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

[SapphireSteel]

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.

They do not submit voluntarily to painful molestation. JBs abuse was repeated, and painful.

What child would "play doctor" on Christmas night when exhausted and full of candy and toys?

Inappropriate play only develops when one child at least is already sexualised and they are left alone together unsupervised for extended periods of time. Games like these usually start out with very limited acts, "testing the water", and progress over time.

If Burke or JB were already sexualised, it speaks of child sexual abuse inflicted on the "leader" of the sexual games.

If this was Burke, who sexualised him first? If it was JB, ditto?

The Burke-as-molester-JB-as-initiator argument indicates prior adult sexual abuse on at least one child, and therefore argues against itself.

:cow:

 

[BOESP]

I presented it only as a possibility. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It was not an accusation or an effort to convince anyone that is what happened.

I am saying it can and does happen and it is a possibility. Nothing more or nothing less. I stand by that statement.

For all I know it was corporal cleansing instigated by Patsy that caused the damage to JonBenet's privates. I find that idea more repulsive than two children playing doctor.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

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 what happened or none may have ever happened are 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.

BOESP

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I do agree with you that anything is possible, and children have been playing doctor since time immemorial. But playing doctor doesn't usually end up in violence. What I can't get past is how violent and sadistic the murder of JB was. I have a hard time understanding how ANYONE in JB's family could do this to her. But all signs seem to point in that direction, so I have to believe that a family member is responsible. We all have our theories as to who that person is.

What I don't believe is that JB was in any way inviting what happened to her. From all accounts she was a normal six year old little girl. Everyone who was interviewed seemed to adore her. I hope some day we know the truth about what really happened on December 26, 1996. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I presented it only as a possibility. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It was not an accusation or an effort to convince anyone that is what happened.

I am saying it can and does happen and it is a possibility. Nothing more or nothing less. I stand by that statement.

For all I know it was corporal cleansing instigated by Patsy that caused the damage to JonBenet's privates. I find that idea more repulsive than two children playing doctor.

I am split down the middle - 50/50 JR or PR. My gut and intellect tells me they both abused her, and both staged, but I would have no clue as to who did what apart from the obvious eg the note and blanket was PR.

PR having Munchausen makes a lot of sense too...but this only really works if PR had some way to force JR into helping her stage. Was JR also abusing JB and therefore had no choice but to agree? I think it's possible.

I do think JR is likely the one who performed the garroting and who dressed her in too large underwear. That is the act of a father unused to dressing his child, in my opinion. He didn't even know where her underwear was stored so grabbed the closest to hand.

I doubt we will ever know the details.

:dunno:

One thing I am positive of, is that Burke is an innocent victim of these two, just like his sister.

 

[dodie20]

I presented it only as a possibility. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It was not an accusation or an effort to convince anyone that is what happened.

I am saying it can and does happen and it is a possibility. Nothing more or nothing less. I stand by that statement.

For all I know it was corporal cleansing instigated by Patsy that caused the damage to JonBenet's privates. I find that idea more repulsive than two children playing doctor.

I understand what you're saying. Some molested children act out and repeat what has been done to them. I don't know what went on with the dr playing, but IMO, PR's cleaning probably caused most of the prior damage. The housekeeper reported that PR and JB had screaming, crying fights in the bathroom. If a child was being molested and screamed and cried like that, somebody would intervene, but since PR was 'cleaning' JB, the screams were ignored. And I'm not blaming the housekeeper, just making an observation on how we view pain and abuse. Just because it's the mother doing the 'cleaning', doesn't make it ok, but, we seem to give it a pass. IMO, especially looking at it through today's enlightment, I see the corporal cleaning as sexual abuse. I do...and I would never in a million yrs, do that to my child. moo

 

[dodie20]

BOESP

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I do agree with you that anything is possible, and children have been playing doctor since time immemorial. But playing doctor doesn't usually end up in violence. What I can't get past is how violent and sadistic the murder of JB was. I have a hard time understanding how ANYONE in JB's family could do this to her. But all signs seem to point in that direction, so I have to believe that a family member is responsible. We all have our theories as to who that person is.

What I don't believe is that JB was in any way inviting what happened to her. From all accounts she was a normal six year old little girl. Everyone who was interviewed seemed to adore her. I hope some day we know the truth about what really happened on December 26, 1996. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

This is why I don't really suspect JR, and please correct me if I have my information wrong. There's been so much information come out lately, that I've had a sensory overload, and may very well have mixed some things up. Anyway, from what I've read, JB's hymen was broken that night, at about the same time as the strangulation death? And from what I understand, there was nothing in JB's injuries, that night's or the prior, that pointed to penal penetration? just digital? ok, if this is correct, it doesn't sound like a grown man. A man who would strangle a child to death during molestation, would full rape her, IMO. Digital penetration and strangulation are so at odds with each other, that they are at separate ends of the spectrum, IMO. What it looks like to me, is that a female, (in order to look like a male rapist/killer), digitally broke JB's hymen. I do not believe a 9 yr old boy, would think to do this. IMO, this was a part of the staging, to cover up for whoever bashed JB in the head. IMO, whoever bashed JB, probably heard her skull crack, and then panicked, and that panic led to a whole chain of events...head bash, panic, staging, murder. I do not believe a methodical molestation that led to death, occurred that night. All Moo.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I do agree with you that anything is possible, and children have been playing doctor since time immemorial. But playing doctor doesn't usually end up in violence. What I can't get past is how violent and sadistic the murder of JB was. I have a hard time understanding how ANYONE in JB's family could do this to her. But all signs seem to point in that direction, so I have to believe that a family member is responsible. We all have our theories as to who that person is.

What I don't believe is that JB was in any way inviting what happened to her. From all accounts she was a normal six year old little girl. Everyone who was interviewed seemed to adore her. I hope some day we know the truth about what really happened on December 26, 1996. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

No problem. We all have the right to speak our mind. :seeya:

I don't believe for one minute JonBenet invited what happened. The accounts of what I see show that JonBenet was taught to act "sexy" as Patsy called it, she learned not to "feel pretty." It isn't normal for 6-year-olds to urinate and defecate on themselves, which she did. After watching videos of her it seems plain to me that she was taught to be provocative. She was taught to perform and "be on" most of her waking hours. I in no way see that she led a normal life.

Secondly, I don't have any way of knowing that the sexual contact had anything to do with her death. So far, to me, Steve Thomas's theory is the only one that provides for a logical explanation of sexual contact that leads to death and that contact would have come from Patsy.

The other part that is publicly known is that part of the staging was sexual in nature but that doesn't prove molestation generated the act(s) that killed her. Like you, I have a hard time believing that someone in her family could do this yet what is known points to exactly that. Someone wiped that child down and I don't think it was Burke.

 

[UKGuy]

No problem. We all have the right to speak our mind. :seeya:

I don't believe for one minute JonBenet invited what happened. The accounts of what I see show that JonBenet was taught to act "sexy" as Patsy called it, she learned not to "feel pretty." It isn't normal for 6-year-olds to urinate and defecate on themselves, which she did. After watching videos of her it seems plain to me that she was taught to be provocative. She was taught to perform and "be on" most of her waking hours. I in no way see that she led a normal life.

Secondly, I don't have any way of knowing that the sexual contact had anything to do with her death. So far, to me, Steve Thomas's theory is the only one that provides for a logical explanation of sexual contact that leads to death and that contact would have come from Patsy.

The other part that is publicly known is that part of the staging was sexual in nature but that doesn't prove molestation generated the act(s) that killed her. Like you, I have a hard time believing that someone in her family could do this yet what is known points to exactly that. Someone wiped that child down and I don't think it was Burke.

BOESP,
Which part was this?


.

 

[UKGuy]

This is why I don't really suspect JR, and please correct me if I have my information wrong. There's been so much information come out lately, that I've had a sensory overload, and may very well have mixed some things up. Anyway, from what I've read, JB's hymen was broken that night, at about the same time as the strangulation death? And from what I understand, there was nothing in JB's injuries, that night's or the prior, that pointed to penal penetration? just digital? ok, if this is correct, it doesn't sound like a grown man. A man who would strangle a child to death during molestation, would full rape her, IMO. Digital penetration and strangulation are so at odds with each other, that they are at separate ends of the spectrum, IMO. What it looks like to me, is that a female, (in order to look like a male rapist/killer), digitally broke JB's hymen. I do not believe a 9 yr old boy, would think to do this. IMO, this was a part of the staging, to cover up for whoever bashed JB in the head. IMO, whoever bashed JB, probably heard her skull crack, and then panicked, and that panic led to a whole chain of events...head bash, panic, staging, murder. I do not believe a methodical molestation that led to death, occurred that night. All Moo.

dodie20,
Do you have a source for that information?

There were three separate events that night.

1. Acute sexual assault.

2. Head injury.

3. Asphyxiation.

Not all three need be attributed to one person. My understanding is that Coroner Meyer both in his Autopsy Report and verbatim remarks said there was an acute sexual assault, something to do with the cell types generated when the assault took place. In his verbatim remarks to Det. Arndt he described this as sexual contact presumably via digital penetration?

Why do we need a hidden staged sexual assault, what has that to do with a homicide and abduction?

After all a dead body is well just dead, sexual assault or not.


.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Which part was this?


.

The part about using the broken paintbrush handle was staged, in my opinion, to cover up corporal cleansing. I suspect whoever was responsible for the staging as a whole assumed the act would make it appear an intruder pervert had a attacked her. I'm really a bit iffy about whether the paintbrush handle insertion even happened or whether it was speculation.

Patsy wrote the note and the Ramseys know what happened. That's the only two things I'm sure of beyond reasonable doubt. The cops believed there was staging within staging according to Thomas. That's an interesting concept.

 

[UKGuy]

The part about using the broken paintbrush handle was staged,[ in my opinion, to cover up corporal cleansing. I suspect whoever was responsible for the staging as a whole assumed the act would make it appear an intruder pervert had a attacked her. I'm really a bit iffy about whether the paintbrush handle insertion even happened or whether it was speculation.

Patsy wrote the note and the Ramseys know what happened. That's the only two things I'm sure of beyond reasonable doubt. The cops believed there was staging within staging according to Thomas. That's an interesting concept.

BOESP,
There is no proof for this. How do you know it was staged, did they find the missing piece of paintbrush handle?

Corporal cleansing is just Thomas speak for a theory. How about Thomas factoring in Burke Ramsey's presence in the basement that night, and all the partially opened gifts being dumped into the wine-cellar, coincidence or not?


.

 

[SapphireSteel]

dodie20,
Do you have a source for that information?

There were three separate events that night.

1. Acute sexual assault.

2. Head injury.

3. Asphyxiation.

Not all three need be attributed to one person. My understanding is that Coroner Meyer both in his Autopsy Report and verbatim remarks said there was an acute sexual assault, something to do with the cell types generated when the assault took place. In his verbatim remarks to Det. Arndt he described this as sexual contact presumably via digital penetration?

Why do we need a hidden staged sexual assault, what has that to do with a homicide and abduction?

After all a dead body is well just dead, sexual assault or not.


.

Originally Posted by UKGuy
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.

The trouble with your theories is that they are based on a false premise.

There is zero evidence tying Burke to this crime.

Again, please provide link if you are claiming otherwise.

:cow:

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
There is no proof for this. How do you know it was staged, did they find the missing piece of paintbrush handle?

Corporal cleansing is just Thomas speak for a theory. How about Thomas factoring in Burke Ramsey's presence in the basement that night, and all the partially opened gifts being dumped into the wine-cellar, coincidence or not?


.

UKGuy, I don't think you read my entire response. I've already answered your question.

Thomas said he thought Burke was a mixed up and confused little boy. Kolar thinks he was involved in some way (he's way too ambiguous for me to figure out exactly what his theory is). I have an opinion based on all I've seen and read about JonBenet's death. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe or disbelieve one thing or another.

Burke may have peeked at gifts but that doesn't mean Patsy didn't rummage around looking for panties. Or maybe John got the panties out. Who knows? I certainly don't but I'm not going to jump to a conclusion based on Burke peeking at gifts. Kids do that all the time at Christmas, given the opportunity.

I've read Kolar and I've read Thomas. Kolar didn't convince me. Burke may have had behavioral problems but that doesn't mean he is the one who killed JonBenet. Thomas's theory makes more sense to me.

 

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by UKGuy
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.

The trouble with your theories is that they are based on a false premise.

There is zero evidence tying Burke to this crime.

Again, please provide link if you are claiming otherwise.

:cow:

SapphireSteel,
You are obviously not well versed in the Ramsey arcana otherwise you would not ask for smoking gun evidence.

Kolar stated Burke Ramsey opened the Christmas gifts. I will allow you to do maths.

Its game over, BDI is the current flavor of the month.


If you are really enthusiastic then you should arrange a VOTE 4 JONBENET Campaign to coincide with Barack Obama's visit to Boulder.

Get the media on our side, use the president's visit to highlight the JonBenet case, spread the word.

Send emails.

post on Twitter.

Post on Facebook.

Post on Tumblr.

Tell the world that a vote for Obama is a vote for justice ...



.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I don't think you read my entire response. I've already answered your question.

Thomas said he thought Burke was a mixed up and confused little boy. Kolar thinks otherwise. I have an opinion based on all I've seen and read about JonBenet's death. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe or disbelieve one thing or another.

Burke may have peeked at gifts but that doesn't mean Patsy didn't rummage around looking for panties. Or maybe John got the panties out. Who knows? I certainly don't but I'm not going to jump to a conclusion based on Burke peeking at gifts. Kids do that all the time at Christmas, given the opportunity.

I've read Kolar and I've read Thomas. Kolar didn't convince me. Burke may have had behavioral problems but that doesn't mean he is the one who killed JonBenet. Thomas's theory makes more sense to me.

BOESP,
So explain why Patsy takes the heat for Burke opening those gifts, if he is innocent, whats the problem?

Patsy never rummaged around for panties, she never even knew JonBenet was wearing size-12's till she recieved her line of questioning, don't forget JR never told her either, i.e both parents were ignorant about the size-12's.

You seem to be very selective in the information you allow to form your opinion.


.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

The part about using the broken paintbrush handle was staged, in my opinion, to cover up corporal cleansing. I suspect whoever was responsible for the staging as a whole assumed the act would make it appear an intruder pervert had a attacked her. I'm really a bit iffy about whether the paintbrush handle insertion even happened or whether it was speculation.

Patsy wrote the note and the Ramseys know what happened. That's the only two things I'm sure of beyond reasonable doubt. The cops believed there was staging within staging according to Thomas. That's an interesting concept.

BOESP

I've been a pretty firm believer in JRDI for a while, but some of your logic is rubbing off :wink:

Something to consider - I remember in one of Patsy's LE interviews they talked about JonBenet's "private parts", and how PR approached that with JB. Patsy said she made JB's private parts (anything covered by a bathing suit) "off limits" to anyone but PR, and JB's doctor IF PR was in the room. She specifically stated that she told her "not daddy, not Grandpa, not anyone else". This, like anything, could be totally innocent, but it does give one pause for thought. What if JR was the only one home when JB had an accident and needed changing? I've never had any girls (just boys...sigh), but if I did I would hope I could trust my own husband if it was required.

Even though I had boys, I was still the one to clean them up if needed, regardless of their sex. Maybe PR was making it "ok" for her to touch JB but nobody else, OR maybe she knew something about JR and was attempting to stop it? Or, maybe she never really had that talk with JB at all.

So much in PR's statements is obviously out-and-out lying, that it's difficult to discern when she's telling the truth. She appears to be cut from the same cloth as Cindy Anthony...just from a bit higher social circle

 

[dodie20]

BOESP,
So explain why Patsy takes the heat for Burke opening those gifts, if he is innocent, whats the problem?

Patsy never rummaged around for panties, she never even knew JonBenet was wearing size-12's till she recieved her line of questioning, don't forget JR never told her either, i.e both parents were ignorant about the size-12's.

You seem to be very selective in the information you allow to form your opinion.


.

here's a hypothetical reason PR could have lied about who opened the gifts. Say, BR opened the gifts earlier in the DAY, but then tossed them aside, (including the size 12 underwear). They would have been just laying around, with only BR's prints on them . Then say that during the staging that NIGHT, PR saw the underwear and ripped into the bag, and grabbed a pair. Her prints would have been all over the wrap, the packaging, inside the package, and on the underwear...while BR's prints would have been only on the wrap and on the outside of the package. She could have lied to explain Why her prints were everywhere. We don't know why anybody lied, but to say they only lied in order to protect BR, is what's selective, IMO. There are so many reasons PR could have lied, and to say that both PR and JR were ignorant about the size 12s, is also selective, IMO. Some of us just aren't convinced BR did this. MOO.

 

[dodie20]

The part about using the broken paintbrush handle was staged, in my opinion, to cover up corporal cleansing. I suspect whoever was responsible for the staging as a whole assumed the act would make it appear an intruder pervert had a attacked her. I'm really a bit iffy about whether the paintbrush handle insertion even happened or whether it was speculation.

Patsy wrote the note and the Ramseys know what happened. That's the only two things I'm sure of beyond reasonable doubt. The cops believed there was staging within staging according to Thomas. That's an interesting concept.

I've read that PR told a friend of how she cleaned JB. IMO, that sounds like a woman covering her behind in case something came up in a dr's exam. It sounds like she was arranging a witness to back up her cleaning story. IMO, this points to PR knowing that what she was doing to JB, was Wrong. ok, about this staging within staging...did cops ever elaborate? because IMO, there's some evidence pointing JR finding JB earlier than when he brought her up from the basement. Is then when cops suspected some of the staging within staging? because IMO, if JR did discover JB earlier, him not mentioning it to cops, points to him trying to hide something, and I think it's possible that he undid a few things and moved the body. MOO.

 

[UKGuy]

here's a hypothetical reason PR could have lied about who opened the gifts. Say, BR opened the gifts earlier in the DAY, but then tossed them aside, (including the size 12 underwear). They would have been just laying around, with only BR's prints on them . Then say that during the staging that NIGHT, PR saw the underwear and ripped into the bag, and grabbed a pair. Her prints would have been all over the wrap, the packaging, inside the package, and on the underwear...while BR's prints would have been only on the wrap and on the outside of the package. She could have lied to explain Why her prints were everywhere. We don't know why anybody lied, but to say they only lied in order to protect BR, is what's selective, IMO. There are so many reasons PR could have lied, and to say that both PR and JR were ignorant about the size 12s, is also selective, IMO. Some of us just aren't convinced BR did this. MOO.

dodie20,
Nothing is beyond possibility or comprehension, but the above legend has started to lose me in its complexity.

I reckon you know BDI is the best explanation but cling to your PDI for whatever reason.

Even if its not BDI, the forensic evidence still has to be explained away.


.

 

[SapphireSteel]

SapphireSteel,
You are obviously not well versed in the Ramsey arcana otherwise you would not ask for smoking gun evidence.

Kolar stated Burke Ramsey opened the Christmas gifts. I will allow you to do maths.

Its game over, BDI is the current flavor of the month.


If you are really enthusiastic then you should arrange a VOTE 4 JONBENET Campaign to coincide with Barack Obama's visit to Boulder.

Get the media on our side, use the president's visit to highlight the JonBenet case, spread the word.

Send emails.

post on Twitter.

Post on Facebook.

Post on Tumblr.

Tell the world that a vote for Obama is a vote for justice ...



.

You claimed "forensic evidence".

There is none.

"Smoking Gun evidence"? What on earth? :lol:

I'm sure a judge would be thrilled with that level of proof.

There is no forensic evidence Burke committed the crime, because he did not. Torn Christmas packages notwithstanding.

:waitasec:

:cow: