Was Burke Involved # 5

[Userid]

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.

Because this was a traumatic head injury caused by a sturdy object. In traumatic head injuries, the victim exhibits obvious signs of brain damage immediately.

There is much less spontaneity in that theory than the theory that BDI did it all without telling the parents, if we're being honest about it.

Also, no, I never said one was responsible for one injury and the other was responsible for another. I said PR was responsible for the head injury. JR could have been responsible for both for all we know. If he were molesting her, he would want to cover up the sexual abuse. If this was a toileting issue, PR could have been responsible for the everything (the genital wound, the head blow, the strangulation, in that order). My point is, there are a myriad of options -- it isn't strictly "one did one injury and the other did another injury, taking turns" scenario.

 

[icedtea4me]

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.*snip*

1 p.m. - 13 hours = 12 a.m.

 

[Userid]

^ You're right, my mistake. It's been reported that it was no later than 1 a.m. Was it Spitz who came up with the 13 hours? Because I've heard conflicting reports on the time of death being anywhere from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., based on the rigor. It takes 7-8 hours for full rigor to occur, which JBR was in.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

Userid,
I accept the case can be PDI or BDI, on the basis of what I've read and the forensic evidence made available BDI All is the best theory, it explains more of the evidence that either JDor PDI.

I already conceded that whomever initially assaulted JonBenet would have made mistakes in their postmortem coverup. In BDI All, its the parents who remove Burke's obvious mistakes, even likely moving JonBenet down to the basement, where they perform minimal staging, constructing a ligature'paintbrush device, so to effect an intruder break in.

Patsy is not going to stage a crime-scene to edit herself out of the crime, just to leave a forensic trail all over the wine-cellar, what is all that about?

She was staging for Burke, he was being airbrushed from JonBenet's homicide, simples!

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
I accept the case can be PDI or BDI, on the basis of what I've read and the forensic evidence made available BDI All is the best theory, it explains more of the evidence that either JDor PDI.

I already conceded that whomever initially assaulted JonBenet would have made mistakes in their postmortem coverup. In BDI All, its the parents who remove Burke's obvious mistakes, even likely moving JonBenet down to the basement, where they perform minimal staging, constructing a ligature'paintbrush device, so to effect an intruder break in.

Patsy is not going to stage a crime-scene to edit herself out of the crime, just to leave a forensic trail all over the wine-cellar, what is all that about?

She was staging for Burke, he was being airbrushed from JonBenet's homicide, simples!

.

I disagree. There are major flaws in BDI all. All theories have flaws, I accept that, but BDI All has the most flaws.

Yes, she would, if she was responsible for the head blow and/or the genital wound. She didn't leave that forensic trail purposefully.

 

[icedtea4me]

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?*snip*

You mean the loving mother who admitted to needing to see a doll lying in a box with eyes that don't close as JonBenet lying in a coffin with her eyes closed? (DoI, You Need Christmas More Than Anyone chapter)

 

[k-mac]

yes that one.
the one that in the depths of horror at some vulture murdering her daughter she is authoring a bogus ransom letter to protect them.
the one that stone walled police with smart arse ice cold sarcasm and deception in her beloved childs murder investigation.

 

[k-mac]

Patsy is not going to stage a crime-scene to edit herself out of the crime, just to leave a forensic trail all over the wine-cellar, what is all that about?

She was staging for Burke, he was being airbrushed from JonBenet's homicide, simples!

.

oh dear
here we go again
that is the most absurd component of your bdi all. or bdi anything really.

let me say this again.....because you keep refusing to see a reality here.

there is no way in this world patsy and john were clever enough to eradicate burke from the crime scene but stupid enough to leave their own fibres.
or better yet.... this is your best one to date. patsy put the fibres in there just to incriminate herself just so burke can get away with this.
but she will also write a ransom letter to insinuate a intruder did it but hopefully the police will realise she is in fact taking the wrap for the murder.
just makes perfect sense.....hey uk???simples!!!!

 

[UKGuy]

oh dear
here we go again
that is the most absurd component of your bdi all. or bdi anything really.

let me say this again.....because you keep refusing to see a reality here.

there is no way in this world patsy and john were clever enough to eradicate burke from the crime scene but stupid enough to leave their own fibres.
or better yet.... this is your best one to date. patsy put the fibres in there just to incriminate herself just so burke can get away with this.
but she will also write a ransom letter to insinuate a intruder did it but hopefully the police will realise she is in fact taking the wrap for the murder.
just makes perfect sense.....hey uk???simples!!!!

k-mac,

there is no way in this world patsy and john were clever enough to eradicate burke from the crime scene but stupid enough to leave their own fibres.

Yet they did because the fibers are the errors of commission by criminal amateurs.

or better yet.... this is your best one to date. patsy put the fibres in there just to incriminate herself just so burke can get away with this.
but she will also write a ransom letter to insinuate a intruder did it but hopefully the police will realise she is in fact taking the wrap for the murder.

I never said that about the fibers, you are putting words in my mouth. Alike another poster you actually highlight the point I am trying to make. The fibers are a mistake, even JR makes the same mistake if those are his fibers on JonBenet's thighs?

If the case is PDI then Patsy is attempting to mask her direct responsibility for JonBenet's death. Yet her fibers left in the wine-cellar on the paintbrush/ligature device link her to JonBenet's death, i.e. Patsy did not need to construct such a device her bare hands were sufficient. The Ransom Note, via textual analysis, the paper from her pad, all link her to JonBenet's homicide.

So if the case is PDI and we have Patsy staging a crime-scene to edit herself out of JonBenet's homicide, yet she manages to add more forensic evidence that links her directly then this contradicts her original intention, how so?

That contradiction vanishes if we assume Patsy is staging Burke Ramsey out of JonBenet's homicide, and that the forensic evidence left behind by the parents are the mistakes of amateurs.

Burke Ramsey never staged himself out of JonBenet's homicide completely, his obvious childish mistakes were removed by the parents and by moving JonBenet from upstairs to downstairs.

BDI All is the best explanation for the evidence to date. Maybe there is more we have not been told about, e.g. Burke's fibers he left on JonBenet, possibly more touch-dna, etc. Its likely the wine-cellar is not completely free from direct links to Burke. Same applies to the parents BTW.

I'm not saying the case is BDI, it could be PDI. Yet so far no PDI theory has been submitted that explains as much of the evidence as BDI All does.

The anomalies in PDI are forever disregarded via hand-waiving and ad hominem remarks regarding whoever is pointing them out. PDI proponents never explain these anomalies completely, and they know it.

.

 

[archieil]

JI Group is working on this at the moment.

please, remember

It was a winter and most fibers were from materials prone to electrostatic.

As far as I remember there was a dryer in the basement and no laundry in the previous 24h.

Hairs are prone to electrostatic.
It is very hard to distinguish which fibers were connected to a crime and which were just accidentally placed there from many hours earlier activity.

Is there any good source for the wear burglars/spies use in their "work"?

 

[Cottonstar]

All fiber evidence against Patsy is from the staging that took place for 6 hours. This is why Patsy CHOSE to stay in the same clothes that she wore the night before. The very first thing she does, after JR brings up her body from the basement, is THROW herself all over JonBenet's body, in front of everyone. This was a premeditated act, as she was fully aware that her fibers were a problem, and she undoubtedly tried to get as much of herself all over JB, in full view of everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[archieil]

How much does it cost to do this in front of everybody?

Did he pay officer on the place or someone who did not send support to her?

[edit] I am showing my thesis mostly because of fibers from the suitcase and fibers similar to some John's sweater.

 

[otg]

JI Group is working on this at the moment.

please, remember

It was a winter and most fibers were from materials prone to electrostatic.

As far as I remember there was a dryer in the basement and no laundry in the previous 24h.

Hairs are prone to electrostatic.
It is very hard to distinguish which fibers were connected to a crime and which were just accidentally placed there from many hours earlier activity.

Is there any good source for the wear burglars/spies use in their "work"?

:lol:Is that you, Roscoe?

 

[archieil]

:lol:Is that you, Roscoe?

I know what you are joking about. :giggle:

I checked your last concern regarding my person eace:

[edit] I sent to them my ideas of places having some evidence. Their RN analysis was helpful for me. Their idea of the case gives them some money from paranoiacs probably. For me, they are doing the job. I am more a media person so.

 

[BOBON]

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), as officially defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), is characterized by a child being one of two things: either very withdrawn or overly friendly with unfamiliar people. RAD is a rare disorder, and it has no aggressive features.

I don't know what you are talking about because RAD children can be very aggressive, lashing out and hurting others on purpose. There is a very famous RAD case on youtube in which the child talks about wanting to kill her parents and she abused her baby brother for years to the point that her parents had to lock her in at night because they were afraid of her.

 

[otg]

I don't know what you are talking about because RAD children can be very aggressive, lashing out and hurting others on purpose. There is a very famous RAD case on youtube in which the child talks about wanting to kill her parents and she abused her baby brother for years to the point that her parents had to lock her in at night because they were afraid of her.

BOBON is correct, Peppermintswirlz. Do a search for "Child of Rage," a documentary (and dramatized movie) made about the girl.

Seeing the child casually and nonchalantly describe her abuse is shocking and chilling. Incidentally, the girl was able to recover through therapy and has gone on to become a nurse (graduated from the University of Colorado) and a public speaker. She wrote a book about her experience titled More Than A Thread of Hope.

Things didn't turn out as well for the therapist, Connell Watkins. You've probably heard about her using the same extreme technique ("attachment therapy," derogatorily referred to as "rebirthing") to treat such patients. One of her patients (10-year-old Candace Newmaker) was smothered to death on-camera during a "treatment session," and Watkins was convicted of "reckless child abuse resulting in death" and sentenced to prison.

Just one more interesting tidbit: this all happened in Colorado.

 

[archieil]

"It was later discovered that the little girl was the victim of extreme child violence and sex abuse, which led to what is termed reactive attachment disorder."

one name, different sickness

this one was mimicking

 

[DeDee]

You mean the loving mother who admitted to needing to see a doll lying in a box with eyes that don't close as JonBenet lying in a coffin with her eyes closed? (DoI, You Need Christmas More Than Anyone chapter)

Hey, no need to tease me. I've been PDI since Dec 26, 1996 onward until this past year. I still feel she could have DIA. Conversely, I feel BR could have initiated the horror as some evidence supports this. All of my posts on this forum, until this year, are PDI.

We may never, in my lifetime, learn who purposefully killed this precious child. All I'm 100% sure of is that family, inside the home, brutally murdered JBR. Moreover, I always felt that it was premeditated by Patsy. It was not easy for me to look more closely at 9yo BR as the culprit. However, I kept an open mind as I read everyone's theories along the way and most of the published books on the subject.

There is a claim that BR currently works remotely from home. Although, possible, I call BS. I need to view pay stubs and his tax returns. He is living off the funds from the multiple lawsuits LW filed. When he graduated from Purdue, he gained employment in Indy and worked in a small cubicle. I actually searched for unsolved murders in those areas during that time period. BR is waiting on the final lawsuit against CBS for the big payoff. I pray that CBS refuses to settle and wins the [ridiculous] lawsuit.

These are only my current opinions that are subject to change without prior notice.

 

[fr brown]

From /u/Fr_Brown:
Where in JonBenet's room were the feces-smeared pajama bottoms "thought to belong to Burke" found? If they were in plain sight, is there a crime scene photograph of them? Were they collected? Was the "feces-smeared candy box" collected? If not, do you know why not?
permalink embed

[–]jameskolar 15 points 1 year ago
It is my recollection that the pj bottoms were on the floor but I didn’t see that they or the box of candy were collected. It was an odd observation noted by investigators, but I don’t think they grasped the significance of those items at the time. Interviews were still being conducted with family employees and friends during and well after the completion of the execution of the search warrants.

permalink embed parent

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedM...ottom-comments

I asked Kolar these questions to gauge how thoroughly he had investigated the feces-smeared "pajamas" and candy box. They are the underpinnings of his Burke SBP theory, after all. From his response I concluded that he probably hadn't done anything beyond reading an observation by investigators.

 

[Swirlz]

"It was later discovered that the little girl was the victim of extreme child violence and sex abuse, which led to what is termed reactive attachment disorder."

one name, different sickness

this one was mimicking

The little girl was asked a series of leading questions at the start of Child Of Rage that were designed to elicit certain specific responses that were intended to demonize the child. The late Ken Magid is the interviewer. He practiced an abusive technique called Holding Therapy that has lead to children's deaths. The film was intended to promote the adults who appeared in it, most of whom have since been accused of abusing children.

More info about Beth Thomas (Child Of Rage): http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/thomasb.html

Info about Reactive Attachment Disorder: www.childrenintherapy.org/reactiveattachmentdisorder.html