Burke or Bust!

WY - An intruder would want to make sure there was no doubt about her death. Thus, the overkill. Other than that, the method of death wouldn't differentiate parent or intruder killer, IMO. Of course, if a parent intended to kill her, the overkill fits a parent just as well as an intruder.

This is just an educated guess, but I suspect that listing the strangulation first might reflect the fact that strangulation like that would certainly lead to her death pretty quickly, whereas the blow to the head might have resulted in a slightly more delayed death. Just a guess, however.

BTW - Where is it indicated that the double injury was declared to be staging by the police?

 

Right, Fly

IF a parent intended to kill her. But, what if the parent did not intend to kill her - the accident theory as in, I hit her, but I didn't mean to kill her. What if the parent then wanted to make it look as if there were an intruder?

I can't point you to the source that the double injury had to do with staging, and I'm not sure I even said that. I think I said that authorities (FBI for one) said the staging pointed to someone inside the house. Hypothetically, if the second injury, whichever one it was, was part of staging....

I know that's not what I said, but it was what I was thinking. Staging in general points to someone in the house - if that second injury was staging. Actually, my entire post was hypothetical, because I surely don't know what came first or if it was an accident or intentional.

 

staging

WY - I certainly agree that staging would tend to strongly point toward somebody in the house.
However, what is staging and what is not is a thorny question that we've never really had answered definitively. The genital abuse <i>might</i> be staging, or not. The overkill <i>might</i> be staging, or not.

About the only thing that is pretty tough to see as anything except staging is the ransom note, IMO. That note is one of two big reasons I haven't jumped to the other side of the fence. (The fact that the killer took the risk/time to molest and kill JBR in the house, rather than taking her elsewhere, is the other.) There are certainly things that bother me about the note as evidence against a parent, but those are less bothersome (most of the time) than jameson's idea of an intruder passing time by writing it.

 

theory

Tricia - Want my failed alien abduction scenario? It makes about as much sense of the data as any other theory, even though it's a joke.

Seriously, you are asking the impossible given my extreme distaste for lousy arguments based on highly questionable facts. Too many bits of what we "know" as evidence are contradictory or require more stretching than my imagination will tolerate.
As I noted above, I still suspect the bottom line is that a Ramsey was involved. Beyond that I can't go because the evidence is a mess. To be honest, an intruder theory probably has fewer holes - at least once we get past the extreme risk taking aspects - but I can't quite get past that ransom note.

Sorry to disappoint.

 

To Answer Questions

Hi Guys!

I had to stay away from the forum because, at times, I spend FAR too much time here and I have a business and family to manage. Now that I am back...

Show Me - Unfortunately, we will probably never know what the Post will find out through their investigation of the DA's and grand jury files due to the "gag order" that the RAMS have enforced in this case.

Scully - I don't think the Post should drop this lawsuit, I believe the RAMS should. After all, if they really were concerned about their son's mental health, they would drop their love of lawsuits and live quietly in Atlanta. They want to bring attention to themselves with lawsuits and televsions appearances, unfortunately at the expense of their son, Burke.


Thor - I feel that most of us ride on some kind of fence with this trajedy. NO ONE knows for sure what happened on Christmas night, except for the 3 people in that house. I heard MANY theories about what happened that night and all I can certainly be sure of is that PR wrote the ransom note. I try to process backwards from that certainty to figure out what happened and there I stay. One can not rationalize an irrational act.

imon128 - Burke seemed like a normal boy his age and I bet, that his life was terribly not so normal with a sister, such as he had. I think Burke was "the golden child" after he was born and continued to be so until JB was born. Parents don't mean to do so, but at times, a mother willl show favoritism toward the girl child in the family. It is a reflection of her.

I don't understand why Burke did not sit with his parents during the funeral. Who did he sit with?

John did not practice sports with Burke because John was rarely at the house. He was always working and PR accepted that.

Got to go for dinner. Doc is yelling for me and forgive misspellings.......

 

Cookie

Thanks for the response here.

Much as most parents fail to be honest and acknowledge it, there is almost always a bit of favortism towards one child by each parent. Usually, and sadly I might add, the other children in the family are very aware of this situation.

Depending on the number of children in a family, the other parent (or a grandparent) can often times offset the favortism but that doesn't help the child who is feeling less loved understand why the parent who doesn't favor him or her, know the whys.

JMHO.

 

Cookie

Thanks for the replies. As far as Burke not sitting with his parents, the boy sat with John Andrew and they (Burke and JAR) sat away from John and Patsy...maybe it's that's church's ritual so to speak, but I found it very strange that John and Patsy sat alone. Anybody else confirm me, here?

Judith, one more. I read that JB sat in the front of John's auto one time, when John was giving you a lift somewhere while driving JonBenet. Was JonBenet always treated this way and if so, in your opinion, did this contribute to her "bratiness"? Thanks...

 

funeral seating

I think most would expect Burke and the rest of JR's kids to sit with JR and PR. I expected our extended family's kids to sit with their families at the recent funeral of their grandfather, too. Didn't happen. Grandkids (elementary school through college age) ended up all sitting together, separate from all their parents, with the exception of one of the oldest who had a part in the funeral. It wasn't planned, it just happened.

Sure, the situations are not completely equivalent, but just wanted to note that "odd" seating does occur.

Edited to clarify whose kids/families I mean.

 

Not odd

I don't think Burke's sitting with JAR during the funeral was odd at all. Burke was what, nine years old? Very young children - say three years through six years, maybe - are still very attached to their parents as a rule and would probably stay close to them. Kids often start drawing away from their parents as they get out of the younger years, and unless the Ramseys had told Burke that he was to sit with them at the service, I can see Burke's wanting to sit with his older brother.

My children still sit close to me (and each other) at funerals but not necessarily in the same row of seats. They are grown, of course, but we tend to cluster together. When they were younger, though, they might have wanted to go sit with Aunt Sally or grandma and grandpa.

 

More....

imon128 - Burke was not adopted. In fact, PR and I were pregnant together, she, with BR, and I, with my daughter. Funny how BR was born 1 month to the day before my daughter. Burke was born Jan. 27th and my daughter, Feb. 27th.

We believe that JBR was strangled BEFORE she was hit on the head. Due to hemorrhaging in the brain and lack of blood at the crime scene, leads us to believe, by medical terms, that some kind of strangulation occurred before she was hit on the head. In other words, JBR was alive, barely, before she was hit on the head. What a horrible death for a child to experience.

JBR was not unusually bratty. She was probably much like most children that have their MOMENTS. I found her to be sweet, playful, sensitive and very intelligent. Sure, she was spoiled, as alot of children are. But, there was something special about her, a sensitivity or intuitiveness, that one does not see often in children.

More later about the bogus intruder theory......

 

Cookie, thank you so much for your responses here. Do you believe that this was a deliberate act, and not an accident, then coverup? I have seen the skull fracture photos and am stunned how her little head was cracked in two. Seeing these pictures makes me believe it HAD to be a deliberate murder but then again, which one could have done this? Patsy was grooming JB to be Miss America and why the hell would she MURDER her? This is why it is so hard for me to believe that Patsy could have done this unless it was an accident, as Steve Thomas thinks. Unless Patsy is psycho, can you see her doing this, knowing Patsy like you do? Also, since I am a woman with a daughter, I cannot see me doing this and this is another reason why I feel this way. I keep thinking a male Ram was involved for sure. But John? Could he have? I can't imagine any of the 3 Rams that night could have pulled this whole thing off without at least 2 of them knowing and covering/staging.

Or, could JAR really be involved, or a buddy of his? I realize he supposedly had an alibi but folks at other forums and theorized it was possible he could have done this and flown back to Atlanta. His good friend was a pilot. But that is a little far out there so I just have no idea at this point.

 

Yeh know Thor....

I really can't imagine what happened that night. I believe wholeheartedly that PR wrote the ransom note and I believe she was not acting alone.

JBR died from strangulation. Due to the amount of blood in her brain and the lack of it at the crime scene, leads me to believe she was strangulated first (but still alive), then hit over the head and then garroted last.

Of course, I couldn't imagine PR doing this to her only daughter. But something happened that night to push individuals into doing crazy things. Maybe the psychosis was always there, yet hidden. Maybe it was like a festering volcano that finally exploded.

 

accidental killing

Thor, Cookie,

I was always under the impression JonBenét was hit on the head first. A friend of mine suggested JB may have come gone downstairs and had some of her favourite pineapple, and when Patsy found her in the kitchen eating this snack, she may have lost her temper big time;especially if she backchatted Patsy, which she was known to do.

There was a flashlight on the table, and I did read somewhere the indent on her skull matched the shape of a flashlight. Strangely enough, a flashlight was found on the counter in the kitchen, with no fingerprints on it. Someone must have placed it there, so there should have been fingerprints on it.

Or, could Patsy have hustled her up the stair, with the flashlight in her hand, and still arguing the toss, take a swipe at her, and she fell down the spiral stairs? Then Patsy panicked and thought she had killed her, and as scout on CN put it ...never called 911 for this reason.

It's the sexual molestation that makes me sick.
I cannot understand this part at all, because I
have never thought of John Ramsey in that light.
He was a powerful business man, and from some of the information on the net, he had other girlfriends; therefore why would he turn to his small daughter for sexual gratification. after all, many women are attracted to this type of man.

About the ransom note, I have always thought John Ramsey's writing was close to the ransom note style too.

Thor, we've discussed so many different theories
over the last year on CN and here we are still struggling over it. I am frustrated!

One other thing still bothers me terribly about this case, and that's when Pam Paugh was allowed to take important evidence out the Ramsey home with the help of the Boulder Police.

The cards were stacked against this little girl from day one. It's so unfair!

 

Yes, Elle, the one-woman raid Pam Paugh did was unforgivable. And unbelievable. I feel evidence could have gone out the door with that one. And yes, this is my frustration, the cards were stacked against JB from day one and continues to be after all these years. Chris Wolf's suit is our last hope but I don't feel very hopeful about it.

 

Thanks

Thanks for all the good ideas regarding the funeral seating. I guess the reason it struck me as very odd was because they'd just found one child murdered in the basement and wondered why they didn't want to "keep their baby" Burke close to them.

Also, they purport themselves to be such a loving family, yet didn't think of Burke's emotional needs. These things do not a killer make, of course, but when under the microscope, these things stuck out to me.

This was such a tragedy, losing JB, but the most we can hope is that we one day will know why and make the world safer for all the other little girls left behind. JMO, of course.

 

order of events

The amount of intracranial bleeding is always cited to support the idea that she was strangled first, and that certainly is a real possibility. Given the nature of the skull fracture, it is hard to believe that there wouldn't be significant involvement of blood vessels, and thus, bleeding.

However, there are two things that are a bit hard to fit to the head injury coming last scenario: the bleeding under the scalp and the swelling of the brain.

If strangulation cut off the blood supply to the brain thoroughly enough to prevent most of the bleeding expected from such a head injury, the blood supply to the scalp is going to be at least as restricted (I'd guess more). So why the "extensive area" of bleeding beneath the scalp?

More important, though, is the notation that there was mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri (i.e., swelling). Although microscopic signs of swelling can be detected very quickly after a brain injury, everything I've ever read has suggested that swelling significant enough to be detected on visual inspection does not happen instantaneously - even in lethal head injuries.

I'm not a pathologist, so it is quite possible that there's something I'm not considering or am misinterpreting. However, the same idea has also been expressed by MDs who have commented on the issue.

So, like almost everything in this case, there is evidence that points one way (head blow second) and evidence that points the other way (head blow first).

 

cookie

cookie - I've seen several folks on the forums argue that Burke is not "normal." Specifically, they have concluded that he has Ausperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism. Given that you know the family, could you please clear this up, one way or the other?

 

Still a puzzle to me

how a skull can be cracked the way JB's skull was, and yet the skin covering the crack and point of impact was intact.

Years ago, my 17 year old cousin (and five other young men who were in the car) was killed in a car that hit the back of a stopped tractor-trailer. My cousin didn't have a mark on him anywhere except for a bruise on his temple (the other boys had massive fatal injuries). His skull was cracked, though. He was killed instantly - they all were. This has also always puzzled me. In his case, his head hit the right passenger's side window, which did not break - a solid blow but no cut.

What did JB's head hit? Or perhaps the better question would be - what hit JB's head? All I can think of is that flashlight. I have the same kind of flashlight at home - it is rubber coated.

 

Could Burke Have Done It?

For years now I have been a defender of Burke Ramsey and have argued that he could not possibly have killed his little sister. But what is this about plea bargaining done on Burke's behalf? In the RMN article today about the Post suit, it states that the Post, to some extent, based its reporting partly on such plea bargaining taking place. I wonder what impact the release of this investigative data will have on the case, and if I will have to revise my thinking about Burke Ramsey?? Does anyone else see the Ramseys' relentless pursuit of lawsuits as harming their son Burke irreparably?


<b>N.Y. Post wins access to Burke Ramsey file

Boulder DA must yield investigative data to newspaper defending libel suit, judge rules

By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer
April 11, 2002

BOULDER -- A federal judge ordered the district attorney's office to turn over files in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case to a New York newspaper being sued by the Ramsey family for libel.

The order is a broad repercussion of a sworn statement given by then-District Attorney Alex Hunter in 2000 that cleared Burke Ramsey of suspicion in his sister's death. The Ramseys will also receive the district attorney's investigative documents.

U.S. District Judge Walker D. Miller, ruling on a subpoena filed in the Ramseys' libel lawsuit against the New York Post, said that because Hunter gave the affidavit clearing Burke, the district attorney's office waived its claim that investigation documents related to Burke Ramsey must be kept secret as part of an ongoing criminal case.

Miller's order marks the first time investigators have been made to turn over documents related to the Dec. 26, 1996, homicide, District Attorney Mary Keenan said.

The affidavit was used in a lawsuit against a supermarket tabloid that alleged the Ramseys had plea-agreement talks with prosecutors regarding charges against their son. The New York Post essentially republished that story in May 1999.

Hunter's intentions "were good at the time, so it's pretty hard to criticize him for it," Keenan said, "but it certainly did open the door to this."

Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood said he viewed it as unusual that Hunter granted his request for the affidavit.

Hunter did not return a phone call seeking comment.

The New York Post subpoenaed the Burke Ramsey documents, calling them necessary to its defense. The Ramseys will get to see the same documents. Prosecutors have until May 9 to turn them over. The materials are under protective order barring their publication.

The order covers any documents from the beginning of the murder investigation to the date of Hunter's affidavit regarding the investigation of Burke Ramsey, potential charges against him, or any plea negotiations concerning charges against the child.

"We're pleased the court will give us the opportunity to see some of the materials we consider important," said Richard J. Davis, attorney for the New York Post.

Bill Nagel, the chief appellate lawyer for Keenan's office, expects a burdensome search for relevant documents. "We have to find those things that are (relevant) within a whole lot of other material," he said. "Whether we can seek compensation for our time is something we haven't looked into yet."

Miller's order may also have implications for the Boulder police's file. In the same case, Wood last year subpoenaed the police and the district attorney's office for documents on Burke, the 911 call Patsy Ramsey made to police, any analysis of that call and any documents relating to Patsy being the author of a ransom note found at the scene.

He said he held off on enforcing the subpoenas, under an agreement with the city and the district attorney, until a decision was reached on the Post's subpoenas.

"I'll have the opportunity to see what is produced in response to the New York Post subpoena and then make a determination whether I want to or need to go forward with my subpoenas," Wood said.

Wood said the ransom-note request is relevant because the Post story said Patsy faked the ransom note to cover for her son's role in the killing. </b>