Was Burke Involved? # 4

[YouWho]

Wasn't one of the books that Nedra purchased for the Ramsey's titled "Why doesn't Johnny know right from wrong?" or something like that? It's not a huge leap to think a boy just shy of 10 might just be sexually curious. Kids these days mature much sooner than we as children did. My own daughter was 9 when she got her period. My boys both had pubic hair before age 12 and that's only when I accidentally found out about it. These kids are walking hormones these days. I"m talking preteens. I don't believe that BR was finding gratification from sexually abusing JBR if in fact he did it. It was curiosity and she was an easy target. The books Nedra purchased tell us that there were some behavioral issues going on that the adults in this family were aware of. If I remember correctly wasn't there a dictionary opened in JR's study to "incest". My guess is that BR had previously been inappropriate with JBR, the adults were aware of it and failed to take the steps to protect JBR effectively. "Hence" the indictment verbiage.

To be fair, that book 'Why Johnny Doesn't Know Right From Wrong' is not about violent children (although I've never read it, this is what I gather from reading reviews). It's about bringing morals 'back' into the educational system. I could see this type of book being circulated among the church grandmas to their adult children.

 

[carolinea]

It is a fallacy to believe that sexually aggressive behavior in young children is always a sign of sexual abuse. It is actually proved to be a relatively poor predictor of sexual abuse in study after study.

It's my understanding that sexual aggression in children has a 65% predictive value for abuse (not necessarily sexual abuse) and soiling/toileting issues have a 45% predictive value.

Here are some quick studies I found:

"Behavioral and family characteristics of sexually aggressive children were obtained from a national convenience sample of treatment providers to gain descriptive data and to investigate the tentative use of a social learning theory model of sexual aggression of children. One hundred fifty-five professionals responded to a questionnaire of their work with a total of 287 sexually aggressive children aged 12 and under. A number of family variables may have impacted the children's sexual behavior. The average child resided in a two-parent home, and in most of these families (70%), at least one caretaker was chemically dependent; 48% have at least one parent known to have been sexually abused; and 72% of the children were sexually abused themselves (60% by a caretaker). The children with known sexual abuse histories were younger at first sign of sexual aggression than those without known sexual abuse histories. Children under 6 years of age were more likely to perceive their sexually aggressive behavior as normal than were older children. Differences based on gender of the children were not found for sexual aggression."

"Studies of very young children with sexual behavior problems suggest that 49% to 80% have been sexually victimized."

 

[Sunshine4Me]

How do you explain how he knew where JonBenet's vaginal opening was? Someone had to show him, and more than once. Sex education classes don't happen until the 5th grade, and even then, they are usually limited to sex-segregated material - girls learn about their own equipment and boys, theirs.

In my opinion kids with older brothers and sisters would definitely be at a greater chance of encountering *advertiser censored* or materials suited for adults. Even tampon boxes have instructions with pictures for proper insertion if a curious child were to go peeking through it, it wouldn't necessarily have to be *advertiser censored*. And perhaps he could have seen things at his friends houses especially if his friends had internet or older siblings. As children we didn't live in a bubble, our parents would shield us but they couldn't keep our friends from telling us things or keep us from learning on our own.

 

[HarmonyE.]

It's my understanding that sexual aggression in children has a 65% predictive value for abuse (not necessarily sexual abuse) and soiling/toileting issues have a 45% predictive value.

Here are some quick studies I found:

"Behavioral and family characteristics of sexually aggressive children were obtained from a national convenience sample of treatment providers to gain descriptive data and to investigate the tentative use of a social learning theory model of sexual aggression of children. One hundred fifty-five professionals responded to a questionnaire of their work with a total of 287 sexually aggressive children aged 12 and under. A number of family variables may have impacted the children's sexual behavior. The average child resided in a two-parent home, and in most of these families (70%), at least one caretaker was chemically dependent; 48% have at least one parent known to have been sexually abused; and 72% of the children were sexually abused themselves (60% by a caretaker). The children with known sexual abuse histories were younger at first sign of sexual aggression than those without known sexual abuse histories. Children under 6 years of age were more likely to perceive their sexually aggressive behavior as normal than were older children. Differences based on gender of the children were not found for sexual aggression."

"Studies of very young children with sexual behavior problems suggest that 49% to 80% have been sexually victimized."

That leaves a fairly large percentage of kids with sexual behavior problems who were not sexually abused. In the absence of any evidence that Burke was abused by someone, it's a dead end. If information comes forward that indicates he was, then that might help explain some things. But if it never does, this does not mean that Burke at almost 10 years old couldn't have engaged in sexually aggressive behavior with his sister.

 

[Red Viewfinder]

The CBS documentary laid out the bones of the Grand Jury path for indictment and so many people missed it. The story was in the subtle suggestions of Lee and Spitz. No they were not going to come out and make sexual abuse accusations against anyone on National TV but if you know your stuff, you sure no what was implied by cover up. The subtle documentary even gave away the one piece of evidence that may have stopped JR and PR from being prosecuted.

I am reading post saying " why all the elaborate staging for an accidental killing " or " Murder 1, how were they ever gonna prove that and BR cant be charged anyways ".

You missed the point.....this was never about covering up an accidental death, it was about covering up long term sexual and physical abuse.

The Murder 1 charges were not for BR.....they were levied at JR and PR.

Watch the documentry again, become familiar with the work of Lee and Spits from the beginning of this case, get a copy of the ME report and a copy of the McCann, Wecht, Spitz ect....findings on the sexual abuse and a minimal amount of research on Colorado law and you will see the bulk of the case presented to the grand jury. The subtle things that were not said for legal reasons are the most important. Note things like what the pineapple represents....It makes BR the last known person to see JBR alive. Note Henry Lee's reference to the condition of the pineapple in the small intestine....it establishes time of death.

If you follow the path laid out in the show...and apply the listed material you will fill in every charge listed on the Grand Jury charges. You will have both causes of death listed in the autopsy, and you will see the one piece of evidence Henry needed for this case to be prosecuted.

Here is the sequence...JBR last known alive with BR at breakfast bar between 10:45 and 11:20...BR hits JBR in head with blunt object causing unconsciousness ( brain dead but hearth still beating )(Knowingly placing a child in an abusive situation leading to death). JR and PR find body and staging begins as JR knows ME is sure gonna notice signs of sexual abuse. What better way to cover-up sexual abuse then to try and stage it happened from and intruder. JR or PR apply garrote killing JBR and now we have death by asphyxiation and also pre-meditated( murder 1). sexual abuse is staged with paintbrush causing small particles to be found in JBR vagina. ( see McCann report on acute vs. chronic sexual abuse found ).

Seasoned vets on here can apply what they know about each item used in the cover up and almost tell who staged what. IE...Duct tape....PR fibers. Panties....JR fibers. This case wasn't prosecuted for many political reasons. However, if you note that both JR and PR are charged with Murder 1 you understand that there is yet to be a determination which one applied the garrote and this is prolly the excuse to not prosecuting them as murder is a specific charge. cant just go into court and say " one of them did it". This is why Henry refers to testing the knot in the garrote 4 times in the show as the " most important piece of evidence" you find which ones DNA in the knot, you have your killer.

also note the charges seem to reflect that BR was the one who was abusing JBR and JR and PR had knowledge of this.

The references to the golf club incident and the smearing of the fecal matter were mentioned in the show as subtle demonstrations of BR mental state and reflect history of abusing JBR.

What?? The CBS special concluded that JBR had NOT been sexually abused.

 

[Vi0l3tt3]

Regardless of any prior abuse, she was assaulted the night of her death. Was this part of the coverup to make it look as though a weird, pedophile came during the night and then assaulted and killed her? Or was Burke experimenting sexually? I am more inclined to believe that B was experimenting. When Patsy had ovarian cancer was a full hysterectomy done? If so she wouldn't be menstruating, and unless Melinda had tampons in the house, Burke wouldn't have realized where the vaginal opening was. Maybe he saw something of the sort at a friend's house or a classmate brought something inappropriate to school. There are so many ways (even in the '90s) to learn about reproductive parts.

 

[OliviaG1996]

What?? The CBS special concluded that JBR had NOT been sexually abused.

IIRC, Spitz and Lee concluded JBR had not been sexually assaulted that particular night. I think it was obvious Kolar disagreed, but there was no mention of sexual abuse. I suspect that the subject of sexual abuse was discussed in the extra two hours that wasn't aired.

 

[Charliegirl610]

IIRC, Spitz and Lee concluded JBR had not been sexually assaulted that particular night. I think it was obvious Kolar disagreed, but there was no mention of sexual abuse. I suspect that the subject of sexual abuse was discussed in the extra two hours that wasn't aired.

Will we ever get to view those two additional hours of the documentary that was cut? My mind is full of things that were not talked about or mentioned. I'd love to see the additional information laid out.

 

[Heymom]

IIRC, Spitz and Lee concluded JBR had not been sexually assaulted that particular night. I think it was obvious Kolar disagreed, but there was no mention of sexual abuse. I suspect that the subject of sexual abuse was discussed in the extra two hours that wasn't aired.

They blew past that part of the crime so fast my head spun! H. Lee actually said that the wood from the paintbrush may have accidentally transferred! I was like, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? How does something get from outside a 6 year old's vaginal vault to the INSIDE unless it is put there or carried there by something else?? It was no accident, and that cellulose didn't walk in there on its own!

I have to think that either there was a liability issue on that aspect, or yes, they were going to deal with it in depth in the 2 hours that were cut. Or, they just didn't want to stress the sexual aspect of the crime lest people think it was about sex v. violence?

 

[Linda7NJ]

How do you explain how he knew where JonBenet's vaginal opening was? Someone had to show him, and more than once. Sex education classes don't happen until the 5th grade, and even then, they are usually limited to sex-segregated material - girls learn about their own equipment and boys, theirs.

This notion is patently false. Children are sexual beings & exceptionally curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Linda7NJ]

They blew past that part of the crime so fast my head spun! H. Lee actually said that the wood from the paintbrush may have accidentally transferred! I was like, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? How does something get from outside a 6 year old's vaginal vault to the INSIDE unless it is put there or carried there by something else?? It was no accident, and that cellulose didn't walk in there on its own!

I have to think that either there was a liability issue on that aspect, or yes, they were going to deal with it in depth in the 2 hours that were cut. Or, they just didn't want to stress the sexual aspect of the crime lest people think it was about sex v. violence?

Ditto - I've been gnawing on that tidbit since it aired!

I would imagine they were referring to a sexual assault by a grown adult male- something the Ramsey's & their PR team have been far too comfortable pushing that narrative when it doesn't fit the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[OliviaG1996]

Will we ever get to view those two additional hours of the documentary that was cut? My mind is full of things that were not talked about or mentioned. I'd love to see the additional information laid out.

There was talk of Netflix buying the series and showing the additional two hours, but I think that was just a rumor. Hopefully it has some truth to it! lease:

 

[Djoop]

That leaves a fairly large percentage of kids with sexual behavior problems who were not sexually abused. In the absence of any evidence that Burke was abused by someone, it's a dead end. If information comes forward that indicates he was, then that might help explain some things. But if it never does, this does not mean that Burke at almost 10 years old couldn't have engaged in sexually aggressive behavior with his sister.

The abusive relation doesn't have to be sexual. Most prevalent are potty trainings gone wrong. However, we're not talking about a statistic but a specific case. The circumstances are not random. So you basicly try to find a behavioral pattern that fits given the circumstances, in this case the evidence that points towards abuse. We don't have a young delinquent who's been showing signs of compulsive sadism from an early age. But we do have a father who has status, a stressful job and a younger wife with ovarian cancer.

 

[watson110]

They blew past that part of the crime so fast my head spun! H. Lee actually said that the wood from the paintbrush may have accidentally transferred! I was like, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? How does something get from outside a 6 year old's vaginal vault to the INSIDE unless it is put there or carried there by something else?? It was no accident, and that cellulose didn't walk in there on its own!

I have to think that either there was a liability issue on that aspect, or yes, they were going to deal with it in depth in the 2 hours that were cut. Or, they just didn't want to stress the sexual aspect of the crime lest people think it was about sex v. violence?

Could it be that whoever was handling that paintbrush (garotte) had wood particles on their hand and when dressing JB into the new panties transferred the particles? Just my thoughts of how some wood might show up there.

 

[Vi0l3tt3]

Could it be that whoever was handling that paintbrush (garotte) had wood particles on their hand and when dressing JB into the new panties transferred the particles? Just my thoughts of how some wood might show up there.

JBR was dressed in size 12 underwear, and she would have worn a size 6, so I believe the crotch of the panties would have not touched the vaginal area as much as those that were the correct size for her. If there were wood particles on the panties they wouldn't have easily came in contact with her vagina. I believe that the missing part of the paintbrush was used to sexually assault her.

 

[carolinea]

That leaves a fairly large percentage of kids with sexual behavior problems who were not sexually abused. In the absence of any evidence that Burke was abused by someone, it's a dead end. If information comes forward that indicates he was, then that might help explain some things. But if it never does, this does not mean that Burke at almost 10 years old couldn't have engaged in sexually aggressive behavior with his sister.

The odds indicate it's more likely he was abused than not. Regardless, it's a red flag, and one that requires you to look at the whole picture and see if there are any other indicators of abuse. The fact that Burke's bed-wetting issues went away when PR stopped focusing on him and started focusing on JBR--and that that's when JBR began wetting her bed again--is a huge sign that something was going on. I don't believe PR was sexually abusing either of her children, but emotionally abusing them? Yes, I can see that. I also believe it's possible she did "minor" forms of abuse like pinching or swatting.

 

[flourish]

Could it be that whoever was handling that paintbrush (garotte) had wood particles on their hand and when dressing JB into the new panties transferred the particles? Just my thoughts of how some wood might show up there.

Yeah I thought the cellulose fibers were actually found inside her vaginal canal? I don't see how that could happen by just passive transfer.

 

[Heymom]

Ditto - I've been gnawing on that tidbit since it aired!

I would imagine they were referring to a sexual assault by a grown adult male- something the Ramsey's & their PR team have been far too comfortable pushing that narrative when it doesn't fit the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That is likely part of the answer - that they didn't want to push the sexual abuse issue b/c it would throw at least some of the viewing audience straight back into the IDI scenarios. No, JonBenet had not been penetrated by an adult male penis, the autopsy was clear on that. But her hymen was eroded away from penetration by something, something about the size of another child's finger. People who know what that looks like, know that JonBenet fit that specific profile. Whoever had previously abused JonBenet had a lot at stake after the ME examined her. Part of the coverup was to try and disguise and blur the picture that emerged, but it didn't work very well. If Lou Smit hadn't come along, would the Ramseys have had a lot more scrutiny? Entirely possible. He was their best friend.

 

[Heymom]

Yeah I thought the cellulose fibers were actually found inside her vaginal canal? I don't see how that could happen by just passive transfer.

They were, and it couldn't. I have never liked Henry Lee and I like him even less now.

 

[TeaTime]

Ditto - I've been gnawing on that tidbit since it aired!

I would imagine they were referring to a sexual assault by a grown adult male- something the Ramsey's & their PR team have been far too comfortable pushing that narrative when it doesn't fit the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

IIRC they said the 'wood' was literally only visible under a microscope, could it have been cellulose as in toilet paper?

When they said there was no sexual assault could it be that they are being legally correct and that the injuries were inflicted post-mortem which would be 'abuse of a corpse' and not 'sexual assault'?

They had the autopsy report too so their interpretation of it is confusing to me after all these years of thinking one way and now hearing another opinion.