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

[Tadpole12]

link posted by candy at topix

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjLR0rW8r-s&feature=related"]Howard Stern - FBI Profiler Analyses the Staff (Part 1 of 4) - YouTube[/ame]


Dale Yeager on HS Show:

(@3:31)DY: With Patsy, my job was to write questions that would make her angry. Because people will blurt things out when they're angry.

HS: Right.

DY: Cause when you saw her on tv she was heavily medicated.

HS: Right, so who, so who used your questions?

DY: Ah, the Detectives' team.

HS: And what was one of the questions you wrote to make her angry?

DY:I talked about Jesus and ah, you know guilt and sin 'cause she was very religious person.

HS: So you figured that might get to her?

DY: Well it did. She threw a chair, so.

 

[dodie20]

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.


.

I'm not clinging to anything. As a matter of fact, I was pretty equal PR/JR/BR, before Kolar's book came out. It was after going through Kolar's information though, and really considering BR as the culprit, that I saw too many holes in the theory. And what forensic evidence has to be explained away? If you have information that points only to BR, please share, because from my vantage, I'm just not seeing it. moo

 

[BOESP]

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

Yes, PrincessSezMe, I see where you are coming from.

I have a very close friend who is one of the best CPS people I've ever met plus she is married to a cop and has three daughters (one of whom was JonBenet's age in 1996). She said on day two that her guess is Patsy caught John doing something to JonBenet and yanked JonBenet around and wanted to get her "clean" and during the process the child was injured beyond medical help. I really trust this friend's judgement. After studying the case for a while she still believes her original speculation. We've gone round and round over bedwetting versus John (she admits bedwetting is the most common trigger for mother/child abuse).

In my mind (which changes on alternate Tuesdays and Saturdays :waitasec I think John as the trigger followed by Patsy's corporal cleansing makes the most sense. The staging, frankly, I think Patsy could do it, all of it. Like I said earlier, any woman who can priss across a stage in a high heels and a bathing suit in front of hundreds of people plus a nation of television, well, they have the guts to do just about whatever is needed to get what they want. I think Patsy wanted to stay out of jail.

Burke may have had issues as well and, perhaps, I suppose, I could substitute his name for John's above. I just don't think he killed JonBenet.

But what I really think is Patsy was exhausted and JonBenet soiled herself big-time and Patsy had to clean her up. Kolar could be right but Kolar never really stated what he believed and there was a lot in his book that I found to be innocent actions easily explained (like a kid peeping at presents - I don't see anything sinister in that, especially since Patsy and John both stated that Burke and his friends were really the only ones who played in the basement and that JonBenet hated being down there).

That little girl is laying in her grave and no one has been accountable. Just like some innocent people are wrongly convicted, I think OJ, Ms. Anthony, and The Ramseys are proof that the system does not always work.

I really enjoy your posts. Thanks.

 

[BOESP]

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.

I agree. That's an excellent consideration.

I haven't seen anything published about the specifics of staging-within-staging in this case. It could mean altering the scene then altering the previous alterations(unplanned) (which is what you said above); it could mean planned altering by two people; it could mean making alterations that would point to two people. The best I remember, the cleansing of JonBenet's genital region was considered one part of the staging and the ligature strangulation was a second part. For example, one was done to cover up genital abuse and the other to cover up prior strangulation. It is a sign of desperation and is often done when a family member(s) is involved. Non-familial sociopaths usually don't care.

There were some good posts here about this several years back. Some believe JonBenet was initially strangled by the grabbing and twisting of her shirt collar (maybe the red turtle neck ... I can't positively remember how the discussion went), thus the genital attack and the strangulation both needed staging in order to lead investigators away from both events.

I've not seen any of this firsthand. I'm recounting what I have read and remember (which grows dimmer each day :notgood.

 

[dodie20]

Yes, PrincessSezMe, I see where you are coming from.

I have a very close friend who is one of the best CPS people I've ever met plus she is married to a cop and has three daughters (one of whom was JonBenet's age in 1996). She said on day two that her guess is Patsy caught John doing something to JonBenet and yanked JonBenet around and wanted to get her "clean" and during the process the child was injured beyond medical help. I really trust this friend's judgement. After studying the case for a while she still believes her original speculation. We've gone round and round over bedwetting versus John (she admits bedwetting is the most common trigger for mother/child abuse).

In my mind (which changes on alternate Tuesdays and Saturdays :waitasec I think John as the trigger followed by Patsy's corporal cleansing makes the most sense. The staging, frankly, I think Patsy could do it, all of it. Like I said earlier, any woman who can priss across a stage in a high heels and a bathing suit in front of hundreds of people plus a nation of television, well, they have the guts to do just about whatever is needed to get what they want. I think Patsy wanted to stay out of jail.

Burke may have had issues as well and, perhaps, I suppose, I could substitute his name for John's above. I just don't think he killed JonBenet.

But what I really think is Patsy was exhausted and JonBenet soiled herself big-time and Patsy had to clean her up. Kolar could be right but Kolar never really stated what he believed and there was a lot in his book that I found to be innocent actions easily explained (like a kid peeping at presents - I don't see anything sinister in that, especially since Patsy and John both stated that Burke and his friends were really the only ones who played in the basement and that JonBenet hated being down there).

That little girl is laying in her grave and no one has been accountable. Just like some innocent people are wrongly convicted, I think OJ, Ms. Anthony, and The Ramseys are proof that the system does not always work.

I really enjoy your posts. Thanks.

My 1st real suspect was BR. There was something about the way he came across in news clips that just didn't seem right. At the memorial service, he was walking alone, like he didn't have a friend in the world, and it seemed to me, that his parents were very angry with him and didn't want to be near him. After the 911 background came out, I was even more convinced. Why else would his father bark, 'we're not talking to you'. But after yrs of going back and forth on the 3, I just can't imagine things going down the way they did, if BR was responsible. Actually, it's not that I think BR was incapable, it's the reactions of his his parents, the police, and everybody else that I can't believe. If evidence pointed at BR, then why waste years of time and a ton of money going after PR, JMK, neighbors, Santa, the housekeeper, and so forth. Why bother with a grand jury at all? Why, when the Rs were finally 'cleared', was an intruder blamed? If BR did this, it would be common knowledge among investigators, etc., and they could have cleared the Rs in a way, without mentioning BR by name. Unless Kolar was the only 1 to figure it out, I don't see it. But as far as I know, he wasn't privy to any evidence that the others weren't, so what I see, is 1 man with an opinion, just like Steve Thomas had an opinion, Mary Lacy had an opinion, Linda Arndt had an opinion, and so forth. Maybe there's more information that Kolar didn't print because of legal reasons, maybe he knows more than he's telling us, but from the information I've seen, I see a messed up little boy, not a murderer. moo

 

[Anyhoo]

My theory is that JR and PR both know who murdered their daughter and are covering up for that person, and that the person they are covering up for is not BR.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Yes, PrincessSezMe, I see where you are coming from.

I have a very close friend who is one of the best CPS people I've ever met plus she is married to a cop and has three daughters (one of whom was JonBenet's age in 1996). She said on day two that her guess is Patsy caught John doing something to JonBenet and yanked JonBenet around and wanted to get her "clean" and during the process the child was injured beyond medical help. I really trust this friend's judgement. After studying the case for a while she still believes her original speculation. We've gone round and round over bedwetting versus John (she admits bedwetting is the most common trigger for mother/child abuse).

In my mind (which changes on alternate Tuesdays and Saturdays :waitasec I think John as the trigger followed by Patsy's corporal cleansing makes the most sense. The staging, frankly, I think Patsy could do it, all of it. Like I said earlier, any woman who can priss across a stage in a high heels and a bathing suit in front of hundreds of people plus a nation of television, well, they have the guts to do just about whatever is needed to get what they want. I think Patsy wanted to stay out of jail.

Burke may have had issues as well and, perhaps, I suppose, I could substitute his name for John's above. I just don't think he killed JonBenet.

But what I really think is Patsy was exhausted and JonBenet soiled herself big-time and Patsy had to clean her up. Kolar could be right but Kolar never really stated what he believed and there was a lot in his book that I found to be innocent actions easily explained (like a kid peeping at presents - I don't see anything sinister in that, especially since Patsy and John both stated that Burke and his friends were really the only ones who played in the basement and that JonBenet hated being down there).

That little girl is laying in her grave and no one has been accountable. Just like some innocent people are wrongly convicted, I think OJ, Ms. Anthony, and The Ramseys are proof that the system does not always work.

I really enjoy your posts. Thanks.

Thanks! I really enjoy your posts too.:wave:

Somebody on here earlier claimed that a housekeeper found JB and BR under the sheets once and was sent out of the room. I can't find that anywhere in any of the information on LHP, Linda Wilcox or Geraldine Vodicka. Does anyone know where that came from? I had never heard of it before.

 

[dodie20]

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.



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.



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.

I'm not sure where you read that both BR And JB told the housekeeper to leave the room? And I've never read or heard anybody refer to what they were doing as, 'quality time'. Also, I don't think too much should be made of BR being in the basement. His trains were down there, among other things, so him being in the basement was never in question, as far as I could tell. The same goes for BR opening the gifts. He reportedly opened them earlier in the day, which IMO, has very little, (if any), bearing on what happened that night. moo Also, how was JB's room cleaned up? Isn't this where the feces covered chocolate was discovered? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the flashlight found in the kitchen? So, if the parents were running around cleaning for BR, how could they not know about the kitchen? wouldn't they have noticed the pineapple when they were putting the flashlight up? Also, PR investing so much into JB, wouldn't mean a thing as far as deciding whether to abuse or not. Maybe the investment, was actually 1 of the problems? And for PR not having a 'need' to abuse or kill JB? well, who did? moo

 

[BOESP]

Thanks! I really enjoy your posts too.:wave:

Somebody on here earlier claimed that a housekeeper found JB and BR under the sheets once and was sent out of the room. I can't find that anywhere in any of the information on LHP, Linda Wilcox or Geraldine Vodicka. Does anyone know where that came from? I had never heard of it before.

I made a good effort to find the origin of this. I couldn't find anything either.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Originally Posted by UKGuy
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'm sorry but do you mean to imply that the partially opened gifts are the forensic proof Burke molested and murdered his sister????

That is a massive assumption...! And it is NOT "forensic evidence"!!!!!

Who said it was Burke that ripped the presents?

PATSY?????

:what:

since when has she become a reliable witness?!

The gifts could have been ripped at any time, by anybody.

Please do not post your own guesswork and assumption asserting it is "forensic evidence" when it is not.

:cow:

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'm not sure where you read that both BR And JB told the housekeeper to leave the room? And I've never read or heard anybody refer to what they were doing as, 'quality time'. Also, I don't think too much should be made of BR being in the basement. His trains were down there, among other things, so him being in the basement was never in question, as far as I could tell. The same goes for BR opening the gifts. He reportedly opened them earlier in the day, which IMO, has very little, (if any), bearing on what happened that night. moo Also, how was JB's room cleaned up? Isn't this where the feces covered chocolate was discovered? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the flashlight found in the kitchen? So, if the parents were running around cleaning for BR, how could they not know about the kitchen? wouldn't they have noticed the pineapple when they were putting the flashlight up? Also, PR investing so much into JB, wouldn't mean a thing as far as deciding whether to abuse or not. Maybe the investment, was actually 1 of the problems? And for PR not having a 'need' to abuse or kill JB? well, who did? moo

It's all a load of hearsay.

Even if it's true, so what?

My kids would often lie in/on the bed together reading stories. Both were fully clothed and it was a lovely, innocent, sweet act of two siblings bonding in their own little world.

If anyone had've insinuated anything else I would have been extremely irate and pretty much flabbergasted. Dirty minds.

I take Kolar's book with a grain of salt. The guy had to come up with a new angle to sell a story that has already been told and retold. It's just a shame that new angle involves an innocent little boy.


:cow:

 

[dodie20]

It's all a load of hearsay.

Even if it's true, so what?

My kids would often lie in/on the bed together reading stories. Both were fully clothed and it was a lovely, innocent, sweet act of two siblings bonding in their own little world.

If anyone had've insinuated anything else I would have been extremely irate and pretty much flabbergasted. Dirty minds.

I take Kolar's book with a grain of salt. The guy had to come up with a new angle to sell a story that has already been told and retold. It's just a shame that new angle involves an innocent little boy.


:cow:

Oh, I think there's a lot to Kolar's book, I'm just not able to make the leap to BR being the murderer. For instance, the feces covered chocolates...if we knew who the feces belonged to, we would have a better understanding of who did what. It could go either way. If it belonged to BR, then there would be direct evidence of a major problem between him and JB. On the other hand, if it belonged to JB, then we might see it as a motive for PR to rage. As for the allegations made about BR and JB playing dr. I read it somewhere, but this is 1 of those things I've never known what to think. 1st of all, I wouldn't consider it deviant, because they were both so young. Another thing I'm confused about is the housekeeper's reaction. After BR supposedly told her to get out, what did she do? get out? make them stop? tell the parents? Was JB crying or in distress? My feeling on the report, (back when I read it), wasn't that the housekeeper was trying to point a finger at BR for molestation or murder, but more that she used this as an example of how out of control this household was...that the kids were so unsupervised and neglected and sexualized, that something like this occurred. MOO

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Oh, I think there's a lot to Kolar's book, I'm just not able to make the leap to BR being the murderer. For instance, the feces covered chocolates...if we knew who the feces belonged to, we would have a better understanding of who did what. It could go either way. If it belonged to BR, then there would be direct evidence of a major problem between him and JB. On the other hand, if it belonged to JB, then we might see it as a motive for PR to rage. As for the allegations made about BR and JB playing dr. I read it somewhere, but this is 1 of those things I've never known what to think. 1st of all, I wouldn't consider it deviant, because they were both so young. Another thing I'm confused about is the housekeeper's reaction. After BR supposedly told her to get out, what did she do? get out? make them stop? tell the parents? Was JB crying or in distress? My feeling on the report, (back when I read it), wasn't that the housekeeper was trying to point a finger at BR for molestation or murder, but more that she used this as an example of how out of control this household was...that the kids were so unsupervised and neglected and sexualized, that something like this occurred. MOO

dodie20

Which housekeeper is it that claims to have walked in on BR and JB? Was that in Kolar's book? I will admit, I've followed this case in the media and through the release of evidence, but I haven't read any of the books. Each author seemed too skewed towards their own theory, and they all reached a different conclusion. I've attempted to form my own conclusions, but it's kind of like walking through a maze. Lots of paths to choose, but most of them lead to a dead end with no clear answers.

I think you're right this household was out of control. Like BOESP said, NOTHING was normal about JB's life. But I'm not sure I would say they were completely unsupervised and neglected. Sexualized? Well JB for sure (the pageant videos are proof of that)...not sure about BR as there's no evidence that I've found that points to that. BUT, there is the chronic bedwetting (apparently a problem with both JB and BR), and one (or both) had a fascination with feces.

Neglected? Not that I can conclude from what I've read about the family, but neglect can take many forms. Burke said in his pych interview that the thing he liked most about his mother was that she gave him lots of hugs and kisses. Hmmmm....BOESP was there another red flag here? Lots of hugs and kisses from mom? Were those hugs and kisses appropriate? Did BR say that because that's the way he would like it to be, but it wasn't? My point here is that the mind can imagine all kinds of scenerios, and find red flags where they do and don't exist.

I find myself jumping on and off the fence so often it's a wonder I don't break a leg :fencefall:

 

[PrincessSezMe]

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.



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.



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.

UKGuy

You seem to want to hammer your theory over everyone's head LoL.

1. You're saying a nine year old boy cleaned up the basement, the flashlight (including the batteries), and JB's room? I have two boys and I have to say, if you believe that you're not only mistaken, you're delusional.

2. Those partially opened gifts are not dynamite...THEY'RE NOTHING! They could have been opened at any time over a period of three days. If that was a smoking gun don't you think LE would be all over it? Are you so wrapped up in your conspiracy theory that you think LE and the FBI covered evidence to protect BR's reputation? So what if PR lied about the ripped gifts, she lied about a LOT of innocuous things. It means nothing.

3. Enough about the too big panties already. JR was just as likely to gaff on the panties as anyone. He was not exactly a "hands on" dad according to eyewitnesses such as Linda Wilcox, so I don't see where that points to BR in any way. It's been pointed out to you that the size 12's could have been put on her because they were close at hand and convenient. What makes your take on it the truth?

4. "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." Could be said about any one of the books written on this case...so your point is?

5. "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." Mothers do it all the time, sadly, whether they have a need to or not....Casey Anthony is a case in point.

6. The Barbie doll on the floor. I am willing to bet that JB had a ton of Barbie dolls. Maybe BR and his friends were torturing one LoL. My brother used to do that to my Barbie dolls and I'm still living. Again, if it was a credible lead, don't you think LE would have ran with it?

Do you REALLY think all of LE and the FBI conspired to save BR's *advertiser censored*? I don't think so. There is NO credible evidence that BR had anything to do with it other than speculation. He was cleared by LE very early on in the case. You've bought into that theory, and that's your right. I think differently, and so do others. We have that right too.

To me this was an adult crime, and not one perpetrated by a child. Maybe you've watched too many Omen movies :giggle:

 

[SapphireSteel]

BDI makes zero sense.

There is no evidence.
There is no motive.
There is no physical way Burke could have inflicted the injuries therefore no means.

No means, no motive, no opportunity even, according to the parental unit.

Exactly what is BDI based on, apart from a dirty mind?

 

[redheadedgal]

BDI is not only incredibly unlikely, it is also physically impossible.

Burke was physically incapable of the assault, or the murder.

There is no physical way Burke could have inflicted the injuries therefore no means.

proof an even younger child did what many believe BR did:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8195170&postcount=427"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation[/ame]

I see a messed up little boy, not a murderer. moo

but burke wouldn't be a murderer for bashing jonbenet on the head (anger, jealousy)... she was still alive. whoever strangled her would be the murderer (imo, PR, as the fiber evidence clearly indicates).

 

[SapphireSteel]

proof an even younger child did what many believe BR did:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation




but burke wouldn't be a murderer for bashing jonbenet on the head (anger, jealousy)... she was still alive. whoever strangled her would be the murderer (imo, PR, as the fiber evidence clearly indicates).

I clicked on the link and all I got was a post...you know "proof" is supposed to be fact right? Not an opinion?

And I'm referring only to Burke not some other kid...

Or maybe I was looking at the wrong thing?

:dunno:

 

[Whaleshark]

Who said it was Burke that ripped the presents? PATSY?????

:what:

since when has she become a reliable witness?!

The gifts could have been ripped at any time, by anybody.

Please do not post your own guesswork and assumption asserting it is "forensic evidence" when it is not.

:cow:

No, Patsy said SHE is the one who opened the presents because she could not remember what was in them.

I already posted earlier the exact answer to this, and many of your other claims, yet you choose to ignore them.

Kolar himself stated in his book that he found out that Burke opened the gifts hidden in the basement, during the course of his investigation.

And that this directly contradicted Patsy's statement about her being the one to open the gifts. So, yes, she IS unreliable, and DID lie about opening the gifts.

Here, for you, again:

"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

BDI makes zero sense.

There is no evidence.
There is no motive.
There is no physical way Burke could have inflicted the injuries therefore no means.

No means, no motive, no opportunity even, according to the parental unit.

Exactly what is BDI based on, apart from a dirty mind?

And again, multiple examples of real cases have been provided to you of not only the statistics of sibling molestation in this country, but also proof of heinous crimes and murders, and even accidental ones, committed by children Burke's age and younger.

That's not 'a dirty mind'; that's reality.

If you choose not to become enlightened to the realities of life, that's your choice. But that doesn't make it not so.

We should not have to keep showing you proof of the facts and actual cases, thereby proving the possiblities.

Again, you can have your opinion that Burke didn't do it, but that does NOT mean he was NOT capable.

Seriously already.

 

[redheadedgal]

I clicked on the link and all I got was a post...you know "proof" is supposed to be fact right? Not an opinion?

And I'm referring only to Burke not some other kid...

Or maybe I was looking at the wrong thing?

did you click the link in that post? here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418904,00.html


(and no, i've never seen any proof that BDI but isn't that what we do here... speculate based on the available evidence, experience, etc?)

i'm not going to beat a dead horse... if others don't want to extrapolate (is that the correct word? lol) from this link that it's possible for other children (BR) to seriously injure another child with a golf club, then so be it... :moo:

 

[PrincessSezMe]

did you click the link in that post? here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418904,00.html


(and no, i've never seen any proof that BDI but isn't that what we do here... speculate based on the available evidence, experience, etc?)

i'm not going to beat a dead horse... if others don't want to extrapolate (is that the correct word? lol) from this link that it's possible for other children (BR) to seriously injure another child with a golf club, then so be it... :moo:

redheadedgal

These things do happen. Maybe BR did smack JB over the head and started the whole thing. Anything is possible. The question to me remains though, why did the parents cover up for something that would never have resulted in a prosecution anyway? And how could they possibly strangle their own daughter to death and live with that? Even trying to rationalize that they did it to save their other child doesn't wash with me. BR was nine years old - he would not have been brought up on any charges. That's why I don't think BR was involved. I believe the parents were motivated by the possibility of one or both of them going to prison for this. I don't know for sure who did what, but that's one thing I believe above all else. The threat of prison time necessited a cover up, it wasn't done to save Burke's backside IMO.

The only thing that makes any sense to me as a motivator for such a brutal crime is a sexual attack followed by an assault/murder. Why else was JB wiped down? To hide what? The area of her body that was cleaned should tell us all we need to know don't you think? Why would they clean JB up like that, but leave the urine stained panties and longjohns on her? She had bruises (one on her thigh that looked like a thumb mark), traces of fluids on her inner and outer thighs, and traces of blood around her vaginal area. That speaks of sexual assault to me. Maybe whoever did this to JB was only working up to "penile penetration". When it comes to a sexual assault, digital penetration (or penetration with an object) is just as invasive as penile penetration. Plus there was the expert testimony of several child sexual abuse specialists that came to the conlusion that the abuse was present, and it wasn't a one time thing.

If this was a rage against a child for a bed wetting incident, why are there NO statements from anyone that back up PR having that kind of a temper? The only person who said anything like that was LHP, and I don't buy her story. Her feelings about PR changed drastically as soon as the book deal was in place. She started out saying what a kind and gentle person PR was (see her early statements here http://www.acandyrose.com/s-linda-hoffmann-pugh.htm), and ended up making her out to be the wicked witch of Boulder. I am NOT a Ramsey defender. I think they are despicable for not coming forward and telling what they know about what happened to JonBenet, and I have no doubt that they know exactly what happened.

All MOO.