JonBenet Ramsey - Page 4

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

wrote:
Whether or not Burke had anything to do with it, I think it unconscionable to accuse him, damage his life unless/until he is charged and found guilty. That these men made money selling their books with their theories is despicable.

@occasionalrain, you've got the facts wrong. He CAN'T BE CHARGED. He was too young at the time, I've posted that probably a hundred times over the years on this board. He was nine.

Under Colorado law a child had to be twelve to be charged with anything. A nine-year-old was too young to form criminal intent (although, and as others have pointed out, many nine year olds have killed, but this was Colorado law at that time.)

That the Ramseys revoked the reward money in short order, and opened and closed a "foundation" in JonBenet's memory without giving away any substantial money collected, that is despicable.

That they wrote two books and John wrote a third and made money projecting themselves as the real victims is despicable. None of the books have JonBenet's name in the title.

That they, now John, have made money filing dozens of lawsuits and settling is despicable. That John portrays himself as having lost his fortune when he's actually a wealthy man from all those lawsuits is despicable.

The current DA of Boulder did the right thing and released four of the grand jury's indictments against John and Patsy. I've posted them before. They cannot release anything with Burke's name on it, including the indictments of John and Patsy that contain Burke's name.

Burke got paid $300,000 for Dr. Phil on top of the millions they've made settling lawsuits. As I said upthread, the one that wasn't settled, against a Fox station, they lost.

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

wrote:
@occasionalrainwrote:
Im in the minority, I dont think Burke did it. Much to sophisticated for a child. The garout {sp} around the neck, I dont think so.
I'm in the minority too. Burke didn't do it in my opinion and neither did either parent.

First and foremost there was absolutely no motive.

Everyone involved in the case believes it was an accident.

He hit her hard, probably with the Maglite that was cleaned to remove fingerprints. (It didn't put itself on the counter so that's good evidence.) There was a history there. There is a mountain of lies told by the Ramseys as well as all the false evidence spread about by their two PR firms and three law firms at the time.

An accident. But there was prior history of violence toward her and possible sexual molestation. Burke was under care of a psychiatrist and some of the evidence includes three books Patsy's sister bought her at a Boulder bookstore including "When Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong."

A horrible accident. A stupid coverup totally ruining any chance of the truth of what John and Patsy did in a court of law. But you can hear Burke on the 911 tape and there's that pesky pineapple that Patsy was so sure JonBenet never ate -- the one piece of evidence the DA had not leaked to these very powerful, well-connected people.

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

And I don't want to hear any of the nonsense that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Some grand juries meet for a week. The Ramsey grand jury met for a year-and-a-half.

Then the DA began his lies. The Ramseys even got the governor involved. And when you realize no one could out loud, to the public, connect Burke to the crime in any way, at the moment you realize that it all makes sense.

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

Here is the exact wording of the recently released grand jury's recommended indictment of both John and Patsy Ramsey, each for both of them, and there are more indictments against them that have not been released:

[That they each} "unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit[ted] a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, resulting in her death."

][That John and Patsy] "did render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the 1st degree and child abuse resulting in death."

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

You lost me at Dr. Oz. The king of trash tv.

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

wrote:
Oz and Phil remind me of a couple of ducks: Quack quack.

Don't watch either of them, they're both a waste of time and oxygen.

Let Jon Benet RIP. I doubt the whole truth will ever come out.

I totally agree, the case was terribly bungled from the very beginning and will never be solved. However that hasn't and never will stop people from profitting from the child's death and rehashing the case for entertainment. I have to correct myself. Dr. Phil is the king of trash tv, Dr. Oz is just a prince.

Daisy Sunflower · ‎10-26-2010

I assume they're talking about Burke? What's the proof that they said they have?

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

That he was only nine and couldn't be charged does not excuse those making money from their speculation. Shameful to use him, damage him; shameful to use his dead sister as well.

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

wrote:
That he was only nine and couldn't be charged does not excuse those making money from their speculation. Shameful to use him, damage him; shameful to use his dead sister as well.

@occasionalrain, how is he damaged? He attended a good college, was in a frat, had social media accounts showing his love of skiing and snowboarding. Before the CBS doc aired he deleted all of his accounts and all that's left is those pictures of the pretty blonde who may or may not still be his girlfriend but according to friends was for a long time and maybe still is. He has a job. Like his dad he has a pilot's license and owns his own plane

How is he damaged? No one made him go on Dr. Phil and it was a horrible decision to show, for the first time ever, the psychologist interviewing him. He got paid $300,000 to go on Dr. Phil.

He's suing CBS for $750 million which face it, is a suspicoius and insane amount of money (see Natalee Holloway's lawsuit, and she was actually harmed by that documentary).

He's suing Dr. Werner Spitz for $150 million. I thnk everyone agrees the demo with the wig and the kid was tacky but $150 million?

Now his dad has filed suit as well. He's suing CBS for $350 million.

It's the family business, suing and settling. CBS is not settling. Yes they asked the case be dismissed but since it has not been they have vowed to fight it all the way and so far made good on that vow.

Soon depositions will begin and perhaps the cases will be quietly dropped? Because in a statement CBS has said no evidence has been presented yet and they believe they will win the suit on merit.

Annabellethecat66 · ‎03-12-2010

@LoriLori Yes, luckily she did survive. However, I hope these parents have her speak to someone until adulthood so she can be watched just to make sure she can handle the residual problems that will arise.

You know there are probably numerous scars. Those are reminders of what happened to that dear girl. As she gets older and wears clothes that expose the body more, she'll probably be asked about the scars (people are like that).

It's important that she has the tools needed to know how to answer ignorant people who are curious about the scars. Also, as she has a relationship with males (especially) and has an intimate relationship, it will be important that she understands most people are good and can be trusted.

I would think that is a very hard lesson to learn when one is so vulnerable as a young person is at that age. Especially (and unfortunately) if we are all honest we should admit appearances seem to be more often judged by and about females than males are.

Everything will come into play (again, unfortunately) for a long time. She needs to be helped how to handle it by people who are trained in such things ALONG with her mom and dad.