onslaught of stupid shows were suddenly coming on... Sounds like Burke is married with children (John has at least one grandchild), and John himself has remarried. I'm happy for them! INNOCENT.
The chains of events in the coverup theory isn't exactly a comfortable thing to think about either, made more difficult by the bizarre reaction to it.
The garroting step is entirely unnecessary for a staged kidnapping. More so when it's the cause of death.
John wasn't staging a kidnapping, he was staging a sexual assault. He wanted the blame to be on Patsy's insistence that JonBenet participate in pageants. I see from Burke's recent interview that he is following that line too.
Meanwhile Patsy was upstairs writing the ransom note. She started Mr and Mrs then couldn't bear to tarnish the image of the pageants. So she decided to get her jab in at John and made it look like this was done due to his business. The note said "we respect your business" which is Patsy acknowledging that she appreciated the lifestyle his work afforded her. But "not the country it serves" as in I don't like the bigger picture. I resent how you spend all your time there rather than with your family.
That's why the two don't jive. The ransom note doesn't say I think your daughter is sexy or I want your daughter and that's why I'm doing this. But the way the body was left says exactly that. Short of injury to the vagina which John just couldn't bring himself to do to his tiny daughter, even dead.
That's almost like they held divorce court that night now that I think about it. It's her fault, no it's his fault. And the poor kid gets caught in the middle with parents blaming each other.
John wasn't staging a kidnapping, he was staging a sexual assault. He wanted the blame to be on Patsy's insistence that JonBenet participate in pageants. I see from Burke's recent interview that he is following that line too.
Meanwhile Patsy was upstairs writing the ransom note. She started Mr and Mrs then couldn't bear to tarnish the image of the pageants. So she decided to get her jab in at John and made it look like this was done due to his business. The note said "we respect your business" which is Patsy acknowledging that she appreciated the lifestyle his work afforded her. But "not the country it serves" as in I don't like the bigger picture. I resent how you spend all your time there rather than with your family.
That's why the two don't jive. The ransom note doesn't say I think your daughter is sexy or I want your daughter and that's why I'm doing this. But the way the body was left says exactly that. Short of injury to the vagina which John just couldn't bring himself to do to his tiny daughter, even dead.
That's almost like they held divorce court that night now that I think about it. It's her fault, no it's his fault. And the poor kid gets caught in the middle with parents blaming each other.
The more I think about it, the less I think John told Patsy what to write. I also think the note has a lot of clues it was written by her. Like you said, putting John down. Sort of a "Catch me if you can" because she didn't kill her daughter or do the staging. She only wrote the note, but little did she know she could have went to jail for that.
I imagine you'd probably rather not bother, but would you mind elaborating on exactly what in my post you find so funny? I'm open to being educated with real evidence. Thanks.
It's amazing to me that so many cling to the unlikeliest of scenarios (Burke did it and the parents covered it up) rather than entertain the logical scenario: an intruder.
I haven't followed this case as closely as most of you, and I have not watched the recent television report, so perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. However, I disagree with your point. I think this case is interesting, in large part, because there is no 'logical scenario'.
The intruder theory has so many holes: How did they get in (if through the basement why were there undisturbed cobwebs and debris)? Why write a long ransom note using the homeowners' paper and pen? Why write a ransom note at all? Etc.
It is difficult to imagine an intruder who is close enough to the family to know John's bonus amount and know the house's complicated lay out, and who is clever and discreet enough to never get caught, but is careless enough to spend time writing a long note and rely on the fact that the materials they need for this will be handy.
But there are significant homes to the family's involvement as well: If it was a cover up, why the gruesome staging? If it was an accident, why the cover up at all? Etc.
There is no evidence that the family would have intentionally murdered their daughter. But it is difficult to imagine them covering up an accident for their son--yes, it would be embarrassing if he was sent to a treatment center (although there is no guarantee that would have happened), but having a dead child is hardly going to help your social standing anyway. And again, if your daughter died in a horrible accident, how could you tie a garrote around her neck?
Most homicides point clearly in one direction or the other (outsider vs insider), even if the actual perpetrator is unknown. This one is much more complex. Every time I come to my own conclusion about case, another piece of data seems to contradict it.
Location: Finally the house is done and we are in Port St. Lucie!
3,488 posts, read 3,335,073 times
Reputation: 9913
Quote:
Originally Posted by charisb
I haven't followed this case as closely as most of you, and I have not watched the recent television report, so perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. However, I disagree with your point. I think this case is interesting, in large part, because there is no 'logical scenario'.
The intruder theory has so many holes: How did they get in (if through the basement why were there undisturbed cobwebs and debris)? Why write a long ransom note using the homeowners' paper and pen? Why write a ransom note at all? Etc.
It is difficult to imagine an intruder who is close enough to the family to know John's bonus amount and know the house's complicated lay out, and who is clever and discreet enough to never get caught, but is careless enough to spend time writing a long note and rely on the fact that the materials they need for this will be handy.
But there are significant homes to the family's involvement as well: If it was a cover up, why the gruesome staging? If it was an accident, why the cover up at all? Etc.
There is no evidence that the family would have intentionally murdered their daughter. But it is difficult to imagine them covering up an accident for their son--yes, it would be embarrassing if he was sent to a treatment center (although there is no guarantee that would have happened), but having a dead child is hardly going to help your social standing anyway. And again, if your daughter died in a horrible accident, how could you tie a garrote around her neck?
Most homicides point clearly in one direction or the other (outsider vs insider), even if the actual perpetrator is unknown. This one is much more complex. Every time I come to my own conclusion about case, another piece of data seems to contradict it.
This ^^^ Pretty much in a nutshell for me.
Neither scenario makes any logical sense. Many things are way outside of my scope of understanding how they can happen. This is what makes this case so fascinating for so many people. That the lines of who did it are so divided, each side has a plausible reason for their assertions.
Then there are people like me that really cannot definitively say "this person did it". Even though the Burke theory seems to be the most plausible (at this time to me)....there are things that still point, to a certain degree, to the intruder theory.
It is all so bizarre. The fact that can be ascertained is that a beautiful little 6 year old girl is dead.
So it must be his son from a previous marriage, since his daughter from that married was also killed (in a car crash)... Poor man! BTW, John also has that "perma-smile" that Burke has. It's sort of like resting b*tch face in reverse. Involuntary and meaningless.
John Ramsey is said to have been absolutely devastated by Beth's death. The contrast between his grief for her and his reaction to JonBenet's death is striking.
It's amazing to me that so many cling to the unlikeliest of scenarios (Burke did it and the parents covered it up) rather than entertain the logical scenario: an intruder. Is that because it makes us feel less vulnerable in our own homes? But maybe that'd be a question for the "Psychology" forum... I'd say Burke went on the defensive because this onslaught of stupid shows were suddenly coming on... Sounds like Burke is married with children (John has at least one grandchild), and John himself has remarried. I'm happy for them! INNOCENT.
So because I think Burke did it (based on evidence), you are saying that deep down I am actually just not comfortable with the idea that an intruder can enter my home and kill me? Instead I would rather believe that my own brother was capable of killing me and my parents covering it up to prevent prosecution/alienation?
Here is my opinion on the case and the key pieces of evidence we have to work with:
Ransom Letter - Why write a ransom letter if you are going to kill the girl anyway? It was speculated that the ransom letter was written by a woman with the same or similar hand writing to the mother. Coincidence? Don't believe so.
+1 for Burke theory
Downstairs window
Husband claims that the intruder must have entered through the basement window because there was suit case propped up against the wall. Yet, photographs show left over spider webs that would be nearly impossible to be kept in tact if an adult were entering through it.
+1 for Burke theory
Pineapple
Found in JonBenets stomach which seemed to coincide with the pineapple left over on the kitchen table. Burke seemed hesitant to describe what his favorite dish was when asked to explain what was in the bowl. The fact that it was partially undigested gives us a general timeline of her death.
+1 for Burke theory
The only real evidence or speculative arguments that point to the intruder theory is that 1) You have a pretty girl who was most likely a target for perverts, and 2) The parents ran what appeared to be a loving home and had no true motive to kill the girl. Even Burke really had no motive to kill his sister, which is why I think it was all an accident that got out of hand. The parents were willing to do whatever it took to ensure their son wasn't labeled a murder the rest of his life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
