Shylock
Former Member
When a child of non-culpable age murders a sibling, it's considered an "accident" even though he committed the act on purpose.Toth said:There was nothing accidental about this crime. Nothing at all.
IMO/JMO
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When a child of non-culpable age murders a sibling, it's considered an "accident" even though he committed the act on purpose.Toth said:There was nothing accidental about this crime. Nothing at all.
BlueCrab said:Good question Nehemiah. As you know, there's dozens of different directions a theory can go and still be based on the evidence as we know it, or perceive it. Here's one way I can read the evidence presuming a stun gun and erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet:
IMO, because of the marks on JonBenet, a stun gun was used on her. This makes the crime sadistic, featuring torture.
Because of the design of the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck and the autopsy's description of the relative gentleness of the asphyxiation I also believe erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet, and is what killed her, perhaps accidentally. Even John Ramsey believes the perp used EA.
Usually EA is consensual, but the combination of the two (stun gun and EA) makes it a sadistic non-consensual sex crime.
Normally an intruder would be considered the perp in this kind of vicious crime, but the Ramseys are lying and obfuscating and engaged in an obvious coverup. They wouldn't do this to protect an adult intruder. Since one parent also wouldn't do this to protect the other parent, I think they're protecting Burke, and perhaps another boy.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab
WolfmarsGirl said:BlueCrab,
The only problem I have with your theory is this: In order for a little nine-year-old boy to be interested in, let alone involved in acts like the ones you describe, there has to be something terribly, terribly wrong with the child.
Usually, a child who shows such early interest in sexual activity is either 1) copying older friends or siblings and has no real interest. 2) Has been the victim of sexual abuse himself. 3) Has a serious mental disability and is being guided by an older child.
Personally, I don't see any evidence, whatsoever, that either Burke or Jonbenet were sexually abused by anyone.
If Burke was just copying the actions of an older child, then when it got a little too intense and they were using his baby sister for the act, I think he would have chickened out. Or, he would have confided in someone, somewhere down the line.
Since I don't think JBR was abused prior to this night, I don't think Burke and his friends could have been hurting her previously. One or both of the children would have exhibited signs of abuse in some way. A little boy Burke's age would not have been able to handle the pressure of his ongoing secret.
And remember, to normal, well adjusted children, incest is a 'no-no' and it is disgusting in their eyes as well as in ours (remember the 'he's got cooties!' protest when we were even asked to sit by one of our siblings for more than five minutes when we were nine or ten-years-old??)
Now, if Burke was somehow mentally disabled and another older child was leading him astray, I still think he would have shown signs of distress. From everything I have read, it seems like Burke was/is of normal intelligence and not limited in his reasoning skills in the least (well, except for the 'Rolex' thing, lol...)
I just don't see a normal nine-year-old boy doing anything like what you describe to his little sister. If he was mentally ill, then we need to find out why he was disturbed. Was he, in fact, being abused too? I sincerely don't think so.
Now, it might be possible, maybe even probable that Burke killed JBR during normal play ('Cops and Robbers,' or 'Batman and Catwoman'...). Maybe, he 'captured' JBR as the 'bad guy' and accidentally inflicted fatal injuries to her. I can even see Burke getting extremely angry with his pesky little sister during a rough game and pulling a bit too hard. That is entirely possible, in my opinion.
The only snag I run into here is that it was Christmas night. The kids must have been exhausted. I can't really see them running through the basement playing a shoot-em-up game at midnight, but I could be wrong.
And, with all I know about kids, in my heart, I don't think little nine-year-old Burke was thinking about "erotic" anything involving his sister that night. After all, it was the night after the morning he woke up and discovered Santa Claus had visited. In many ways, Burke was little more than a baby himself.
Maxi said:I know I've mentioned this before, but I'll mention it briefly again. Little boys are weird. When two of my neighbors' sons were involved in what we thought was rather sophisticated sex play at the ages of 4 and 5, we asked neighborhoold husbands about their own experiences as children. About half had engaged in all kinds of sexual experimentation, mostly with other boys, but some with girls including their sisters. Object penetetration was not uncommon, but was done in a gentle manner. Most had not been molested and did not know where the ideas came from. They described it as curiosity and dominance games.
BlueCrab said:WolfmarsGirl,
Thank you for your well-thought-out response. You bring up several things that should be discussed in further detail, except this thread is getting kind of long. I'll touch on them lightly:
First of all, I'll have to disagree about Burke being little more than a baby. 10-year-old boys are anything but babies -- they are physically powerful, and they are cunning. In third world countries 10-year-old males are armed with automatic weapons and used in combat as fearless fighters.
Second, the evidence is convincing that JonBenet had injuries to the vagina consistent with chronic sexual abuse, abuse that likely could only have been inflicted by a family member -- someone who had everyday access to JonBenet.
Third, there is some unofficial evidence of Burke having been sexually molested as a small child by a non-family member, but someone who had daily access to him. The evidence is skimpy but in writing by a witness. I prefer to not mention any names, but the cops are aware of it.
Finally, there is indeed a likelihood that an older person, probably a male teen, was involved in the killing of JonBenet. For instance, neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note; yet the juvenile-sounding text is a little beyond the ability of a 10-year-old to be the author. And someone had to construct the EA device -- a device usually earmarked for use by teens and males in their twenties.
Just my opinion.
BlueCrab
Toth said:Absent from the list of stun gun owners are: John, Patsy and Burke. They had no ownership of or interest in owning stun guns.
txsvicki said:I'm fairly new to this board, so please excuse my ignorance of all the facts. Wouldn't the murderer be strangling his own self? I don't understand why some nut would be doing that to her since she wouldn't have even known what was going on, much less kept her arms up during the act. If Burke was in on it, then he had been sexually molested or he wouldn't know anything about that sort of thing. I'm almost 50, and know next to nothing, thank God. This whole case is really scary and so strange.