I think you are one of the most articulate, well informed posters on this forum, Otg , but the whole JB and BR playing "kitty" theory just seems completely improbable to me.
I dont think anything I can say will change your mind,
Mountain_Kat, but I appreciate your telling me the reasons you find the scenario unlikely that I laid out. So with the same respect for different views you expressed, Ill try to answer your points because I dont think you really understood the main point of what I wrote. That main point being that the paintbrush was not in any way tied or connected to the cord when the strangulation happened. Ill address your points one at a time:
1. I would have to believe that Burke fashioned a cord with a stick to make a kind of leash and then , for some unknown reason, during this game, Burke became so enraged that he bashed JB over the head with some heavy object that just happened to be at hand.
No, the paintbrush was not attached to the cord when she was strangled. I obviously dont know what the reason was that the cord was tied around her neck -- I only speculated that as a possibility based on what Patsy had said about her playing kitty. I dont think he struck out in anger -- just a quick, knee-jerk reaction to stop the scream (which I do believe happened). The some heavy object is certainly more likely (IMO) than the Maglite -- especially if used the way Spitz has demonstrated in the past.
2. I would have to believe that Patsy and/or John found JonBenet's body there in the basement, and that for some reason, Patsy untied the knots of the cord and retied them (thus depositing her jacket fibers in the knot).
Patsys jacket fibers dont necessarily mean that
Patsy untied the knots of the cord and retied them. What I wrote was that the cord which had already tightened and caused her death was cut under the strain of her body weight (look at the two frayed ends of the two sections of cord). Patsys jacket fibers could have been shed on anything there in the basement where she and John were trying to stage this thing and then tied into the knots. The
some reason for doing this rearranging was actually twofold. (1) It made the ligature look like something it wasnt thus confounding everyone who looks at it making them think it is some kind of sophisticated garrote, and (2) it throws suspicion away from the paintbrush as being a device used in an adolescent sexual assault. They didnt know that the autopsy would reveal all that it did. They didnt know a splinter from the paintbrush would be found inside her. They tried to completely erase any evidence of the sexual aspects of what happened (wiping away the blood and disposing of a probably bloody pair of panties) thinking perhaps that if it wasnt obvious the medical examiner wouldnt do a close examination of her genitals. But the paintbrush end used in the sexual assault probably had blood and body fluids on it that would absorb into the fibers of the wood. Thats why that end had to be broken off and disappear so it would never be found.
3. And I would have to figure out some scenario where no physical evidence connected to Burke was ever found on the "garrotte".
Not exactly Occam's razor.
We dont know much of the evidence that was found. There is still information being provided by some of the current specials being shown on TV. Most of what we do know has been leaked or told in books and on television programs. We only know about Patsys fibers because of the questioning in her interviews and because investigators have written books and disclosed that part of what was found. Yet one of the things that
was leaked (
Burke's tDNA being found on the Barbie nightgown..., you dismiss with a simple
meh. While I agree that that one thing is not in itself a smoking gun because of all the innocent explanations you provided (and I agree with), it cant simply be dismissed with selective significance.
The simplest BDI theory is that Burke and Jonbenet were downstairs, Burke got pissed, grabbed JB by the shirt collar, she broke free, he chased her with the flashlight and bashed her in the head. All the staging was done by Patsy (who left physical evidence) and the story was backed up by John. I just don't see any need to try to explain how and why Burke might have made or used the "garrote". I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that he did. As far as Burke's tDNA being found on the Barbie nightgown...meh. He lived in the house, he obviously would have touched his sister frequently, we don't know when this nightgown was washed, when it was worn, where it was prior to being in the wine cellar, etc. etc.
All JMO, and posted with respect.
While that might be the
simplest BDI theory, (and its also pretty close to what Kolar has hinted at) it doesnt account for all we know, and its making assumptions about motives in the same way I have to do to explain how I think the evidence fits. I even provided links to information that backs up what Ive based my opinion on.
Like I say, I dont think any of this will change your mind. Im used to that. I was saying BDI for long before hardly anyone would even consider it. As the years have gone by, more and more people are beginning to see BDI at least as a possibility because it explains all of the baffling behaviors of the parents, investigators, the grand jury, the true bills, and anything else that is hard to understand. My theory may very well be wrong. But it fits with the evidence we know, it doesnt mean that anyone involved with it was a monster or a psychopath, and it doesnt attribute a loving parent (by all accounts) with the capability to cold-heartedly choke the life out of their child to finish her off.
