Was Burke Involved? # 4

[CoreyRocks]

While I applaud Steve Thomas for being brave and writing that book, he had blinders on. He dismissed Burke without any consideration due to his age - despite the fact that kids his age have been known to kill smaller kids - and was fixated on Patsy because she clearly wrote that insane drama queen note. I just think those blinders prevented him from connecting all the dots.

Just this week a 7 year old boy shot his dad in the wrist after an argument about the son spending the weekend. The son didn't want to, so he got the gun and shot his dad on purpose. Someone said it must be an accident and the boy said NO it was intentional and he would have kept shooting but the gun jammed. Greenwood
Indiana near Indy. But I heard on the radio in Midwest.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if ST hasn't changed his opinion since writing his book though and can now see that the culprit was more likely to have been BR.

I'd love to know is position now, especially now knowing about the GJ indictments. But I don't think we're likely to hear further from him.

 

[kanzz]

I'd love to know is position now, especially now knowing about the GJ indictments. But I don't think we're likely to hear further from him.

ITA. It's human nature to defend your position once you've gone public with it. So once he wrote the book, I'd say it's unlikely he would ever publicly back down from his PDI stance. It takes a strong person to openly admit they might have spoken prematurely.

 

[PositiveLight]

Marked "A, B, C" by me.

Bear with me, Tortoise.
A. I don't think so.. Because - gravity.
B. Yes, upright. Gravity. Maybe not conscious, but head would have been in a normal anatomical position.
C. Maybe. But still - head probably upright.

I'm not married to this and this is not my baby. In fact, in kinda creeps me out. I just thought I found something I couldn't ignore. J/S I'm hoping I can figure out a logical explanation for it pretty soon so I can let it go.

One thing worth mentioning - we have to remember that the hemorrhage doesn't happen all at once and we don't really know how fast these injuries bled (though I suspect it was fairly rapidly). Patients with traumatic brain injuries often (approx 50% of the time) have what is known as a lucid interval following the injury before they begin to deteriorate. Remarkably, the displaced fragment of her skull might have allowed some of the pressure to be relieved for a period of time.

Totally agree on how quickly or not quickly she could loose consciousness. The fracture would allow for expanding brain swelling. Imho it's entirely possible she wasn't knocked unconscious with the blow and the loss of consciousness could have been slower than we initially thought. Each head wound is so unique as is how each person's body will react. My uncle had lost part of his brain during his battle with cancer. My aunt, him and their grandson were involved in a horrific car accident. Pinned between two semis. My aunt was in obvious peril. My uncle who didn't even have a seatbelt on, was removed from the car and sat on the back of a fire truck watching as they removed my aunt in a body bag. She was bleeding so severely that they put her in the bag to safely transfer her and life flight her from the scene. When my uncle saw this occur he collapsed and never regained consciousness. This took 45 min. So it took 45 min approximately for the void area in his brain to fill with blood and lead to unconsciousness. He had suffered a severe head trauma but no one realized it because he seemed fine at first. So I can't say it's completely impossible for someone to be automatically unconscious with a blow to the skull.
What y'all are discussing is beginning to put a picture together. At least for me that is.
If I take out of my mind what I WOULD do in this situation and just look at it like a fly on the wall..
BR hits JonBenet in the head in the kitchen. Parents hear their argument and come running. They find JonBenet crying and holding her head. BR either sent to his room or watching as it unfolds. The parents not realizing how severe the injury is consoles her and rocks her. She "calms down and falls asleep" (when actually she's loosing consciousness) and they put her to bed. PR checks on her again and finds her unresponsive (thinking she's dead) and realizes what has truly happened. She doesn't want the family shamed or BR taken away because he was a known danger to JonBenet. They stage the elaborate scene to make it appear as though a crazed pedophile broke in and assaulted her.
PR was very dramatic. If she wanted the scene to appear the way she wanted it to, she would go all the way to bring her imaginary intruder to life. She wouldn't do a half -a$$ job of it either. Go big or go home.
JMOO and as usual another possible theory of mine.
I also agree on the head wound not causing bleeding from the ear. Not all head wounds are the same.
My thought on the blood drop on the pillow?
As hard as this is to type (graphic warning) I still believe the blood drop came from the tip of the object jammed in her to cover the prior sexual molestation. As it was raised up after the wound or possibly just dropping as the object is carried, over the pillow to maybe a trash bag that was being used to throw away evidence. Again PR would go big or go home. As she had done all her life.
So sad to think of it this way!😞


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[HarmonyE.]

Just this week a 7 year old boy shot his dad in the wrist after an argument about the son spending the weekend. The son didn't want to, so he got the gun and shot his dad on purpose. Someone said it must be an accident and the boy said NO it was intentional and he would have kept shooting but the gun jammed. Greenwood
Indiana near Indy. But I heard on the radio in Midwest.

You hear stories on a fairly regular basis. Most don't make the national news or stay in it for very long. Like this story from a few months ago:

A 10-year-old boy was arrested Wednesday on a manslaughter charge in the death of his 2-year-old cousin, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said.When deputies arrived at the boy's home on Hemlock Course Run on June 21, they found Journee Blyden unconscious and not breathing. Her grandmother, Melina Blyden, was giving the 2-year-old CPR. .The boy and his sister told deputies Journee fell out of a playpen, the Sheriff's Office said. An autopsy found the girl had multiple skull fractures, bruises on her chin and ear and cuts on her lip, that authorities said were not consistent with the playpen story.

 

[CoreyRocks]

You hear stories on a fairly regular basis. Most don't make the national news or stay in it for very long. Like this story from a few months ago:

I don't have a television so radio is my thing.

 

[singularity]

I mean no offense to anyone when I say this but I never understood why BDI people always cite cases where kids have killed and claim that those of us not on the BDI side of the fence don't believe a child is capable of murder. Children murder other children every single day of the year and have probably since biblical times. You're disputing a stance that was never taken in the first place.

Maybe one or two people here and/or on other Ramsey sites have claimed children are not capable of murder....I don't know. I know they'd have to be in the extreme minority and I'd even question their genuine interest in the case or crime in general if they are posting on a crime site(and a very active one) but don't know a child can kill.

I just know I see this stated repeatedly even though its never been in doubt.

A bit similar with the issue of sex. Burke's interest in sex is open to debate of course but the "playing doctor" would indicate he was an early bloomer and/or an abuse victim himself. He's certainly not the only child to become interested in sex at a young age yet we'll hear that because someone doesn't think Burke killed her, it means they don't believe a child would be interested in sex.

If Thomas actually said Burke was ruled out due to children not being capable of murder, I am certainly overdue to reread his book again. I must have skipped that page.

Thomas was in the trenches during the early phase of this case and his opinions are valid. Of course he didn't connect all the dots.....nobody ever did...including Kolar who has his own holes in his 'connecting the dots' as well.

Thomas had valid reasons to be fixated on Patsy. Lets not forget who prime suspect number one was for twenty years and will be again. For someone as inexperienced in homicide as Thomas was and even though he was clearly in over his head, he did an amazing job especially considering the case was neck deep in corruption and he was fighting an uphill battle for justice for a girl so many close to her wanted to move on from or turn the other cheek and be silent.

I highly doubt he changed his mind because Kolar is BDI or was being disingenuous in his book and meant to say Burke was the killer and PDI a smokescreen. Thomas interviewed Patsy, confronted her on live television, and was in much closer proximity to the suspects than Kolar(or many others) ever were. Thomas was on the right track, he knew it, but every obstacle but Patsy's kitchen sink was thrown at him to prevent him from getting even closer to the truth.

Having said all that, he certainly made mistakes. For someone so sure that Patsy was her killer, he severely underestimated her and was not well prepared for the interview. Maybe this is one of the reasons people have doubts on his version of events. Someone so close to the situation who had his laser beams on Patsy but didn't understand what an enigma she was. He should've been able to hit a home run but Patsy struck him out with 100mph curve balls. He probably has many regrets with how that interview panned out and I wish he'd speak out now.

Sunshine....

It is still speculation but I'd buy him hitting her over his game system more than I'd buy him hitting her over pineapple

I'm not even BDI but I can certainly swallow the original BDI theory about the N64 much easier than the updated, modern day pineapple one.

Dollars to donuts....if we ever get to find out the truth about what happened that night, the pineapple wont even factor into the equation other than the fact she took a few bites that evening.

UK....

Thomas is likely correct, i.e. PR technically killed JonBenet, by asphyxiating her. PR's fibers are all over the ligature and under the duct tape, but JR's fibers are on JonBenet's groin and size-12's, so go figure.

I thought you believed Burke strangled her?

Yep....Patsy's all over that crime scene and so is John. Go figure indeed. Thomas was most likely correct but I certainly don't believe he nailed down the entire sequence of events. He was simply on the right track. He had no reason to take the alternate theory at the time(BDI) into consideration because as you just pointed out, its Patsy and John who left evidence of their dirty work in all the key places and nobody else. I realize fibers in their own house are not the be all-end all to the case(far from it) but that would sure be some coincidence....

BlueCrab had it worked out years ago and Kolar has arrived at the same conclusion.

I disagree....unless you believe in Asian organizations, babysitters, 9 year old co-conspirators, bike rides home, and stun guns. I get your point that you agree in spirit on BDI in general but blucrab did not have it worked out years ago. As we've discussed before, BDI is nothing new even though thanks to CBS it was placed on front street and more people made aware of the theory. It dates back originally to the late 90s(the N64 theory) and then the more complex theories coming from people like BlueCrab. Then Kolar jumped in.

Its not a knock at BlueCrab. If he/she is still alive I wish they would come back. I'm not knocking Kolar either. Anyone here who hasn't read his book just because they are not BDI is doing themselves a huge disservice if they follow the case. He brings up other interesting aspects of the case.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I mean no offense to anyone when I say this but I never understood why BDI people always cite cases where kids have killed and claim that those of us not on the BDI side of the fence don't believe a child is capable of murder. Children murder other children every single day of the year and have probably since biblical times. You're disputing a stance that was never taken in the first place.

Perhaps not a stance taken by you personally, but for the past 20 years I have heard over and over and over that Burke was too young, too small, too innocent to have killed his sister. When people refuse to even consider Burke as a suspect, these are invariably given as the reasons. No doubt you've heard this as well?

 

[UKGuy]

I mean no offense to anyone when I say this but I never understood why BDI people always cite cases where kids have killed and claim that those of us not on the BDI side of the fence don't believe a child is capable of murder. Children murder other children every single day of the year and have probably since biblical times. You're disputing a stance that was never taken in the first place.

Maybe one or two people here and/or on other Ramsey sites have claimed children are not capable of murder....I don't know. I know they'd have to be in the extreme minority and I'd even question their genuine interest in the case or crime in general if they are posting on a crime site(and a very active one) but don't know a child can kill.

I just know I see this stated repeatedly even though its never been in doubt.

A bit similar with the issue of sex. Burke's interest in sex is open to debate of course but the "playing doctor" would indicate he was an early bloomer and/or an abuse victim himself. He's certainly not the only child to become interested in sex at a young age yet we'll hear that because someone doesn't think Burke killed her, it means they don't believe a child would be interested in sex.

If Thomas actually said Burke was ruled out due to children not being capable of murder, I am certainly overdue to reread his book again. I must have skipped that page.

Thomas was in the trenches during the early phase of this case and his opinions are valid. Of course he didn't connect all the dots.....nobody ever did...including Kolar who has his own holes in his 'connecting the dots' as well.

Thomas had valid reasons to be fixated on Patsy. Lets not forget who prime suspect number one was for twenty years and will be again. For someone as inexperienced in homicide as Thomas was and even though he was clearly in over his head, he did an amazing job especially considering the case was neck deep in corruption and he was fighting an uphill battle for justice for a girl so many close to her wanted to move on from or turn the other cheek and be silent.

I highly doubt he changed his mind because Kolar is BDI or was being disingenuous in his book and meant to say Burke was the killer and PDI a smokescreen. Thomas interviewed Patsy, confronted her on live television, and was in much closer proximity to the suspects than Kolar(or many others) ever were. Thomas was on the right track, he knew it, but every obstacle but Patsy's kitchen sink was thrown at him to prevent him from getting even closer to the truth.

Having said all that, he certainly made mistakes. For someone so sure that Patsy was her killer, he severely underestimated her and was not well prepared for the interview. Maybe this is one of the reasons people have doubts on his version of events. Someone so close to the situation who had his laser beams on Patsy but didn't understand what an enigma she was. He should've been able to hit a home run but Patsy struck him out with 100mph curve balls. He probably has many regrets with how that interview panned out and I wish he'd speak out now.

Sunshine....

I'm not even BDI but I can certainly swallow the original BDI theory about the N64 much easier than the updated, modern day pineapple one.

Dollars to donuts....if we ever get to find out the truth about what happened that night, the pineapple wont even factor into the equation other than the fact she took a few bites that evening.

UK....

I thought you believed Burke strangled her?

Yep....Patsy's all over that crime scene and so is John. Go figure indeed. Thomas was most likely correct but I certainly don't believe he nailed down the entire sequence of events. He was simply on the right track. He had no reason to take the alternate theory at the time(BDI) into consideration because as you just pointed out, its Patsy and John who left evidence of their dirty work in all the key places and nobody else. I realize fibers in their own house are not the be all-end all to the case(far from it) but that would sure be some coincidence....

I disagree....unless you believe in Asian organizations, babysitters, 9 year old co-conspirators, bike rides home, and stun guns. I get your point that you agree in spirit on BDI in general but blucrab did not have it worked out years ago. As we've discussed before, BDI is nothing new even though thanks to CBS it was placed on front street and more people made aware of the theory. It dates back originally to the late 90s(the N64 theory) and then the more complex theories coming from people like BlueCrab. Then Kolar jumped in.

Its not a knock at BlueCrab. If he/she is still alive I wish they would come back. I'm not knocking Kolar either. Anyone here who hasn't read his book just because they are not BDI is doing themselves a huge disservice if they follow the case. He brings up other interesting aspects of the case.

singularity,

I thought you believed Burke strangled her?

LOL, all this time and you still don't get it. Lets start at the beginning.

If JonBenet's injuries had been accidental then 911 would have been called requesting medical assistance. This the parents declined, they opted for a homicide that included a sexual assault.

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene including JonBenet's body. What I believe is that BR strangled JonBenet and whacked her on the head, without killing her, i.e. she was left in a coma.

BR cleans up JonBenet and dresses her in the size-12's and a pair of his long johns. Both these latter items mimic what I think she had been wearing, e.g. size-6 Bloomingdales Day Of The Week underwear and white long johns, female variety, i.e. same set she wore on Christmas Eve, q.v. fact check the Christmas Day photos.

The parents left so much forensic evidence behind, we can definitely factor them both into the staging. I think they found JonBenet with a neck injury, an internal vaginal injury, and a head injury, the latter of which they were possibly ignorant.

So the parents attempted to stage away both the neck and vaginal injuries by overlaying both with similar injuries but inflicted by different instruments.

So in the case of the neck injury, BR might have only wound the cord once around JonBenet's neck, Patsy wound it around again, knotting it, attaching the paintbrush and eventually asphyxiating JonBenet.

The sexual assault may have been originally digital in nature, an attempt was to obfuscate this possibly by the use of the paintbrush?

Also I believe JonBenet was not killed in the basement because that's where she happened to be, I think she was moved there from her own bedroom, so to deflect suspicion from the obvious suspects. Hence the Ransom Note!

An Intruder theory does not require a Ransom Note or the ligature asphyxiation of a six year old girl, that is overkill both conceptually and physically, mere hands would be sufficient.

There are aspects of the wine-cellar as a homicide crime-scene that are totally redundant, just as asphyxiating your daughter because she accidentally fell down the stairs is!

BlueCrab was the only person way back then to develop a BDI theory everyone else was thinking pedophile ring, PDI, JDI, etc.


.

 

[Tortoise]

1. BR cleans up JonBenet and dresses her in the size-12's and a pair of his long johns. Both these latter items mimic what I think she had been wearing, e.g. size-6 Bloomingdales Day Of The Week underwear and white long johns, female variety, i.e. same set she wore on Christmas Eve, q.v. fact check the Christmas Day photos.

2. The parents left so much forensic evidence behind, we can definitely factor them both into the staging. I think they found JonBenet with a neck injury, an internal vaginal injury, and a head injury, the latter of which they were possibly ignorant.

So the parents attempted to stage away both the neck and vaginal injuries by overlaying both with similar injuries but inflicted by different instruments.

3. So in the case of the neck injury, BR might have only wound the cord once around JonBenet's neck, Patsy wound it around again, knotting it, attaching the paintbrush and eventually asphyxiating JonBenet.

[My numbering inserted]

1. What is BR cleaning up - if the parents used the paintbrush and caused the bleeding? The injuries are consistent with one hard implement - externally violet discolouration on the right labia majora, blood and abrasion at the 7 o'clock position on the hymen, and hyperemia along the distal vaginal wall, more noticeable on the right side.

2. How does a strangulation hide an earlier strangulation - if you mean the red triangular abrasion it's still visible? Your version with Patsy winding the cord on a second time is impossible. The knot was made on the original wrap, with only an excess length of un-knotted cord available for a second wrap.

3. If the paintbrush was used to obfuscate a digital penetration, what evidence was there for them to see of a digital penetration? Do you think they inspected her hymen just on the off chance, if she was fully clothed?

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps not a stance taken by you personally, but for the past 20 years I have heard over and over and over that Burke was too young, too small, too innocent to have killed his sister. When people refuse to even consider Burke as a suspect, these are invariably given as the reasons. No doubt you've heard this as well?

And conversely, it's an oft repeated view that BDI because -

1. The parents just would NEVER dream or be able to live with the shame of having put big knickers on JBR,
2. The parents would ONLY cover for Burke, for some unexplained reason they COULDN'T both have been involved and have a reason to never reveal what happened,
3. The GJ thought the parents were aware that Burke posed a danger to JBR's health and life, despite there being no evidence forensically linking him to her death and the burden of proof for a true bill not being of the standard required to prove it at trial,
4. Pineapple and poo and a flashlight were in the house,
5. He has an odd affect.
6. He drew a picture of family members that did not include JBR.

All I can say is I hope I'm not ever judged by these standards if I'm accused of a murder OR a fatal accident.

My husband died from cancer, at home, when my children were aged 18, 14 and 10. While he was dying, my two youngest (sons) went to watch TV in a room upstairs. Later that day some friends came to the house and offered to take the boys back to their house to play with their children and stay overnight for a sleepover. I thought it was inappropriate and that my sons would want to stay at home with me and their sister, and talk and cry. They didn't, they wanted to go. They obviously didn't want to or couldn't process yet what had happened, it was too much. They are and were not odd children, they are loving and have appropriate emotions, they just express/ed them when they were ready and in private, sometimes with friends and not with who and when I expected them to. It is a process that no one can predict or judge with any accuracy, especially not from a few clips of a police or psychologist interview, and film of a funeral, when he was not going to show his innermost feelings, not everyone does share with strangers, in fact I'd be more surprised if he did. He smiles inappropriately - well perhaps he has been accused of murder and is anxious and trying to show a pleasing personality. If he'd looked angry or not smiled, I think people would have still said see, he's got anger issues.

He demonstrated a stabbing. His parents rushed around his room pretending to look for JonBenet, if not for their own benefit, then whose? Oh yeah, some think he was brainwashed to forget what he'd done or to think he'd dreamed it, by the next morning. He was safe enough to ship off to another house, where he wouldn't slip up and say one tiny thing that would bring the whole house of cards crashing down. Police questioned him there but they were confident he wouldn't say a word of anything because he was such a well disciplined 9 year old, trained in the art of deception. So deceptive was he that he could make up a story of a murder, getting all the details wrong, without blushing.

 

[UKGuy]

[My numbering inserted]

1. What is BR cleaning up - if the parents used the paintbrush and caused the bleeding? The injuries are consistent with one hard implement - externally violet discolouration on the right labia majora, blood and abrasion at the 7 o'clock position on the hymen, and hyperemia along the distal vaginal wall, more noticeable on the right side.

2. How does a strangulation hide an earlier strangulation - if you mean the red triangular abrasion it's still visible? Your version with Patsy winding the cord on a second time is impossible. The knot was made on the original wrap, with only an excess length of un-knotted cord available for a second wrap.

3. If the paintbrush was used to obfuscate a digital penetration, what evidence was there for them to see of a digital penetration? Do you think they inspected her hymen just on the off chance, if she was fully clothed?

Tortoise,

1. What is BR cleaning up - if the parents used the paintbrush and caused the bleeding? The injuries are consistent with one hard implement - externally violet discolouration on the right labia majora, blood and abrasion at the 7 o'clock position on the hymen, and hyperemia along the distal vaginal wall, more noticeable on the right side.

BBM: ah ha, but I never said the parents caused any bleeding. Yet JonBenet was bleeding after being redressed in the size-12's! Coroner Meyer said this:
Search Warrant 12/29/1996

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

Also:
Search Warrant 01/30/1997

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

I interpret the above as either JR or BR, or both cleaning up JonBenet. Since it did take place I'm not hung up on who did it. More that it seems sensible for BR to clean up JonBenet, otherwise why put a clean pair of underwear and his long johns on JonBenet?

2. How does a strangulation hide an earlier strangulation - if you mean the red triangular abrasion it's still visible? Your version with Patsy winding the cord on a second time is impossible. The knot was made on the original wrap, with only an excess length of un-knotted cord available for a second wrap.

It does if it adds to the neck injuries and kills JonBenet in the process. OK so BR used a loose unknotted cord to strangle JonBenet, or he did it manually, or he choked her by the shirt collar.

3. If the paintbrush was used to obfuscate a digital penetration, what evidence was there for them to see of a digital penetration? Do you think they inspected her hymen just on the off chance, if she was fully clothed?

I reckon Patsy looked at JonBenet's genital area, just as JR did, his fibers are recorded as being located in this area. Just like your question in 1. what do you think JR was doing down there?

That the parents are staging must be reconciled with Coroner Meyer's opinion:

Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Unless you reckon the case is either JDI or PDI and one or both parents were sexually abusing JOnBenet?

JonBenet, Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, excerpt

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vagina's to a meeting attended primarily by men. She showed a picture of a normal healthy six-year old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenet. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse although the detectives referred to it only as prior vaginal trauma

So if PR or JR had inspected JonBenet then thet would have realized JonBenet had been chronically violated, just as Thomas, says above, Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent,

.

 

[UKGuy]

Anyone ever wondered why BR appeared so socially inept on Dr Phil, JR says in an old Daily Beast interview:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...exonerated-in-the-murder-of-his-daughter.html
I was in a daze. I would take benedryl and go to bed at 6 pm."

Then he sits up and in a stronger voice says: "As for Burke, I don't let anybody I don't know get near him." JonBenet's brother was nine years old at the time of the murder and is now a senior in college. "If anything happened to him, I wouldn't survive it.”

.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,

BBM: ah ha, but I never said the parents caused any bleeding. Yet JonBenet was bleeding after being redressed in the size-12's! Coroner Meyer said this:
Search Warrant 12/29/1996


Also:
Search Warrant 01/30/1997


I interpret the above as either JR or BR, or both cleaning up JonBenet. Since it did take place I'm not hung up on who did it. More that it seems sensible for BR to clean up JonBenet, otherwise why put a clean pair of underwear and his long johns on JonBenet?


It does if it adds to the neck injuries and kills JonBenet in the process. OK so BR used a loose unknotted cord to strangle JonBenet, or he did it manually, or he choked her by the shirt collar.


I reckon Patsy looked at JonBenet's genital area, just as JR did, his fibers are recorded as being located in this area. Just like your question in 1. what do you think JR was doing down there?

That the parents are staging must be reconciled with Coroner Meyer's opinion:

Unless you reckon the case is either JDI or PDI and one or both parents were sexually abusing JOnBenet?

JonBenet, Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, excerpt

So if PR or JR had inspected JonBenet then thet would have realized JonBenet had been chronically violated, just as Thomas, says above, Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent,

.

UK, think about it - the clean up showed blood had been on her inner and outer thighs. Which means it would have been on the long johns if she had been wearing them when she bled. The blood drops inside her panties were residual blood left behind after the clean up.

otherwise why put a clean pair of underwear and his long johns on JonBenet?

Exactly. Why would he? You've just uncovered the reason he didn't.

It does if it adds to the neck injuries and kills JonBenet in the process. PK so BR used a loose unknotted cord to strangle JonBenet, or he did it manually, or he choked her by the shirt collar.

There are no additional manual neck injuries.The cord strangulation did not hide any marks.

what do you think JR was doing down there?

I think he had digitally penetrated her.

I also think that what is apparent to a doctor or ME using a speculum would not be apparent at a glance, and especially to parents who have no reason to know there is anything to look for.

 

[UKGuy]

UK, think about it - the clean up showed blood had been on her inner and outer thighs. Which means it would have been on the long johns if she had been wearing them when she bled. The blood drops inside her panties were residual blood left behind after the clean up.



Exactly. Why would he? You've just uncovered the reason he didn't.



There are no additional manual neck injuries.The cord strangulation did not hide any marks.



I think he had digitally penetrated her.

I also think that what is apparent to a doctor or ME using a speculum would not be apparent at a glance, and especially to parents who have no reason to know there is anything to look for.

Tortoise,
I doubt Patsy would redress JonBenet in male long johns and over sized underwear, even if the case is JDI, and she is assisting JR, she would want JonBenet to look normal and be wearing a nice set of clean pajamas and any old, but clean pair of size-6 underwear, all available upstairs.

If the case is JDI the parents had five hours to stage a crime-scene and run JonBenet's dirty clothing through the washing machine then the tumble dryer.

They just wrapped her in a white blanket and dumped her into the wine-cellar, after dressing her in her brothers long johns and Jenny's size-12's.


Do I buy that, not really ...

.

 

[southernmimi]

I watched Linda Arndt's 1999 interview on YouTube again recently. I realize that, at the time, she had a pending lawsuit, but her interview refreshed my memory. Initially, I thought Patsy hit JonBenet, by accident, while trying to strike JR. Like so many, this case has always bothered me so I continue to read and try to make sense of it all. JBR was sexually abused by someone, and the most likely perpetrator to me was JR. He's always seemed very cold and calculating (IMO) and totally capable of getting what he wants in any arena. I've read all the books and watched the shows, and I'm still not a BR did it believer.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,
I doubt Patsy would redress JonBenet in male long johns and over sized underwear, even if the case is JDI, and she is assisting JR, she would want JonBenet to look normal and be wearing a nice set of clean pajamas and any old, but clean pair of size-6 underwear, all available upstairs.

If the case is JDI the parents had five hours to stage a crime-scene and run JonBenet's dirty clothing through the washing machine then the tumble dryer.

They just wrapped her in a white blanket and dumped her into the wine-cellar, after dressing her in her brothers long johns and Jenny's size-12's.


Do I buy that, not really ...

.

UK, this reasoning that Patsy wouldn't re-dress her daughter in those clothes and how she would want her to look is not based on anything sound. If there was clean up after the bleeding, which there was, then these were put on her after that. That much is conclusive.

If Patsy didn't want JBR to be found wearing boys' long johns and large undies, she would have done it differently and changed her clothing.

 

[UKGuy]

UK, this reasoning that Patsy wouldn't re-dress her daughter in those clothes and how she would want her to look is not based on anything sound. If there was clean up after the bleeding, which there was, then these were put on her after that. That much is conclusive.

If Patsy didn't want JBR to be found wearing boys' long johns and large undies, she would have done it differently and changed her clothing.

Tortoise,
So why do you think PR chose Burke's long johns and oversized underwear, when there was a nice wardrobe to select from upstairs?

.

 

[Miz Adventure]

BR hits JonBenet in the head in the kitchen. Parents hear their argument and come running. They find JonBenet crying and holding her head. BR either sent to his room or watching as it unfolds. The parents not realizing how severe the injury is consoles her and rocks her. She "calms down and falls asleep" (when actually she's loosing consciousness) and they put her to bed. PR checks on her again and finds her unresponsive (thinking she's dead) and realizes what has truly happened.

I know a bit about head injuries and I know that if somebody were to receive a blow on their head that cracked their skull almost in two they would have been out cold immediately, not holding their head and crying.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,
So why do you think PR chose Burke's long johns and oversized underwear, when there was a nice wardrobe to select from upstairs?

.

You've asked me this before. My thoughts are that it was because she was avoiding going back into JBR's room - possibly because she had blood on her and John (who knew a bit about forensic investigations) told her not to go back in there. Or she just didn't want to keep going back upstairs, having been up once already to get the penknife, in case the light or noise disturbed Burke, he woke up and went looking for his sister and found she was not in her bed, and then went and discovered what his parents were in the middle of doing.