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

[BOESP]

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.


.

UKGuy, I always respect your opinions, but I'm not sure what definition you use for "forensic" evidence. What evidence proves "it was Burke who abused and whacked JonBenet on the head?"

Thomas's book provides enough reasonable doubt in my mind to suggest Patsy did it. I can also see several scenarios that could involve any combination of or a singular person(s) known to be in the house that night.

I can't see any reasonable person coming to a decision in this case when they don't have access to all the evidence. I think anyone who studies what is known about the ransom note can conclude Patsy wrote the note. Other than that, all I'm willing to say is the Ramseys know what happened.

Regardless of who/what happened, in my opinion, the Ramseys (Patsy especially) did not want all their skeletons to become public knowledge.

I also believe if Burke did do it, the ultimate blame was due to adult-Ramsey irresponsibility in parenting practices. Anybody who let their child whittle and leave shavings for the housekeeper to clean up is creating a spoiled brat in my book. Anyone who lies to cover up for their child certainly isn't interested in teaching honesty, accountability and responsibility. But then the Ramseys don't seem to be "stand up" kind of people in my book.

 

[Katzenmoyer]

Like Whaleshark, UKGuy, and James Kolar, I'm BDI and agree with most of what they say.

This was probably already said somewhere in here recently, but it seems very plausible and likely that the kids were already playing down in the basement anyway since it was Christmas with a bunch of new toys.

I've read many sources that say the kids played down there a lot anyway and I know Christmas was "toy mania" for me and my friends at those ages. You couldn't put us to sleep with all that new stuff to play with and BR and JBR had no reason to be any different.

Plus, they had no good reason to not be up late playing down there since all they had to do the next day was climb on the private plane in pajamas and go to Michigan. I think they were both down there that night and it's easy to see why.

I haven't seen much discussion regarding the alleged red knife found in the wine cellar, but if it was there, I bet it was BR's red swiss army knife and it was likely what he used to cut the rope. I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities know this, along with having other BR-did-it evidence they aren't comfortable releasing at this point, if ever, since BR was a child, the Ramsey family was high profile, etc.

I don't condone what I think JR did to cover and protect what BR did (I think BR was responsible for all the violence, including the garotte and molestation, but not in the legal sense given his age), but I also think it would've been too difficult, dark, and not worth it in the end to try to prosecute JR for accessory after the fact.

Plus, most of us, including JR and his lawyers, know the case was so mishandled early on that it was unlikely JR would've been legally punished for his role in the cover up.

If the BDI theory is true like I think it is, I think the best I can hope for is BR might write a book with enough of the truth after JR dies, but I seriously doubt it will happen.

Plus, when I put myself in BR's shoes, I can't see much in the way of benefit of him telling the truth if it's BDI.

It seems to me if would mostly bring the "evil child" stigma to life that I think his parents and law enforcement did their best to avoid. Again, I don't condone any cover if it's true, but I can see that perspective to protect BR from a lifetime of that unimaginable stigma.

 

[dodie20]

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:

PR's fibers were all over the place, so we know without a doubt that she was involved. Her items were used in the garotte, and she wrote the note. Do I think parents would go to the extreme the Rs did, to cover for their murdering child? stage such a gruesome scene, and leave their daughter in such a gruesome condition? Blame everybody they knew, so they could save their murdering child's reputation and keep him out of forced therapy? I don't think so. And I really don't believe a parent would finish off 1 child in order to protect another. I never ruled out BR completely, because he was there, but too many things are left unexplained. After looking at the evidence, how did Steve Thomas, come to the conclusion that PR was the murderer, if evidence pointed to BR? IMO, if BR committed the crime and 1 or both parents were in on the coverup, they would have made a point to get rid of all evidence, including the practice note and flashlight, cleaned up the pineapple bowls, cleaned up the feces...Compared to the time it took to write the note, they would have had plenty of time to bag up evidence and get rid of it...especially the evidence that they, the parents had contact with. I would understand them missing something that only BR knew about, but the pen, paper, practice note, the bowl? Also, I wouldn't buy into the 'distraught mother wasn't thinking straight, theory'. If she found the power to write about JB being beheaded, and stage that horrible scene, then she had enough wits about her to gather up evidence. And that's not even taking into account, the nerve it would have taken to strangle JB for BR. And if she ran out of time? simply postpone their trip. If BR did do this, then I just don't see how JR fits into the scheme of things. If he and PR were both in on the coverup, they would have postponed their trip, IMO. There was no need to bring cops into the mix, until they had all their ducks in a row. IMO, them postponing the trip would have looked far less suspicious, than leaving the practice note laying around, or for that matter, mentioning 'fat cats and southern sense' in the note. Also IMO, if JR read that note, he would have been appalled and demanded a do over. What it looks like IMO, is PR was in on the coverup by herself, (either for herself or BR), and she ran out of time before JR woke up. IMO, if BR committed the crime, she would have told JR something terrible happened, and she needed his help. IMO, there are just too many holes in the theory of BR being the killer. But, I do believe he probably witnessed something and knows what happened.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

PR's fibers were all over the place, so we know without a doubt that she was involved. Her items were used in the garotte, and she wrote the note. Do I think parents would go to the extreme the Rs did, to cover for their murdering child? stage such a gruesome scene, and leave their daughter in such a gruesome condition? Blame everybody they knew, so they could save their murdering child's reputation and keep him out of forced therapy? I don't think so. And I really don't believe a parent would finish off 1 child in order to protect another. I never ruled out BR completely, because he was there, but too many things are left unexplained. After looking at the evidence, how did Steve Thomas, come to the conclusion that PR was the murderer, if evidence pointed to BR? IMO, if BR committed the crime and 1 or both parents were in on the coverup, they would have made a point to get rid of all evidence, including the practice note and flashlight, cleaned up the pineapple bowls, cleaned up the feces...Compared to the time it took to write the note, they would have had plenty of time to bag up evidence and get rid of it...especially the evidence that they, the parents had contact with. I would understand them missing something that only BR knew about, but the pen, paper, practice note, the bowl? Also, I wouldn't buy into the 'distraught mother wasn't thinking straight, theory'. If she found the power to write about JB being beheaded, and stage that horrible scene, then she had enough wits about her to gather up evidence. And that's not even taking into account, the nerve it would have taken to strangle JB for BR. And if she ran out of time? simply postpone their trip. If BR did do this, then I just don't see how JR fits into the scheme of things. If he and PR were both in on the coverup, they would have postponed their trip, IMO. There was no need to bring cops into the mix, until they had all their ducks in a row. IMO, them postponing the trip would have looked far less suspicious, than leaving the practice note laying around, or for that matter, mentioning 'fat cats and southern sense' in the note. Also IMO, if JR read that note, he would have been appalled and demanded a do over. What it looks like IMO, is PR was in on the coverup by herself, (either for herself or BR), and she ran out of time before JR woke up. IMO, if BR committed the crime, she would have told JR something terrible happened, and she needed his help. IMO, there are just too many holes in the theory of BR being the killer. But, I do believe he probably witnessed something and knows what happened.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Where we differ in opinion is which parent ran out of time before the other one got up. PR is the one who blew the whistle and called 911. Why would she do that when the staging was incomplete? I believe in every lie there is a bit of the truth, and PR said JR was already up and showering when she got up. I think that is in fact true.

There has been much discussion about a book titled Mind Hunter which was found in the Ramsey bedroom. LE were particularly interested in a chapter in that book about a kidnapper, Larry Gene Bell, who was convicted of kidnapping and killing two little girls in the south. The case bore many similarities to the JBR case. Linda Wilcox stated that it was JR who liked to read thrillers, while PR preferred books such as those by Mary Higgins Clark.

I also find it highly suspicious that JR went straight to where JB's body was as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The fact that PR's items were used in the strangulation does not, IMO, point to her guilt in the crime. Whoever did it simply used what was close at hand.

And then there was JR's behavior and demeanor after the discovery of the body. He was making plans to fly the whole family to Atlanta in the middle of a crime investigation that involved the brutal murder of his daughter. What? JR was also the one who very quickly wanted to get BR out of the house. Probably before BR could say something that would throw a monkey wrench into the whole cover up. I don't think BR knew that much, or LE would have picked up something when they interviewed him at FW's residence, but he probably knew enough to contradict things that JR and PR were saying.

So why would PR go along with the cover up if JR was the one who murdered JB? Linda Wilcox stated that PR's major job was to make sure "nobody annoyed JR", and I think that simple statement speaks volumes about the true relationship in that marriage. Linda Wilcox also said that she saw no affection or closeness between JR and PR. I think it was a marriage of convenience, and that PR craved the lifestyle. She was not about to see that ripped down with the scandle that would result if the truth were known. To me JB was more or less a stage prop to her mother. Linda Wilcox said that the children were simply "projects" to PR. So that would explain how she could coldly turn a blind eye to what happened to JB. She wouldn't cover up for BR out of motherly love IMO. He was as much a "project" to her as JB was.

What I think PR didn't realize was how the media would very quickly poison public perception of them anyway. I think she thought they would garner sympathy and be seen as victims. I don't think she ever really understood that scandle was inevitable, as much as they worked to avoid it. All MOO.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I always respect your opinions, but I'm not sure what definition you use for "forensic" evidence. What evidence proves "it was Burke who abused and whacked JonBenet on the head?"

Thomas's book provides enough reasonable doubt in my mind to suggest Patsy did it. I can also see several scenarios that could involve any combination of or a singular person(s) known to be in the house that night.

I can't see any reasonable person coming to a decision in this case when they don't have access to all the evidence. I think anyone who studies what is known about the ransom note can conclude Patsy wrote the note. Other than that, all I'm willing to say is the Ramseys know what happened.

Regardless of who/what happened, in my opinion, the Ramseys (Patsy especially) did not want all their skeletons to become public knowledge.

I also believe if Burke did do it, the ultimate blame was due to adult-Ramsey irresponsibility in parenting practices. Anybody who let their child whittle and leave shavings for the housekeeper to clean up is creating a spoiled brat in my book. Anyone who lies to cover up for their child certainly isn't interested in teaching honesty, accountability and responsibility. But then the Ramseys don't seem to be "stand up" kind of people in my book.

BOESP,
Everything we know about. Including stuff in the wine-cellar, that should not be there. The breakast-bar scenario which includes BR's fingerprints! Also the parents neglected to clean this up, why because they never knew about it. The flashlight was cleaned up, the basement was cleaned up, JonBenet's bedroom was cleaned up, see the pattern?

Those partially opened gifts are dynamite, they are forensic evidence that link
BR to JonBenet due to location alone, never mind staging.

I cannot prove that BR redressed JonBenet in those size-12's but I can eliminate Patsy on grounds of ignorance, same with John where I presume he would know size-12's and staging do not go together?

Then we have the Barbie-Doll found in the wine-cellar. This was the inducement after the pineapple snack to lure JonBenet down to the basement.

Why have we heard nothing from the BPD regarding the Barbie-Doll? Its so obviously relevant, cover up can be the only reply.

Thomas's book provides enough reasonable doubt in my mind to suggest Patsy did it. I can also see several scenarios that could involve any combination of or a singular person(s) known to be in the house that night.

He never said Patsy did it. he only offered an alternative theory to the unexplored sexual abuse theory. He was attempting to explain away the physical evidence without directly blaming the R's for sexual abuse, even though Holly Smith probably told him it was a case of incest, a no brainer after she had seen the underwear and autopsy photographs of JonBenet's pubic area?

Thomas' book may have been playing ball with the BDI as fact, that is, write about anything you like except BDI.


Anyone wonder what Fleet White is thinking these days, he who drove BR back for some time away from being investigated? You can bet your bottom dollar that FW will have read Kolar's book, since it contains new information.

Thomas's book provides enough reasonable doubt in my mind to suggest Patsy did it. I can also see several scenarios that could involve any combination of or a singular person(s) known to be in the house that night.

It was not Patsy, she had invested so much in JonBenet, the mother-daughter relationship, the pageant career thing, her schooling, Patsy had no need to abuse or kill JonBenet.

You should consider Thomas' book as an exposition of what could be said not what what should be said. He was patently restricted legally, any incest allegations might attract litigation from Lin Wood, so he was left to enumerate the theories for our consideration, only highlighting those that met with Team Ramsey approval.

BDI ticks just about every box. The smoking gun is the partially opened gifts. The size-12's are the staging mistake, redolent of a 9-year old, not the parents, review Patsy's remarks regarding JonBenet's day of the week preferences.

Then we have the housekeeper who allegedly walked in on BR and JB in bed, under the sheets, where upon they told her in no uncertain terms to leave the room, i.e. JonBenet and Burke were having some quality time together.

Prior to Christmas Day Patsy is on record stating that JonBenet slept in Burke's bedroom.

I reckon the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, we were not there so the details escape us, but those who have endured sibling abuse, I'll bet, can fill in the blanks.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

UKGuy

I understand you're a firm believer of BDI. I will admit that some of BR's behavior after the murder of his sister is disturbing. The leaked interview with Dr. Suzanne Bernhard does give one pause when you consider this is a child who just lost his sister in a heinous and brutal murder. He seems somewhat "disaffected" by the whole thing. Is this a child who acts in such a way due to suffering from trauma, or is this a child who is so cold and uncaring that he could brutally murder his own sister and not seem to feel any type of remorse? If the latter is true, then the parents are just as culpable for a child's death as the child is IMO. If that is true then this is a child who needed extreme psychological help. It stands to reason that, if he is responsible for this brutality, it will only be a matter of time before he re-offends. Maybe then it will be easier for me to believe a nine year old could do such a thing.

I don't discount what you believe here, I just can't draw that conclusion based on a few unwrapped presents, a bowl of pineapple, and a pair of size 12 underwear.

 

[SapphireSteel]

PR's fibers were all over the place, so we know without a doubt that she was involved. Her items were used in the garotte, and she wrote the note. Do I think parents would go to the extreme the Rs did, to cover for their murdering child? stage such a gruesome scene, and leave their daughter in such a gruesome condition? Blame everybody they knew, so they could save their murdering child's reputation and keep him out of forced therapy? I don't think so. And I really don't believe a parent would finish off 1 child in order to protect another. I never ruled out BR completely, because he was there, but too many things are left unexplained. After looking at the evidence, how did Steve Thomas, come to the conclusion that PR was the murderer, if evidence pointed to BR? IMO, if BR committed the crime and 1 or both parents were in on the coverup, they would have made a point to get rid of all evidence, including the practice note and flashlight, cleaned up the pineapple bowls, cleaned up the feces...Compared to the time it took to write the note, they would have had plenty of time to bag up evidence and get rid of it...especially the evidence that they, the parents had contact with. I would understand them missing something that only BR knew about, but the pen, paper, practice note, the bowl? Also, I wouldn't buy into the 'distraught mother wasn't thinking straight, theory'. If she found the power to write about JB being beheaded, and stage that horrible scene, then she had enough wits about her to gather up evidence. And that's not even taking into account, the nerve it would have taken to strangle JB for BR. And if she ran out of time? simply postpone their trip. If BR did do this, then I just don't see how JR fits into the scheme of things. If he and PR were both in on the coverup, they would have postponed their trip, IMO. There was no need to bring cops into the mix, until they had all their ducks in a row. IMO, them postponing the trip would have looked far less suspicious, than leaving the practice note laying around, or for that matter, mentioning 'fat cats and southern sense' in the note. Also IMO, if JR read that note, he would have been appalled and demanded a do over. What it looks like IMO, is PR was in on the coverup by herself, (either for herself or BR), and she ran out of time before JR woke up. IMO, if BR committed the crime, she would have told JR something terrible happened, and she needed his help. IMO, there are just too many holes in the theory of BR being the killer. But, I do believe he probably witnessed something and knows what happened.

He absolutely witnessed it.

Didn't he mime two head blows while in therapy?

BDI have to remember that part of a crime is the psychology of it.

Yes there are child murderers, but overwhelmingly they grow up in abusive homes as victims themselves.

One dead child and one live child in an abusive home with injuries and staging only an adult could execute.

I mean, do the maths.

:waitasec:

 

[SapphireSteel]

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.


.

Do you have a link for that???

:what:

 

[BOESP]

UKGuy, thanks for the detailed response. I see what you are saying but I can see other scenarios based on the same items.

I do interpret Thomas's book and his joint interviews with Patsy and John as implying he believed Patsy did it. He was as direct in presenting that thought as Kolar was in presenting his thoughts on Burke. It's a toss up to me.

I think there are several reasons they may have wanted Burke's removal from the house, the main one being they didn't want him to see one or both parents arrested. Even Lou Smit said if he'd been the responding officer in charge he would have hauled them right then and there (or words to that effect).

I just can't see Burke and JonBenet playing in the basement near midnight after such a full day.

Patsy was an expert drama queen. She was an expert in marketing. I think she did the sale job of her life on December 26th. This woman had it orchestrated to film the memorial service in Colorado. Now who in their right mind would even think about doing that?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, thanks for the detailed response. I see what you are saying but I can see other scenarios based on the same items.

I do interpret Thomas's book and his joint interviews with Patsy and John as implying he believed Patsy did it. He was as direct in presenting that thought as Kolar was in presenting his thoughts on Burke. It's a toss up to me.

I think there are several reasons they may have wanted Burke's removal from the house, the main one being they didn't want him to see one or both parents arrested. Even Lou Smit said if he'd been the responding officer in charge he would have hauled them right then and there (or words to that effect).

I just can't see Burke and JonBenet playing in the basement near midnight after such a full day.

Patsy was an expert drama queen. She was an expert in marketing. I think she did the sale job of her life on December 26th. This woman had it orchestrated to film the memorial service in Colorado. Now who in their right mind would even think about doing that?

BOESP,
ITA. Yet why should Patsy feel obligated towards dramatic projection?


I myself cannot fathom the details of the JonBenet/Burke meeting, yet it does appear to have happened.



.

 

[SapphireSteel]

BOESP,
ITA. Yet why should Patsy feel obligated towards dramatic projection?

I myself cannot fathom the details of the JonBenet/Burke meeting, yet it does appear to have happened.

.

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.

Sorry, not meaning to nag, but you appear to have forensic evidence I've never read before!...can you please link?

TIA

 

[PrincessSezMe]

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.

Sorry, not meaning to nag, but you appear to have forensic evidence I've never read before!...can you please link?

TIA

There is no forensic evidence to prove BR was the one who delivered that first fatal blow. No weapon, no fingerprints, nothing to back up any theory of who actually did it. It remains an unknown in this case, along with who specifically was the one who strangled the life out of a six year old child. I try to look at it objectively, and tend to lean towards the answer that makes the most sense to me.

Prior history of abuse, a father who not only covered up the crime but showed no remorse for it, and a husband who was all but absent emotionally from his family. I put 2 and 2 together and that's how I arrive at my conclusions with respect to JR. I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but it's the only scenerio I can come up with that makes the least bit of sense to me.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
ITA. Yet why should Patsy feel obligated towards dramatic projection?


I myself cannot fathom the details of the JonBenet/Burke meeting, yet it does appear to have happened.



.

I think Patsy was obsessed with the image of beauty that she thought the pageants represented. I think she was arrogant enough and such a gifted actress that she thought she could fool the cops and the public into believing whatever message her projected dramatization presented.

JonBenet was sexualized way beyond her years. It is possible she was the instigator rather than a passive recipient. It is possible Burke was the instigator. It is possible that Patsy did the damage through corporal cleansing. Without the access to all the case files it is impossible to make an intelligent judgement.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

I think Patsy was obsessed with the image of beauty that she thought the pageants represented. I think she was arrogant enough and such a gifted actress that she thought she could fool the cops and the public into believing whatever message her projected dramatization presented.

JonBenet was sexualized way beyond her years. It is possible she was the instigator rather than a passive recipient. It is possible Burke was the instigator. It is possible that Patsy did the damage through corporal cleansing. Without the access to all the case files it is impossible to make an intelligent judgement.

I'm asking for some clarification here on what you're saying. Are you implying that JB may have brought this on herself? I will consider many differing opinions on what happened here, but I refuse to believe that a six year old, who was very likely exploited and wound up dead, brought this on herself. If I'm misunderstanding I apologize. Please explain what you mean by "it's possible she was the instigator rather than a passive recipient"?

Yes, she was sexualized way beyond her years. But she was only six. Hardly old enough to realize what that meant. And not old enough to be held accountable for the abuse that was inflicted on her.

PR only thought she was a good actress. LE didn't buy her lies, the FBI didn't buy her lies, and anyone who followed the case didn't buy her lies. She just put up enough smoke and mirrors to confuse, which resulted in nobody ever being held accountable. I doubt this case will ever be solved, but I'll always hope for justice for JonBenet.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There is no forensic evidence to prove BR was the one who delivered that first fatal blow. No weapon, no fingerprints, nothing to back up any theory of who actually did it. It remains an unknown in this case, along with who specifically was the one who strangled the life out of a six year old child. I try to look at it objectively, and tend to lean towards the answer that makes the most sense to me.

Prior history of abuse, a father who not only covered up the crime but showed no remorse for it, and a husband who was all but absent emotionally from his family. I put 2 and 2 together and that's how I arrive at my conclusions with respect to JR. I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but it's the only scenerio I can come up with that makes the least bit of sense to me.

I agree. 100%. Although I do have questions about PR's actions too.

I cannot understand BDI for the life of me.

:dunno:

 

[BOESP]

I'm asking for some clarification here on what you're saying. Are you implying that JB may have brought this on herself? I will consider many differing opinions on what happened here, but I refuse to believe that a six year old, who was very likely exploited and wound up dead, brought this on herself. If I'm misunderstanding I apologize. Please explain what you mean by "it's possible she was the instigator rather than a passive recipient"?

Yes, she was sexualized way beyond her years. But she was only six. Hardly old enough to realize what that meant. And not old enough to be held accountable for the abuse that was inflicted on her.

No, I am not saying she "instigated" anything and certainly not saying JonBenet brought this on herself. I am saying anything is possible and without access to the body of evidence we don't know who did what.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

No, I am not saying she "instigated" anything and certainly not saying JonBenet brought this on herself. I am saying anything is possible and without access to the body of evidence we don't know who did what.

Then what did you mean exactly when you said "it is possible she was the instigator rather than a passive recipient"? Anything is possible, I agree, but do you really think it's likely that JB asked to be molested? I'm just trying to understand what you meant by that statement.

 

[BOESP]

Then what did you mean exactly when you said "she might have been the instigator rather than the recipient"? Anything is possible, I agree, but do you really think it's likely that JB asked to be molested? I'm just trying to understand what you meant by that statement.

She may have been the instigator (instead of a passive recipient) of wanting to "play doctor" with Burke. She may not have been the instigator. They may have mutually agreed to play doctor. They may never have played doctor. Any of those are possibilities in what happened or none may have ever happened or it may have happened but isn't directly related to JonBenet's death.

I never said she asked to be molested ... never even implied that.

You say you agree with my statement that anything is possible so I really don't understand what you are asking.

 

[SapphireSteel]

She may have been the instigator of wanting to "play doctor" with Burke. She may not have been the instigator. They may have mutually agreed to play doctor. They may never have played doctor. Any of those are possibilities in happened or none may have ever happened.

I never said she asked to be molested ... never even implied that.

I think you are reading more into what I said than what was meant.

Sexual molestation of the kind JB underwent hurts.

There is no way a little girl would volunteer for more pain.

She most certainly would not instigate it. I challenge you to find one other case of such behaviour in a female six year old child.

 

[BOESP]

Sexual molestation of the kind JB underwent hurts.

There is no way a little girl would volunteer for more pain.

She most certainly would not instigate it. I challenge you to find one other case of such behaviour in a female six year old child.

I'm not sure what has generated these type of responses but children play doctor. There were several links already posted that point to activity of this kind as early as six-years-old -- the same links that suggest Burke could be responsible. If you choose not to believe it fine. Stating that any scene is possible is not an accusation.