Was BR involved? #2

[Alchemist]

Did JB have any petchia that occur during a strangulation?

 

[questfortrue]

I've always been of the opinion that the head bash came first. Maybe Burke, maybe one of the parents. However I've since read that a head wound like that should have resulted in heavy bleeding. One would assume that it would have happened upstairs, yet there was no sign of a blood trail leading to the basement. It was suggested by Lou Smit that the head bash came after death or close to it, thus the lack of blood. Was this just something he said to support his intruder theory? I'd like to know whether the skin was broken on the head wound? If not, there would obviously be no bleeding.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From Kolar: There had initially been no outward appearance of an injury to JonBenét’s head. No trace of blood had been observed in her hair, and the scalp did not reveal signs of any type of injury. So as Dr. Meyer began his internal examination , investigators were surprised to learn that she had suffered a severe blow to the upper right side of her skull. A linear fracture covered the entire length of the upper right side of her head, from the parietal to occipital bones of her skull.

Did JB have any petchia that occur during a strangulation?

Also from Kolar's book: An examination of her eyelids and the conjunctiva of her eyes revealed the presence of petechial hemorrhages, pinpoint blood vessels that had burst when JonBenét had been strangled. These hemorrhages indicated that JonBenét had been alive when the garrote had been applied and tightened around her throat.

 

[Alchemist]

So does that mean that she was either strangled to death then hit, hit but still alive when strangled to death, or strangled and hit at the same time? Or does the coroner's report suggest that she wasn't alive when struck?

In my mind this is very significant, I have always had the scenario that she was hit by accident/fit of rage/tantrum...then the rest was a cover up. If she was hit completely after she was dead, that seems to indicated premeditation. That may make me lean away from BR. What kind of a knot was used on the garrote? Didn't BR's boy scout knife come into play? What are you guy's thoughts?

 

[DeeDee249]

So does that mean that she was either strangled to death then hit, hit but still alive when strangled to death, or strangled and hit at the same time? Or does the coroner's report suggest that she wasn't alive when struck?

In my mind this is very significant, I have always had the scenario that she was hit by accident/fit of rage/tantrum...then the rest was a cover up. If she was hit completely after she was dead, that seems to indicated premeditation. That may make me lean away from BR. What kind of a knot was used on the garrote? Didn't BR's boy scout knife come into play? What are you guy's thoughts?

The coroner noted both "in association" with each other. This was taken to mean that they both contributed to her death, and experts agreed that either alone could have resulted in her death. We do know that she was alive when bashed and alive when the garrote was tightened and ended her life. It is medically logical that, having been bashed first, immediate unconsciousness and possible coma would result, and very likely shock, which would lower respiration, body temperature and could very well account for the small amount of subdural bleeding.
The knot on the garrote was touted by R supporters as being complex, but in reality is was a simple knot. Both JR, JAR and BR were sailors and knew about knots, and BR was a Boy Scout.
She wasn't hit after death. This is a FACT. There was mild swelling of the brain, which does not occur in a dead person. I cannot stress this enough or repeat it often enough. This was noted in the autopsy as "mild flattening and and narrowing of the sulci and gyri".
BR had a Swiss Army knife that was said to be engraved with his name. He was find of whittling, and the housekeeper complained that he left wood shavings all over the house. She hid the knife in a cupboard- only she and Patsy knew where it was. A knife WAS found in the basement, near the paint tote and near where it is thought the cord was made and put on JB. It was never determined, as far as we know, whether it was the knife belonging to BR, which would have been easy to identify as his was engraved with his name.

 

[DeeDee249]

I've always been of the opinion that the head bash came first. Maybe Burke, maybe one of the parents. However I've since read that a head wound like that should have resulted in heavy bleeding. One would assume that it would have happened upstairs, yet there was no sign of a blood trail leading to the basement. It was suggested by Lou Smit that the head bash came after death or close to it, thus the lack of blood. Was this just something he said to support his intruder theory? I'd like to know whether the skin was broken on the head wound? If not, there would obviously be no bleeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The skin was NOT broken on the head bash. There was no wound, no visible gash or blood. It is not a certainty that there is heavy bleeding in a closed scalp injury like this one. Head wounds do usually bleed a lot, but this was not really a wound as the skin was not broken. There was a moderate amount of blood UNDER the skin, in the subdural area of the brain. It was quite a surprise to the coroner and those present at the autopsy when the skull fracture and subdural hemorrhage was found- there was nothing to indicate it was there just by looking at her. Had she lived longer after the bash, there would likely have been more swelling, not only of the brain, but also more swelling of the head/face. There was nothing abnormal about her appearance as far as any head injury was concerned.
Lou Smit is not a medical professional and he told so many lies in his "defense" of the Rs that I discount pretty much every thing he said. Everything he said supported his intruder theory. He was a Christian + the Rs were Christians + he prayed wit them = they were innocent.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
It could be the flashlight, but why would BR need a flashlight and where, there were lights in the house? One exception was JonBenet's bedroom ceiling light, which was not operational, so JonBenet used a bedside nightlight or PR left the bathroom light on.

Contrast the wiping of the flashlight with forensic evidence left untouched in the breakfast bar, which leads me to think it was JR who wiped the flashlight clean?

.

BR would need the flashlight for the same reason as ANY person sneaking around the house in the dark- because he didn't want the lights on. Of all the puzzling things needing an explanation in this case, this is one of the easiest to explain. It doesn't necessarily follow that whoever wiped the flashlight is the same person who wielded it in the crime. Wiping was part of the coverup and I believe the parents did the coverup (so does the Grand Jury).

 

[MzOpinion8d]

DeeDee249,
It could be the flashlight, but why would BR need a flashlight and where, there were lights in the house? One exception was JonBenet's bedroom ceiling light, which was not operational, so JonBenet used a bedside nightlight or PR left the bathroom light on.

Contrast the wiping of the flashlight with forensic evidence left untouched in the breakfast bar, which leads me to think it was JR who wiped the flashlight clean?

.

Maybe the flashlight was the object that penetrated JBR, and when she cried out the person holding the flashlight got mad and smacked her in the head with it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Maybe the flashlight was the object that penetrated JBR, and when she cried out the person holding the flashlight got mad and smacked her in the head with it.

I doubt it. If you have looked at the crime photos, that flashlight was huge - as big as a forearm. It would be VERY evident if she was penetrated with that. The coroner felt it was digital penetration and I agree. However I can also consider whether the paintbrush was used, but I have a harder time with that, especially if it was used while she was alive. Not because I can't imagine anyone would do that, but because I feel the vaginal injuries would be much more severe if anything like a broken paintbrush handle was inserted into her. Same for the flashlight.

 

[josephhamliton]

I don't think Burke was involved in the murder but he may have witnessed something happen on the night.


JonBenet may have or may not have been sexually abused on an ongoing basis. It doesn't rule Burke out but look how his life has enfolded.



The James Bulger case is interesting where the two boys who murdered and sexually abused James ended up offending again once they were released from prison. The odd thing was one of the boys put a toy or some kind of hard object up James's anus.

The difference in that case was the object was found very quickly.

One of the murderers ended up back in prison with child *advertiser censored* on his computer. And the other murderer has supposedly sexually abused another victim.


If Burke was sexually abusing JonBenet on a regular basis then surely the urge would have been passed onto another child.

Burke seems to have grown uip normally given the timescale. You would think by now he would have abused other children.



The knot and style of strangulation tells me an adult killed JonBenet. The intention was to murder JonBenet and it wasn't by accident. The ransom note is baloney.


I don't believe in the intruder theory. But i believe there was another person involved.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I don't think Burke was involved in the murder but he may have witnessed something happen on the night.


JonBenet may have or may not have been sexually abused on an ongoing basis. It doesn't rule Burke out but look how his life has enfolded.



The James Bulger case is interesting where the two boys who murdered and sexually abused James ended up offending again once they were released from prison. The odd thing was one of the boys put a toy or some kind of hard object up James's anus.

The difference in that case was the object was found very quickly.

One of the murderers ended up back in prison with child *advertiser censored* on his computer. And the other murderer has supposedly sexually abused another victim.


If Burke was sexually abusing JonBenet on a regular basis then surely the urge would have been passed onto another child.

Burke seems to have grown uip normally given the timescale. You would think by now he would have abused other children.



The knot and style of strangulation tells me an adult killed JonBenet. The intention was to murder JonBenet and it wasn't by accident. The ransom note is baloney.


I don't believe in the intruder theory. But i believe there was another person involved.

I agree the urge would have remained but I can also see the Ramseys going to great lengths to keep him away from any opportunities and him learning to be very very stealthy after JBR's death. They may have had him in intense therapy for years for all we know...still a mystery....sigh

 

[andreww]

And just to add, the fact that he's never been arrested since does not mean that he doesn't still dabble in that perversion. There are plenty of child molesters with clean records.

That said, I don't believe Burke was responsible for the sexual abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

I disagree that BR would have transferred his "urges" to another child. That may be very true of pedophiles. But BR was not a "pedophile"- he was a child himself then. Sexual activity is not unheard of between siblings. Kids have been "playing doctor" all along. Not to suggest that ALL kids do it, but it does occur. Rarely do kids who have engaged in this activity with siblings grow up to be pedophiles.
There is something called a "situational molester" - which occurs because the victim is THERE- available. Such a molester will not seek out other victims- they prey on the victim who is available and this "urge" does not transfer to others. I believe that was the case with JB. Whatever happened to her that night HURT- and she bled (and screamed). The scream prompted the head bash. The resultant collapse and possible lapse into coma prompted the events of the rest of the night. I believe BR was not part of the staging. I believe he was not part of the strangulation. I believe he may have been the one to molest her that night and bash her on the head. I do NOT believe this meant he would go onto a life of sexually abusing others. However - his life has not played out completely. He has yet to marry and have children of his own (if that is in the cards for him). This is a story that has no final chapter yet.

 

[andreww]

I don't believe who committed the sexual abuse is that important if you are looking at finding the killer. Sure, Burke may have assaulted her, he may have cracked her skull as well. But the bottom line is that one or both of the parents tightened that cord around her neck and ended her life. BDI is simply impossible IMO. He may have started the chain of events but he did not murder JB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

The question is "Was BR involved".

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree that BR would have transferred his "urges" to another child. That may be very true of pedophiles. But BR was not a "pedophile"- he was a child himself then. Sexual activity is not unheard of between siblings. Kids have been "playing doctor" all along. Not to suggest that ALL kids do it, but it does occur. Rarely do kids who have engaged in this activity with siblings grow up to be pedophiles.
There is something called a "situational molester" - which occurs because the victim is THERE- available. Such a molester will not seek out other victims- they prey on the victim who is available and this "urge" does not transfer to others. I believe that was the case with JB. Whatever happened to her that night HURT- and she bled (and screamed). The scream prompted the head bash. The resultant collapse and possible lapse into coma prompted the events of the rest of the night. I believe BR was not part of the staging. I believe he was not part of the strangulation. I believe he may have been the one to molest her that night and bash her on the head. I do NOT believe this meant he would go onto a life of sexually abusing others. However - his life has not played out completely. He has yet to marry and have children of his own (if that is in the cards for him). This is a story that has no final chapter yet.

DeeDee249,
BR's life is the very definition of tragedy.

But BR was not a "pedophile"

Really, how do we know, is there an age restriction on being a pedophile? Can situational progress to preferential?

If BR, as alleged by many on this forum, is responsible for JonBenet's chronic injuries, does this not suggest a preference?

If BR fathered a child in the USofA will he be allowed resident paternity? If the authorities know the truth and lets assume it along the lines Kolar suggests will BR ever consider it worth while marrying, will he not have been told don't bother?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
BR's life is the very definition of tragedy.


Really, how do we know, is there an age restriction on being a pedophile? Can situational progress to preferential?

If BR, as alleged by many on this forum, is responsible for JonBenet's chronic injuries, does this not suggest a preference?

If BR fathered a child in the USofA will he be allowed resident paternity? If the authorities know the truth and lets assume it along the lines Kolar suggests will BR ever consider it worth while marrying, will he not have been told don't bother?

.

Actually, there IS an "age restriction" on being a pedophile. Pedophiles are ADULTS. BR was a CHILD of nearly 10 then. An "attraction" to little girls is not considered unusual for a child. All the chronic injuries show is that he had a preference for sexual activity with an available female who happened to be his sister. It my no means indicates that he would have that same preference as an adult. Kids DO experiment with siblings sometimes and it has no bearing at all on whether they maintain an attraction to children when they themselves are adults.
I do not understand your last comment at all. I have no idea what "resident paternity" means. If authorities knew the truth (that BR molested his sister when he himself was a child it would have NO bearing on whether he would be "allowed" to parent his own daughter. I see no reason why BR would consider it NOT worthwhile marrying, and I cannot imagine who would tell him "don't bother". There are plenty of married pedophiles, by the way, including some who prey on their own kids.

 

[UKGuy]

DeeDee249,
BR's life is the very definition of tragedy.


Really, how do we know, is there an age restriction on being a pedophile? Can situational progress to preferential?

If BR, as alleged by many on this forum, is responsible for JonBenet's chronic injuries, does this not suggest a preference?

If BR fathered a child in the USofA will he be allowed resident paternity? If the authorities know the truth and lets assume it along the lines Kolar suggests will BR ever consider it worth while marrying, will he not have been told don't bother?

.

DeeDee249,

Actually, there IS an "age restriction" on being a pedophile.

Presumably you are talking legal code and not real life, many male siblings abuse their sisters, as they progress to a life of pedophilia.

Regardless of BR's sexual preference, we all know, due to his age, he could not be charged with any alleged crimes against JonBenet. So any juvenile legal limit, e.g. 16 or 18, is not a bar to querying his sexual preference.

If authorities knew the truth (that BR molested his sister when he himself was a child it would have NO bearing on whether he would be "allowed" to parent his own daughter.

If the truth is as alleged, then in some countries, possibly excepting the USofA, armed with prior knowledge of abuse, authorities will legally remove the birth child to a place of safety, on the grounds of prior deviant sexual behaviour!

There are plenty of married pedophiles, by the way, including some who prey on their own kids.

Sure and they will be operating under the radar, attempting to abuse friends of the family at sleepovers etc, or their own kin.

The issue is not those we do not know are pedophiles, or what legal age they became pedophiles.

Its those we already know are pedophiles, i.e. have exhibited a prior preference, and if as alleged, i.e. James Kolar's book etc, then the authorities have a duty of care to any of BR's children. To neglect this judicial function would leave them open to litigation on a grand scale.

This was the point of my original post, i.e if we accept BDI then what legal responsibilities do the authorities assume given whatever might unfold in another dysfunctional Ramsey family?

All the chronic injuries show is that he had a preference for sexual activity with an available female who happened to be his sister. I

Agreed this might not indicate any adult preference, but how can anyone else outside of the family assume this as fact?

So what age will BR be come 2016? Has the case ruined his marital prospects or does he consider any public profile, e.g. marriage might entail an indiscriminate amount of scrutiny, which he wishes to avoid?


.

 

[1000Sparks]

I don't believe Burke had anything to do with JonBenet as far as killing her. She was carried down the steps and had garland in her hair. Burke was not a big kid. No way did he carry her down those step and to the basement..

 

[dodie20]

I don't believe Burke had anything to do with JonBenet as far as killing her. She was carried down the steps and had garland in her hair. Burke was not a big kid. No way did he carry her down those step and to the basement..

I see him as a victim too. Imagining him pretending to sleep while all that awful activity was going on, is bone chilling. He told a dr. that he knew what happened... 'Dr. Bernhard asked what he thought happened to his sister. Burke, showing the first signs of irritation during the interview, responded, "I know what happened, she was killed.” Burke's explanation to the doctor was “someone took her quietly and took her down in the basement took a knife out or hit her on the head." This makes me think maybe he heard/saw some things? And from how I read it, it seems like he's saying someone took her from her room, so you could be right about her being carried and the garland. The interview also said, 'When specifically discussing the crime, he related that he did not hear any noises that night and that he was asleep, but he admitted that he usually hears when someone opens the refrigerator door downstairs'. This is confusing, because we don't know if he was asked about the refrigerator or if he volunteered the information. If he was asked, why? If he brought it up, why? Did this have something to do with the pineapple? moo

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't believe Burke had anything to do with JonBenet as far as killing her. She was carried down the steps and had garland in her hair. Burke was not a big kid. No way did he carry her down those step and to the basement..

I agree BR could not have carried her down the stairs. But the killing (beginning with the bash on the head) and the staging and placement in the basement may have been done by different people. We also have NO proof the green garland in her hair came from the garland on the stair rail. The winecellar and floors adjacent to it would have likely had the fake green pine needles too, as the winecellar itself was described by the parents as a place they used to store all the family's artificial trees. Patsy had trees for nearly every room, so JB could have gotten that green needle material in her hair right in the wine cellar. There is also a crime photo showing a large artificial greens decoration hanging right on the wall right next to the wine cellar door. The floor area outside the wine cellar likely had those fake needles too. And as we know, it is thought that the garrote was made right on her there in the basement on the carpeted floor just outside of the wine cellar, so she could have picked up the needles in her hair there.
She may not have even been carried down the stairs. To establish that as fact, the garland in her hair would have had to be tested against the garland on the stair rail to see if it matches. Lots of different manufacturers make artificial greenery and the dyes used and exact chemical composition vary. Forensic testing could possibly identify whether the fake greens in her hair matched the fake greens found on the stairs or in the basement. It was never tested, to my knowledge. It's a shame, too, because if it had been tested and found to be a match to either the greens in the basement or the greens on the stair rail, we would have proof whether she was carried down those stairs or not, and therefore a better idea of which room or area of the house the initial head bash (which knocked her out) occurred.