Discussion of "Overkill - The Unsolved Murder of Jon Benet" doco crime scene footage

[singularity]

BBM: That's the focus of PDI though. So what you are saying is you commit a homicide and neglect the clothing, despite it leaving antemortem evidence available, somehow how do not think so?


.

No, that is one aspect of PDI. Not everyone who believes PDI thinks it was over bedwetting. Does every single BDI member believe Burke bashed her head in over a pineapple snack?

There was a snack, the bowl represents bona fide evidence. Patsy's fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl, she was likely to have served JonBenet the pineapple in any PDI scenario.

If she served her pineapple, it would've been included somehow in their story. She would've known she served it before the poop hit the fan. It would've been difficult to include since they went with her being asleep but they could've weaseled out of it somehow. They weaseled out of everything else.

No matter which DI it was, she likely just walked by and grabbed a bite or two....like millions of children do every day.

The size-12's, how come Patsy does not know where they are located? All answers on a postcard to the PDI Society Boulder Colorado.

Another issue with BDI in general. One one hand, everything Patsy says is a lie but on the other, if it can somehow help prop up a theory, her comments are taken at face value.

I realize how frustrating those 'interrogations' were and that the statements go in many directions but that is cherry picking at its finest.

If the primary crime-scene was in her bedroom or the breakfast bar, the parents would have cleaned and tidied either up, neither was done. JonBenet was left in Burke Ramsey's long johns and those oversized size-12's, suggesting the parents were presented with a faite accompli, and not a fresh unvarnished crime-scene, i.e. Burke Ramsey had redressed JonBenet. Most likely the parents wiped JonBenet down, as per Meyers, and used the paintbrush to fake an assault?

It would've taken all of five seconds to change her underwear. They didn't do it because it wasn't an issue to them.

Also either parent does not exhibit enough knowledge of what took place thereby staging it away, instead you have both parents offering ad hoc explanations for events, e.g. broken window, suitcase, chair, size-12's, pineapple snack.

All suggesting they arrived late to the crime-scene?

None of that suggests a late crime scene arrival. It suggests layers of staging and that likely took a big chunk of time(cleaning up glass, moving items down to the basement, etc.)


Ad hoc explanations? Its called playing dumb and Patsy was the undisputed champion of the world in this category.

You are dreaming electric dreams of PDI, its on the 911 call: We are not talking to you, i.e. no communication!

I'm not dreaming anything. You are the one creating fantasies out of one single line. Of course they weren't talking to him. They were calling 911! If you had a major emergency on your hands and had to call police, would you pause the phone call to explain the situation to a child?!? The obvious answer is no. So yeah...they weren't talking to him...at that moment.

It is absolutely mind boggling that you believe that there was zero communication with the child who supposedly killed her. How do they know he did it? How does he wind up back in his room and in bed? Mind reading? Does he just assume where they want him to be and when to be there?

In your scenario you have them stumbling upon this horrific tragedy, zero communication, running out of time, and in this situation, they just go ahead and gamble their lives away and stage a murder they have no details about. Then after this nightmare, we've got collusion up the wazoo begging for the feds to intervene and all of this boils down to it being supposedly BDI even though no one truly knows anything?

That dog doesn't even come remotely close to being able to hunt..

Patently Burke Ramsey panicked and redressed JonBenet in his long johns and the size-12's thinking its not unusual since JonBenet has worn some of my clothes before, even Patsy agrees, and the size-12's also have Wednesday on them, so that's cool, according to BR.

First he puts them on her because he's clumsy, nervous,etc. and this is a red flag since she doesn't wear his clothes. Once this narrative met enough resistance and it obviously wouldn't fly, we have Burke redressing her because its not unusual for Jonbenet to wear his clothing, which is what others had been saying all along.

Although if the case were either PDI or JDI, JR or PR would know to redress JonBenet age appropriately. Those size-12's are Red Flag # 1, and the male long johns, Red Flag # 2.

It appears as if the Pink Barbie Nightgown was a belated attempt to redress JonBenet, which for some reason failed, again, suggesting the parents ran out of time, i.e. were late to the crime-scene?

Late to the crime scene? Ran out of time? They are the ones who decided when the clock ran out!

Like I said before, they needed seconds to redress her age appropriately.


You just said the long johns were ok since he knew she wore his clothing and Patsy knew as well. Now its back to being a red flag again?

The way I read it is it just looks like PDI, because she did most of the wine-cellar staging, i.e. ligature device, her fibers are embedded into the ligature knotting.

Oh...so it just looks like PDI?

Interesting way of pointing out the road where most of the evidence leads....

 

[UKGuy]

No, that is one aspect of PDI. Not everyone who believes PDI thinks it was over bedwetting. Does every single BDI member believe Burke bashed her head in over a pineapple snack?


If she served her pineapple, it would've been included somehow in their story. She would've known she served it before the poop hit the fan. It would've been difficult to include since they went with her being asleep but they could've weaseled out of it somehow. They weaseled out of everything else.

No matter which DI it was, she likely just walked by and grabbed a bite or two....like millions of children do every day.

Another issue with BDI in general. One one hand, everything Patsy says is a lie but on the other, if it can somehow help prop up a theory, her comments are taken at face value.

I realize how frustrating those 'interrogations' were and that the statements go in many directions but that is cherry picking at its finest.

It would've taken all of five seconds to change her underwear. They didn't do it because it wasn't an issue to them.

None of that suggests a late crime scene arrival. It suggests layers of staging and that likely took a big chunk of time(cleaning up glass, moving items down to the basement, etc.)


Ad hoc explanations? Its called playing dumb and Patsy was the undisputed champion of the world in this category.

I'm not dreaming anything. You are the one creating fantasies out of one single line. Of course they weren't talking to him. They were calling 911! If you had a major emergency on your hands and had to call police, would you pause the phone call to explain the situation to a child?!? The obvious answer is no. So yeah...they weren't talking to him...at that moment.

It is absolutely mind boggling that you believe that there was zero communication with the child who supposedly killed her. How do they know he did it? How does he wind up back in his room and in bed? Mind reading? Does he just assume where they want him to be and when to be there?

In your scenario you have them stumbling upon this horrific tragedy, zero communication, running out of time, and in this situation, they just go ahead and gamble their lives away and stage a murder they have no details about. Then after this nightmare, we've got collusion up the wazoo begging for the feds to intervene and all of this boils down to it being supposedly BDI even though no one truly knows anything?

That dog doesn't even come remotely close to being able to hunt..


First he puts them on her because he's clumsy, nervous,etc. and this is a red flag since she doesn't wear his clothes. Once this narrative met enough resistance and it obviously wouldn't fly, we have Burke redressing her because its not unusual for Jonbenet to wear his clothing, which is what others had been saying all along.



Late to the crime scene? Ran out of time? They are the ones who decided when the clock ran out!

Like I said before, they needed seconds to redress her age appropriately.


You just said the long johns were ok since he knew she wore his clothing and Patsy knew as well. Now its back to being a red flag again?


Oh...so it just looks like PDI?

Interesting way of pointing out the road where most of the evidence leads....

singularity,

You just said the long johns were ok since he knew she wore his clothing and Patsy knew as well. Now its back to being a red flag again?

BBM: this is Burke's rationale, Patsy has told us in her interviews that JonBenet sometimes wore Burke's clothes, Really is that true or made up, anyway that is Patsy's rationale. It might simply be Patsy covering for Burke dressing JonBenet in his long johns. I reckon a lot of what Patsy says is after the fact invention, e.g. size-12's, Partially Opened Gifts, long johns, etc. Curious how they just happen to concern Burke Ramsey.

Whichever RDI it turns out to be, Burke Ransey is in on the game. His answer to Kolar about unwrapping the gifts on Christmas Day afternoon tell us he has something to hide, as does Patsy because she also says she opened the gifts, yikes what is going on?

It looks to me as if Patsy is staging the wine-cellar crime-scene so to edit Burke Ramsey out of the script.

If not then I reckon the case is PDI, but if so why was JonBenet internally assaulted?

Why was one of the parents not charged with Murder in the First Degree?

.

 

[singularity]

singularity,

BBM: this is Burke's rationale, Patsy has told us in her interviews that JonBenet sometimes wore Burke's clothes, Really is that true or made up, anyway that is Patsy's rationale. It might simply be Patsy covering for Burke dressing JonBenet in his long johns.

.

The reason BDI holds on to this clothing issue so strongly is because of how little there really is concerning BDI.

Girls wear their older brothers clothing, female WS members have said they have done so as well, yet some still have problems with this and must believe Patsy is making it up.

It's Burke's rationale?!? So because he kills her, he must redress her in his long johns because she's worn them before?

I reckon a lot of what Patsy says is after the fact invention, e.g. size-12's, Partially Opened Gifts, long johns, etc. Curious how they just happen to concern Burke Ramsey.

This evidence just happens to concern Burke because you're linking this evidence to him. i assume the etc. is the bowl of pineapple?

Whichever RDI it turns out to be, Burke Ransey is in on the game.

Really? So if its PDI or JDI, Burke just walks in and asks to be let in on the action?

When was Kolar's interview with Burke that you keep mentioning? I want to read this myself to see the context concerning these Christmas presents/birthday gifts. I'm aware of Patsy's statements on these presents.

IMO he knows a hell of a lot more than he's told. He's in the house. If he didn't see what was going on, he most certainly heard it.

It looks to me as if Patsy is staging the wine-cellar crime-scene so to edit Burke Ramsey out of the script.

It sounds more like BDI is trying to edit Patsy out of the script.

Why was one of the parents not charged with Murder in the First Degree?

We don't know what they were charged with. All we know is that all of the charges were for John and Patsy. That's it.

Hunter was as corrupt as they come, obvious collusion and conflicts of interest in this case, and its no surprise that he wasn't going to move forward no matter what. In the documentary this thread is supposed to be about, there's a phone call between Schiller and Hunter with Hunter inquiring how people will respond if nothing of substance comes from the GJ. This is sickening. He is testing the waters on how the world will react when he doesn't proceed...which he knew he wasn't going to all along.

If not then I reckon the case is PDI, but if so why was JonBenet internally assaulted?

I reckon the case is PDI too and the reason for the internal assault is obvious....to cover for prior abuse.

While Arndt is considered the Barney Fife of this case, I believe her when she claims to have been shocked when viewing Jonbenet's genital area during her autopsy and I highly doubt this shock was due to the assault being "childish" as some BDI like to claim.

 

[UKGuy]

The reason BDI holds on to this clothing issue so strongly is because of how little there really is concerning BDI.

Girls wear their older brothers clothing, female WS members have said they have done so as well, yet some still have problems with this and must believe Patsy is making it up.

It's Burke's rationale?!? So because he kills her, he must redress her in his long johns because she's worn them before?

This evidence just happens to concern Burke because you're linking this evidence to him. i assume the etc. is the bowl of pineapple?

Really? So if its PDI or JDI, Burke just walks in and asks to be let in on the action?

When was Kolar's interview with Burke that you keep mentioning? I want to read this myself to see the context concerning these Christmas presents/birthday gifts. I'm aware of Patsy's statements on these presents.

IMO he knows a hell of a lot more than he's told. He's in the house. If he didn't see what was going on, he most certainly heard it.


It sounds more like BDI is trying to edit Patsy out of the script.

We don't know what they were charged with. All we know is that all of the charges were for John and Patsy. That's it.

Hunter was as corrupt as they come, obvious collusion and conflicts of interest in this case, and its no surprise that he wasn't going to move forward no matter what. In the documentary this thread is supposed to be about, there's a phone call between Schiller and Hunter with Hunter inquiring how people will respond if nothing of substance comes from the GJ. This is sickening. He is testing the waters on how the world will react when he doesn't proceed...which he knew he wasn't going to all along.



I reckon the case is PDI too and the reason for the internal assault is obvious....to cover for prior abuse.

While Arndt is considered the Barney Fife of this case, I believe her when she claims to have been shocked when viewing Jonbenet's genital area during her autopsy and I highly doubt this shock was due to the assault being "childish" as some BDI like to claim.

singular,

So because he kills her, he must redress her in his long johns because she's worn them before?

BBM: There is nothing compelling BR to redress JonBenet in his long johns, but if Patsy's rationale, and that of cited WS posters is accepted then Burke can assume it will not represent a Red Flag, not at least to Patsy.

Alternatively you can consider Burke redressed JonBenet in haste, with the first pair that came to hand, e.g. his long johns, and that Patsy's remarks regarding JonBenet regularly wearing Burke's clothing is an after the fact invention.

That some WS members wore their brothers clothes does not demonstrate all sisters wear their brothers clothes.

This evidence just happens to concern Burke because you're linking this evidence to him. i assume the etc. is the bowl of pineapple?

Sure and nowhere does PR make up excuses for JR! She does for BR though.

Really? So if its PDI or JDI, Burke just walks in and asks to be let in on the action?

BR knows enough to know which evidence should be lied about and that which should be supressed, i.e. what really happened and where!

When was Kolar's interview with Burke that you keep mentioning? I want to read this myself to see the context concerning these Christmas presents/birthday gifts. I'm aware of Patsy's statements on these presents.

Its a quote from his book Foreign Faction, its common knowledge.

IMO Patsy successfully staged the crime-scene to such an extent, she has deflected the majority of investigators off the scent.

.

 

[singularity]

singular,

BBM: There is nothing compelling BR to redress JonBenet in his long johns, but if Patsy's rationale, and that of cited WS posters is accepted then Burke can assume it will not represent a Red Flag, not at least to Patsy.

That's right...there's nothing compelling him to do it. He's not worrying about whats a red flag and what isn't one.

Alternatively you can consider Burke redressed JonBenet in haste, with the first pair that came to hand, e.g. his long johns, and that Patsy's remarks regarding JonBenet regularly wearing Burke's clothing is an after the fact invention.

There's no point to this. She is completely soiled in this clothing so obviously that was not the reason to redress her.

That some WS members wore their brothers clothes does not demonstrate all sisters wear their brothers clothes.

I never said they did. You are the one who acts like its impossible that she wore his clothing. Its simply been pointed out to you that its not impossible and other girls do the same thing and its not considered a big deal.

Its only a big deal to this "BDI-All" theory.

Sure and nowhere does PR make up excuses for JR! She does for BR though.

They're only excuses because you need them to be excuses. If Jonbenet wears those clothes sometimes, where's the excuse? Same with the gifts. You're simply pointing out how flimsy BDI really is. Take a handful of excuses away and there's literally nothing left.


In the transcripts, Patsy covers John's *advertiser censored*. She goes along with a story to explain that window, the story regarding Jonbenet being carried into the house asleep, etc.

BR knows enough to know which evidence should be lied about and that which should be supressed, i.e. what really happened and where!

He was inside the home when it happened. Of course he knows more than he's telling. Its not evidence of guilt.

Without Burke, we don't have a conflicting story from the family regarding their arrival home. John and Patsy stuck to her being asleep. Burke went against that and said she walked upstairs with Patsy. For a murderer, he sure loves to not stick to stories that would keep him and his family out of trouble. if anyone wants Jonbenet to appear asleep when they get home, wouldn't Burke be at the top of that list if he killed her?

IMO Patsy successfully staged the crime-scene to such an extent, she has deflected the majority of investigators off the scent.

Let me guess......the one investigator who wasn't fooled just so happens to be BDI?

Patsy sure was good. Fooled all the original investigators and many experts over 20 years but that one guy who worked on the case for awhile figured it all out. But on the other hand, according to BDI the failure to indict is supposedly because its BDI so does this mean they weren't actually fooled?

Who's on first?

 

[Userid]

^ What a perfect response. Well done, Singularity.

 

[Cottonstar]

Bingo. Now what would be the reason why the parents decided they had to cover it up?

 

[UKGuy]

Bingo. Now what would be the reason why the parents decided they had to cover it up?

Cottonstar,
Because a family member assaulted and killed JonBenet.

That family member might be Patsy, but she leaves more forensic evidence in the wine-cellar than if she she left JonBenet deceased in her bed, also Patsy has to explain away the size-12's when not dressing JonBenet in them at all, might be a better staging option.

It does not appear that Patsy was staging herself out of JonBenet's death.

Rather it looks like Patsy was staging either Burke or John out of the case.

I prefer JDI to BDI due to JonBenet being sexually assaulted, but if you factor in that the legal and police establishment were complicit in hiding any Ramsey direct involvement in JonBenet's death, then maybe the case is BDI?

Or it could be money talks?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

Cottonstar,
Because a family member assaulted and killed JonBenet.

That family member might be Patsy, but she leaves more forensic evidence in the wine-cellar than if she she left JonBenet deceased in her bed, also Patsy has to explain away the size-12's when not dressing JonBenet in them at all, might be a better staging option.

It does not appear that Patsy was staging herself out of JonBenet's death.

Rather it looks like Patsy was staging either Burke or John out of the case.

I prefer JDI to BDI due to JonBenet being sexually assaulted, but if you factor in that the legal and police establishment were complicit in hiding any Ramsey direct involvement in JonBenet's death, then maybe the case is BDI?

Or it could be money talks?

.

Ask yourself as a parent if one of your kids hit the other one on top of the head and your kid was still breathing. You rush them to the hospital.

This would be normal reactionary behavior from the parents.

Now, ask yourself what would be really the only reason why you wouldn’t?

Good. Now you have your motive for the cover-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UKGuy]

Ask yourself as a parent if one of your kids hit the other one on top of the head and your kid was still breathing. You rush them to the hospital.

This would be normal reactionary behavior from the parents.

Now, ask yourself what would be really the only reason why you wouldn’t?

Good. Now you have your motive for the cover-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Cottonstar,
That's if and only if it's another child.

Does that mean you think BR sexually assaulted JonBenet?


Someone whacked JonBenet about the head, those contusions on her face and body likely result from a rage attack centered on the upper half of her body.

Why would Patsy or John physically assault JonBenet in such a manner, as adults there is absolutely no percentage in doing so?

As far as I know neither parent was high on meds or drugs, or had a particularly large alcohol intake that night, so it remains a mystery as to the why?

I'm fairly certain the case is JDI or BDI, I think we will find out more once JR leaves us.

.

 

[southernmimi]

I originally thought the blow was intended for JR, but JBR was accidentally struck. I still feel this way.

 

[PositiveLight]

If anyone wants to watch this show, it's coming on again at 3pm EST on the channel REELZ tomorrow (Saturday 5/12/18).

 

[Cottonstar]

If anyone wants to watch this show, it's coming on again at 3pm EST on the channel REELZ tomorrow (Saturday 5/12/18).

This doc has the highest quality of crime scene photos to date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[PositiveLight]

This doc has the highest quality of crime scene photos to date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've got the DVR set to record! Can't wait! Not sure how I missed it the first time around.

 

[PositiveLight]

Don't forget this replays today on REELZ at 3pm EST

 

[youngsters]

smart work here - wow. Please I beg all of you let's get to one point this year. How is it possible for people to get away with a child's murder - let alone your own. This alongside with Madeleine is haunting me. Nothing before like this. Here with Jobenet I will always think:

Did there not somewhere develop a story of too much "daddy love"? Really Patsy looked more upset than John. This indicated to me that if it was Patsy, he just let her go on like before. But... if he WAS molesting JB - he HAD TO SHUT UP. So I say! Patsy yanked her from bed and she bumped her head - baddy. This could have happened in her own bathroom - I don't think that there was ever tests done on surfaces in her bedroom.(JB) If her head was bashed in with a hard object? could it never be found? Was that one of the items removed?. John was very "cool" during everything. Why. Probably for his own sake. Probably to many skeletons hidden in his closet, so he worked together. Burkey? Mmmmm? little pest that one. Also another thing? Pineapple in milk? According to myself that would not work, the milk will turn sour in seconds. Also bit strange to me. Why would John just put the body down. If it was me I would sit there and weep and nooooooo one will remove me I am sorry. There must be a way that the truth can surface.

If John Ramsey was a child molester who was molesting JonBenet, i believe he would of molested many other children and still today would be molesting children little girls. So why hasnt any other children come forward?

 

[UKGuy]

If John Ramsey was a child molester who was molesting JonBenet, i believe he would of molested many other children and still today would be molesting children little girls. So why hasnt any other children come forward?

youngsters,
This is something the residents of Boulder do not want to discuss. As there might be other allegations regarding the sexual assault of children, but its to close to home?

.