singularity
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2015
- Messages
- 727
- Reaction score
- 49
Come on now. I don't need to be talked down to like I'm a child or a moron.singularity,
LOL, all this time and you still don't get it. Lets start at the beginning.
Especially considering you just said this....
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.
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.
Those are two different scenarios entirely. Kolar believes he did it all but the note, apparently you do as well, but here's Patsy participating with Burke in the strangulation in that post.
Its not surprising someone would ask the question. I follow your posts fairly closely and I noticed a slight change. Nothing wrong with that of course but someone asking a question concerning your stance on the issue doesn't need to be mocked.
Interesting that a lot of BDI members think its the only thing that fits and say other theories have holes that Stevie Wonder could fly a B-52 through yet BDI waffles a bit on the strangulation for starters. Patsy helping her nine year old son strangle her six year old daughter?!? Really?
So I guess its a partial strangulation or just winding the cord so Patsy can do the real dirty work. That's a hop, skip, and a jump from Burke assisting in the writing of the note.
Wait a minute....was BlueCrab the person who came up with the original N64 theory before he made his theory very complex? I didn't know that....it was so many years ago.BlueCrab was the only person way back then to develop a BDI theory everyone else was thinking pedophile ring, PDI, JDI, etc.
I certainly agree with that.Also I believe JonBenet was not killed in the basement because that's where she happened to be
So the parents attempted to stage away both the neck and vaginal injuries by overlaying both with similar injuries but inflicted by different instruments.
Tortoise....
UK has been laughed at a few times for believing in the possibility of an earlier, secondary strangulation. I'm in the minority that also believes its possible but disagree with him on who would've done that obviously. I think she could've been choked in the initial attack in a domestic dispute by Patsy before the major poop hit the fan.How does a strangulation hide an earlier strangulation
I also realize there's no solid evidence to back that up. It's just a hunch. I think the horrors that night played out like a domestic dispute and everything didn't happen within minutes as if it were a movie.
Harmony....
I should've worded that whole statement differently. There might be a few members in these huge Burke threads the past couple months claiming this.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?
You're right that people have generally mentioned his young age but IMO when its said(especially by an investigator) they are referring to the overall complexities of the crime(and the crime scene) and they are right....a child could not do all that. Can a 9 year old kill? Absolutely. Can a 9 year old child molest a six year old girl? Absolutely. Can a 9 year old initiate, partially participate, and create a paradoxical crime scene that would stump the world's experts for decades and maybe centuries? Of course not.
For the record, I'm not criticizing people posting info and/or statistics in general. This kind of stuff certainly adds to discussions and is probably a great help to newer members here.
Gold star for you....that was the post of the week.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.
1. I don't understand this stance from BDI either since we know she sometimes wore his clothes. Even WS members have said they sometimes wore their older brothers clothing as a child. BDI seems to believe its impossible as they would keep JOnbenet immaculate at all times even though that house was a pig sty and Patsy even admits Jonbenet would sometimes go days without bathing.
Patsy and her mini-me were perfect looking princesses on the surface and for appearances. Once walking into their home its a whole different story.
2. Of course. There are many reasons either would cover for the other. THis "they'd only cover for Burke' stance doesn't cut the mustard.
3. Absolutely. The GJ bills are not smoking guns that kill any theory. All it definitely tells us is the GJ didn't buy IDI.
4. Yep...none of that instantly points to Burke.
5. Yeah he does....and so do tons of other children
6. If this can be perceived as a negative, it shows they did not have a great relationship or was simply his way of acknowledging her death.
Me too. THis is how incidents like the WM3 happen. They wear Metallica shirts, look mean, and aren't remorseful. Lock em up and throw away the key!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.
Sorry to hear about your husband. I am 41 and been dealing with a cancer scare the past few months. Supposedly I don't have it but going in for the major scan on the 7th to find out once and for all.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,
When my grandpa died when I was 10 from cancer(which was horrifying), right after his funeral the only thing I was interested in was eating most of the carrot cake some distant relative brought. Its still the best carrot cake I've ever ate. To some this would be considered disturbing I suppose but as far as I'm concerned, it was normal.
My aunt was murdered by her husband in 2004 and while us adults were dealing with it as expected, the children weren't sobbing uncontrollably and the few children who were at the funeral did not just stand there....they went exploring the cemetery. I eventually joined them to help me look for the grave of one of my best friends Shane Souza who died in a car accident back in 1982 when we were in second grade. To them it was like a scavenger hunt.
I'm one of these people. I do not cry in front of others. As a child I did a few times but even then...I would go to my room. When my mom had a TIA stroke back in 03, I started crying on the drive to go pick up her sister and my grandma to take them to the hospital. Imagining my mom dying then(she was 48 at the time, she survived) caused me to cry during the drive to Ceres(where they lived) and as I was approaching their house, I quickly pulled myself together.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.
Yeah this doesn't compute. Its in the category of Burke as the killer asking rhetorical questions at 6 am during the 911 call.He demonstrated a stabbing. His parents rushed around his room pretending to look for JonBenet, if not for their own benefit, then whose?
Yep.... I don't buy into this brainwashing or "gaslighting" stuff either. Its an attempt to oversimplify a very complex series of events.Oh yeah, some think he was brainwashed to forget what he'd done or to think he'd dreamed it, by the next morning.
Having said that, its possible that he was traumatized by the events that night and may have buried it. If a domestic dispute broke out that evening after arriving home and it escalated, he's certainly a witness to at least some of what transpired that night. Even if he didn't see it, he might have at least heard the arguing. On the other hand, if domestic disputes were part of the norm in this household, children can adapt to this and will sleep through it since its 'business as usual'. Obviously that night it wasn't though.
Yeah this is a major sticking point for me. I am also in the group of people who say if Burke killed her, they are not gonna allow him out of their sight for even a nanosecond. There was a huge risk of him being interrogated at that point in the kidnapping phase or even the FBI stepping in and taking Burke elsewhere for protection and of course an interview. Keeping him at home would allow the Ramseys to control access to Burke. Allowing him to leave meant they gave up all that control and would've had to pray no one goes there to talk to him. They allowed him to leave IMO simply because he had nothing to do with it and wanted him gone when the coming chaos went into overdrive.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.
To allow their 9 year old murdering son to leave the scene meant they were placing their own lives, John's job, and the whole kit and kaboodle in the hands of a child. They never would've took that risk. There were literally millions and millions of dollars at stake. You're not going to trust a 9 year old with that and yeah I know people say John would simply tell him to not speak to anybody. That still doesn't change the fact they would be putting their lives in his hands and his comment does nothing to erase the possibility of the feds or BPD speaking to Burke and getting him to crack.
If your son murdered someone and you wanted to keep yourself(or him) from getting into trouble and ruining all your lives and your future, do you....
A. Keep him near you at all times and monitor how cops are interacting with him.
B. Let him leave which exposes him to potential interrogation, being taken to BPD or FBI due to the kidnapping, and you getting arrested in your house full of friends due to his statements even before the body is found.
People would rightfully choose A. Only reason to send him away is if he had nothing to do with it so you have no worries in that department. They can rest easy knowing Burke gets to sit at the Whites playing Nintendo til the cows come home while they get the freak show on the road.