Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 109 to 120 of 198
  1. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carol
    But, rashomon, what would Burke have hit JB over the head with that wouldn't have cut her scalp? The flashlight, I would think, would have definitely caused a cut and bleeding.
    I've never figured out what any one would have hit her head with that wouldn't cause a lot of bleeding and yet crack her skull.
    This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

  2. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    I think the Maglite was the weapon used on JonBenet's skull, and that the rubber rim kept the skin from breaking.

  3. #111

    Default

    Unless she was pushed into or fell into something with a smooth yet hard surface, like a tub, sink, or toilet. This is what Drs. Baden and Wecht believe. If that was the case, then it was probably more likely that Patsy was the one involved.

  4. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Dr. Werner Spitz performed tests in which he struck human skulls with a flashlight identical to the Rs' Maglite. (I saw this program on tv. It may have been on Discovery.) Spitz demonstrated that the breaks in the test skulls matched the ones on JonBenet's skull. He said he was convinced it was the Maglite that broke her skull. He said the indentation on the skull wasn't only close to matching the end of the Maglite, but that it matched "perfectly." (I used quotation marks, because he used that word.)

  5. #113

    Default

    Thanks, Tril.

  6. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    But what makes the Ramsey case intricate in that respect: the forensic facts (fibers fromPatsy's and John's clothing found in incriminating locations), and other circumstantial evidence (the ransom note which was obviously written by Patsy, the Ramseys' total unwillingness to cooperate with the police, their many lies and revealing statements) point to their involvement in the cover-up of the crime, but don't necessarily point to which of the three Ramseys committed the crime.

    Could Burke have been involved? Maybe he fooled around with his little sister, she threatened to tell their parents, he panicked and hit her over the head, and the parents then covered up to save him?
    Scenarios like that have been outlined on the JB forums.
    It don't think Burke was involved, but still the question to ask is: judging from the circumstantial evidence (and that's all we have in the Ramsey case, for there were neither eye-witnesses nor a confession): can such a scenario be really ruled out?

    So to modify your question, Easywriter: by what alleged fact or facts is it excluded that Burke is responsible for the death of JonBenet?

    Fair question.
    Some of the theories of Burke’s alleged involvement bring in
    parties other than the Ramseys. There was no around the clock
    eyewitness to say this is not true, but there is no evidence to
    say it is true. That’s my point. If these “extras” can be ruled
    out by lack of supporting evidence, why is not the same rationale
    applied to Burke? True, it is known and undisputed that Burke was
    in the house, but there is no more evidence that he was in the
    same room during the creating of the head trauma any more than
    there is evidence of other parties in the house.

    What is there to indicate the Burke knew anything until the next
    day? If it is true, that Burke was heard on the tape saying,
    “What did you find?”, this goes to ignorance of circumstance. The
    Ramseys belatedly admitted that Burke was awake that morning.
    This part of the evidence is consistent with the idea of Burke
    not being involved. Also, although not proof in itself, the
    circumstance of that evening goes more toward a confrontation
    between Patsy and JonBenet than any other likelihood.

    The theory that the staging was to protect Burke has a lot of
    problems. Protect him from what? Prosecution that wasn’t going to
    happen? To keep others from knowing that he killed his sister -
    and just turn this temper loose on some other unsuspecting
    person? If this is the case, then Burke’s protection consisted of
    John and Patsy not doing anything to deal with his homicidal
    problem. Add to this the idea of committing a felony by tampering
    with evidence could land them in jail. How was this to protect
    and help Burke? It just won’t wash.

    I do not know of a single thing that Burke said or did that makes
    him a suspect. I do not know of simple scrap of evidence that
    connects him to the crime in any way. I see absolutely nothing to
    indicate that Burke needed protection, or that he got any. What I
    do see is Patsy Ramsey in need of avoiding the truth about the
    head trauma. What I do see is inept staging to project the idea
    of kidnaping, ransom, sexual assault and murder by strangulation
    to draw attention away from the head trauma as primary. Given
    that she went to all this effort with so little skill tells of
    much desperation seeking protection from the consequence of
    truth. Her connection to the crime is clear; not so with Burke.
    To assume the staging was to protect Burke and not self, has not
    a single thing to support the notion. Since there is not a single
    thing to connect Burke to the crime and everything connecting
    Patsy, how can he not be ruled out when there is absolutely
    nothing to rule him in?

    Possibility is the starting point, not the end. Every day we all
    deal with and make decisions on probability. If I sleep through
    the night and awake to find water dripping from tree leaves and
    water running down the street, I assume it rained while I was
    asleep. On the other hand, it is possible that it didn’t rain at
    all; that a thousand fire-fighting aerial tankers flew over and
    dropped the water. I rule out this possibility on lack of
    evidence and improbability. I view Burkes situation in the same
    light.

  7. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tril
    Dr. Werner Spitz performed tests in which he struck human skulls with a flashlight identical to the Rs' Maglite. (I saw this program on tv. It may have been on Discovery.) Spitz demonstrated that the breaks in the test skulls matched the ones on JonBenet's skull. He said he was convinced it was the Maglite that broke her skull. He said the indentation on the skull wasn't only close to matching the end of the Maglite, but that it matched "perfectly." (I used quotation marks, because he used that word.)
    There are so many things wrong with this on so many levels, it
    hard to find a place to start. 1. A viable replication would
    necessarily include a scalp membrane to test for laceration, or
    lack thereof. 2. The skull would have to be the size, shape and
    density of JonBenet’s. 3. I know of no information that provides
    the depth and width of any indentation. 4. The photo of the scalp
    shows a wide area of damage in conjunction with a radiation
    pattern of cracks. The wide area of damage is elongated and not
    even close to the form of a flashlight head. Indeed, if a
    “match”, it rules it out - unless the skull is soft clay. 5.
    Given the nature of energy distribution evidenced in the
    fracture, “matched perfectly” is evidence of “imperfect” testing
    conditions. 6. Basic physics indicate extreme force distributed
    over a wide area to enable skull fracture without scalp
    laceration. A narrow headed flashlight with ridge protrusions? No
    way. 7.There is no evidence that the flashlight was even part of
    the crime scene.

    The skull fracture came about by contact with something very
    large, very heavy, flat, or almost flat, and smooth. Something
    wielded may be possible, but highly unlikely.

  8. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tril
    Dr. Werner Spitz performed tests in which he struck human skulls with a flashlight identical to the Rs' Maglite. (I saw this program on tv. It may have been on Discovery.) Spitz demonstrated that the breaks in the test skulls matched the ones on JonBenet's skull. He said he was convinced it was the Maglite that broke her skull. He said the indentation on the skull wasn't only close to matching the end of the Maglite, but that it matched "perfectly." (I used quotation marks, because he used that word.)

    I just watched a PBS program (History Detectives) the other day ... and what I saw might question Spitz's findings to a small degree.

    ... the show attempted to authenticate an archialogical find ... a spearhead embedded in a 5,000 year old bison skull. The concern was that it might be a fake ... that the spearhead had recently been driven into an ancient skull. The forensics people pointed out that LIVING bone tissue has a high moisture content, and even some elastic qualities. Dryed bone, on the other hand has no such elasticity, and would be likely to shatter or splinter to some degree if a spearhead had been driven into a dryed skull. Their findings proved that the spearhead had been embedded when the bison was alive.

    I think of the "live" versus dried skull a bit like this. Take an ax to a live tree. Then do the same to a well dried log. The moist nature of the live tree yeilds a totally different type of cut (or chip) than that of an ax blow to a long dead log.

    I have to assume that the same would be true in skull experiments similar to Spitz's efforts. Of course, he may well have taken that elasticity and other factors into account ... or even used recently dead skulls.

    I just thought that it was interesting, and would likely be an issue in a courtroom if this case ever went to trial.


    ...YumYum

  9. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    174

    Red face EasyWriter ...

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyWriter
    There are so many things wrong with this on so many levels, it
    hard to find a place to start.

    7.There is no evidence that the flashlight was even part of the crime scene.

    The skull fracture came about by contact with something very large, very heavy, flat, or almost flat, and smooth. Something wielded may be possible, but highly unlikely.
    Your hat suits you .... you write so articulately.

    I'm curious ... when you say something heavy, flat/almost flat/ & smooth are you thinking of a procelain tub, vanity, tiled wall??? For example, do your thoughts sway toward her being slammed against something?

    That may not be what you're saying, but I've always thought that something took place in Jonbenet's bathroom that night with her Mom. It's documented that Patsy indicated in her interviews that she did not use her own bathroom on the 26th, was because it was broken .... seems she would have been using Jonbenet's bathroom then.

    Oh well, your posts are very well thought out & I like your detailed explanation as to why a maglite could not have made the fracture.

    Regards,
    Mandarin

  10. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    174

    Question Easy .... p.s.

    You mention that "belatedly" the Rams admitted that Burke was awake & if I recall, this came a couple of years after the fact - well, a VERY long time after they had denied it.

    I think they said they originallly THOUGHT he was asleep, but Burke told them he was only PRETENDING to be asleep.

    Hmmmm ..... I just don't understand why the Rams, including Burke, continuously stated that he was asleep & then suddenly, they come forth & say "Well, yes, he was awake after all".

    I just can't get my head around them swiftly transporting him out of the house, with nary a word of explanation. And I just can't understand why Burke (allegedly) did not ask any questions of his parents and or the Whites.

    I also don't understand why they continue to deny that Burke in fact, did own hi-tech shoes/boots.

    I also don't know why he was almost totally neglected at the initial bereavement service. The pictures show him looking hagard and alone.

    So for me Easy, although I do NOT think it was Burke that struck her, I find it entirely possible that he may play a large part in the puzzle, but what that is I'm like everyone else .... baffled.

    The GJ coming to a screeching halt & the reverberating silence thereafter made me wonder what, if any, his culpability might have been.

    Regards,
    Mandarin

  11. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Good points, YY. I have an idea that Dr. Spitz, who has more than 50 years of experience in pathology, and is a world-renowned expert in the field, considered the condition of the bone in his experiments and recognized the importance of it. Even I, as a fossil preparator, can (and often very easily) distinguish between damage done to bone prior to, or soon after, death and damage done after the bone had dried out. I don't view Dr. Spitz as someone who would disregard the condition of the bone he was testing, when it would be such an important factor.

    Sounds like a fascinating program you watched. I love shows like that.

  12. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mandarin
    You mention that "belatedly" the Rams admitted that Burke was awake & if I recall, this came a couple of years after the fact - well, a VERY long time after they had denied it.

    I think they said they originallly THOUGHT he was asleep, but Burke told them he was only PRETENDING to be asleep.

    Hmmmm ..... I just don't understand why the Rams, including Burke, continuously stated that he was asleep & then suddenly, they come forth & say "Well, yes, he was awake after all".

    I just can't get my head around them swiftly transporting him out of the house, with nary a word of explanation. And I just can't understand why Burke (allegedly) did not ask any questions of his parents and or the Whites.

    I also don't understand why they continue to deny that Burke in fact, did own hi-tech shoes/boots.

    I also don't know why he was almost totally neglected at the initial bereavement service. The pictures show him looking hagard and alone.

    So for me Easy, although I do NOT think it was Burke that struck her, I find it entirely possible that he may play a large part in the puzzle, but what that is I'm like everyone else .... baffled.

    The GJ coming to a screeching halt & the reverberating silence thereafter made me wonder what, if any, his culpability might have been.

    Regards,
    Mandarin
    I can answer the part about the Hi-Tec boots. If Burke had a pair, then the mystery footprint near JBR's body may well be his, and can't be attributed to an intruder.

    I think the adult Ramseys lied about many things, and decided that instead of trying to keep track of everything, they'd just say that for sure, JonBenet was asleep when they got home, and that Burke had not woken up all night. Why? I don't know. Maybe they thought that if they changed the story AT ALL, it would all unravel. You know how it's thought that liars change their story all the time. Well, it still happened, but with the lawyers help, they still got away with the lies.

    As for the rest, to my mind, getting Burke out of the house is just to protect him when the body is found. They may have been trying to keep him from seeing his little sister dead. Or maybe they were afraid of what he would say if he saw her dead. Who knows what he told Fleet White? Maybe we will find out someday.

    Heymom
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!



Similar Threads

  1. Burke Ramsey to be on Dr. Phil
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: October 2, 2017, 10:47 am, Mon Oct 2 10:47:28 UTC 2017
  2. Burke Ramsey Files 150M Lawsuit
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 9, 2017, 1:03 am, Thu Mar 9 1:03:09 UTC 2017
  3. Burke Ramsey graduates from Purdue - May 2010
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: October 16, 2010, 8:49 pm, Sat Oct 16 20:49:03 UTC 2010
  4. Recent Photos of Burke Ramsey
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: September 28, 2006, 12:33 pm, Thu Sep 28 12:33:41 UTC 2006
  5. No link found between Scott Peterson and missing student
    By Tricia in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 20, 2003, 12:49 am, Mon Jan 20 0:49:11 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •