JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

as I keep saying motive is confusing in this case, even if it was an intruder, so just go with the evidence. which IMHO points to someone in the house.

If we only look at the family, and I know you're not going to agree with this but John is the only one who comes across to me as genuine.
I could go into to all the reason's why I see this but for now I will only say that Patsy is untrustworthy and Burke seemed too distant.

I think Burke had Attention Deficit Disorder, I recognise the symptoms due to my grandson being diagnosed with this condition. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this in official sources.

So all that said, I had to wonder (purely being devils advocate here), if Burke was responsible in some way as an instigator, Patsy discovered the tragedy, and it was Patsy who convinced John that there must have been an intruder. He genuinely thinks there was an intruder.

If there really was no intruder then Patsy co-ordinated the whole deception, fooling John along with everyone else. There are obvious holes in this scenario too, but then no scenario yet offered is without criticism.

[Wickerman]

My theory has changed very little. I think he hit her while they were both in the train room of the basement. He then dragged JBR by the neck of her garment, (which accounts for the white line around her neck) to the area outside the cellar room. He strangled her with the ligature. This is where her bladder emptied.

I thought you insisted there was an hour or more between the head wound and the strangling, now you measure the time in mere minutes?
Isn't that what I was saying?

The parents then discovered her body and this is when the staging took place. They inserted a stick into the ligature to make it resemble a garrote. (This would make the strangling look a lot more vicious than it had been which would point to their 'intruder' being responsible). A sexual motive is always a good one.

Didn't I also make the case for the ligature to have been applied twice, yet you dismissed that too. Now it seems you have changed your mind?

There was no 'garrotting' - that was part of the staging.

I really doubt a pathologist will not be able to distinguish between indications of a temporary choking, and the final strangulation.
Your scenario has it backwards.

If I understand what you say, JB was strangled, then the ligature was applied a second time, to a dead JB?
Whereas, the previous interpretation I outlayed has the killer applying the ligature to temporarily choke her (for pleasure?), then the final application was what took her life.

Somebody (Probably Burke) had already pulled down JBR's pants and inserted a small piece of a broken paintbrush. Her pants were pulled up.

Without leaving any DNA evidence of this?

The couple had to save their son from being taken and put into an institution.

And incidentally Burke disappeared - he was off the grid - for most of his life. There is some quotes and evidence to show he was in intensive therapy for a long, long time.

To be honest, I've seen/read nothing to support this suggestion, only forum conjecture that he may have been "in intensive therapy".
Burke's whereabouts is not a state secret, it cannot be that difficult to establish where he lived and where he was schooled for most of the last 20 years.

I think the rest of your scenario was just speculation. It would be better to have some facts to settle the issue.

As for re-offending. He was closely supervised during the period he actually went back to school. He has been home tutored for most of his school life.

And the proof of this is, what?

[louisa]

They're talking about this on the other forums.

There will always be 'new DNA' in this case.

I doubt if it will be conclusive. We'll have to wait and see.

[Abby Normal]

The new DA is planning on having more advanced DNA testing done on the clothes of Jon Benet.

apparently the old tests are pretty much worthless and Lacy the former DA misinterpreted the earlier results and was wrong to exonerate the Ramseys.

the old DNA tests were basically inconclusive and indicated probable numerous DNA from more than one individual. in otherwords, you cant match it to anyone because its mixed up with several people.

hopefully, it clears things up somewhat.

http://www.newser.com/story/235561/jonbenet-grand-juror-ive-seen-secret-evidence.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=outbrain&utm_campaign=fresh

[louisa]

THE GRAND JURY SOLVED THE CASE IN 1999


The Grand Jury returned two True Bills against the Ramseys, one for each of them. The wording was quite clear - that the couple assisted another person in the murder of JBR. 'Assisted' in this instance means 'covered up the crime'.

DA Alex Hunter's hands were tied. He could not proceed with the prosecution (of JR and PR) because if it went to court then the couple would have to testify AGAINST THEIR OWN SON who, at 9 years old, was immune from prosecution and by law, could not be named as being the culprit.

A trial could not happen. The DA knew the culprit was too young to be named, and this is why he was unable to sign the final Indictment that would have put the Ramseys on the stand.

They could not be charged with 'assisting somebody who committed First Degree Murder' without having to tell the jury the name of the person they were assisting and that would have been against the law (because he was under 10 years of age).

The grand jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

In a case such as this one - once the verdict went (secretly) to the District Attorney, he could dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children). In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever -- as if it never happened.

And IMHO that is exactly what did happen.

Nobody can be charged now of course, because the Statute of Limitations has run out


On or about

December 25 and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennet Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:
.

[louisa]

It's been twenty years since the murder, Burke has had plenty of time to reoffend, and once he grew up he wasn't watched 24/7. Apart from amateur detectives reading too much into his social anxiety, there isn't any evidence that Burke has a violent temperament, abused girlfriends, nothing of the sort. Maybe he doesn't come from a "normal" (which is a relative term, anyway) family but that doesn't mean the guy was a child killer.

And yes, JBR WAS garroted. Don't talk about 'staging' as if that's a fact, that's only your opinion. And if they thought JBR was already dead, why stage a strangulation when there's a head wound?

Where have I said they staged a strangulation? The strangulation was the second part of the crime itself.

I said I thought they had inserted the paintbrush stick to make the strangulation appear as though JBR had been garrotted.

As for re-offending, Burke is hardly likely to re-offend now he's an adult is he?

I honestly believe he's been through many years of intensive therapy and anger management.
.

[Harry D]

As for re-offending. He was closely supervised during the period he actually went back to school. He has been home tutored for most of his school life.
.

It's been twenty years since the murder, Burke has had plenty of time to reoffend, and once he grew up he wasn't watched 24/7. Apart from amateur detectives reading too much into his social anxiety, there isn't any evidence that Burke has a violent temperament, abused girlfriends, nothing of the sort. Maybe he doesn't come from a "normal" (which is a relative term, anyway) family but that doesn't mean the guy was a child killer.

And yes, JBR WAS garroted. Don't talk about 'staging' as if that's a fact, that's only your opinion. And if they thought JBR was already dead, why stage a strangulation when there's a head wound?

[louisa]

The Grand Jury in Colorado could NOT indict if the perpetrators were under 10 years old.

The case would go automatically and secretly to the District Attorney, who would dispose of it without violating the Colorado Children's Code (without disclosing the identities of the children).

In such instances the DA would normally assign the perpetrator(s) to psychiatric treatment and counselling and have the court seal the case forever - as if it never happened.

IMO this is what happened, and this is why the Grand Jury worded their True Bills against P & J Ramsey in the way they did.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...d-Case-In-1999


.

[louisa]

as I keep saying motive is confusing in this case, even if it was an intruder, so just go with the evidence. which IMHO points to someone in the house.

Motive? There was none. Just anger - a huge amount of it.

The R's were strange people.

.

[Abby Normal]

For their own gratification, then? Eh... I'm not buying it. Physical and sexual abuse from a family member is usually systematic. It doesn't often explode into a full-blown sexual torture one Christmas morning.

agree pretty much and fair enough.

but who really knows what evil lurks in the heart of men (or women for that matter, or a boy)? I know I don't and there are some really twisted people out there. Just look at the case of Karla Homolka, who with her husband raped, tortured and murdered her own younger sister. Karla had no priors and they did this on Xmass eve no less!
There are also scores of parents who physically/sexually abused and ended up killing their children with no known priors.

as I keep saying motive is confusing in this case, even if it was an intruder, so just go with the evidence. which IMHO points to someone in the house.

[louisa]

You'll find some lively discussions here......

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey

.

[louisa]

Burke wouldn't have done it, got away with it, and not reoffended. If he had accidentally struck his sister on the head, sure, but not garroting her to death. And the notion that John & Patsy strangled her to stage an intruder is equally absurd.

Harry - if you read all the tons of (circumstantial, granted) evidence you will quickly realise the very real possibility of BR killing his sister.

I don't put every single thing I discover on this website because it would get swamped by my own posts.

It's all there...on the internet.


My theory has changed very little. I think he hit her while they were both in the train room of the basement. He then dragged JBR by the neck of her garment, (which accounts for the white line around her neck) to the area outside the cellar room. He strangled her with the ligature. This is where her bladder emptied.

The parents then discovered her body and this is when the staging took place. They inserted a stick into the ligature to make it resemble a garrote. (This would make the strangling look a lot more vicious than it had been which would point to their 'intruder' being responsible). A sexual motive is always a good one.

There was no 'garrotting' - that was part of the staging.

Somebody (Probably Burke) had already pulled down JBR's pants and inserted a small piece of a broken paintbrush. Her pants were pulled up.

The parents (Patsy) then wrote the ridiculous ransom note.

The couple had to save their son from being taken and put into an institution.

And incidentally Burke disappeared - he was off the grid - for most of his life. There is some quotes and evidence to show he was in intensive therapy for a long, long time.

Now the official line is that he works from home doing computer programming, which probably means he plays computer games. Even Websleuths and Topix haven't been able to come up with what he actually does, but there have been a lot of articles posted about him.

The theory is that - because he was too young to prosecute - a deal was made between the DA and the Ramseys lawyers - that Burke can basically go free (in the care of the parents) as long as he undergoes intensive therapy, anger management and counselling.

And this is the reason the DA did not want the parents to go to trial. He knew they did not actually kill their daughter, just covered it up. The Grand Jury could see what had happened and returned True Bills against the couple for aiding and abetting a First Degree Murder.

As for re-offending. He was closely supervised during the period he actually went back to school. He has been home tutored for most of his school life.

Personally I would not have wanted my child to have been anywhere around him.

[Harry D]

what about if one of them strangled her but not to stage an intruder?

For their own gratification, then? Eh... I'm not buying it. Physical and sexual abuse from a family member is usually systematic. It doesn't often explode into a full-blown sexual torture one Christmas morning.

[Abby Normal]

Burke wouldn't have done it, got away with it, and not reoffended. If he had accidentally struck his sister on the head, sure, but not garroting her to death. And the notion that John & Patsy strangled her to stage an intruder is equally absurd.

what about if one of them strangled her but not to stage an intruder?

[Harry D]

Burke wouldn't have done it, got away with it, and not reoffended. If he had accidentally struck his sister on the head, sure, but not garroting her to death. And the notion that John & Patsy strangled her to stage an intruder is equally absurd.