Let's throw down, jams

Yes I saw this. It's an excellent example of how the RST are more like BORG than the RDIs. An excellent example of the doubleBBs being assimilated

 

Kk...

The fact that Burke admitted during his interview that he pretended to be asleep when his parents came in to check on him after they found the note, makes me strongly suspect that Burke either was in some way involved with what happened to Jon Benet or he heard or witnessed at least some part of what happened to Jon Benet Christmas night.

Why else would a child pretend to be asleep? With the excitement of the impending plane trip and the promise of going to Michigan for a second Christmas wouldn't you suppose that Burke would be jumping out of bed and excitedly getting ready for the trip, not lying there pretending to be asleep?

Small statements and hints from children can sometimes be a tip-off to something much larger afoot in a home....Burkes simple statement here about pretending to be asleep is one of those, at least for me....He was afraid or dreading something or someone....Maybe he heard or saw something happening to Jon Benet and was afraid it might happen to him?

Voyager

 

Bingo

 

Thank you - you are too good to me......:bowdown:

 

Both bubblebath and ill-fitting underwear can irritate, but NOT damage. They could never erode a hymen, cause hyperemia, bruising, or the kind of damage found on JBR. Any irritation from cheap underwear is external, not internal. And though bubblebath can cause some internal irritation in girls (and women, too) it will never erode anything inside the vagina. Those babblings are clearly from someone who has never read the autopsy, or has read it and chooses NOT to find out what it means.

 

Yes, DeeDee, you and I and anyone objective and intelligent who wants to identify the child molester and/killer knows the RST's consistent denial of the origin of those prior vaginal injuries is pure OBFUSCATION of the TRUTH. Jams herself qualifies her own assertions:

Even HER subconscious won't let her get away with her DISINFORMATION AND FULLY SPECULATIVE ASSERTIONS presented as FACTS. "Prior irritation"? Yeah, having your hymen eroded to non-existence by age 6 WOULD be "irritating", but using a MISNOMER instead of the actual AUTOPSY LANGUAGE only brings attention to how hard jams is working to HIDE THE TRUTH.

To state FLAT OUT AS FACT that there was no prior molestation, without so much as acknowledging that half a dozen or more pediatric and forensic experts say YEAH THERE WAS, only clarifies the level of deceit spread by the RST. Jams cannot possibly KNOW how JonBenet got those prior vaginal injuries. Cheap panties? Does ANYONE believe Patsy Ramsey would be putting CHEAP nylon UNDERWEAR on JB KNOWING she has been plagued with "vaginitis"? Do they even MAKE nylon underwear without cotton panels for little girls? "Wiping" caused her hymen to erode? (I see your eyes rolling, Watching You.) Only in Ramseyland. But jams isn't worried about logic or FACTS when it comes to the Holy Ramseys. All she is interested in is what the Ramseys, Lou Smit, and the RST tell her, because she is not capable of admitting the truth, certainly not now, with the hollow "VICTORY!" handed to the Ramseys by Lame Duck Lacy.

And lord knows, Dave jumped right into lockstep after being chastised by his Swamp Mistress. :whipit: hahaha Some "technical guru" he is. He can't even stick to his guns over the technical AUTOPSY EVIDENCE.

 

Yes, Voyager, I agree you have nailed it, here.

I have come to view Burke's role in this case differently through the years. Now I wonder if he didn't have a direct part at some point.

 

Burkes Interview....

Is there a public record of Burke's interview by the Boulder Police? Was he interviewed with his lawyer present? A psychiatrist present?

Does anyone know what the "rules" of his interview were? Seems that I recall that the terms allowed in interviewing juveniles are different from those of interviewing adults.

If indeed there is a public record of his interview, could someone post it here? I think we might benefit from going over it and analyzing it.....Anyone?

Voyager

 

All I remember being written about Burke's Jan. '97 interview with a child psychologist was that LE was allowed to watch through one of those two-way mirrors, the Ramseys agreed to the interview, and Thomas reported some of the details. I believe that the Ramseys had to allow Burke to be interviewed at that time because DFCS had to know he was "SAFE". I have never heard that said, but it finally came to me not long ago when studying some things in this case. DFCS was brought in, remember. Of course they had to talk to Burke or remove him from the home for his own safety, if the parents allow it. A child of the Ramseys had been found horribly murdered and molested, after all. The only suspects were the parents, who were going a long way not to cooperate with LE. Finally, to keep Burke from being taken out of the home, the Ramseys must have been told you must let us interview him to determine if he's safe. When I realized this, I realized my previous reasons for eliminating Burke as a participant on some level in the abuse of JonBenet had to be reconsidered.

Burke was again interviewed in June '98 under DA Hunter's direction, when Patsy and John were, as well. There was a threat of calling a grand jury to force those interviews under oath if the Ramseys did not agree. They did. Then Burke was interviewed by/for the Grand Jury when it was called later, under pressure brought to bear by the governor of the state on Hunter. (I always thought that meant Burke appeared before the Grand Jury, but recently an IDI said Burke was videotaped for that "appearance", so I don't know.)

There are videotapes of his LE interviews. Jams has even stated she has seen them...of course. But if transcripts exist, they have never been released. We have a few details from the 2000 Atlanta interview of Patsy, where the Boulder DA lawyers told Patsy that Burke told the Grand Jury he in fact did own a pair of Hi-Tec shoes, which the RST never stop DENYING AND DENYING AND DENYING. We have several sources clearly stating that Burke owned Hi-Tecs, but the RST can't have it, because there goes their "intruder" footprint. That's really rich, considering Lin Wood and jams are the ones who released those Atlanta 2000 transcripts to the public. hehe

Of course, they don't claim to have seen those "secret" Grand Jury proceedings, either--that would be illegal. (Not that RST Lacy would ever hold any other Ramsey shill to the law, of course. Selective application of the law notwithstanding, surely the Grand Jury hearing wasn't videotaped, as that is top secret for eternity, right? Except for the seemingly "pro-Ramsey" grand juror who appeared on TV on Schiller's documentary in 2006, of course, who had nothing done to her for sharing select "memories" about that proceeding with the world at large. Hunter once said he'd be all over anyone involved in the Grand Jury who did that--guess Lacy doesn't believe in Grand Jury secrecy laws when applied to pro-Rams TV...but I digress over yet ANOTHER RST rape of the justice system.) Now that one of RST may have slipped up and disclosed that Burke gave his testimony to the Grand Jury in a videotape, who knows what the RST has passed around among their shills? No way for us to know, because they can't be believed, no matter what they say, without solid proof. We'll never get that, because as we've seen for 12 years now, if it was offered at all, it would be twisted, edited, staged, and turned into nothing but pure disinformation propaganda for the Ramseys.

Burke's memories, LE interviews, Grand Jury testimony...any light he might shed on this murder has long been buried by the same RST that has obstructed justice in this case for 12 years, IMO.

 

PS Hey,Thor! Good to see you. :wave:

 

I have always, always figured Burke had something to do with it from the first time I saw him on tv at his sister's funeral. His behavior just didn't look normal to me. And that fake story about him sleeping, then he was awake just faking it ~ what a little conniver.

And then there was, maybe still is, that law about ten year olds not being accountable. He's lucky. It seems like kids are getting charged right and left these days. Maybe they are older than ten, but younguns anyway.

And maybe I'm totally wrong.

 

I gotta say...as an RDI, more and more, although by tiny increments, I find myself thinking of BR as the R who Did It. Where's Blue Crab when I need him?

 

More about Burke...

If young Burke was guilty of an accidently killing of his sister, it would explain a lot. For instance why the authorities including the FBI were willing to overlook so much and why the Grand Jury and all involved are held to such secrecy. The Grand Jury would probably have been reluctant to prosecute the young child of such a prominent family knowing that it was an accidental killing or near fatal injury and Burke would likely never be a danger to society subsequent to this accident within his family.

I think too that both LE and the Grand Jury were in the end, sympathetic to John and Patsy even when faced with clear evidence of a very gruesome cover-up or "finish up" by the Ramsey parents.

This is certainly a real possibility with Burke being the original perpetrator though I know many here will not be sympathetic to this theory.

PS Thanks KK for all of the info about the interview...still waiting to hear more from someone, maybe ACR about whether she has any info about the formal interview.

Voyager

 

Voyager - it's very hard to NOT consider that theory, so don't you worry about that! Not only would it explain an awful lot, but it would also help understand those performances from Patsy.

As matter of fact, I thought of the nine year old Burke the other day while reading a story about the 8 year old little boy that killed his father and another man recently. During his interview, his behavior during his interview reminded me of Burkes....I will have to track down that article to share here.

But, we are still throwing down on Jams in the meantime, right?! The clocks ticking!!! IMO - this subject is where she takes her hardest hits....

 

Burke

I've thought about him too - maybe accidently hitting her over the head. But I really don't know about the rope around her neck. I know it wasn't a sophisticated device and it was probably for staging purposes, but would he stage a crime at that age? Whoever did that portion had a hand in her death since she wasn't dead yet when it was applied. The RN is obviously also part of the staging and we KNOW who did that.

If Burke hit her I am wondering why all the staging? A call to one of their lawyers would ascertain that he couldn't be charged and though he would face some notoriety, it would have been better than what happened instead and surely some ramsey influence and some Lockheed influence could help keep it under wraps. At some point of watching their money flow away you would think someone would come clean in secret to the DA and stop the madness.

 

Well...I think you've actually laid out a very coherent theory which I have pondered a long time, now. The only elements you missed are the ones that we can't explain, not without more evidence, and the DA won't be getting that: the garrote--who put that on and ended the child's life once and for all? And why not just let her die from the "head blow", if that's what was happening? Why not just take her to the ER? That's a good question, as well. So here is what I ponder on those:

If Burke hit his sister in the head, why not just take her to the ER? Because JonBenet was being molested before that night, the autopsy proves. This is inarguable to me: the child had a paintbrush thrust up her days later and was murdered--how much EVIDENCE does one need to CONNECT the prior vaginal injuries to sexual molestation? You have to be PERVERSE to not even CONSIDER this, with the evidence we know about.

Of course, this also brings up another question: If the Ramseys were afraid to take JB to the ER after an accident between siblings, or even involving an adult, why? If they were afraid of "someone" being arrested for child molestation, which surely would have happened once the molestation was discovered, then that brings up two possibilities: if it was Burke--a minor--maybe they feared he'd be removed from the home to be evaluated and put in some kind of psychiatric hospital for what he'd done. Or maybe someone ELSE was the child molester, an adult who would risk going to prison. The shame on the family would be permanent. No more social butterflying. Goodbye, Lockheed Martin, hello unemployment? These are the questions jams fears, the RST fear, and this is exactly WHY THEY CANNOT ALLOW THIS TRAIL OF EVIDENCE TO BE FOLLOWED.

The garrote--who put that on and ended the child's life once and for all? I reread Wecht's description of the autopsy and his explanations for the various injuries this year, and it had me thinking again if a child Burke's age could have done this. Wecht certainly believes the head blow and garroting came close to gether, because he perceives the brain swelling and bleeding to be too mininal to have occurred over a longer period. This is arguable, from other forensic experts' POV, of course, and one of the main sticking points in figuring out what REALLY happened to JonBenet. But for the "Burke" involvement theory, was it possible for him to have been literally torturing his sister, while his parents slept, with the garrote used in some sick game he made up, then hitting her in the head when she cried out? Did he molest her with that paintbrush then, as well? Or was THAT added by the parent/parents to cover up the previous molestation? And who did THAT?

So about the DA helping with the cover up: Yes, I will believe to the day I die that Hunter was told some story and coerced into helping in the cover up. There's NO other reason he wouldn't have gotten those phone records PRONTO. None. HUNTER obstructed the investigation the MINUTE he said NO SUBPOENA for the phone records, clothes, credit cards, etc. And he said that IMMEDIATELY. There is simply no other explanation, unless he's mentally retarded. Did the citizens of Boulder not notice they had a mentally retarded DA for 20+ years? Who took his bar exam for him?

So, what "story" was Hunter told? Obviously, this is just theorizing, but think about it: any way you slice it, Hunter would have been told SOMETHING that he was able to live with--Burke did it? Icky child molestation and accident between brother and sister--the most common type of child abuse, BTW? So WHO would have been the SOURCE of that info, anyway? Yep, THE RAMSEYS. Who else was there? It's interesting that Joyce Carol Oates' novel has the mother as the perp, but having let the brother believe for years it was he who did the deed, only revealing the truth when she was about to die. Fiction, of course. But interesting.

Well, it's just speculation, because Lacy won't be testing for any "touch" DNA on that garrote cord, or not revealing any "touch" DNA from it that goes back to the Ramseys, I would bet money. She'd rationalize THAT was TRANSFERENCE, of course. The thing is, IF Burke made it in a child's game, then it's quite likely HIS DNA cells would be on it, as he wouldn't have been likely at ALL to have used gloves, would he? If OTHER DNA was found on it, not a Ramseys, did that match the longjohn DNA cells? How about that "ancillary hair" mtDNA?

Back to the same question I've now asked of the RST several times: DOES THE DNA OF THE ANCILLARY HAIR FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE WHICH SMIT SWORE UNDER OATH HE BELIEVES BELONGS TO THE KILLER, MATCH THE "TOUCH" nDNA? Surely they tested some of the "touch" cells they found for mitochondrial DNA--mtDNA, as well, to match against that mystery "hair" the RST flogged as the "intruder's" for so long. That would seem VERY important, if it did match. Surely they did THOSE tests, since it's easier to extract mtDNA from a cell than nuclear DNA--nDNA?

http://forensicscience.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mitochondrial_dna

 

Well, now that you've got me going...I told you people not to do that!

Remember the recent discussion on the "blood on the pillowcase" on JonBenet's bed? I started a thread on it, because I haven't really seen a discussion of it before. It can be deduced, from the questions asked of Patsy during her '98 LE interview with Haney and DeMuth, that the spot was blood and the blood was identified as JonBenet's.

So think about that: If JonBenet was bleeding onto her pillowcase--Patsy was asked if JonBenet had "nosebleeds"--then is it likely that is where the head blow happened? It seems a good question to me. How else did it get there, as Patsy said no nosebleeds. We do know that JonBenet had bloodly mucous/saliva running from her nose/mouth at some point during the murderous abuse.

So did that bloodly fluid on the pillow come from the head blow or from being strangled, probably in the bed?

Just something to think about. Here is the url for the thread: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9464

 

I'm not sure of I remember it correctly - but couldn't this hair finally be sourced to Patsy?

 

Well, SURE! That's what the news reports told US anyway. Not Team Ramsey. They DENY DENY DENY. And Smit swore under oath in his Wolf deposition that he believes the "hair" belongs to the killer. That's why I asked the question. Of course, the RST just ignores it, because...well...oops! Another Piece of Smit that doesn't add up.... Except to JUDGE CARNES, of course. :steamed:

 

The ancillary (forearm) hair was sourced to Patsy Ramsey. As far as I know, that hasn't been denied by the RST. but was rather simply ignored. Smit obviously never mentioned it again because after all, he didn't want it to be PRs.
I don't ever recall reading that there was actually blood found on a pillowcase. The nosebleed questions, as far as I am concerned, had to do with the bloody mucous from her nose and was not an admission, inadvertently or not, that blood was found on a pillowcase.
As far as why no medical treatment was sought- one reason: molestation. Regardless of who, the fact that there was enough bleeding from the vagina to require wiping down meant that the Rs knew there was probably internal injury or at the very least evidence of a torn hymen.
As far as that paintbrush- there are 3 possibilities IMHO.
One- the paintbrush was inserted and caused the bleeding and left inside her and found at autopsy. This could only have been the case of the Rs did NOT know it was there (if BR did it and didn't tell them) because if they knew it was there, they'd have taken it out.
Two- only a splinter (from breaking the paintbrush) was found inside her, carried in on a finger (the finger that broke the paintbrush) in the course of molesting her.
Three- the splinter was left inside her during the removal of the paintbrush.
Either way- it was the molestation and assumed vaginal injury that caused medical treatment to be denied.
Why not just let her die from the head blow? Here's why. That left no VISIBLE injury. How would they explain her death? Even if they said she'd fallen down the stairs, an autopsy would still have been done, and the molestation discovered. To make the kidnapping believable, they had to have an obvious cause of death- maybe SO obvious that an autopsy wouldn't be needed. ("look, she'd been strangled- no need to investigate further") They may have been unaware that in the death of a child, even from a known cause like an illness, an autopsy must be done anyway.