If Patsy is the killer....

While he may never be held legally/criminally responsible, or liable, if Burke EVER admits that he knows what happened that night, he will be in a bad way.



Let's remember, now that he is a legal adult, having information pertaining to a murder and withholding it not only leaves people with bad feelings about him, but allowing Karr and the others to be named suspects or murderers might just leave him in a heap of trouble if it ever came out that he knew "who" committed this crime; not to mention how others' feelings about him in general will be affected

So I believe he will never talk, unless he is "under the influence" or otherwise slips up or confides in the wrong person

 

Elle_1,
That's exactly how I see it too. I have a feeling John pulled Burke aside that morning and told him to keep his mouth shut. At 10 yrs old Burke was old enough to get the jest of what his dad meant. I also have no doubt JR took total control of that house and everyone in it the morning of Dec. 26.

 

I agree, Barbara.

The "wrong person" you referred to could in the future be a vengeful ex-girlfriend or ex-wife. (I see this happen sometimes on true crime shows, such as The New Detectives.)

 

Oh, I believe Burke drank the coolaide long ago. These are his parents, after all. I imagine JonBenet is a distant memory for him by now. John and Patsy ran away from the home where JonBenet had lived most of her short life pronto and never looked back...except when they wanted to "run into" Smit and "say a prayer" with him in front of the house. Sure didn't bother them to go back when it AIDED them, did it? But I digress....

I don't know if Burke was part of the horror or just an innocent bystander, but if he ever tells anyone anything incriminating about himself or any of the family, he'll be taking a great risk. I'll bet his therapist knows some things, though--IF he really had one. Again, we only have the Ramseys word for that, too.

 

We can only assume this-n-that hm, can't we? I would think the conversation between John and Burke has to be awkward at times(?). John cannot stop Burke from growing older, and does John really know just how much Burke knows (?). Did Burke ever wonder if he was going to be next? As I said before, he was close on ten years old. He was no baby.

 

I think his friends. boys and girls , without a doubt, would have to be inquisitive.

 

I think Burke knows very little. When he has the opportunity to talk and has nothing to say because he has nothing to say, it will be interpreted that he has been schooled, brainwashed, coached, guided and or is defending his kin. When in fact he knows nothing of importance. This is how conspiracy theories work. As in UFOs: there is no evidence of UFOs, therefor, the evidence has been covered up, which confirms that UFOs exist and a shadow government exists to hide the truth.

 

I think LE saw something inside Patsy (not seen in John or Burke) that made them take a closer look at her.

 

Could it be that simple?? ::shocked2 :idea:

 

"she's good for it" is about as plain and simple as it gets.

 

Yes. :yes:

 

Never mind.

 

I have to disagree with you here, Paradox, because if you stop to think back on your own childhood, there's a lot to remember for a ten year old. I know I can go way back to when I was three years old. My mother died when I was four years old, and I can go back to that time, and I have very clear memories of it. I also have memories of my mother before this; not seeing her face clearly, of course, but of events which took place; however, this is not about me, but I'm just stating an example of how far back a ten year old can go back and remember. I remember a lot. Burke Ramsey is not a stupid child, He must remember quite a bit about that tragic time.

 

The fact is the evidence in hand actually only leads to Patsy...and John, in some capacity.

But I still would like to know who caused the prior vaginal injuries. The RST can DENYDENYDENY with their weak arguments all they want, but they refuse to consider ALL the evidence. They only quote the sources they want to believe on this, and Dr. Beuf is about it. Of course Dr. Beuf would say he saw no molestation: if he had and hadn't reported it, he'd have been liable; he also says he didn't examine her vaginally. That's where the injuries were occurring.

You know, the fact is--and I can't remember a specific source as I've read so much on this topic now, buy Marilyn Van Derbur's book is a good one--when pedophiles start molesting victims, the most common age of female child victims is 5/6. Also, with younger children, THE PERVS START GENTLY AND SLOWLY, "grooming" them, and on girls, usually with digital penetration so they won't hurt them. I'm not making this up. This info is nothing new. Anyone can look it up.

Also, statistically the most common molester/incester is A BROTHER. And the most common AGE when the PERV starts pedophilic activities--between 13 to 20.

Now we KNOW that pedos don't "stop" unless they're caught. So...like I said, read Marilyn Van Derbut's book, if you can handle it. It's a truly accurate, if hard to stomach, picture of what a pedophile does, how he does it, how those around him react, and how the victim suffers.

As far as I'm concerned, there were 4 males who had access to JonBenet, for whom Patsy would have helped conceal the facts of it. The RST can't stand this topic because they can't stand for anyone to speak the truth about what the autopsy PROVED, as it TRULY reveals the dynamics of what was going on in the family that led to the murder, IMO.

This is not that hard. It's only confused because of all the money, power, and influence that has been used to make it out to be something other than what it was: a child murdered by someone in her family, to cover-up the fact of incest--the dirtiest little secret a family can have.

As to who did what, well, since the only people who were involved lived there, it's hard to say. Many of the theories are quite plausible to me. Paradox may be right, Patsy could have been nutso and done much of it by herself. Perhaps it was both John and Patsy. Or all three.

But Patsy is the one who wrote the note, she is the one who lied the most to LE in interviews, and it was her fibers in the knots of the garrote. She had the most trouble "passing" the polygraph, even years later, with TWO SEPARATE of her OWN self-sponsored polygraphers. Patsy's pad and pen, Patsy's paintbrush. Patsy Patsy Patsy.

Patsy is the one person I can say was in this up to her neck.

 

Yes, this is true, but Burke Ramsey is the only other person present when this crime occurred, and I refuse to believe he doesn't know more than has been led to believe. Forget about wherever he goes in life, it's still in his head and nothing will remove that. We can talk until the cows come home. We weren't there. He was!

 

Patsy is the one person I can say was in this up to her neck.

I guess you could say Patsy was in it up to JonBenet's neck...

:ziplip:

 

But that would be sick.

 

Indeed, the forensic (fiber) and other circumstantial evidence (e. g. the ransom note) suggest that Patsy was the main stager of the scene.

 

And none of the other suspects had experience performing a scene on stage.

 

But IMO true.