Was Burke involved?

[UKGuy]

As a psychologist, I'd like to comment on the nighttime accidents. It can be a sign of abuse and/or emotional trauma. However, it can also be a sign of sensory issues which are sometimes present in ADHD and/or learning disabilities. In the Ramsey household, I'm not sure what was going on. I think BR may have some Asperger's traits from what I've read, but bedwetting isn't really a symptom of Asperger's. And JBR didn't seem to have any sensory/coordination issues, if she could perfectly perform all of those routines that she did.

FYI, I'm speaking of wetting. The defecation? That's another matter entirely and is very rare at that age. It can have an emotional cause, or, very tragically, can be the loss of some sphincter control due to abuse.

Who knows what was going on in that household. I'd like to believe it was just a tragic accident or a fit of rage rather than abuse. But that's just because going down the path of chronic abuse in that home really creeps me out as well as makes me extremely angry. It's sick.

belimom,
If you delve deep enough into this case. I reckon you find JonBenet was being molested by multiple persons.

I'm talking inter-familial, and non-family abuse. Holly Smith relates how JonBenet's underwear was fecally stained, similarly her bedsheets, and according to Kolar, fecal matter was deposited on objects in JonBenet's room.

I think all this evidence supports your final conclusion:

It can have an emotional cause, or, very tragically, can be the loss of some sphincter control due to abuse.

Which indirectly confirms my assumption that JonBenet was being abused by multiple persons.


.

 

[belimom]

belimom,
If you delve deep enough into this case. I reckon you find JonBenet was being molested by multiple persons.

I'm talking inter-familial, and non-family abuse. Holly Smith relates how JonBenet's underwear was fecally stained, similarly her bedsheets, and according to Kolar, fecal matter was deposited on objects in JonBenet's room.

I think all this evidence supports your final conclusion:


Which indirectly confirms my assumption that JonBenet was being abused by multiple persons.


.

I've delved deep into it - but I guess it's a matter what is true vs what is hearsay. I do think it's possible that she was being abused by multiple persons, but I'm not 'there' yet. I was also wondering if the fecal matter could be BR's. I think the housekeeper or someone else mentioned that somewhere along the line.

I have many different theories - and they keep bouncing around in my head.

One thing that was driven home again last night -- how defenseless JBR was. I was playing with my DD, who is 5 1/2, but probably larger than JBR was (my DD is very tall and weighs about 65). But I was lying on my back and had my legs in the air with DD balanced on them like she was flying. She looked so tiny. I was holding her arms and leaning different ways, making her 'zoom' and swirl. I thought about JBR and how small she was and how easily manipulated she could have been - by anyone in that home, including BR. He was almost 10 - the same age as my son. My son is thin for his age so he isn't as good of a match for my DD as I think BR was for JBR, considering she was on the petite side. Not sure why I'm sharing - but the case has been on my mind and playing with my DD last night made me think, "JBR really could have been handled/controlled by any of those family members."

 

[ahoyhoy]

After looking at photos of the skull fracture & golf clubs, has it occurred to anyone that a SHORTER person would be much more successful at completing the full overhead down-swing required to cause such a wound? I'm just saying, with the height of the ceiling, with the golf club---a shorter person could complete a much longer overhead swing, without hitting the ceiling and stifling the momentum & deadliness of the swing.
(To me, it looks like JB was hit from behind, with the force splitting the skull forward.)

Sorry I link nothing here---It just occurred to me ,at my adult height, how impossible it would be to bash something that HARD, straight down with a golf club while standing up in a room with regulation-height ceilings. Then I realized if i were very short, or on my knees, a full, two-handed, overhead arching bash would be quite easy.


Btw, I think the sexual abuse was of BOTH kids, and I think it may have 'simply' been incidental that night, but important as to another reason WHY her death had to be covered up. I think JB's chronic lower injuries are associated with molestation by an adult, and with BR's scat/toilet issues--- perhaps he had begun victimizing JB, as he had learned it from his own experience.
By covering up JB's death, they save BR from embarrassment & ruin, they save PR, her lifestyle and her 'perfect family' (even better-she became a victim), and best of all--They protect the BREADWINNER.

To me, 'Mega-JB' has always reminded me of sick, incest/abuse-accustomed mothers who eventually offer up their daughters as a replacement as they age, to keep the husband from leaving. I thought that the first time I saw JB's pageanty-look. (No offense to anyone, but my mother's side is also Appalachian, and their boundaries about incest were very lax. If the man wanted something, he got it, whatever it was. This did not happen to me personally, just relatives....But PR's background & behavior, and JB's appearance made my spidey-sense go BERSERK, way back in '96.)

Forgive me--I have been firmly PDI, but I've been reading old threads for a few days, and this BDI does kind of make everything 'fit'. I haven't read Kolar's book yet, so forgive me if I'm all wrong in this post. It just now occurred to me, that if you SEPARATE the CHRONIC molestation from the events of that night---It makes more sense. It could have been a BR 'rage crime'---a bash, a violation. Blood. ....THIS is where PR & JR step in with the washing & staging. They surely didn't know he couldn't be charged in CO, AND they would have been exposed as molesters.

JMO JMO JMO

Please don't flame me too hard. I lurk here a lot, and it's a good time. If my ideas are totally wrong, please be gentle. Thanks.
Sorry for the novel.

 

[ahoyhoy]

If anyone has thread suggestions for some good evidence & discussions, I would be so thankful. Thanks.

 

[UKGuy]

After looking at photos of the skull fracture & golf clubs, has it occurred to anyone that a SHORTER person would be much more successful at completing the full overhead down-swing required to cause such a wound? I'm just saying, with the height of the ceiling, with the golf club---a shorter person could complete a much longer overhead swing, without hitting the ceiling and stifling the momentum & deadliness of the swing.
(To me, it looks like JB was hit from behind, with the force splitting the skull forward.)

Sorry I link nothing here---It just occurred to me ,at my adult height, how impossible it would be to bash something that HARD, straight down with a golf club while standing up in a room with regulation-height ceilings. Then I realized if i were very short, or on my knees, a full, two-handed, overhead arching bash would be quite easy.


Btw, I think the sexual abuse was of BOTH kids, and I think it may have 'simply' been incidental that night, but important as to another reason WHY her death had to be covered up. I think JB's chronic lower injuries are associated with molestation by an adult, and with BR's scat/toilet issues--- perhaps he had begun victimizing JB, as he had learned it from his own experience.
By covering up JB's death, they save BR from embarrassment & ruin, they save PR, her lifestyle and her 'perfect family' (even better-she became a victim), and best of all--They protect the BREADWINNER.

To me, 'Mega-JB' has always reminded me of sick, incest/abuse-accustomed mothers who eventually offer up their daughters as a replacement as they age, to keep the husband from leaving. I thought that the first time I saw JB's pageanty-look. (No offense to anyone, but my mother's side is also Appalachian, and their boundaries about incest were very lax. If the man wanted something, he got it, whatever it was. This did not happen to me personally, just relatives....But PR's background & behavior, and JB's appearance made my spidey-sense go BERSERK, way back in '96.)

Forgive me--I have been firmly PDI, but I've been reading old threads for a few days, and this BDI does kind of make everything 'fit'. I haven't read Kolar's book yet, so forgive me if I'm all wrong in this post. It just now occurred to me, that if you SEPARATE the CHRONIC molestation from the events of that night---It makes more sense. It could have been a BR 'rage crime'---a bash, a violation. Blood. ....THIS is where PR & JR step in with the washing & staging. They surely didn't know he couldn't be charged in CO, AND they would have been exposed as molesters.

JMO JMO JMO

Please don't flame me too hard. I lurk here a lot, and it's a good time. If my ideas are totally wrong, please be gentle. Thanks.
Sorry for the novel.

ahoyhoy,
Thanks for your post. You could be corrrect. Obviously some strange stuff was going on in the Ramsey household, despite JR's claims about consistency to the bible and adherence to scripture.

I do think Patsy's role was some variation on what you suggest. The only other option is that she was the molester and killer, popular media promotes the mother figure in such a manner to preclude this, even for myself its difficult to accept, but it does occur.

I think JonBenet was being molested by more than one person, and that JonBenet thought this was normal. Also that there is a link to her death with what happened at the Ramsey Christmas party and the 911 call. On both occassions you appear to have anger and emotion on display.

Although it could be JDI or PDI or some combination thereof, BDI is more consistent than either, since it answers more questions, even the stuff like the partially opened gifts.

This is probably where Kolars book takes a close look?


.
.

 

[deca]

Perhaps friends of the Ramsey's saw/heard something that gave them reason to believe JB was being molested that is why they called 911 that first time.

Before the cops came, PR hurriedly says that B had an anger or jealously issue and it was just "one time". Maybe she jokes that he was just playing doctor or something. explained that they were getting help for B and JB and they didn't want B or JB getting taken away from them. The friends reluctantly agree thinking the problem is minor and getting taken care of and then shoo the police
away.

The problem I have with this little theory is that wouldn't the friends then tell LE about it after JB murder?

 

[DeeDee249]

Perhaps friends of the Ramsey's saw/heard something that gave them reason to believe JB was being molested that is why they called 911 that first time.

Before the cops came, PR hurriedly says that B had an anger or jealously issue and it was just "one time". Maybe she jokes that he was just playing doctor or something. explained that they were getting help for B and JB and they didn't want B or JB getting taken away from them. The friends reluctantly agree thinking the problem is minor and getting taken care of and then shoo the police
away.

The problem I have with this little theory is that wouldn't the friends then tell LE about it after JB murder?

Maybe they did. We wouldn't know what conversations LE had about BR because of his age at the time. Police could not reveal his identity in ANY theory or suspicion about JB's murder. Police may have felt privately that he was involved but could not state this publicly.
OR- maybe these friends all got the same "message" FW got from the Rs and their lawyers- keep your mouth shut or you'll wind up on the "suspects" list yourself.

 

[Anyhoo]

IMO the unknown male DNA found on two articles of JBR's clothing eliminates BR as a suspect, period. This fact (and it is a fact, even if some here do not want to recognize it as one) eliminates not only BDI but also RDI.

Can any of you who support BDI so fervently explain the foreign male DNA and if so how? How does that fit in with BDI?

 

[DeeDee249]

IMO the unknown male DNA found on two articles of JBR's clothing eliminates BR as a suspect, period. This fact (and it is a fact, even if some here do not want to recognize it as one) eliminates not only BDI but also RDI.

Can any of you who support BDI so fervently explain the foreign male DNA and if so how? How does that fit in with BDI?

Please try to understand that the DNA clears NO ONE until it has been linked to an identified, named person.

The DNA does not implicate BR, but it does not clear him either. The DNA may not have anything to do with the crime, because it is skin cells. Do you understand that? Skin cells that JB herself, or one of her parents, could easily have picked up that day at the party. Skin cells transfer from objects and other people very easily, and for that reason it is not as definite a link to a crime as blood or semen would be.
Bottom line - again- NO ONE in that house at the time of the crime is cleared legally UNTIL and UNLESS a known suspect is named. BY name. The DNA doesn't fit with BDI because it doesn't fit with the crime at all at this point. That doesn't mean BDI wasn't involved. It could be the DNA donor wasn't involved either.

 

[DeeDee249]

IMO the unknown male DNA found on two articles of JBR's clothing eliminates BR as a suspect, period. This fact (and it is a fact, even if some here do not want to recognize it as one) eliminates not only BDI but also RDI.

Can any of you who support BDI so fervently explain the foreign male DNA and if so how? How does that fit in with BDI?

The DNA is indeed a fact but it is NOT a fact that it has cleared anyone. The present Boulder DA agrees. The DNA eliminates no one. And it has been explained here for years on several threads ad nauseam.
Just because you don't like the possibility that BR may be involved doesn't mean he isn't. ALL present that night are suspects. Not only BR, but his parents as well.

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps friends of the Ramsey's saw/heard something that gave them reason to believe JB was being molested that is why they called 911 that first time.

Before the cops came, PR hurriedly says that B had an anger or jealously issue and it was just "one time". Maybe she jokes that he was just playing doctor or something. explained that they were getting help for B and JB and they didn't want B or JB getting taken away from them. The friends reluctantly agree thinking the problem is minor and getting taken care of and then shoo the police
away.

The problem I have with this little theory is that wouldn't the friends then tell LE about it after JB murder?

deca,
Here's some of what I think: On the night of the Christmas Party a non-family member molested JonBenet.

Another non-family member dialled 911, all this took place outwith Patsy Or Johns eyesight.

Once JR and PR were aware the police were on their way and why, and after a talk with the parties concerned, it was decided to give the police a false story and send them on their way.

Once this was done it was evident to all concerned and the majority of those at the party that JonBenet was the victim of ongoing abuse and that it had just been covered up.

Those who now knew later stated that they had intended to bring this up with Patsy as a subject of discussion, i.e. that they were concerned regarding JonBenet's behaviour, or in todays language blame the victim.

This little ruse allowed any mention of the perpetrator(s) to fall into the background.

Also I think the outcome of the Christmas Party feeds into Christmas Day as an issue of control for a Ramsey, and that they overestimated their strength and that of JonBenet's response , i.e. she was complaining and fighting back?


.

 

[UKGuy]

IMO the unknown male DNA found on two articles of JBR's clothing eliminates BR as a suspect, period. This fact (and it is a fact, even if some here do not want to recognize it as one) eliminates not only BDI but also RDI.

Can any of you who support BDI so fervently explain the foreign male DNA and if so how? How does that fit in with BDI?

Anyhoo,
Its all very simple.

1. Its not foreign male DNA its touch-dna

2. It might have arrived on JonBenet's underwear via a visit to the toilet at the White's party.

3. It fits in with BDI precisely because you do not know if any of BR's dna was discovered on JonBenet?

4. Nobody has linked the touch-dna found on JonBenet to anyone outside of the Ramsey household!


.

 

[Anyhoo]

Please try to understand that the DNA clears NO ONE until it has been linked to an identified, named person.

The DNA does not implicate BR, but it does not clear him either. The DNA may not have anything to do with the crime, because it is skin cells. Do you understand that? Skin cells that JB herself, or one of her parents, could easily have picked up that day at the party. Skin cells transfer from objects and other people very easily, and for that reason it is not as definite a link to a crime as blood or semen would be.
Bottom line - again- NO ONE in that house at the time of the crime is cleared legally UNTIL and UNLESS a known suspect is named. BY name. The DNA doesn't fit with BDI because it doesn't fit with the crime at all at this point. That doesn't mean BDI wasn't involved. It could be the DNA donor wasn't involved either.

The former DA said there is no innocent explanation for the incriminating evidence of this DNA at three different sites on two different peices of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time of the murder. You seem to want to trivialize something that the lead investigators of the case have already concluded is not trivial but very significant. So significant that they felt inclined to apologize to the R's for even considering them suspects.

 

[Anyhoo]

Anyhoo,
Its all very simple.

1. Its not foreign male DNA its touch-dna

2. It might have arrived on JonBenet's underwear via a visit to the toilet at the White's party.

3. It fits in with BDI precisely because you do not know if any of BR's dna was discovered on JonBenet?

4. Nobody has linked the touch-dna found on JonBenet to anyone outside of the Ramsey household!


.

The former DA said there is no innocent explanation for the incriminating evidence of this DNA at three different sites on two different peices of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time of the murder. You seem to want to trivialize something that the lead investigators of the case have already concluded is not trivial but very significant. So significant that they felt inclined to apologize to the R's for even considering them suspects.

 

[Anyhoo]

For the record, these are the exact words of the former Boulder DA:

This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.
... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ...
I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence.[1][2]

Those of you who are offering innocent explanations for the DNA are saying the DA is totally wrong when the DA says there is no innocent explanation. I think you are doing this because it disagrees with the conclusions you have already reached about the case.

 

[deca]

deca,
Here's some of what I think: On the night of the Christmas Party a non-family member molested JonBenet.

Another non-family member dialled 911, all this took place outwith Patsy Or Johns eyesight.

Once JR and PR were aware the police were on their way and why, and after a talk with the parties concerned, it was decided to give the police a false story and send them on their way.

Once this was done it was evident to all concerned and the majority of those at the party that JonBenet was the victim of ongoing abuse and that it had just been covered up.

Those who now knew later stated that they had intended to bring this up with Patsy as a subject of discussion, i.e. that they were concerned regarding JonBenet's behaviour, or in todays language blame the victim.

This little ruse allowed any mention of the perpetrator(s) to fall into the background.

Also I think the outcome of the Christmas Party feeds into Christmas Day as an issue of control for a Ramsey, and that they overestimated their strength and that of JonBenet's response , i.e. she was complaining and fighting back?


.

Forgive me as I am kind of new on the JBR case, but I am curious about the rest of (and the fleshing out of) your theory. So a non-family member's abuse of JBR caused this first 911 call. John/Patsy were aware of or excused away this incident.
So, do you think that this non-family member also was directly involved with the Christmas incident? Or was JBR just the "whipping boy" for a number of people, including the Ramsey's?

 

[DeeDee249]

The former DA said there is no innocent explanation for the incriminating evidence of this DNA at three different sites on two different peices of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time of the murder. You seem to want to trivialize something that the lead investigators of the case have already concluded is not trivial but very significant. So significant that they felt inclined to apologize to the R's for even considering them suspects.

I don't really care what the former DA had to say. The comments were based purely on a desire to clear the family in anyway possible and not in any legally sound investigation. The DA knows better and said it anyway. That DA also did not review all the evidence in the case.
The DNA has no known donor. Until that happens, no one present at the time can be cleared.
The PRESENT DA understands this very well and has stated that as far as he is concerned, NO ONE is cleared at this time.
The DNA must be proven to be part of the crime and not just artifact. That hasn't been done yet- because we have no NAME attached to it. When we do, we'll have taken a BIG step closer to solving this case.

 

[belimom]

I don't really care what the former DA had to say. The comments were based purely on a desire to clear the family in anyway possible and not in any legally sound investigation. The DA knows better and said it anyway. That DA also did not review all the evidence in the case.
The DNA has no known donor. Until that happens, no one present at the time can be cleared.
The PRESENT DA understands this very well and has stated that as far as he is concerned, NO ONE is cleared at this time.
The DNA must be proven to be part of the crime and not just artifact. That hasn't been done yet- because we have no NAME attached to it. When we do, we'll have taken a BIG step closer to solving this case.

bbm

Agreed.

Anyhoo, go read Kolar's book or some other book that puts into light all of the evidence shunned by that former DA. Not theories - but hard evidence. I have PMPT awhile back so I don't remember what was laid out exactly. But I just finished Kolar's book, and it will be a good start if you want one of the former investigator's layout of the investigation. I know there are mixed opinions about his book, but I'd believe him over some of the other folks involved in the case. JMO

 

[UKGuy]

The former DA said there is no innocent explanation for the incriminating evidence of this DNA at three different sites on two different peices of clothing that JBR was wearing at the time of the murder. You seem to want to trivialize something that the lead investigators of the case have already concluded is not trivial but very significant. So significant that they felt inclined to apologize to the R's for even considering them suspects.

Anyhoo,
Nice try. Quoting the former DA means just that. I offered you an innocent explanation, which is one of many that could be generated.

If you choose to accept the former DA's opinion thats fine, you now understand my position on this matter.

Once again so to avoid misunderstanding its touch-dna not DNA, you get it?


.
.

 

[UKGuy]

Forgive me as I am kind of new on the JBR case, but I am curious about the rest of (and the fleshing out of) your theory. So a non-family member's abuse of JBR caused this first 911 call. John/Patsy were aware of or excused away this incident.
So, do you think that this non-family member also was directly involved with the Christmas incident? Or was JBR just the "whipping boy" for a number of people, including the Ramsey's?

deca,
Its unlikely the non-family member was involved on Christmas Night, but who knows, maybe this person was present and quickly left once it became obvious how serious matters were.

No I'm not simply saying that JBR was just the "whipping boy" for a number of people, I'm saying they mostly colluded in a postmortem version of events. In that it was JonBenet's behaviour that became the focus of attention, and not that of the perpetrator(s).

The major aspect of my theory is that JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis by both non-family and family-members.

The Christmas Party molestation feeds into the Christmas Day assault as a matter of routine on the perpetrators part, and one of control.

Also given the events of Christmas Night it becomes obvious that the Christmas Party molestation requires explanation and justification, so those that knew about the abuse then stated they had intended to discuss this subject, i.e. JonBenet, with Patsy.


For those that buy the above theory what it means, and I reckon there is powerful circumstantial evidence to confirm this, is that there is a person who molested JonBenet, a non-ramsey, who knows as much about this case as BR does.