JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Now it's Burke??
Someone using your name seemed very confident in the past few weeks that Patsy was to blame.

I don't know why I bother, if no one reads my posts.

If I have time later I will go through these recent posts and find all the times where I have stated that I think Burke is the guilty party. I would think everybody else who has been reading this thread will already know this.

You should get James Kolar's, Foreign Faction. He has some interesting points about Burke, no evidence as such, but he is inclined to believe Burke had a roll to play.

Another post you missed! When I started posting on this thread a few weeks ago I said that I had read the book by James Kolar and put it straight onto ebay (although nobody bought the book so I kept it). I found the author had no 'teeth' so to speak. He stopped short of saying who he truly thought was the culprit for fear of being sued (in the way the Ramseys sued the last person who printed the truth).

An interesting book but it didn't really tell us what we did not already know.

There aren't many books about this case that I do not already have.

No-one is going to 'swing' for this murder.

The police prime suspect Patsy is dead, Burke was too young to be held responsible for anything. Even if he admitted it today I don't think the law can do anything about it.

And, there never has been anything to suggest John Ramsey was involved beyond 'circling the wagons' to protect the family. The most John could have been charged with was Accessory After the Fact, but the Statute of Limitations has run out on that.

So, unless there really was an intruder, no-one will ever be charged in connection with this case.
And, given that fact, I can't imagine the Boulder Police dedicating any significant time or funds to further investigation of this murder.

Agreed. Burke will probably never 'fess up' - even if it meant clearing his mother's name. He's not man enough.

I think the only chance we have is if one of John's children decides to say something. I'm not sure they liked Patsy - Melinda referred to her as 'flashy'. However......they may not be privy to what really happened.

Boulder Police put everything they had into trying to find an intruder and attempting to bring the Ramseys to justice. They stumbled at every hurdle though because John's golfing buddy, Alex Hunter, refused to sign the indictment that would have put the Ramseys on the stand.
.
.
.

[louisa]

I'm sure she didn't buy those books for light reading.

No, and she probably did not buy Mind Hunter by John Douglas for light reading either. It was found in the bookcase in her bedroom.

In this book (I haven't read it btw) it describes procedures similar to what was found on JonBenet, i.e. kidnapping, ligatures, garotting and the use of duct tape.

So how can you suspect Burke when he has not continued to hit little girls on the head, and do other nasty things?

He was probably under constant supervision when he was growing up.

If your child had committed these acts and killed his sister, and was lucky enough to have got away with it, then you would make sure he was supervised around other kids.

.
.
.

[louisa]

Now it's Burke??
Someone using your name seemed very confident in the past few weeks that Patsy was to blame.

Wicksy - Where have you been?

I've only gone back 200 or so posts - but here are some of my posts where I have been saying that I believed Burke was responsible:

For info:

# 646 -I am still thinking Burke was likely to have been responsible.
# 659 - I've actually started to lean back to Burke being the perpetrator again.
# 684 - If Burke did it then it was not staging but sexual curiosity. As explained in my earlier post.
# 707 - Exactly. Either by Patsy or by the son, Burke.
# 727 -I have already stated that I think Burke was probably the more likely perpetrator and I have given the reasons.
# 771
I still think Burke was probably responsible for everything except the ransom note. He is possibly the more likely perpetrator of the crime. He could have hit JB over the head with the flashlight in an argument over pineapple, then done the other things, just because he wanted to, for reasons inside his own warped mind.
# 804 That has always been the stumbling block with my theory and that is why I have returned to believing that Burke did it, everything except write the ransom note.
------------------------------
# 814 -
Wickerman:
I still have not let go of the possibility Burke was involved somehow.
Louisa:
At last! You're seeing sense. Well done Jon!
------------------------------------------------------
# 816 -
It has been established that a nine year old child is definitely capable of smashing a 6 year old's skull with a flashlight.
You are correct that Burke has been out of the picture for so long that nobody knows much about him.
I suppose we'll have to wait for the load of fiction that will be in his book.
__________________
# 831 Perhaps she saw some disturbing signs in Burke?.
.
.

[Wickerman]

It's well known that Burke clocked her with a golf club and that he was known by neighbors as weird.

20 years have passed and I don't think he has been living under an assumed name. So if there had been any remotely similar incidents at school or when playing with other kids wouldn't we reasonably expect something to have leaked to the press?
Today he has a girlfriend and according to reports he is a quiet, level headed man and quite smart.

There doesn't seem to be a parallel.

[Harry D]

A nine year-old boy could have inflicted the head injury, but I don't believe Burke was at the stage of psychosexual development to perform the strangulation/torture. Nor do I believe that a panicking, grieving mother would've been able to cold-bloodedly strangle her daughter to cover it up, or construct a special garrote in the heat of the moment instead of slapping together a basic ligature.

[louisa]

20 years have passed and I don't think he has been living under an assumed name. So if there had been any remotely similar incidents at school or when playing with other kids wouldn't we reasonably expect something to have leaked to the press?
Today he has a girlfriend and according to reports he is a quiet, level headed man and quite smart.

There doesn't seem to be a parallel.

You don't have to believe all that you read.

I would fully expect him to have a girlfriend, he's rich after all. And...you know what they say....there's a cover for every pot.

I think Burke would have been capable of doing it all (and so do a lot of other people), except writing the ransom note. Children have killed other children before now, and they can be quite imaginative.

[Wickerman]

http://www.9news.com/news/investigat...case/343376600

I just watched this story on the local Denver, Colorado newscast. Entitled "DNA in doubt," it looks at the former Boulder District Attorney's letter of apology which she sent to John and Patsy Ramsey, exonerating them from suspicion in the case of their daughter's death in 1996.

The program explains that the discovery of "unknown male" DNA found on JBR's pajama bottoms was obtained by tests that may have been insufficient, due to the small quantity of material found, and due to the fact that the D.A. failed to request further testing, perhaps because her theory regarding a single intruder as the culprit was supported. They also suggested she misunderstood what DNA testing could and could not do.

They also indicated the sample may have been "mixed DNA" from more than one contributor, and that this may have led to a wild goose chase as far as finding the real killer/s.

The current Boulder D.A. said the case was never closed, and remains open now, and that if more information is obtained, he will pursue it with the Boulder Police Department.

This is one of the first new developments in this case in years, so I thought I'd mention it here for all of your attention.

Yes, there is also the issue of the DNA found in JB's panties & leggings suggested to have been present when originally purchased. Then transferred through laundering (washing & drying).

The investigators tried to verify this by testing newly purchased underwear, it turned out to be correct, traces of DNA were found in newly purchased packages. That is the story that has been promoted by many, except they did not include "the rest of the story".

In all cases what was found was minute samples of DNA so badly degraded that it was all but useless due to being 1/10 (one tenth) of the strength of that found on JonBenet.
Yet, we are taught that the DNA samples found on JonBenet were poor due to transfer from natural use and repeated washing & drying. Yet the JB samples were 10 times stronger than what was found in new packages.

By comparison then, this would suggest the samples found on JB were actually fresh and had not been transferred by repeated use and consequently more reliable than anything found in new packaged items..

James Kolar covers this in his book, yet he is not a supporter of the intruder theory - so he is not providing this extra detail to bolster his own theory, he is just being thorough.
Kolar believes Burke had a role in this.

[Wickerman]

In John Ramsey's book, The Death of Innocence, he suggests Robert Wolf was a possible suspect in the death of JonBenet.

Wolf sued Ramsey and asserted it was the Ramsey's who murdered JB. Ramsey's evidence was supported by the findings of Lou Smit whereas Wolf's evidence was the published theories of ex-Detective Steve Thomas. This civil action was ruled on by Judge Julie Carnes in March of 2003.
Quote:
"Further, Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support. Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case."

Det. Thomas had published that Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet while Det. Smit believed an intruder was responsible.
This was a contest of experience over inexperience.

[louisa]

In John Ramsey's book, The Death of Innocence, he suggests Robert Wolf was a possible suspect in the death of JonBenet.

Wolf sued Ramsey and asserted it was the Ramsey's who murdered JB. Ramsey's evidence was supported by the findings of Lou Smit whereas Wolf's evidence was the published theories of ex-Detective Steve Thomas. This civil action was ruled on by Judge Julie Carnes in March of 2003.
Quote:
"Further, Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support. Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case."

Det. Thomas had published that Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet while Det. Smit believed an intruder was responsible.
This was a contest of experience over inexperience.

You should stop reading (and quoting) fiction.

Surely you know that a book written by someone about themselves is always is going to be self-serving?

John Ramsey named everybody he could think of as being the murderer of JonBenet. They were all cleared, except for himself and Patsy.

Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case. Because the Ramseys did not like what he had to say about them (which I happen to think was the truth) they sued him for £10M.

It seems that if you are very wealthy you can not only get away with murder but you can also get big money for simply being accused of it.

And Julie Carnes was every bit as bad as the other DA who told lies - Alex Hunter. And you already know what I think about that little attention-seeker Lou Smit, whose mad-cap theories were not even allowed in court.

.
.
.

[Abby Normal]

In John Ramsey's book, The Death of Innocence, he suggests Robert Wolf was a possible suspect in the death of JonBenet.

Wolf sued Ramsey and asserted it was the Ramsey's who murdered JB. Ramsey's evidence was supported by the findings of Lou Smit whereas Wolf's evidence was the published theories of ex-Detective Steve Thomas. This civil action was ruled on by Judge Julie Carnes in March of 2003.
Quote:
"Further, Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support. Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case."

Det. Thomas had published that Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet while Det. Smit believed an intruder was responsible.
This was a contest of experience over inexperience.

Hi wicks
Who was wolf and why did Ramsey suspect him?

[louisa]

Ramsey vs Wolf

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/29lrams.html

[Wickerman]

You don't have to believe all that you read.

I would fully expect him to have a girlfriend, he's rich after all. And...you know what they say....there's a cover for every pot.

I think Burke would have been capable of doing it all (and so do a lot of other people), except writing the ransom note. Children have killed other children before now, and they can be quite imaginative.

It is easy for anyone to "see Burke being capable" when their theory requires it, but it is the opinion of professionals that matter not theorists like us.
A psychological examination of Burke at the time might have gone along way to unraveling events that morning.

If the only way we can guess Burke's candidacy is to looks at children his age who do demonstrate violent and perverted sexual behaviour - yet Burke did not, then how is that a comparison?

[Wickerman]

It's well known that Burke clocked her with a golf club and that he was known by neighbors as weird.

I can't think of any kid I knew that didn't hit his sister at some time or another.
This business about the faeces with Burke, he once smeared the bathroom walls with faeces too, but this could be a desperate cry for attention.
It's more aligned with nuisance behaviour than violence.

[Wickerman]

He was probably under constant supervision when he was growing up.

If your child had committed these acts and killed his sister, and was lucky enough to have got away with it, then you would make sure he was supervised around other kids.

Well, if he wasn't supervised then doesn't that destroy your argument?

Was he or wasn't he supervised?

[Wickerman]

You should stop reading (and quoting) fiction.

Surely you know that a book written by someone about themselves is always is going to be self-serving?

The post was about the opinion of Judge Carnes, not the claims by John Ramsey.

John Ramsey named everybody he could think of as being the murderer of JonBenet. They were all cleared, except for himself and Patsy.

Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case. Because the Ramseys did not like what he had to say about them (which I happen to think was the truth) they sued him for £10M.

It seems that if you are very wealthy you can not only get away with murder but you can also get big money for simply being accused of it.

And Julie Carnes was every bit as bad as the other DA who told lies - Alex Hunter. And you already know what I think about that little attention-seeker Lou Smit, whose mad-cap theories were not even allowed in court.

.
.
.

We know Steve Thomas's role in the case, and so did Judge Carnes, so your point hardly helps the issue.

Yes, I thought you would add Judge Carnes to your ever growing list of deplorables....


What did she say that was incorrect?