Was Burke Involved # 5

[UKGuy]

Your missing the key. If BDI, and the parents discover JB dead, what is the defining reason beyond the cover-up?

John and Patsy check her pulse, they look up at one another. What makes them both say, holy shitt, we have to cover this up now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cottonstar,
From the timing of the staging, e.g. no signs of livor-mortis due to postmortem movement of the body, it appears JonBenet was staged quite quickly?

Suggesting Burke told his parent something, probably along the lines JonBenet had an accident? From there the primary crime-scene would be cleaned up and JonBenet moved.

One curiosity I have always thought about is JonBenet's posture, i.e. was it a result of a Cadaveric Spasm at death, which generally happens in a violent, emotional death, which captures the posture at death.

So hands up might just be a protective stance, where her assailant is attempting to whack her with some blunt force weapon?

Due to the forensics a similar scenario must play out for either JDI or PDI, its just that in PDI the forensic profile contradicts the stated aim of PDI staging, i.e. Patsy leaves a forensic trail all over the wine-cellar.

.

 

[Userid]

Cottonstar,
From the timing of the staging, e.g. no signs of livor-mortis due to postmortem movement of the body, it appears JonBenet was staged quite quickly?

Suggesting Burke told his parent something, probably along the lines JonBenet had an accident? From there the primary crime-scene would be cleaned up and JonBenet moved.

One curiosity I have always thought about is JonBenet's posture, i.e. was it a result of a Cadaveric Spasm at death, which generally happens in a violent, emotional death, which captures the posture at death.

So hands up might just be a protective stance, where her assailant is attempting to whack her with some blunt force weapon?

Due to the forensics a similar scenario must play out for either JDI or PDI, its just that in PDI the forensic profile contradicts the stated aim of PDI staging, i.e. Patsy leaves a forensic trail all over the wine-cellar.

.

They sure did a terrible job of cleaning up the primary scene (her bedroom, in your theory) then, leaving feces and feces-filled long-johns in plain sight.

There was zero cleaning of any primary crime scene. There was zero time for that.

 

[UKGuy]

She may have been to a degree. But under the circumstances, it's not far-fetched to think that not everything went smoothly.



I think John did, because he knew where it was.



I don't think she did.



Oh, come on, UKGuy. It wouldn't take all that much to envision a worst-case scenario.



It's clear what you think.



That's what I'm saying!



Money would be no object, but you're overlooking whether or not anyone thought she was worth saving at that point. I know that's a terrible way to say it, but there comes a point when a parent just can't watch their child suffer anymore.



Maybe that idea is a bit of a stretch.



I think the acute assault WAS staging.

I think John did, because he knew where it was.

How would John know that postmortem any chronic internal injury would be linked to him and not the acute intruder?

If the purpose of the acute injury was staging why was it cleaned up and hidden from view?

Oh, come on, UKGuy. It wouldn't take all that much to envision a worst-case scenario.

Sure, but at that point in time how do the parents know that the coma is irreversible?

This further underlines the motive was to silence JonBenet, since we both agree medical assistance was available in spades to the parents, money no option, MRI brain scanners, drugs, etc.

Money would be no object, but you're overlooking whether or not anyone thought she was worth saving at that point. I know that's a terrible way to say it, but there comes a point when a parent just can't watch their child suffer anymore.

Sure she was worth saving, that's Patsy's baby, her project, etc. They wont know if she can be saved until they get a diagnosis and prognosis from a doctor, who then might advise the parents to switch of the machine?

Maybe that idea is a bit of a stretch.

Sure is, you have Patsy intuiting the future, when nobody else on the planet can tell us the weather next week?

I think the acute assault WAS staging.

uh, uh, so why was it cleaned up and hidden beneath, a clean pair of size-12's, Burke's long johns and a white blanket, and only apparent at autopsy?

Whatever the nature of the assault Coroner Meyer did a second examination of JonBenet with another doctor present to attest the evidence. This resulted in Meyer's first examination resutls being confirmed, i.e. that's where he verbally opines Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. So maybe the alleged use of the paintbrush was staging, this might be another point of coincidence between PDI and BDI?

It's difficult to understand why John might wish to stage away something that cannot be definitively linked to him, not unless he is the person effecting Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration?

.

 

[UKGuy]

They sure did a terrible job of cleaning up the primary scene (her bedroom, in your theory) then, leaving feces and feces-filled long-johns in plain sight.

There was zero cleaning of any primary crime scene. There was zero time for that.

Userid,
Nope TOD estimated about 13:00 hours so they had all night. They did enough to break the link between her bedroom and her death. Plausible deniability kicks in, for BDI or PDI, thats all thats required.

They left a bloodstain on her pillow meaning we can assume she was assaulted in her bedroom, simples!

.

 

[Cottonstar]

I already answered that. To save their son, whom they telepathically (according to your theory) automatically knew did it.

They could have protected their image all the same if they drove her to the hospital and chalked it all up to a fall, without having to go through the grotesque act of staging a murder. That's where your reasoning fails.

Your missing the whole motive for the cover-up. That is why your reasoning failed 20 years ago, and still does today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Nope TOD estimated about 13:00 hours so they had all night. They did enough to break the link between her bedroom and her death. Plausible deniability kicks in, for BDI or PDI, thats all thats required.

They left a bloodstain on her pillow meaning we can assume she was assaulted in her bedroom, simples!

.

Why would they leave the long-johns in her bedroom then?

Also, 13 hours from the time her body was found? The body was found at 1 p.m. 13:00 hours from 1 p.m. is 2 a.m. They called the cops at 6 a.m. (because they needed to, considering their alibi of waking up in time to depart for Charlevoix depended on it). That's 4 hours to write the ransom note and stage the murder. If they had time to clean her bedroom, especially if it was the crime scene, they would have done so more thoroughly. The bathroom was a mess. They left the long-johns. Their were feces all over the place. They left her pee-stained sheets on the bed. The room in and of itself looked like a war zone. You honestly think they would have left it like that, if they had substantial time to clean?

 

[Userid]

Your missing the whole motive for the cover-up. That is why your reasoning failed 20 years ago, and still does today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your reasoning has failed just the same. BR is just as free.

I gave you the motive multiple times already (to save their son or because they were both equally culpable -- JR with the sexual abuse and PR with the head wound, in addition to not wanting JBR to live out her life as an invalid); you simply refuse to acknowledge or address it. You also can't work around this: They could have protected their image all the same if they drove her to the hospital and chalked it all up to a fall, without having to go through the grotesque act of staging a murder.

 

[Cottonstar]

Your reasoning has failed just the same. BR is just as free.

I gave you the motive multiple times already (to save their son or because they were both equally culpable -- JR with the sexual abuse and PR with the head wound, in addition to not wanting JBR to live out her life as an invalid); you simply refuse to acknowledge or address it. You also can't work around this: They could have protected their image all the same if they drove her to the hospital and chalked it all up to a fall, without having to go through the grotesque act of staging a murder.

Again, your not realizing the reasoning behind the choice not to take her to the hospital. This is the motive for the cover-up. They weren't just covering up a murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

Again, your not realizing the reasoning behind the choice not to take her to the hospital. This is the motive for the cover-up. They weren't just covering up a murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know your reasoning: it was to protect their "brand" because they're narcissists in your eyes. There's a difference between "not knowing" something and "disagreeing" with something.

That "reasoning" doesn't do it for me. It's simply a convenient way for you to walk around the major flaw in the BDI theory (which I've gone over already).

 

[Cottonstar]

I know your reasoning: it was to protect their "brand" because they're narcissists in your eyes. There's a difference between "not knowing" something and "disagreeing" with something.

That "reasoning" doesn't do it for me. It's simply a convenient way for you to walk around the major flaw in the BDI theory (which I've gone over already).

I'm not walking around anything. I'm taking the totality of the evidence and applying intuitive logic and common sense. I'm not trying to prove anything. My theory is always evolving. What your saying is truly dichotomous. You have John and Patsy, who were evil enough to brutally strangle their daughter(according to you), but not evil enough, to save their own asses. I'm just saying it doesn't fit.

 

[Cottonstar]

I know your reasoning: it was to protect their "brand" because they're narcissists in your eyes. There's a difference between "not knowing" something and "disagreeing" with something.

That "reasoning" doesn't do it for me. It's simply a convenient way for you to walk around the major flaw in the BDI theory (which I've gone over already).

For most of the same psychological reasons that BR would chose to not go and get his parents, is the same reason HIS PARENTS CHOSE NOT TO GET HELP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

I'm not walking around anything. I'm taking the totality of the evidence and applying intuitive logic and common sense. I'm not trying to prove anything. My theory is always evolving. What your saying is truly dichotomous. You have John and Patsy, who were evil enough to brutally strangle their daughter(according to you), but not evil enough, to save their own asses. I'm just saying it doesn't fit.

Um, no -- that's totally inaccurate. That's why they covered for each other in my theory: because they were equally culpable, as well as self-preservation (obviously).

 

[Userid]

For most of the same psychological reasons that BR would chose to not go and get his parents, is the same reason HIS PARENTS CHOSE NOT TO GET HELP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

False equivalence. You're dismissing parental instinct again. That wouldn't have been a factor for BR. Unless you believe that narcissists would be completely devoid of parental instinct? This was an accident. The parents did not want their daughter to be killed (in your scenario especially, which if I recall correctly, has BR committing the strangulation). Even for narcissists, their parental instincts would have kicked in.

 

[Cottonstar]

False equivalence. You're dismissing parental instinct again. That wouldn't have been a factor for BR. Unless you believe that narcissists would be completely devoid of parental instinct? This was an accident. The parents did not want their daughter to be killed (in your scenario especially, which if I recall correctly, has BR committing the strangulation). Even for narcissists, their parental instincts would have kicked in.

I agree. So name a few reasons that would trump getting help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

I agree. So name a few reasons that would trump getting help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I did that already, but I'll reiterate:

If you were the father: to conceal the fact you were abusing your daughter, not only on that very night (an incident that directly triggered and led to her death), but over a prolonged period of time.

If you were the mother: to conceal the fact you were directly responsible for the head blow (that also led to her death).

For both: to avoid prolonged jail sentences for the rest of your lives.

For both (depending on if they actually knew she was alive before the strangulation, which is debatable): to avoid their daughter living as an invalid the rest of her life (which they would only know, if they were present and knew exactly what kind of head injury occurred).

 

[icedtea4me]

"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded."

http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage2.gif

We couldn't speak to anyone in authority about our situation [JonBenet unconscious due to blow to the head], so she had to be strangled.

 

[UKGuy]

Why would they leave the long-johns in her bedroom then?

Also, 13 hours from the time her body was found? The body was found at 1 p.m. 13:00 hours from 1 p.m. is 2 a.m. They called the cops at 6 a.m. (because they needed to, considering their alibi of waking up in time to depart for Charlevoix depended on it). That's 4 hours to write the ransom note and stage the murder. If they had time to clean her bedroom, especially if it was the crime scene, they would have done so more thoroughly. The bathroom was a mess. They left the long-johns. Their were feces all over the place. They left her pee-stained sheets on the bed. The room in and of itself looked like a war zone. You honestly think they would have left it like that, if they had substantial time to clean?

Userid

Why would they leave the long-johns in her bedroom then?

I'm assuming your referring to the fecally soiled pajama pants lying on JonBenet's floor?

Maybe in the rush to stage they simply missed them, alike the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast bar table, i.e. it contradicts the stated Ramsey version of events.

...

The room in and of itself looked like a war zone. You honestly think they would have left it like that, if they had substantial time to clean?

In the past I've used this observation to suggest the parents arrived late at the crime-scene, that the case is as Kolar says, BDI All.

The parents really only applied minimal staging, e.g. moving the body, wiping her down, and applying the paintbrush and ligature device along with an accompanying ransom note, with Patsy thereby unwittingly asphyxiating JonBenet?

Nice of you to point this anomally out, it really underlines why the case can be BDI All.

In either RDI theory PDI or BDI there will be logical gaps, and errors of commission by whoever actually assaulted and killed JonBenet. The R's were amateurs, so we can expect mistakes, but not mistakes that deviate from the initial purpose of the staging as it pertains to whichever RDI you subscribe to.

Those Pajama Bottoms on JonBenet's bedroom floor remind me of the long johns, i.e. were not ascribed gender publicly since the case began, maybe its the same with Pajama Bottoms, i.e. Kolar has seen a crime-scene picture of them showing an opening at the front, which tells hime they are Burke Ramsey's, does history repeat itself?

JonBenet's bedroom need not be the primary crime-scene but it looks a pretty good candidate to me?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

The two hours that CBS cut from their docu-series, was rumored to cover JonBenet's ongoing sexual abuse and possibly present evidence of who they thought was responsible. After Wood and Co. cried foul and threatened CBS with his lawyer-speak, CBS pulled the 2 hours of programming. Why do you think that is? In our society, there is something worse then being a murderer. A child abuser. Hell, you can kill someone and when you get out, your free to do what you want. If you get branded a child abuser, then you will have to wear a Scarlett A on your chest for the rest of your life. Hell, in prison if your a murderer you got instant cred. If you abused a child, your screwed.(pun attended) So, what's worse, being a known murderer, or a known child abuser? It's interesting, isn't it, that the part Wood and Burke were so desperate to eradicate from the docu-series, had to do with the sexual abuse portion. It's like saying, Hey, I don't really care if you accuse me of murdering my sister, but whatever you do, don't mention that I may have been sexually abusing her. Sure, they were going to sue anyway, and they did. But, look what was cut and left on the production floor. A big piece of the truth was left on the floor. The motive for the cover-up was left on the floor. The public never gets to see and hear what may have been going on in that house prior to her murder. When Henry Lee stated "There's no real sexual assault here", he was talking about what a true predatory pedophile may have done if they had assaulted JB. All sexual assault, is assault, but when JB's assault is described, we hear words like manual, digital, experimental. All the signs are there. The parents were aware of the abuse, and who was doing it. They had been warned and were sent behavorial books by Nedra. In the end, for BR, the speculation that he killed his sister, he can live with. Other speculations, he could not. Imagine a scenario where John and Patsy discover JBs body. The absolute horror of what they saw before them. They felt they absolutely had to cover this up. No way, could they let anyone know the awful truth of what just happened.

Ask yourself why there is a stone silence that surrounds this case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

Your reasoning has failed just the same. BR is just as free.

I gave you the motive multiple times already (to save their son or because they were both equally culpable -- JR with the sexual abuse and PR with the head wound, in addition to not wanting JBR to live out her life as an invalid); you simply refuse to acknowledge or address it. You also can't work around this: They could have protected their image all the same if they drove her to the hospital and chalked it all up to a fall, without having to go through the grotesque act of staging a murder.

in addition to not wanting JBR to live out her life as an invalid

I've seen this theory put forward many times. How can a loving mother spontaneously decide that her injured daughter may become an invalid; therefore, conclude on the spot, in an instant, that her daughter must be strangled to death instead of being rushed to the ER?

It requires that PR had prior knowledge of JR fooling around with their daughter or else JR is confessing to SA during the midst of the horror show to prevent PR from calling for an ambulance.

It places JR messing with JBRs vagina, using a paintbrush, while PR is strangling her neck with the garrote fashioned from the same paintbrush. Here, Honey. Your turn.

 

[Userid]

Userid


I'm assuming your referring to the fecally soiled pajama pants lying on JonBenet's floor?

Maybe in the rush to stage they simply missed them, alike the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast bar table, i.e. it contradicts the stated Ramsey version of events.



In the past I've used this observation to suggest the parents arrived late at the crime-scene, that the case is as Kolar says, BDI All.

The parents really only applied minimal staging, e.g. moving the body, wiping her down, and applying the paintbrush and ligature device along with an accompanying ransom note, with Patsy thereby unwittingly asphyxiating JonBenet?

Nice of you to point this anomally out, it really underlines why the case can be BDI All.

In either RDI theory PDI or BDI there will be logical gaps, and errors of commission by whoever actually assaulted and killed JonBenet. The R's were amateurs, so we can expect mistakes, but not mistakes that deviate from the initial purpose of the staging as it pertains to whichever RDI you subscribe to.

Those Pajama Bottoms on JonBenet's bedroom floor remind me of the long johns, i.e. were not ascribed gender publicly since the case began, maybe its the same with Pajama Bottoms, i.e. Kolar has seen a crime-scene picture of them showing an opening at the front, which tells hime they are Burke Ramsey's, does history repeat itself?

JonBenet's bedroom need not be the primary crime-scene but it looks a pretty good candidate to me?

.

The bowl of pineapple is understandable to have been missed, if that area was not the crime scene though. If would have become an after-thought and the crime scene would have been the R's primary focus. There is no good reason why they would have missed the soiled long johns in the actual crime scene.

BDI all makes the least amount of sense for all the reasons I've already outlined in this thread already. Adding to that, if you think a nine year old wouldn't have left substantial evidence that would have need to be cleaned, you are dreaming. If the underline is any indication, it's directly an indication that there would have been no time to clean a crime scene. It would have taken 3 hours to perform all of those tasks you mention alone, and even longer to thoroughly clean a crime scene of a nine year old killer to the point where zero traces were found. So no, I completely disagree that is an indication of BDI all; it's the exact opposite.