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.
Burke admitted it? I haven't seen the show on tv but he came out and SAID that he was up and used a flashlight? AND that he went downstairs to play with a toy? Didn't John say he helped Burke assemble a toy in the basement before they went to bed? I think so and it contradicts their saying that they all just went straight to bed. Maybe John said that for a reason, just in case someone, somehow, found that Burke had played with a train in the basement that night. Now Burke is saying that he DID play with a train in the basement but it was AFTER they had all gone to bed.
That would be a huge breakthrough, I think. It contradicts the stories that the Ramseys told.
Why else would someone have wiped (Burke's) fingerprints off the flashlight? A big heavy flashlight that matched the indentation on JBR's skull? Who would otherwise CARE that Burke's fingerprints were on the flashlight? Unless he was guilty of something with the flashlight.
It was suspicious enough that the flashlight was wiped clean but now it turns out that what was wiped off were Burke's fingerprints. I wonder if he is trying to come out and tell us what actually happened. No harm can come to him because he was so young at the time and he would certainly feel better getting that off his chest.
Yes, he does indeed admit it. But he does not say it was a train. He refers to it as simply "a toy" that he wanted to "get out". The train set was my guess.
And there is another strange detail that I omitted: Dr. Phil was looking at his notes, trying to establish the timeline, and asked Burke this: "so that night, your dad put you to bed with a flashlight, correct?". That is when BR responds "yeah", and that he got up afterwards "while everyone was asleep", and used a flashlight to go downstairs to play with "a toy".
So right there, you have 2 people in that house using the flashlight. A flashlight was found wiped clean, along with the batteries....in the kitchen...along with the pineapple bowl.
And why would JR use a flashlight to put his kids to bed? The whole thing just reeks.
What I will never understand is this: if it WAS in fact, an intruder why pick the Ramsey's? They owned a large house, and probably had a security system. Why would an intruder break into their house, go upstairs a flight of stairs to take JonBenet. Why her? Why not the kid at the park who's caretakers/parents aren't paying a lot of attention? A kid at the local grocery store or WalMart? An easier target?
Also supposedly she was hit on the head but not strangled for 45 minutes to 2 hours after that. Would an intruder be hanging around the house that long? Taking time to write long ransom notes? Don't most pedophiles kidnap their victim and do their dirty deed elsewhere? And was their conclusive evidence that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted? I've read conflicting reports. Was there no DNA evidence on her clothes, semen, saliva, nothing?
I also thought Burke might have done it in a jealous rage but now realize he wouldn't have had the strength to hit JBR as hard as she was. None of it makes any sense. Either the Ramsay's are covering for someone for some unknown reason or this truly was some sort of psycho.
Spot on. Why would a stranger choose such a large house that was most likely alarmed to the hilt?
I keep revisiting this because I think it's crucial. Perpetrators almost always take their own "equipment" with them? Weather murder, break ins, or rape. I have NEVER EVER heard of a perpetrator going to a house and rifling through the back shed for the tools he needs to enter the house!
Moreover, why would someone who intended to leave a ransom note, arrive at the house WITHOUT ONE? Isn't the idea to commit the crime and get out without being caught? The more time spent inside the house, the more likely that someone will hear them. Or get up to use the bathroom or get a glass of water.
So, we are to believe that a "kidnapper" (who never kidnapped the child) arrived at the house empty handed, and then went searching for a pen, a legal pad, and set about writing a note containing the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus? And that he took his time wandering around the kitchen looking for a pen and paper?
Oh, also he did not arrive with torture/murder tools. He intended to make a garrotte, but how did he know that something of the appropriate size would be there? How did her know where to find it?
AND - he happened to make the garrote using ....Patsy's own paint brush! In fact, all of the murder tools belonged to Patsy! And a garrotte? Before this case, I didn't even know what one was. But this individual knew, and took his time with Jonbenet.
Kidnappers kidnap. They take the victim with them.
Conversely, murderers do not write ransom notes.
Something went wrong that night. I feel strongly that this child went through similar ordeals on other occasions.
This was not the first time. The Ramsey's let other people have their way with their daughter. John may have also. So may have Patsy.
Patsy wrote the note. They both orchestrated the cover up. From the note to the next day,when they invited everyone they knew to contaminate the crime scene.
Burke may be strange, but he wasn't involved with the murder, although I am sure he knows now.
The biggest news coming out the interviews is that Burke admits to being up and using a flashlight to go downstairs to play with "a toy" after everyone went to sleep. That flashlight was found by investigators in the kitchen, and it was wiped clean of fingerprints...even the batteries. He mentioned it in such a coy and quiet way, like he was going off the script.
If he said that, then wouldn't things fit? So they carried JBR upstairs and they really did put her to bed. Burke was wide awake and still excited about his Christmas presents. He could have woken his sister up and convinced her to venture down to the basement with him to play with toys. He needed the flashlight to see in the dark. They made a brief stop in the kitchen to get a bowl of pineapple out of the fridge. Patsy's fingerprints were already on the bowl, which is normal because it was a large serving bowl. Burke's fingerprints got on there as he took the bowl out of the fridge. Did he make that glass of tea in the microwave too? Kids messing around secretly in the middle of the night. Up to mischief.
I don't know why he would have hit her when they went down to the basement but he had the flashlight right there with him. Were they in the train room or in the wine cellar? Because reports said that she was dragged; there were scuff marks on her. She was not carried and that indicates a somewhat weak person, not a big strong man. So maybe she was only dragged from the train room into the wine cellar, nearby. Why did he drag her in there?
Could be, he thought he would hide her but then he thought better and went up and got his mother. His mother, upon finding the practically dead body, might have screamed. Either that or the scream heard by a neighbor came from JBR herself. Sounds from the basement could be heard outside at neighbors' houses.
Patsy woke John up and they frantically hatched a plan. Thinking JBR was dead, killed by her own brother, they quickly came up with an idea. An intruder did it. Probably they told Burke to go to bed and get out of the **** way! They were furious at him yet had to protect him at the same time. Crazy.
Patsy has said that she didn't go straight to bed, that she stayed up a while packing for the next day's trip. So when Burke appeared saying that something had happened to JBR, she was still dressed. She and John sprang into action using the only method they could think of to defend their son. (They had no idea at that time that he was too young to have been convicted.) She took care of the writing part since she was a journalism major and he took care of the fake staging of the body...because ???
How he knew what to do with the body?. Who knows how to do what he did? Construct a garrotte? Most people don't have a clue. Maybe HE was the weirdo in all of this. I can see how he might have been sexually abusing her because Patsy would have been too ill to engage in sex. And the paintbrush handle was conveniently available. Being a Navy veteran and also having sailing experience, he would have known how to tie knots. JBR said she used to sleep with Burke to feel safe. Safe from John?
By the time they were done writing and staging, it was about dawn. While she was calling 911 Burke made the mistake of strolling into the room but he was angrily told that "We are not talking to you." (They were angry at him, which is strange considering that his sister has just been kidnapped.) But not so strange if he had been the cause of all of this.
Normally, they would have been protecting and consoling their only living child, not speaking harshly and making him go away.
He was probably told what to say, always to say that his mother came into his room in the morning screaming, "Where's my baby?" Which never really happened. But he was old enough to lie and stick to the story. He was hastily taken away to Fleet White's house--for his own protection? or to make sure he didn't come out and tell the truth as to what he had done right in front of the police.
The parents later must have sat him down and laid down the law. They told him not to tell anybody and they didn't allow him to be interviewed. He was probably scared to death about what he had done and they made sure he stayed scared so that he would never, ever tell. It was an accident and if they hadn't over reacted, it would have been seen as merely an accident. The grand jury found them guilty of something anyway--why? No one can control what their kids do in the middle of the night. Okay, if any of this makes sense, somebody else will have to explain how they put her in harm's way.
And why would JR use a flashlight to put his kids to bed? The whole thing just reeks.
Yep, JR did not use a flashlight to put his kids to bed. The flashlight was in the kitchen and Burke used it to go into the basement. But just in case some fingerprints were found on it, even after it was wiped clean, saying that John had used the flashlight would further muddy the waters of the coverup. They were trying to cover up for Burke, not for John.
Last edited by in_newengland; 09-14-2016 at 05:57 PM..
As for being "mixed with blood", all this means is that the drop of blood happened to be on a spot that that already had touch DNA.
I don't think that was the case.
DNA of the unknown male was found mixed with JBR's blood in her underwear right after the crime. That DNA contained enough markers to be entered into CODIS, the federal DNA database, in 1997. That was what was used to clear so many people of the crime (including her family).
In 2007, Boulder DA investigators and Lacy made the decision to have the pajama bottoms tested at the Bode Lab. The lab recovered DNA from the top part of the leggings, on both the right and left legs, where the perpetrator would have put his hands to move them. Those were the "touch" samples. They happened to match the DNA found in her underwear in 1997, of the same unknown white male (which was not touch DNA).
Burke... needed the flashlight to see in the dark. They made a brief stop in the kitchen to get a bowl of pineapple out of the fridge.
Then the coroner would have found pineapple in her stomach, not her intestine.
Quote:
I don't know why he would have hit her when they went down to the basement but he had the flashlight right there with him.
The autopsy report shows that the blow to the head came after the strangling. And the breakage of the paintbrush to make the garrote, the strangling her with that repeatedly, and the sexual violation all occurred before the final blow to her head, which most likely killed her. Unless someone did this to a dead body. But even in that case, the damage to her neck would have indicated that this scenario doesn't fit.
I just posted a link from--wow, they won't even print the name of it; apparently the link is "blocked due to spam," so I deleted the post. You can Google errors in Kolar's book and find several forums disputing his writing.
The biggest problem is we're all going with what we've seen on silly TV shows. Or what people have written in books. How many of us have seen the actual police records? As much fighting as there was between departments, we can't even believe that. Nearly everything we hear, even when it's 180 from what we just heard, sounds logical and believable. Then comes the next theory and we start believing it.
Without a positive DNA match, we'll never know. It's all, 100% speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
The autopsy report shows that the blow to the head came after the strangling. .
I heard the opposite. The blow to the head knocked her out and the strangulation came when she started to wake up.
Actually, I just looked at the autopsy report. It says cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
Last edited by MyNameIsBellaMia; 09-14-2016 at 06:36 PM..
Then the coroner would have found pineapple in her stomach, not her intestine.
The autopsy report shows that the blow to the head came after the strangling. And the breakage of the paintbrush to make the garrote, the strangling her with that repeatedly, and the sexual violation occurred before the final blow to her head that most likely killed her. Unless someone did this to a dead body. But even in that case, the damage to her neck would have indicated that this scenario doesn't fit.
The autopsy said that the cause of death was strangling following a blow to the head. The British doctors on the A&E special claimed this was wrong and that red marks near the cord were made by the child clawing at it before being knocked unconscious. There has never been any report that her own blood and tissue were under her nails as they would have been and the medical examiner was in a better position judge what the red marks were. Numerous acknowledged experts have viewed the autopsy results and commented on them but none before now have claimed to see scratch marks. Some had questioned how much time passed between the blow and the strangulation.
The autopsy said that the cause of death was strangling following a blow to the head. The British doctors on the A&E special claimed this was wrong and that red marks near the cord were made by the child clawing at it before being knocked unconscious. There has never been any report that her own blood and tissue were under her nails as they would have been and the medical examiner was in a better position judge what the red marks were. Numerous acknowledged experts have viewed the autopsy results and commented on them but none before now have claimed to see scratch marks. Some had questioned how much time passed between the blow and the strangulation.
There was swelling on the brain from the blunt force trauma. Their opinion from the amount of swelling was that the strangulation occurred 45 to 120 minutes after the head injury.
There was swelling on the brain from the blunt force trauma. Their opinion from the amount of swelling was that the strangulation occurred 45 to 120 minutes after the head injury.
Controversy in opinion among experts, comes down to which expert you decide to believe.
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.
