Was Burke Involved ? # 3

[ThinkHard]

So thinking about the timeline in regards to the pineapple....as far as we know pineapple was found in her small intestines, but none was found in her stomach. I believe that is correct? I belief it was also stated that there was green pieces in her sm. Intestines from the pineapple.

Going off that info, here are some thoughts.

It can take the body anywhere from 2.5 to 5 hours to completely empty the stomach from a full meal. But if we just look at fruit and more of a snack then a meal, those numbers change a bit. That said, it would still take 20-30 minutes for the pineapple to break down enough to even begin to enter the small intestines. Depending how much she ate would determine the amount if time until complete emptying, and since we don't know that, it can't completely be determined. But if no pineapple was left in her stomach it seems to me the minimum amount of time before death would be 30 minutes.

Additionally it also seems to me that whether the blow on the head killed her or not, it certainly would have stressed out the body and diverted resources away from digestion and towards keeping vital organs going. Which makes me think digestion would have likely halted or drastically slowed at the time of the blow.

This makes me think something happened after eating of the pineapples, rather then the pineapples causing the fight.

Since the bowl was left unfinished it also appears something distracted them.

One thought I had was a discussion about Xmas gifts, perhaps JonBenet taunted him about getting more. Perhaps the subject of the unwrapped gifts in the basement came up and both kids headed downstairs to look for them, with the flashlight. Maybe this accounts for them being partially unwrapped?

Could this be what the fight escalated over? Is that why Patsy was so insistent it was her who unwrapped them?

One thing I know birthdays around Xmas kids hate is getting gipt on gift and having bday presents wrapped in Xmas paper. Could JonBenet have teased him over this stuff? Could this be a hot button topic for him, one that brought up all his insecurities about his place in the family?

One last thought about the green pineapple. When I cut up pineapple for kids I'm very carefully to cut off the outside and the nubs, I'm sure not everyone is, but Patsy the perfectionist strikes me as a detail person who would do this also.....so does the fact that JBR had green pineapple in her stomach point to the possibility a child could have cut it up?

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Also interesting to note is that the child psychologist talks about how she accidentally drank from Burke's soda can, and that Burke seemed very agitated by that. Like it was an invasion of his personal space. He refused to drink from the can afterwards, if memory serves. So, for anyone who thinks it's ridiculous to theorize that Burke may have hit JonBenet in a rage over her using her fingers to snatch a piece of pineapple from his bowl....

 

[otg]

(Sometimes I wish that there was not only a "Thanks" button, but also one that says "Spam," or "Clueless," or "RST at work," or something along that line.)
:giggle:

 

[otg]

OTG, do you (or anyone else here) know if anyone who testifies for before the GJ is compelled by law to not discuss anything they said, heard, etc. during the proceedings as long as the case remains "open"?

Yes, that's absolutely correct, SecretaryGal. In fact, that aspect of GJ secrecy was even tested all the way to Colorado's Supreme Court by Linda Hoffman-Pugh when she wanted to write a book about her knowledge. The lower (district) court ruled against her because of the laws maintaining GJ secrecy. But the CSC overturned that ruling (partly) allowing GJ witnesses to disclose information they had that was independent of the GJ proceedings (credit Cynic for previously pointing that out to me) so long as it doesn't disclose information specific to the the GJ's proceedings.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sorry, I was not comparing them to wackadoos. I was saying it was still subjective. 6 seconds. And even those highly trained folks couldn't totally agree on what they heard.

I didn't hear every single word clearly either, but I didn't have to. I did clearly hear THREE distinct different voices belonging to Patsy John AND Burke. That's indisputable and blows their lies out of the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[UKGuy]

I didn't hear every single word clearly either, but I didn't have to. I did clearly hear THREE distinct different voices belonging to Patsy John AND Burke. That's indisputable and blows their lies out of the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Linda7NJ,
Sure and for any doubters, due to the lies, makes the case at least: RDI.

.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Some posters here have repeated that Burke was “interrogated” by police twice within the first few weeks after JonBenet was killed. To understand why that is just not correct, the context has to be understood on each of the interactions.

When first interviewed at the Whites’ house, Patterson was trying to find out if Burke had heard or seen anything during the night that might help. Earlier in the day, John had prevented police talking to him and hurried him out of the house to White’s car. Patterson took it upon himself to discreetly ask Burke questions thinking he may have witnessed something that would help with the investigation. Any possible involvement by him in the death was not even considered at that point, so his questions didn’t delve into that. He was only trying to find out if he had heard or witnessed something that would help.

The second interview was required by DSS (Department of Social Services) because of the death of a child in her home. They wanted to make sure there was no threat to any other children in the home. The Ramseys had no choice in the matter unless they wanted to have him removed from their custody. But even at that, they (through their attorneys) negotiated with the DA to have the interview conducted only by a psychologist with no police present or allowed to directly ask questions. Here is what Kolar wrote about that interview:

The day after JonBenét’s murder, the coroner’s office spent most of the day performing the autopsy on her body. A break in the autopsy protocol took place that afternoon when Dr. Meyer called together the Boulder County Child Fatality Review Team. As noted in a previous chapter, the team had collectively established a list of things for Boulder Police and DSS investigators to pursue in their search for possible explanations of the evidence that suggested prior sexual abuse.
​

Again, like the first instance, this was not an “interrogation” and it was not something the parents “allowed” to happen (without the threat of loss of custody). By the time he was interviewed (January 8, 1997), the parents had had plenty of opportunity to coach him on what to say, what not to say. Still, as a 10 year-old, he let a few things slip that in hindsight should have given investigators reason to look closer at him even though he could never be considered a suspect due to his age.

Again, from Kolar:

At one point during the interview, Dr. Bernhard asked Burke if he felt safe in his home. There was no hesitation when he responded that, yes, he felt safe at home and was not worried about an intruder returning.

I thought it unusual that he would feel safe about his circumstances following the death of his sister. Here he was, probably 30 feet down the hall from her bedroom, when an intruder silently crept into his home and snatched his sister from her own bed and brutally tortured and murdered her within earshot of his family. There were other children and families in Boulder who were terribly afraid that they could be the next target of this monster, and Burke seemed not to give it a second thought.




​

ETA: Oops! After posting I see that Mountain_Kat has also responded.

Thanks for your thorough explanation!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, that's absolutely correct, SecretaryGal. In fact, that aspect of GJ secrecy was even tested all the way to Colorado's Supreme Court by Linda Hoffman-Pugh when she wanted to write a book about her knowledge. The lower (district) court ruled against her because of the laws maintaining GJ secrecy. But the CSC overturned that ruling (partly) allowing GJ witnesses to disclose information they had that was independent of the GJ proceedings (credit Cynic for previously pointing that out to me) so long as it doesn't disclose information specific to the the GJ's proceedings.

Do you know what the penalty is for a juror for speaking out about the proceedings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[otg]

Do you know what the penalty is for a juror for speaking out about the proceedings?

I'm not certain, but I believe it would be a violation of a court order and therefore "Contempt of Court." In that case, it is pretty much up to a judge to decide the punishment within whatever guidelines he/she might have. Apparently, the punishment can be over 6-months incarceration because I did find the following indicating that the violator can get a jury trial for the charge only if the sentence is for more than 6-months:

A person does not have a right to a jury trial upon being found in contempt of court if the person is not subject to more than six months incarceration upon issuance of such citation. People v. Barron, 677 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1984); Kourlis v. Port, 18 P.3d 770 (Colo. App. 2000).


​

C.R.S. 16-10-101

 

[margarita25]

(Hi, it was mentioned upstream about JonBenet positivity bring sexually assualted. Is there a thread here for that? Tia. I'm specifically looking for references to blood being washed up from her legs, paintbrush, doctor appts, etc (mentioned upstream). Tia.

 

[akh]

Everyone already thought they did it by the time they let him talk to the police. They already thought Patsy wrote the Ransom note and they were lying. So what did they have to lose by saying No? Not to mention that most people would understand not wanting to put an 11 year old child under police interrogation.

Again, all they had to say was "We'd prefer for his psychologist to interview him, Give us the questions and we'll have the psychologist interview him." That's actually what most parents would do anyway.

The argument people keep making is completely illogical. If they threw it together as a cover up there is no way they would let him talk to the police. ANY discrepancy could land them all in the hotseat. And their lawyers would have come down hard not to anyway.

Your reply helps prove my point. By letting him be interviewed you feel it's points to innocence. Edit: Although it seems fairly clear now they had no choice in the matter. And my thoughts that they did have some control over the interview also seems correct and they allowed only a psychologist and not police.
And I generally agree that if you're in the crosshairs of an investigation being interviewed can ultimately be bad for you (even if innocent), but if you're worried as much about the court of public opinion as the court of law then it might be a risk you'd want to take (regardless of advice from counsel).

 

[x_files]

I do not believe BR killed her even by accident. I cannot rule it out, but I think the damage to her skull was done by an adult. I think PDI. I do have to say, the clips I have seen of his Dr.P interview have left me confused. I am trying to get the smile. I have heard of the nervous laugh, and I have seen people smile trying to avoid crying. but he has a constant smile from the clips anyway. Some of you have watched it all. So clearly you know much more than I do. I was trying to think what could explain it. I guess socially awkward could do it. It almost reminds me of when you are telling a funny story about a loved one who has past or reminiscing of old times when your mother acted like a mother, but the underlying story is about nothing serious. So the time your mother did this or your grandfather did this. The stories might be told ribbing-ly but lovingly. WHat could ever be funny about the time your mother acted silly when her daughter was kidnapped? What could make you smile as you told the story your little sister was murdered. I get he was 9, but i can get worked up talking about the dog that died 30 years ago if you ask too many questions. How has he become so detached from these tragic event? even if he cannot feel the pain himself, how can he not feel the pain of his parents, if he truly believes them innocent? Do you think his smile is defensive or is it because he is only an observer to events he barely remembers or is he devoid of feelings? Those who have seen more than clips,. what are your thoughts?

A psychopath would find his dramatic mother screaming hysterically over her favorite beloved daughter to be funny. Burke was most likely extremely jealous of the attention JonBenet received.

 

[x_files]

Perception is a funny thing. Now that I am leaning towards BDI, J&PR's statements "keep your babies close to you" sounds like a plea for parents to be more watchful about their children's behavior to prevent tragedies like JBR's murder.

That's exactly how I read it over 20 years ago, keep your precious child safe from an older brother. I don't think everything Patsy said was a lie.

 

[flgrl017]

What brand was the train set?

 

[johnjay]

What brand was the train set?

I don't know the brand but it was O gauge train track.

 

[x_files]

If one child injures another, even seriously, whether by accident or intentional, why would a parent immediately go into coverup mode and not just call 9-11? Why think the worst?
I also have trouble understanding why BR did not go downstairs immediately when his mother burst into his room yelling OM gosh? Either his mother was often chaotic, or BR was strange even as a child, or he had a guilty conscience. Or perhaps it never happened that way.

I could see patsy as a overly dramatic Southern mom (nothing wrong with that necessarily) but Burke may liked riling her up for attention.

 

[x_files]

He was a few weeks from turning 10.

Just a few years earlier, two boys a few months older than Burke was at the time sexually assaulted and brutally beat to death little James Bulger in Liverpool. And just a few days ago a 10 year old boy in Florida was arrested for murdering his 2 year old cousin who died from head injuries. "The medical examiner found that her injuries could have been caused only by excessive force."

Kids this age are capable of killing - premeditated or otherwise. But it's very possible the head blow was not meant to kill her - or even hurt her very badly. Some friends of the Ramseys have said Burke had frequent outbursts of rage.

Most of us who think BDI think the death was a combination of the head blow and the subsequent parental staging to protect their surviving child and their image.

Mary Bell was a 11 year old serial killer, as bizarre as it may seem it's quite possible.

 

[sneakieme]

Just read Burke is suing CBS.

 

[x_files]

I started to list all the reasons that I think BR hit JBR and then the rest was staged by panicked parents but when I got to #16 and still hadn't gotten to where BR was hustled out of the house, so I gave up. Why bother? They knew he did it, he knows he did it and they all know what they did to obfuscate the facts, to deflect attention and to cover up what was done. They have to live with it. Not me. It was their child, his sister and they thought it was most important to protect him since there was nothing they could do for her. They have apparently justified their actions and have been able to move on with life.

It worked and it will continued to work. As far as I am concerned the case is solved.

BR sneaked downstairs, alone at night, during the time of the murder. While new to us, this information has been known to the R family since the wee hours of 12/26.

Everything is a lie. I have no doubt they did it all for self-preservation. It made sense to them. What should they have done really? Would you call LE and tell them that your weird 9 year old just crushed the skull of your 6 year old with a flashlight because he was angry with her? Then he is ostracized for life and she is still dead. Nothing to gain from that move. Fake a kidnapping/sexual assault, write a RN, hide her in the basement, get all dressed and pretty and then call LE and your friends to come over and wing it with "I don't recall", I don't recognize that", I don't remember". Then try to get out of town, hire lawyers and STHU. That is what they chose to do and so far, it has worked.

Of course, they got some help from the lame DA who wouldn't try cases and hired Smit to find reasonable doubt such that the case could never be taken to trial and from the Police Chief who didn't order the house cleared and designated as a crime scene. 20 years after the fact, witnesses disappear and jurors can get all confused with what is real and what is fabricated Lou Smit horse manure.

Sad. You can kill your kid and escape justice by refusing to cooperate with LE and trying your one sided case on CNN.

If you are rich enough to hire the best attorneys you can successfully create doubt then you can walk, I think The Ramsey's took mental notes during the OJ case.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Mary Bell was a 11 year old serial killer, as bizarre as it may seem it's quite possible.

In the 1870's the Boy Fiend of Boston, Jesse Pomeroy started sexually assaulting and beating smaller children before he turned 11, turning full blown serial killer by 14.

Kids can do sick things.