Was Burke Involved # 5

[Swirlz]

According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193411.pdf (page 3) in 1997, there were less than ten homicides by children 10 and under. Then subtract those involving guns. (Same study finds 54% of homicide offenders age 10-13 used a firearm) Then subtract those where the victim was an infant or very young toddler. What is left is so rare as to practically not exist. Nine-year-olds do not go around beating or choking six-year-olds to death. While murders of children by parents are so common that they have been studied at length by academics, mental health professionals, and law-enforcement, murders by children under 10 are so extremely rare as to be difficult to even find examples of.

 

[k-mac]

All fiber evidence against Patsy is from the staging that took place for 6 hours. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is a extreme blinkered assumption.
you can prove patsys fibres are at the crimescene from performing staging???
how??
simply because she jumped on jbr in front of others?
this proves zero.
we all know patsys fibres are all over the crimescene. as are johns. funny enough there is no burke.
this was 1996.
the implanting of fibre evidence theory is ridiculous.

the non factual rubbish that gets thrown around jbrs forum is truly tragic.

 

[Cottonstar]

that is a extreme blinkered assumption.
you can prove patsys fibres are at the crimescene from performing staging???
how??
simply because she jumped on jbr in front of others?
this proves zero.
we all know patsys fibres are all over the crimescene. as are johns. funny enough there is no burke.
this was 1996.
the implanting of fibre evidence theory is ridiculous.

the non factual rubbish that gets thrown around jbrs forum is truly tragic.

Who's saying anyone is implanting fibers? Ya, isn't it amazing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

that is a extreme blinkered assumption.
you can prove patsys fibres are at the crimescene from performing staging???
how??
simply because she jumped on jbr in front of others?
this proves zero.
we all know patsys fibres are all over the crimescene. as are johns. funny enough there is no burke.
this was 1996.
the implanting of fibre evidence theory is ridiculous.

the non factual rubbish that gets thrown around jbrs forum is truly tragic.

The lack of imagination and common sense is truly tragic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[k-mac]

Who's saying anyone is implanting fibers? Ya, isn't it amazing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

uk throws patsy implanted fibres around here and there.
he posts a lot so cant copy paste no idea where ive seen it but we have plenty.
so addressing uk here as well....not putting any words in your mouth.
you should keep up with what you throw out there.

 

[BBB167893]

Actually, you wouldn't. Not if one or both of them were responsible (for the head blow, especially) and not if they didn't want her to live as an invalid. Paternal instinct wouldn't come into play here (i.e. the paternal instinct of immediately calling an ambulance); it only would if anyone but one of the parents were responsible.

History shows us that parents have killed their children thinking that doing so will spare them from an even worse fate.

 

[BBB167893]

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

I think he could have predicted. Whether or not he knew.

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

One, I don't think the perp was able to look at it; two, I don't know if it was meant to be immediately seen, rather hedging the bets was going on.

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

How do they know it isn't? Moreover, if it isn't, that could be even worse: she might tell.

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.

I wouldn't discount that idea, no.

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 off the machine?

But would they want to put her and themselves through that?

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

That's very amusing, UKGuy. But not a very good comparison.

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?

I reiterate:
One, I don't think the perp was able to look at it; two, I don't know if it was meant to be immediately seen, rather hedging the bets was going on.

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?

Maybe.

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?

I don't think John was taking that kind of chance. (Not that I disagree with that last point, BTW)

 

[icedtea4me]

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.

This reminds me of something I read in Thomas's book regarding when he, Smit, and other detectives spent the night at the Ramsey house. He said Smit saw something on the kitchen floor and said it was or could be JonBenet's blood. Turns out it was grape juice.

 

[archieil]

fibers connected question/speculation/idea...

Cottonstar you are somewhat insane in your statement.

but

is it possible to estimate the amount of fibers on the body and grab some idea how many times she had contact with a source of fibers?

It is possible to measure charge inducted and estimate a possible amount of charge objects do have in the environment.

having possible charge =? amount of contact

I think that in some situation it is possible to check if for example fibers on her foot could be "staged" or placed with a blanket wrapped around her.

[edit] current method can show which fibers could have a source in electrostatic and which one was from direct contact but I am not sure what else could it give as a result.

 

[UKGuy]

uk throws patsy implanted fibres around here and there.
he posts a lot so cant copy paste no idea where ive seen it but we have plenty.
so addressing uk here as well....not putting any words in your mouth.
you should keep up with what you throw out there.

k-mac,
Naughty, naughty, just mouthing off on the forum is not contructive at all. Some reasoned argument on your PDI might help.

Patsy's fibers are embedded into the ligature knotting, they can only arrive there if Patsy constructed the ligature/paintbrush device. They were also on the sticky side of the duct-tape on JonBenet's lips.

JR's fibers are on JonBenet's thighs, and he said he never undressed JonBenet and Patsy put her straight to bed, yet JonBenet's hair is dressed in hair-ties, and ponytails.

Whether the case is PDI or BDI we can place Patsy in the wine-cellar fabricating a crime-scene, along with writing a ransom note.

Patsy was staging for someone. I'm saying it was for someone else, since she left so much of her own evidence behind thus nullifying the staging exercise completely.

So that leaves JR or BR in the frame.

.

 

[k-mac]

k-mac,
Naughty, naughty, just mouthing off on the forum is not contructive at all. Some reasoned argument on your PDI might help.


.

how dare you.
I am not naughty for calling you out .sick of the lies and dribble.
so doubt it. you hold the monopoly on all of that.
you have single handedly suffocated this forum with whacky fantasy.

 

[archieil]

Patsy fibers were also in JBR hairs.

John did not wear the sweater on 25th or 26th as far as I remember = John's sweater fibers, not John's fibers.

There were a lot of fibers in different places on or near the body.

Because of Patsy fibers on the stick, I think that there is some "hidden" reason Police was not trying to sue her for murder.

 

[fr brown]

This reminds me of something I read in Thomas's book regarding when he, Smit, and other detectives spent the night at the Ramsey house. He said Smit saw something on the kitchen floor and said it was or could be JonBenet's blood. Turns out it was grape juice.

Smit was looking at a crime scene photo so I'll forgive him this time....

In Kolar's case, he (along with Steve Thomas) think that John slept through the night. Kolar forgot to mention this in his book, but said so in an interview. In his book he said that he didn't think Patsy would kill her child over bedwetting. And if it's not an intruder, who does that leave?

The "feces-smeared pajamas thought to belong to Burke" weren't mentioned in Kolar's show, I'm pretty sure. If they've evaporated, that leaves only the candy box. Based on the confirmed presence of feces-smeared pants belonging to JonBenet, it's more reasonable to assume that any feces on a box is hers. There's no reason to attribute it to Burke, at any rate.

 

[Userid]

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

Couple things about this post: first, and correct me if I myself am wrong, but there was fiber evidence from JR found on JBR also (in her underwear region). Second (and this is more a matter of opinion than the former), I find that in much of your theory, you give the R's way too much credit. You pretty much have them acting completely purposeful in every single one of their actions that night, which is somewhat bewildering, considering the murder, in and of itself, was completely spontaneous (as far as the parents are concerned, in any scenario).

You say people "lack imagination" when analyzing this case. I think you have an over-active imagination when analyzing this case, which is worse in my opinion, because in case studies, it's important to let the evidence speak for itself, before letting your imagination run wild. To assume that PR wore the same clothes on purpose just doesn't fly. She reacted that way when he deceased child was brought upstairs because that is how a the mother of a deceased child should act. Did you expect her to keep her distance? Would that have not looked completely suspicious? She would have reacted that exact same way (hugging her, etc.) even if she had had the time to change her clothes, which she didn't -- because it was of the utmost importance for her to appear "over the top" with grief and shock, which she did.

 

[Cottonstar]

Couple things about this post: first, and correct me if I myself am wrong, but there was fiber evidence from JR found on JBR also (in her underwear region). Second (and this is more a matter of opinion than the former), I find that in much of your theory, you give the R's way too much credit. You pretty much have them acting completely purposeful in every single one of their actions that night, which is somewhat bewildering, considering the murder, in and of itself, was completely spontaneous (as far as the parents are concerned, in any scenario).

You say people "lack imagination" when analyzing this case. I think you have an over-active imagination when analyzing this case, which is worse in my opinion, because in case studies, it's important to let the evidence speak for itself, before letting your imagination run wild. To assume that PR wore the same clothes on purpose just doesn't fly. She reacted that way when he deceased child was brought upstairs because that is how a the mother of a deceased child should act. Did you expect her to keep her distance? Would that have not looked completely suspicious? She would have reacted that exact same way (hugging her, etc.) even if she had had the time to change her clothes, which she didn't -- because it was of the utmost importance for her to appear "over the top" with grief and shock, which she did.

She actually did keep her distance for a couple of minutes. Which was a red flag, itself. The level of stagecraft was unprecedented. Like I said before, once you've become tuned in to their schema of deception, you can see the patterns and motives for what they did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cottonstar]

She actually did keep her distance for a couple of minutes. Which was a red flag, itself. The level of stagecraft was unprecedented. Like I said before, once you've become tuned in to their schema of deception, you can see the patterns and motives for what they did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She didn't have time to change her clothes? But, she had time to put on fresh make-up and write a ransom letter? BOTH of the Rams had 6 hours to cover-up this crime. They used all of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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 have long puzzled over why Kolar seems to know so little about pieces of evidence of such importance to him. With his access wouldn't he have located them in crime scene photos? Emailed or phoned investigators who had been at the scene? Talked to his friend Steve Thomas?

Or maybe he did and didn't get the answers he wanted? It's possible.

 

[Userid]

She actually did keep her distance for a couple of minutes. Which was a red flag, itself. The level of stagecraft was unprecedented. Like I said before, once you've become tuned in to their schema of deception, you can see the patterns and motives for what they did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you're allowing your own perceptions to influence you too much. You're on this one-track-mind type of thing, where everything you see, has a carefully-thought-out explanation by the R's. I just can't believe that. These weren't seasoned killers; and this wasn't a premeditated act. The majority of the decisions that were made on that night had to be made on the fly.

 

[Userid]

She didn't have time to change her clothes? But, she had time to put on fresh make-up and write a ransom letter? BOTH of the Rams had 6 hours to cover-up this crime. They used all of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I think that's a safe assumption, sure. If she had been up all night crying, and she knew she didn't have enough time to do both (get dressed and apply make-up), what would have taken precedence, if you were in her position? The answer is easy: her make-up.

 

[Cottonstar]

Yes, I think that's a safe assumption, sure. If she had been up all night crying, and she knew she didn't have enough time to do both (get dressed and apply make-up), what would have taken precedence, if you were in her position? The answer is easy: her make-up.

Please. Are you being serious? It takes 1 minute to change your clothes. You are the one that is allowing your theory to cloud reasonable thinking and intuitive logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk