Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[midwest mama]

I agree about the stager of scene thinking it necessary to remove JonBenet's size-6 underwear, but don't think 9-year-old Burke got the idea to orchestrate this type of staging, during which he also must have thought of hiding the remaining size 12's from the Bloomies set.

The size-12 undewear remains one of the most puzzling items of the crime scene though.
For if the stager wanted to replace Jonbenet's forensically contaminated size 6s, why not just take another size-6 pair from her underwear drawer? All of JonBenet's underwear had 'days of the week' on them, so why not just take another pair that had 'Wednesday' on it?
(It is of course possible that no size-6 Wednesday pair could be found in JonBenet's drawer because they all happened to be in the laundry, but imo this is not very likely).

So what could be the most likely reason for the stager to choose the size-12 Bloomies? Maybe JonBenet had worn size-6s of the same brand, and the stager wanted to make sure that the body would be discovered wearing the same brand of underwear - for JonBenet often used to ask others to help her cleaning herself up after using the toilet (which is quite unusual for a six-year old btw), so the stager may have been considered the possibility of guests at the Whites' having seen the size-6 Bloomies on her).

Yes, ITA. Not only would the stager have worried about someone at the White's seeing her size 6 Wednesday Bloomies, but maybe the R who replaced them didn't want the R who probably helped dress her that day and knew she had them on, notice the difference?

Remember there was a sharp knife found upstairs on a counter. It has been shown at one time that the Bloomie package was sealed in a way that would have probably required something to cut through the seal in order to get to the product.

Maybe the stager retrieved the fresh package from JB's drawer when looking for a replacement for the soiled size 6's, struggled with opening it, went out to the laundry area counter looking for something to cut it with, but had to go after the knife and come back to cut the package open? If the stager then took the package into JB's bedroom and took out the Wednesday pair, the stager might have been careful to pick up the remainder package during an attempt to "tidy up" after the redressing, in order to dispose of it along with the other disposed items. But the knife, having been dropped at the counter, might have been forgotten and left behind during the haste. So, no package of Bloomies would have been found in JB's drawer by police.

If the pantie package had been collected up with the disposed crime articles that made it out of the house (maybe in JRs golf bag?) one way or another,
could they have been "saved" from the final toss as being a belonging of JB and a momento? Later to be turned in by Patsy, thinking it would prove something?

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Ever notice how often PR defers to John in her BPD interviews? She frequently says "maybe John will remember" when she claims amnesia. Kind of makes you wonder who wrote the script, and who didn't learn their lines.

:slap:

Small wonder they originally refused to be interviewed separately.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Yes, ITA. Not only would the stager have worried about someone at the White's seeing her size 6 Wednesday Bloomies, but maybe the R who replaced them didn't want the R who probably helped dress her that day and knew she had them on, notice the difference?

Remember there was a sharp knife found upstairs on a counter. It has been shown at one time that the Bloomie package was sealed in a way that would have probably required something to cut through the seal in order to get to the product.

Maybe the stager retrieved the fresh package from JB's drawer when looking for a replacement for the soiled size 6's, struggled with opening it, went out to the laundry area counter looking for something to cut it with, but had to go after the knife and come back to cut the package open? If the stager then took the package into JB's bedroom and took out the Wednesday pair, the stager might have been careful to pick up the remainder package during an attempt to "tidy up" after the redressing, in order to dispose of it along with the other disposed items. But the knife, having been dropped at the counter, might have been forgotten and left behind during the haste. So, no package of Bloomies would have been found in JB's drawer by police.

If the pantie package had been collected up with the disposed crime articles that made it out of the house (maybe in JRs golf bag?) one way or another,
could they have been "saved" from the final toss as being a belonging of JB and a momento? Later to be turned in by Patsy, thinking it would prove something?

Midwest Mama

Or maybe the size 12s were stored down in the basement with the other gifts that PR claimed weren't wrapped yet? Depending on where you believe the crime actually occurred, if it was in the basement this would have been convenient, and perhaps the reason why the remainder of the package wasn't found in JBR's room. Maybe the rest of the package was disposed of along with the pair she was originally wearing?

This would also explain why a too large pair of panties was used and not something that fit her properly. When I consider how ill thought out the staging was, I find it hard to believe that a detail like what day of the week underpants she was wearing would be something they would think of.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree about the stager of scene thinking it necessary to remove JonBenet's size-6 underwear, but don't think 9-year-old Burke got the idea to orchestrate this type of staging, during which he also must have thought of hiding the remaining size 12's from the Bloomies set.

The size-12 undewear remains one of the most puzzling items of the crime scene though.
For if the stager wanted to replace Jonbenet's forensically contaminated size 6s, why not just take another size-6 pair from her underwear drawer? All of JonBenet's underwear had 'days of the week' on them, so why not just take another pair that had 'Wednesday' on it?
(It is of course possible that no size-6 Wednesday pair could be found in JonBenet's drawer because they all happened to be in the laundry, but imo this is not very likely).

So what could be the most likely reason for the stager to choose the size-12 Bloomies? Maybe JonBenet had worn size-6s of the same brand, and the stager wanted to make sure that the body would be discovered wearing the same brand of underwear - for JonBenet often used to ask others to help her cleaning herself up after using the toilet (which is quite unusual for a six-year old btw), so the stager may have been considered the possibility of guests at the Whites' having seen the size-6 Bloomies on her).

I agree about the stager of scene thinking it necessary to remove JonBenet's size-6 underwear, but don't think 9-year-old Burke got the idea to orchestrate this type of staging, during which he also must have thought of hiding the remaining size 12's from the Bloomies set.

The size-12 undewear remains one of the most puzzling items of the crime scene though.
For if the stager wanted to replace Jonbenet's forensically contaminated size 6s, why not just take another size-6 pair from her underwear drawer? All of JonBenet's underwear had 'days of the week' on them, so why not just take another pair that had 'Wednesday' on it?
(It is of course possible that no size-6 Wednesday pair could be found in JonBenet's drawer because they all happened to be in the laundry, but imo this is not very likely).

So what could be the most likely reason for the stager to choose the size-12 Bloomies? Maybe JonBenet had worn size-6s of the same brand, and the stager wanted to make sure that the body would be discovered wearing the same brand of underwear - for JonBenet often used to ask others to help her cleaning herself up after using the toilet (which is quite unusual for a six-year old btw), so the stager may have been considered the possibility of guests at the Whites' having seen the size-6 Bloomies on her).

rashomon,
Due to Patsy's ignorance and patently made up story regarding the size-12's, I do not think she redresed JonBenet in those size-12's, otherwise she would have some credible story to tell about them, just as she did over whether Jonbenet bathed for the White's or was she wearing underwear when she undressed her on returning from the White's.

The size-12 undewear remains one of the most puzzling items of the crime scene though.
For if the stager wanted to replace Jonbenet's forensically contaminated size 6s, why not just take another size-6 pair from her underwear drawer? All of JonBenet's underwear had 'days of the week' on them, so why not just take another pair that had 'Wednesday' on it?
(It is of course possible that no size-6 Wednesday pair could be found in JonBenet's drawer because they all happened to be in the laundry, but imo this is not very likely).

I agree. Its also a very important part of the staging, why bother cleaning up JonBenet, then dressing her in big girls underwear?

I used to think it was John who did this, but I now think he played the clean up role, i.e. it was him who removed the blood from JonBenet's pubic area. Which is consistent with both Coroner Meyer's remarks and the fiber evidence. Theoretically this suggests John may have introduced the touch-dna? John is a clever guy, he would know dressing JonBenet in those size-12's would conflict with the unchanged, domestic, bedtime atmosphere the R's wanted JonBenet to portray.

The person stupid enough to make the size-12 mistake is Burke Ramsey. And I'll assume that the size-12's were lying in the basement awaiting to be gift-wrapped, which is consistent with prior Ramsey behaviour.

This also links the size-12's with the other partially opened gifts, suggesting another motive for BR being in the basement?

There were other pairs of Bloomingdales in JonBenet's underwear drawer, there is no reason not to fetch a pair given Patsy's statement regarding JonBenet wearing whatever came to hand, i.e. if Patsy or John intended the Wednesday size-12's to have a particular significance, why not highlight the Wednesday feature as being consistent with the actual day of the week? Patsy notably declined, telling us JonBenet wore whatever she picked up.

So I reckon the Wednesday feature has no relevance for the parents, that is they have no real reason to select day of the week over size.

The only person for whom the day of the week might matter is the acute abuser. He wants a close match to the size-6 pair, and probably because he had already opened the gifts, he knew there were Bloomingdales available. So he selected the Wednesday pair, and redressed JonBenet. All before going to his parents to report that JonBenet had accidently fallen and was not moving?

Can you see anyone going to another R saying: I was in the middle of molesting JonBenet, when she screamed, so I whacked her, now she is not moving? No, they are going to attempt some minimal staging and tell a few lies to make things more palatable.

so the stager may have been considered the possibility of guests at the Whites' having seen the size-6 Bloomies on her).

Its the size that is the red-flag not the day of the week! The stager could claim that JonBenet changed into clean underwear before going to sleep, i.e. this is why she is wearing a Tuesday pair. The stager could claim the witness at the White's misread the underwear, who can prove who correct here, anyway what if JonBenet had been redressed into, lets say, a Tuesday pair of Bloomingdales instead of the size-12's I guarantee you we would not be discussing underwear at all!

Again the Wednesday feature only matters to the acute abuser, not anyone at the Whites, since that is a hypothetical, did anyone testify to seeing JonBenet in a Wednesday pair of underwear, I'll bet you $100, they never.

So just consider Burke cleans up JonBenet, removes any blood from her pubic region, redresses her in the size-12's, either leaves on the pink barbie nightgown or redresses her in this too? Then goes to his parents with some made up story, which eventually unravels as the parents work out what must have taken place?

This also explains all those partially opened gifts being placed into the wine-cellar. They are a priori evidence that if left outside the wine-cellar, wherever the gift-wrapping took place, that they were directly connected with the death of JonBenet. This could not be allowed as a kidnapping was to be staged.

Also Patsy does not know about the size-12's, since she never redressed her in them or wiped her down, fibers from John's shirt confirm this.

Indirectly, since the BPD and the DA have never told us anything regarding the days of the week wrt to the underwear removed from JonBenet's underwear drawer, neither have we been told if there was gift-wrapping for the size-12's left behind, or if the partially opened gifts had name tags, since this might allow us to confirm if there were a Wednesday pair in JonBenet's underwear drawer, so patently ruling out Patsy at a stroke. i.e. We have not been told since it likely implicates Burke Ramsey?


p.s. For those not aware. Patsy stated that Burke Ramsey's birthday gifts were stored in the wine-cellar. So have we been told if these were partially opened too?


.


.

 

[Whaleshark]

rashomon,
Due to Patsy's ignorance and patently made up story regarding the size-12's, I do not think she redresed JonBenet in those size-12's, otherwise she would have some credible story to tell about them, just as she did over whether Jonbenet bathed for the White's or was she wearing underwear when she undressed her on returning from the White's.

I agree. Its also a very important part of the staging, why bother cleaning up JonBenet, then dressing her in big girls underwear?

I used to think it was John who did this, but I now think he played the clean up role, i.e. it was him who removed the blood from JonBenet's pubic area. Which is consistent with both Coroner Meyer's remarks and the fiber evidence. Theoretically this suggests John may have introduced the touch-dna? John is a clever guy, he would know dressing JonBenet in those size-12's would conflict with the unchanged, domestic, bedtime atmosphere the R's wanted JonBenet to portray.

The person stupid enough to make the size-12 mistake is Burke Ramsey. And I'll assume that the size-12's were lying in the basement awaiting to be gift-wrapped, which is consistent with prior Ramsey behaviour.

This also links the size-12's with the other partially opened gifts, suggesting another motive for BR being in the basement?

There were other pairs of Bloomingdales in JonBenet's underwear drawer, there is no reason not to fetch a pair given Patsy's statement regarding JonBenet wearing whatever came to hand, i.e. if Patsy or John intended the Wednesday size-12's to have a particular significance, why not highlight the Wednesday feature as being consistent with the actual day of the week? Patsy notably declined, telling us JonBenet wore whatever she picked up.

So I reckon the Wednesday feature has no relevance for the parents, that is they have no real reason to select day of the week over size.

The only person for whom the day of the week might matter is the acute abuser. He wants a close match to the size-6 pair, and probably because he had already opened the gifts, he knew there were Bloomingdales available. So he selected the Wednesday pair, and redressed JonBenet. All before going to his parents to report that JonBenet had accidently fallen and was not moving?

Can you see anyone going to another R saying: I was in the middle of molesting JonBenet, when she screamed, so I whacked her, now she is not moving? No, they are going to attempt some minimal staging and tell a few lies to make things more palatable.

It's the size that is the red-flag not the day of the week! The stager could claim that JonBenet changed into clean underwear before going to sleep, i.e. this is why she is wearing a Tuesday pair. The stager could claim the witness at the White's misread the underwear, who can prove who correct here, anyway what if JonBenet had been redressed into, lets say, a Tuesday pair of Bloomingdales instead of the size-12's I guarantee you we would not be discussing underwear at all!

Again the Wednesday feature only matters to the acute abuser, not anyone at the Whites, since that is a hypothetical, did anyone testify to seeing JonBenet in a Wednesday pair of underwear, I'll bet you $100, they never.

So just consider Burke cleans up JonBenet, removes any blood from her pubic region, redresses her in the size-12's, either leaves on the pink barbie nightgown or redresses her in this too? Then goes to his parents with some made up story, which eventually unravels as the parents work out what must have taken place?

This also explains all those partially opened gifts being placed into the wine-cellar. They are a priori evidence that if left outside the wine-cellar, wherever the gift-wrapping took place, that they were directly connected with the death of JonBenet. This could not be allowed as a kidnapping was to be staged.

Also Patsy does not know about the size-12's, since she never redressed her in them or wiped her down, fibers from John's shirt confirm this.

Indirectly, since the BPD and the DA have never told us anything regarding the days of the week wrt to the underwear removed from JonBenet's underwear drawer, neither have we been told if there was gift-wrapping for the size-12's left behind, or if the partially opened gifts had name tags, since this might allow us to confirm if there were a Wednesday pair in JonBenet's underwear drawer, so patently ruling out Patsy at a stroke. i.e. We have not been told since it likely implicates Burke Ramsey?

p.s. For those not aware. Patsy stated that Burke Ramsey's birthday gifts were stored in the wine-cellar. So have we been told if these were partially opened too?

From this thread on here back when the book first came out --
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179322&page=2

madeleine asks -
'Does he say anything in his book re what kind of boots/shoes BR was wearing at the White's party? i don't find anything re this info anywhere...i just would like to know if it could have been his high tech boots...'

cynic replies -
'No he doesn’t, but he does reveal something very interesting about Burke and the Wine Cellar. Those presents that were torn open, it was Burke that did it but Patsy lied and claimed responsibility':

"There had been another discrepancy in one of Patsy Ramsey’s law enforcement interviews that caught my attention. Investigators had noted that the wrapping paper on a pair of Christmas presents observed in the Wine Cellar at the time of the discovery of JonBenét’s body had been torn. She told the detectives that she couldn’t remember what was contained in the presents, and hence the need to tear back part of the paper.

I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this.

Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday".

- Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 339


I think this information really tells us what we need to know. How anyone could say that this book is not relevant and does not reveal huge clues about the case is beyond me.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

48+50+1=99/280 = 35%. It looks like BDI is the top theory.

 

[dodie20]

From this thread on here back when the book first came out --
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179322&page=2

madeleine asks -
'Does he say anything in his book re what kind of boots/shoes BR was wearing at the White's party? i don't find anything re this info anywhere...i just would like to know if it could have been his high tech boots...'

cynic replies -
'No he doesn’t, but he does reveal something very interesting about Burke and the Wine Cellar. Those presents that were torn open, it was Burke that did it but Patsy lied and claimed responsibility':

"There had been another discrepancy in one of Patsy Ramsey’s law enforcement interviews that caught my attention. Investigators had noted that the wrapping paper on a pair of Christmas presents observed in the Wine Cellar at the time of the discovery of JonBenét’s body had been torn. She told the detectives that she couldn’t remember what was contained in the presents, and hence the need to tear back part of the paper.

I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this.

Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday".

- Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 339


I think this information really tells us what we need to know. How anyone could say that this book is not relevant and does not reveal huge clues about the case is beyond me.

oh, I think it's relevant, I'm just not convinced that BR was the perp. Excuse my ignorance, but what does BR opening presents that day, have to do with that night? I never believed PR's explanation, (I think she would be too organized for a mistake like that), but how does BR opening presents that day, connect to that night's murder? I'm not saying it doesn't, because PR obviously lied, but I'm just not making the connection. Except for the size 12 underwear, which may or may not have been among the wrapped presents, I don't see a significance. Does Kolar say anything about what looked like a small amount of unexplained wrapping paper? maybe ripped up and thrown aside? PR, imo, seemed like the kind of gift giver who would box things before wrapping..,.was there a small empty, unexplained box? moo

 

[Whaleshark]

Except for the size 12 underwear, which may or may not have been among the wrapped presents, I don't see a significance.

For one, if it's insignificant, why does Patsy need to lie about it then? Kolar even ponders this question.

For two, it places Burke in the wine cellar opening the packages -- so we for sure know he was in there, messing around, no problem going into the damp, dark, place with a high wooden lock on it, to sneak a peak at the pkgs... which is also by the way, where the crime victim and all associated evidence were hidden away....

For three, 'except for the size 12 underwear' -- that seems significant enough to me...

For four, worth mentioning again: Patsy is proven to be covering for Burke's actions -- something seeming so insignificant, whereby made significant by the fact that she has a need to lie about it.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

For one, if it's insignificant, why does Patsy need to lie about it then? Kolar even ponders this question.

For two, it places Burke in the wine cellar opening the packages -- so we for sure know he was in there, messing around, no problem going into the damp, dark, place with a high wooden lock on it, to sneak a peak at the pkgs... which is also by the way, where the crime victim and all associated evidence were hidden away....

For three, 'except for the size 12 underwear' -- that seems significant enough to me...

For four, worth mentioning again: Patsy is proven to be covering for Burke's actions -- something seeming so insignificant, whereby made significant by the fact that she has a need to lie about it.

Patsy lied about a LOT of seemingly insignificant things, such as what was eaten for dinner at the White's house, and whether it was buffet or sit down. Or what they ate for breakfast on Christmas day. She claimed not to remember, but why? I don't buy that her memory is that bad, and how would that help a cover up for BR in any way? I can understand her lying about everthing that happened after they returned home Christmas day in order to sell their staging of the crime scene, but not everything that happened before that. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Anyhoo]

Patsy lied about a LOT of seemingly insignificant things, such as what was eaten for dinner at the White's house, and whether it was buffet or sit down. Or what they ate for breakfast on Christmas day. She claimed not to remember, but why? I don't buy that her memory is that bad, and how would that help a cover up for BR in any way? I can understand her lying about everthing that happened after they returned home Christmas day in order to sell their staging of the crime scene, but not everything that happened before that. It makes no sense to me.

I would call it "not knowing" instead of lying. This is purely specualtion on my part, I admit that, but as for PR not remembering what was eaten for dinner at the White's house, is it possible PR does not know because she was not at the White's house for Christmas dinner? I have hinted at this prospect in my previous posts but no one seemed to take it seriously. If we accept at face value everything we have been told happened before the R's returned to their house on the night of 12-25 then we are left with this huge contradictory mess which we have now. But, if we are at least willing to consider the possiblity that not everything happened "before" as we have been told, then it opens a whole new area of this to be investigated. Contrary to popular opinion, what happened "before" could be very relevant to what happened "afterwards".

 

[UKGuy]

From this thread on here back when the book first came out --
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179322&page=2

madeleine asks -
'Does he say anything in his book re what kind of boots/shoes BR was wearing at the White's party? i don't find anything re this info anywhere...i just would like to know if it could have been his high tech boots...'

cynic replies -
'No he doesn’t, but he does reveal something very interesting about Burke and the Wine Cellar. Those presents that were torn open, it was Burke that did it but Patsy lied and claimed responsibility':

"There had been another discrepancy in one of Patsy Ramsey’s law enforcement interviews that caught my attention. Investigators had noted that the wrapping paper on a pair of Christmas presents observed in the Wine Cellar at the time of the discovery of JonBenét’s body had been torn. She told the detectives that she couldn’t remember what was contained in the presents, and hence the need to tear back part of the paper.

I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this.

Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday".

- Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 339


I think this information really tells us what we need to know. How anyone could say that this book is not relevant and does not reveal huge clues about the case is beyond me.

Whaleshark,
Thanks for collecting those facts about the gifts. It looks like a sealed deal to me. Its BDI for me, with those gifts playing a major role, thats why they were all dumped into the wine-cellar with Patsy claiming responsibility.

This also explains why John never told Patsy about the size-12's prior to her interview, where she was wrong-footed, he never knew either! Simply because it was Burke Ramsey who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy lied about a LOT of seemingly insignificant things, such as what was eaten for dinner at the White's house, and whether it was buffet or sit down. Or what they ate for breakfast on Christmas day. She claimed not to remember, but why? I don't buy that her memory is that bad, and how would that help a cover up for BR in any way? I can understand her lying about everthing that happened after they returned home Christmas day in order to sell their staging of the crime scene, but not everything that happened before that. It makes no sense to me.

PrincessSezMe,
We have debated the size-12 issue endlessly over the years. So finding out Patsy was taking the heat for Burke, can mean only one thing, and that is BDI.

There can be no other explanation. Its even consistent with John not telling Patsy that JonBenet was wearing size-12's and that the remaining pairs had been binned, because Patsy told her interviewers that she put the size-12's, a full pack, into JonBenet's underwear drawer, yet BPD found no such underwear anywhere in the house!

It also means Burke Ramsey was more forensically aware than we give him credit for, since he removed the remaining size-12's, without even his parents knowing.

p.s. Now I know why Pamela Paugh removed items from the house.


.
.

 

[UKGuy]

I would call it "not knowing" instead of lying. This is purely specualtion on my part, I admit that, but as for PR not remembering what was eaten for dinner at the White's house, is it possible PR does not know because she was not at the White's house for Christmas dinner? I have hinted at this prospect in my previous posts but no one seemed to take it seriously. If we accept at face value everything we have been told happened before the R's returned to their house on the night of 12-25 then we are left with this huge contradictory mess which we have now. But, if we are at least willing to consider the possiblity that not everything happened "before" as we have been told, then it opens a whole new area of this to be investigated. Contrary to popular opinion, what happened "before" could be very relevant to what happened "afterwards".

Anyhoo,
Patsy is not an issue anymore, now we know that Patsy was taking the heat for BR, it must mean the case is BDI.

Looks to me as if BR and JB were down in the basement, where BR was abusing JB. Its either that or he moved her body down there?


.

 

[midwest mama]

Whaleshark,
Thanks for collecting those facts about the gifts. It looks like a sealed deal to me. Its BDI for me, with those gifts playing a major role, thats why they were all dumped into the wine-cellar with Patsy claiming responsibility.

This also explains why John never told Patsy about the size-12's prior to her interview, where she was wrong-footed, he never knew either! Simply because it was Burke Ramsey who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's.

.

Yep, I'm come back down off my hiatus on the fence, and am believing BR was responsible for the damage done to JBR on Christmas day up to the final strangulation that killed her. I think BR bashed JBR because he was trying to exercise control over her driven by anger for some reason.

I believe it is possible he had already placed the ligature cord (without the stick tied into the end of it) around her neck and had made JB think it was going to be some sort of more innocent game, but was going to try the new "choking game" that was becoming popular at that time.

Maybe he even prepared a bowl of pineapple as an"treat" for JB, so he could get her to go along with the game playing. Could he have hand fed her a piece of pineapple, since there were no reports of JB's fingerprints on the bowl, spoon or glass?

I also believe that BR decided after waiting a while once JB was unconscious from the head bash and trying to unsuccessfully revive her, he had to get both of his parents involved who then went to work to stage the rest of the crime.

One of them was responsible for the final strangulation. My money is on JR having to be the one. Patsy would have been able to do a lot of the other things, even going as far as tying the paintbrush stick into the end of the ligature for the appearance of a garrote, but I don't think she would have strangled the last breath out of JB.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yep, I'm come back down off my hiatus on the fence, and am believing BR was responsible for the damage done to JBR on Christmas day up to the final strangulation that killed her. I think BR bashed JBR because he was trying to exercise control over her driven by anger for some reason.

I believe it is possible he had already placed the ligature cord (without the stick tied into the end of it) around her neck and had made JB think it was going to be some sort of more innocent game, but was going to try the new "choking game" that was becoming popular at that time.

Maybe he even prepared a bowl of pineapple as an"treat" for JB, so he could get her to go along with the game playing. Could he have hand fed her a piece of pineapple, since there were no reports of JB's fingerprints on the bowl, spoon or glass?

I also believe that BR decided after waiting a while once JB was unconscious from the head bash and trying to unsuccessfully revive her, he had to get both of his parents involved who then went to work to stage the rest of the crime.

One of them was responsible for the final strangulation. My money is on JR having to be the one. Patsy would have been able to do a lot of the other things, even going as far as tying the paintbrush stick into the end of the ligature for the appearance of a garrote, but I don't think she would have strangled the last breath out of JB.

Burke did not kill his sister, nor bash her, nor molest her, nor redress her, nor move her.

If he had hurt her before (old vaginal injury) wild horses would not get her to go anywhere near him.

Trust me on this. I had an older brother with a cruel streak.

The theory that parents casually murdered one child to save another, just isn't going to happen. It makes no logical sense.

The person who abused Jonbenet is most likely the person who murdered her. Statistically it is so unlikely as to be almost impossible it was two seperate offenders operating independantly of each other.

Therefore your theory that John strangled her (which I believe) automatically indicates that John also abused her sexually.

It is the only scenario that makes sense. Burke was physically incapable of the assault, or the murder.

Of course, my opinion only.

:cow:

 

[Whaleshark]

Sapphire,

You are entitled to your opinion, but to keep purporting that Burke was physically incapable of the assault or the murder is just not true. I have provided, as well as numerous others on here, what not only someone his age and size is capable of, but of what children years younger are capable of, purposefully, and even accidentally.

Now if you refuse to read or believe that information, that is up to you, but to try to state emphatically that he was not physically capable, is blatant misinformation.

 

[UKGuy]

Yep, I'm come back down off my hiatus on the fence, and am believing BR was responsible for the damage done to JBR on Christmas day up to the final strangulation that killed her. I think BR bashed JBR because he was trying to exercise control over her driven by anger for some reason.

I believe it is possible he had already placed the ligature cord (without the stick tied into the end of it) around her neck and had made JB think it was going to be some sort of more innocent game, but was going to try the new "choking game" that was becoming popular at that time.

Maybe he even prepared a bowl of pineapple as an"treat" for JB, so he could get her to go along with the game playing. Could he have hand fed her a piece of pineapple, since there were no reports of JB's fingerprints on the bowl, spoon or glass?

I also believe that BR decided after waiting a while once JB was unconscious from the head bash and trying to unsuccessfully revive her, he had to get both of his parents involved who then went to work to stage the rest of the crime.

One of them was responsible for the final strangulation. My money is on JR having to be the one. Patsy would have been able to do a lot of the other things, even going as far as tying the paintbrush stick into the end of the ligature for the appearance of a garrote, but I don't think she would have strangled the last breath out of JB.

midwest mama,
Its difficult to ignore BDI anymore. With BR allegedly responsible for opening those gifts, this places him at the scene of the crime, probably the last person to see JonBenet etc.

No wonder BR does not want to be interviewed, Burke did you open those partially opened gifts in the wine-cellar? Given the new information it looks unlikely we will ever see BR do a media interview.

What happened that night is the big mystery. What you outline could have happened. Looks like the Erotic Asphyxiation theories might make a comeback.

Consider, another big mistake made by the R's was this, by placing the apparently unrelated artifacts into the wine-cellar along with JonBenet, they linked her death with them?

Without the partially opened gifts being in the wine-cellar, when we know they should be somewhere else, we could not link Burke Ramsey with his sisters death.

So it does seem the location of JonBenet's acute abuse and head bash is the basement.

Once again the parents ignorance of the pineapple snack can be inferred from the remains not being cleaned up. Just as they were ignorant regarding the size-12's.

This suggests BR served up the pineapple snack then allegedly headed down to the basement on some kind of gift hunting expedition. Did BR know there was a new Barbie Doll for JonBenet, was this the inducement? The acute abuse obviously followed a period of gift inspection, then a head bash, and minimal staging by BR.

JonBenet must have either told BR she was going to tell Patsy about the acute abuse, I'll bet she knew anyway, or as you suggest BR was exercising some kind of control over JonBenet, she refused to comply, so he whacked her on the head?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Burke did not kill his sister, nor bash her, nor molest her, nor redress her, nor move her.

If he had hurt her before (old vaginal injury) wild horses would not get her to go anywhere near him.

Trust me on this. I had an older brother with a cruel streak.

The theory that parents casually murdered one child to save another, just isn't going to happen. It makes no logical sense.

The person who abused Jonbenet is most likely the person who murdered her. Statistically it is so unlikely as to be almost impossible it was two seperate offenders operating independantly of each other.

Therefore your theory that John strangled her (which I believe) automatically indicates that John also abused her sexually.

It is the only scenario that makes sense. Burke was physically incapable of the assault, or the murder.

Of course, my opinion only.

:cow:

SapphireSteel,
You misread the evidence. The forensic evidence suggests it was Patsy who asphyxiated JonBenet, but it was Burke who abused and whacked JonBenet on the head.

Something he had done before, we also know from other cases that young children are capable of lethal force, mostly they do not understand the full consequences of their actions.

BDI is currently the only game in town.


.

 

[Anyhoo]

It looks like a lot of you have made up your minds about BDI, but do you realize what you are saying? Go back and find a Christmas 1996 picture of nine-year-old BR and step back (away from this case) and just look at it. Do you really believe that this little boy did everything people are saying he did in this thread? I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a second.

What many of you have done is made the mistake of painting yourself into a corner so that you think there is no valid suspect left except BR, but I believe you are wrong. I believe there is important missing information about this case that, if it were to be revealed, would blow the case wide open and point in a direction that few (if any) are currently thinking about. Until that information is discovered and released, we are all doomed to go in circles and end up at dead ends. Finally we do what most have done, which is just to go with whichever suspect feels right to us while at the same time ignoring key significant evidence that goes against that suspect. I will not do that and I will never agree with those who do that, as I see is being done here in this thread.

 

[UKGuy]

It looks like a lot of you have made up your minds about BDI, but do you realize what you are saying? Go back and find a Christmas 1996 picture of nine-year-old BR and step back (away from this case) and just look at it. Do you really believe that this little boy did everything people are saying he did in this thread? I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a second.

What many of you have done is made the mistake of painting yourself into a corner so that you think there is no valid suspect left except BR, but I believe you are wrong. I believe there is important missing information about this case that, if it were to be revealed, would blow the case wide open and point in a direction that few (if any) are currently thinking about. Until that information is discovered and released, we are all doomed to go in circles and end up at dead ends. Finally we do what most have done, which is just to go with whichever suspect feels right to us while at the same time ignoring key significant evidence that goes against that suspect. I will not do that and I will never agree with those who do that, as I see is being done here in this thread.

Anyhoo,
Well all the current evidence points to BDI. That could change if we get new evidence.

Why would Patsy take the heat for BR, telling barefaced lies about the size-12's, forgetting about the pineapple snack?

You ask us to look at BR, what about JonBenet, relative strength matters too. Anyway BR whacked JonBenet before, allegedly by accident, with a golf-club, so maybe he thought no serious harm might repeat itself?

Then there is the legal cover up, the weak questioning by LEA, the lack of desire to order the hand over of telephone and medical records, any other homicide this would have been done.

No wonder BPD were told to treat the R's as victims, the case was completely determined from the outset.


.