Was Burke involved?

[Chelly]

For all the years I’ve been following this, I’ve been reluctant to accept something that others have speculated. I thought some of BR’s behaviors were from his precociousness or maybe the influence of a slightly older friend or “buddy”. I am now beginning to think more and more that both Ramsey children were being (or had been) abused -- not just JonBenet. From what we now know, there are just so many signs that point to it. Not any one thing by itself, but when you put it all together it becomes something that just can’t be ignored. Fecal smearing, soiled underwear, poop on candy, poop balls in the bed, poop in pajamas, skid marks on the carpet... And then when you consider the things we don’t know -- the things that have been deliberately kept from the police (like medical records), and the things the police know that haven’t been released or leaked -- it all adds up to more than can be ignored or trivialized as simply something odd or out of place.

I don’t need to reiterate all the signs that indicate JonBenet had been abused -- we all know them. But consider the following from here and here (bbm):

Most professionals who work with children are aware of contemporary studies that suggest that increased sexual behaviors may be an indication that a child is being, or has been, sexually molested. Increasing evidence also points to the fact that it is important to evaluate young children who are coercing other children into unwanted sexual behaviors; research on adult offenders has revealed that many offenders began their coercive sexual behaviors in elementary school and increased the number and violence of their sexual behaviors during adolescence.

Professionals who work with children need to have perspectives on the full spectrum of childhood sexual behaviors, from the wide variety of what are perceived to be age-appropriate healthy activities to patterns that may be unhealthy or pathological and may require attention and/or treatment.
After analyzing extensive evaluations of hundreds of children, and their families, who were referred to the author due to the child’s sexual behaviors, four definable clusters or groups of children have begun to emerge on a continuum of behaviors:

• Group 1 includes children engaged in natural and healthy childhood sexual exploration;
• Group II is comprised of sexually-reactive children;
• Group III includes children who mutually engage in a full range of adult sexual behaviors; and
• Group IV includes children who molest other children.

This continuum of sexual behaviors applies only to boys and girls, aged 12 and under; who have intact reality testing and are not developmentally disabled.
Each group includes a broad range of children, some are on the borderline between the groups, and some move between the groups over a period of time.
If the child falls into Groups II, III or IV, a thorough evaluation to assess the treatment needs of the child, and the family, will be necessary. It is recommended that assessments should be completed by a mental health professional who specializes in child sexual abuse. While the child may not have been sexually abused, the sexual behaviors demonstrated in these groups may be indicative of previous or current sexual abuse.


The sexual behaviours of Group IV children go far beyond developmentally appropriate childhood explorations or sexual play. Like the children in Group III, their thoughts and actions are often pervaded with sexuality. Typical behaviours of these children may include (but are not limited to) oral copulation, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse and/or forcibly penetrating vagina or anus of another child with fingers, sticks and/or other objects. These children’s sexual behaviours continue and increase over time, and are part of a consistent pattern of behaviours rather than isolated incidents. Even if their activities are discovered, they do not, and cannot, stop without intensive and specialized treatment.

These children often link sexual acting out to feelings of anger (or even rage), loneliness, or fear.

While most of the case studies in this group are not physically violent, coercion is always a factor. Child perpetrators seek out children who are easy to fool, bribe, or force into sexual activities with them. The child victim does not get to choose what the sexual behaviours will be, nor when they will end. Often the child victim is younger and sometimes the age difference is as great as 12 years, since some of these children molest infants. On the other hand, some child perpetrators molest children who are age-mates or older. In sibling incest with boy perpetrators, the victim is typically the favourite child of the parents. In other cases, the child is selected due to special vulnerabilities, including age, intellectual impairment, extreme loneliness, repression, social isolation, or emotional neediness. Child perpetrators often use social and emotional threats to keep their victims quiet: "I won t play with you ever again, if you tell"; this is a powerful reason to keep quiet if the child victim already feels lonely, isolated or even abandoned at home and at school.

Some children who molest other children habitually urinate and defecate outside the toilet (on the floor, in their beds, outdoors, etc.) While many Group I children may mildly resist changing underwear, some children in Group IV will wear soiled underpants for more than a week or two and adamantly refuse to change. Some constantly sniff underwear. Many of the children regularly use excessive amounts of toilet paper (some relate wiping and cleaning themselves to masturbation) and stuff the toilet until it overflows day after day. The children continue these disturbed toileting patterns even if their families have severely punished them for their behaviour.

Most child perpetrators who have been studied have been victims of sexual abuse themselves, although the sexual abuse generally has occurred years before the children began molesting other children. All of the girl perpetrators (females represent about 25% of child perpetrators) and about 60% to 70% of the boy perpetrators have been molested. All of the children live in home environments marked by sexual stimulation and lack of boundaries, and almost all of the children have witnessed extreme physical violence between their primary caretakers. Most parents of Group IV children also have sexual abuse in their family histories, as well as physical and substance abuse.

(Excerpts from) Signals for Parents and Counsellors:

3. The child engages in sexual behaviours with those who are much older or younger. Most school-aged children engage in sexual behaviour with children within a year or so of their age. In general, the wider the age range between children engaging in sexual behaviours, the greater the concern.
11. The child manifests a number of disturbing toileting behaviours: plays with, smears faeces, urinates outside of the bathroom, uses excessive amounts of toilet paper, stuffs toilet bowls to overflow, sniffs or steals underwear.
13. The child manually stimulates or has oral or genital contact with animals.
14. The child has painful and/or continuous erections or vaginal discharge.
​

Does #13 cause anyone else to again question why they might have decided to let Jacques stay at the neighbors’ house?

Does #14 cause anyone else to think back on that odd comment made by Nedra about BR’s “size”?

Does #11 cause anyone else to think back on the following Q/A’s from Patsy’s June 23, 1998 interview (bbm):

Questions about an incident witnessed by a previous housekeeper:

7 TRIP DeMUTH: A couple of questions
8 Tom. With Evan Colby, was there ever a time
9 when Burke and Evan were under the porch without
10 their clothes on something, like that?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).
12 TRIP DeMUTH: Can you tell me about
13 that?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I think
15 Cynthia Savage, my housekeeper-nanny, told me
16 about that one time. They were, there isn't a
17 porch to be under, but I think Evan taught Burke
18 that it was easier to go pee-pee outside than to
19 take the time to go inside to go pee-pee, so he
20 sort of taught him how to go behind the tree.
21 Evan is a little guy.
22 TRIP DeMUTH: How little is little
23 Evan?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I want to say
25 Burke was probably six or seven, Evan was 7 or
0120
1 8, or something like that. And Suzanne told me
2 she came out and saw -- I think she said they
3 were kind of by where we kept this trash can,
4 sort on the left side of the garage and Evan had
5 his pants down showing Burke his -- works.
6 TRIP DeMUTH: Would Burke also have
7 his pants down or not?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think
9 I heard that.
​

Questioning about pictures of the basement toilet area:

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Look at all those pictures,
16 242, 43 and 44 and 45 together.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is the little bathroom in
18 the basement.
19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual
20 in those photos?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't
22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations
23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we
24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the
25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom
0408
1 available.
2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is
3 that how you left them?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have
5 left that. I left it like that.
6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why
7 that would be there.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,
10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time
11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that
12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the
13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so
14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is
15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.
16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she
17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too
19 much about that bathroom.
20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't
21 in there?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually
23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you
24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch
25 of smears on here.
0409
1 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to 205.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
3 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing anything
4 like that there before seeing that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: No, because I had that whole
6 downstairs painted, I mean cleaned.
7 TRIP DEMUTH: When was that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, 1994, before that home
9 tour, Christmas home tour.
10 TRIP DEMUTH: Who used that bathroom?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: The boys. You know, Burke and
12 Evan were down there playing with the trains. They
13 would go in there and use it.
14 TRIP DEMUTH: What do you mean that they had
15 not flushed that toilet, what do you mean by that?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I think someone had gone
17 to the potty and hadn't flushed it. It was there for
18 several days.
19 TOM HANEY: Are we talking urine?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. It was just
21 reported to me. It was, mom, the bathroom is pretty
22 yucky, and Linda took care of it is the way I think it
23 went.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: How common was it for Evan and
25 Burke to not flush?
0410
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, Burke is pretty well
2 trained, because that is one of my big pet peeves, but
3 Evan I don't know about.
4 TRIP DEMUTH: What does that mean, Patsy,
5 when you say you don't know about?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know whether he
7 flushes regularly.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: That could imply, I don't know
9 about him because he doesn't flush, or I wanted to
10 clear that up.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I would believe
12 it was Evan that used it and didn't flush rather than
13 my son. I would like to believe that.
14 TRIP DEMUTH: Was it a more than one-time
15 occasion in this bathroom down there?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I just remember that one.
17 TRIP DEMUTH: When was that? It doesn't have
18 to be precise, I mean how long before Christmas?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I don't know
20 exactly. I just remember it happening.
21 TRIP DEMUTH: Right before Christmas?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: I just can't remember. I just
23 remember the event that there was a dirty bathroom bowl
24 and obviously the boys were down there using it and not
25 flushing.
0411
1 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know, did Linda clean it
2 up, do you know?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I -- I am sure she did, but I
4 didn't go down there and double check it.
5 TOM HANEY: Is she usually pretty confident
6 if you give her something?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
8 TRIP DEMUTH: Had you been in this bathroom
9 at all prior to Christmas of '96?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I hadn't been in there.
11 You can tell I haven't been in there since '94.
12 TOM HANEY: Anything else? The tissue of
13 some kind.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
15 TOM HANEY: 246 now.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible). Is that the hall
17 from here? No.
18 TRIP DEMUTH: That is a closer picture of the
19 wall.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, is it? Okay. It looks
21 dirty to me, that close up.
​

I hate to admit it, but I do now believe that the events that led up to everything that happened on Christmas night in 1996 had actually started several years before that night. The signs were all there. I just didn’t want to believe it.

otg:

EXCELLENT! Thanks!

 

[otg]

Is this interview implying that there were fecal smears on the basement bathroom wall?

Apparently, they are referring to a picture of the door shown closed in this photo (which goes to the basement toilet):

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually
23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you
24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch
25 of smears on here.
0409
1 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to 205.
​

Photo #205, which we don't have, must show the door open. Patsy says it is usually closed because it opens into the stairway. She sees the smears, without having them pointed out.

And from here:

15 TOM HANEY: 246 now.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible). Is that the hall
17 from here? No.
18 TRIP DEMUTH: That is a closer picture of the
19 wall.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, is it? Okay. It looks
21 dirty to me, that close up.
​

Photo #246 is a closeup of the wall that Patsy notices looks "dirty" to her (again, without it being pointed out to her). Why else would the CSI's take a closeup photo of the toilet wall showing that it looks "dirty"?

 

[madeleine]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4502"]The "Bonita Papers" - Unedited Notes From Ramsey Case Documents - Forums For Justice[/ame]

Social Services had previously provided Dr. Bernhard with some history on Burke which indicated an ongoing bedwetting problem, but Burke denied this saying that it happened a long time ago. Children are usually honest about this in interviews, and Dr. Bernhard wondered why Burke was not.

social services?so they had access to BR's medical records?what am I missing...

 

[x_files]

The "Bonita Papers" - Unedited Notes From Ramsey Case Documents - Forums For Justice

Social Services had previously provided Dr. Bernhard with some history on Burke which indicated an ongoing bedwetting problem, but Burke denied this saying that it happened a long time ago. Children are usually honest about this in interviews, and Dr. Bernhard wondered why Burke was not.

social services?so they had access to BR's medical records?what am I missing...

Nine is rather old for a child to have potty training problems still.

 

[bettybaby00]

Great post OTG

Kolar does an excellent job of enlightening us of how an investigation should work. Kolar's 1st task was to review the thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence. He didn't come into this with a "I've gotta get the Ramseys," agenda. his first steps in the investigation was to look at the IDI theory. In fact despite his conclusions, the foreign DNA is still run through CODIS database, b/c yes this can prove critical in cold cases. Unfortunately a good deal of evidence was lost in this case forever, yet the evidence that does exist is damning for the Rs. Kolar reiterates several times that behaviors are part of the body of evidence. The Rs denial of sexual contact is simply that. When a med. examiner calls in 4/5 experts to review his findings regarding a victim's genitals then something isn't "normal."

The chapters dedicated to BSP are eye opening, especially the professional consensus that with treatment a child can grow up normally. It's also important to note that we have no idea what Bs time has been like in the years since the murder. Just b/c nothing ever rose to the level of criminal behavior, doesn't mean he hasn't had issues.

In this case, the physical evidence, coupled with the behaviors of the family conclusively rules out IDI. In their attempt to deflect attention away from themselves, the Rs threw everyone they knew under the bus. Unfortunately for them, the Rs were the only ones left standing.

 

[bettybaby00]

Nine is rather old for a child to have potty training problems still.

Bed wetting at that age is one thing...this goes way beyond that. For both kids.

 

[questfortrue]

The "Bonita Papers" - Unedited Notes From Ramsey Case Documents - Forums For Justice

Social Services had previously provided Dr. Bernhard with some history on Burke which indicated an ongoing bedwetting problem, but Burke denied this saying that it happened a long time ago. Children are usually honest about this in interviews, and Dr. Bernhard wondered why Burke was not.

social services?so they had access to BR's medical records?what am I missing...

Would this have been info from HS, the victim's investigator who visited the home? She was a social service incest specialist who assisted the BPD on cases of child abuse. Perhaps she spoke to someone associated who told her both kids had toiletting problems? I know she deduced such when she went into JB's bedroom.

 

[Linda7NJ]

We also have no idea what his teacher said to the grand jury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

The signs of some kind of disturbance in BR are, of course, there. What is different in BR from the description in the article referenced by OTG from a full fledge member of Group IV kids (the kids who obviously have BSP) is that he did well in school, there weren’t any reports of inappropriate behavior or violence at school which would have triggered a social service visit, and he had friends who were important to him.

From the quoted source:

Each group includes a broad range of children, some are on the borderline between the groups, and some move between the groups over a period of time.
​

As far as little boys getting naked, and even showing themselves to other little boys, that doesn’t seem, imo, totally aberrant, but I can see it may be another detail contributing to the picture of BR.

I absolutely agree. As I said in the post, "Not any one thing by itself, but when you put it all together it becomes something that just can’t be ignored." Believe me, as a former little boy myself, I am familiar with things little boys might do out of a healthy curiosity. Taken by itself, any single event could be nothing more than what the article says about Group 1:

Group 1 includes children engaged in natural and healthy childhood sexual exploration
​

It's when all of these events are looked at in their totality that we should (IMO) begin to be concerned. I imagine the interviewers had heard about this event from the former housekeeper. They knew what she described, and they asked about an incident where: "Burke and Evan were under the porch without their clothes on something, like that?" Of course, the Ramsey house had no porch. Did they have that detail wrong, or were they trying to be vague about it to get Patsy off-guard before she responds? Regardless, they relate it as both boys being "without their clothes". Patsy then dismisses it as Evan teaching Burke "that it was easier to go pee-pee outside than to take the time to go inside to go pee-pee."

We don't know exactly what the former housekeeper saw, but there is a big difference between the two versions of what was going on. And again, taken as a single event, it probably means nothing. But then, Patsy blames Evan for the unflushed toilet.

(And BTW, I'll leave it to the psych majors here to analyze why Patsy reverts to child-speak when talking to adults about anatomical and sexual matters, but it is duly noted in my mind.)

However, it’s the toileting issues which speak so ominously about BR. Why was PR so unsuccessful in her toilet training with her children? PR was intelligent; she had access to family, friends, medical professionals who could have given her some good advice. What emerges for me is someone abusing both children and the consequent speculation as to what older person (adult or adolescent) may have abused them.

The reports about PR’s absence during cancer treatment include 1 item pertaining to BR’s unusual behavior, smearing feces on the shower walls. I wonder, was this separation anxiety or was someone inappropriately touching BR and evoking silent ‘rage’?

In another interview PR admits during questioning she wondered if JR could have molested JB while she was gone, but then adds that her mother Nedra slept in the twin bed next to JB, so JR couldn’t possibly have touched JB while she was gone. (A strange response, if I ever heard one).

No question the person with the most access to the children was PR. It was said that BR became better in his “accidents” after PR turned her attention to JB. But the evidence to support that isn’t really there. He was still wetting the bed sometimes and inappropriate toileting were still occurring (fecal matter in pajamas, e.g.) Another important statement in the referenced article is that children with SBP are totally compulsive about it and it doesn’t stop without professional intervention.

Yup. And we know now that both JonBenet and BR were getting counseling prior to her death. Burke had reportedly stopped, but then began again.

It’s been my belief for a long time that the sexual molestation of JB triggered what happened that Christmas night.

ITA with that. That was what the R's went to great pains to covered up. That was what caused it.

The one thing which speaks loudly is that both PR and JR (but especially JR) totally denied that JB had been molested. It was something JR disavowed vigorously. Cover up/denial that someone in the family could have done that? Fear that someone might ‘finger’ him for it? Or other thoughts? All moo.

I agree about the denial, but I still don't think it was JR.

I'm not trying to convince anyone else, but it took a lot to get me to this point. The total of all these things makes me believe both children had been abused. I won't point out the things that make me think who that abuser was, but I think it's obvious with all things considered. I'll leave it to others to make their own conclusions.

 

[Linda7NJ]

From the quoted source:

Each group includes a broad range of children, some are on the borderline between the groups, and some move between the groups over a period of time.
​

I absolutely agree. As I said in the post, "Not any one thing by itself, but when you put it all together it becomes something that just can’t be ignored." Believe me, as a former little boy myself, I am familiar with things little boys might do out of a healthy curiosity. Taken by itself, any single event could be nothing more than what the article says about Group 1:

Group 1 includes children engaged in natural and healthy childhood sexual exploration
​

It's when all of these events are looked at in their totality that we should (IMO) begin to be concerned. I imagine the interviewers had heard about this event from the former housekeeper. They knew what she described, and they asked about an incident where: "Burke and Evan were under the porch without their clothes on something, like that?" Of course, the Ramsey house had no porch. Did they have that detail wrong, or were they trying to be vague about it to get Patsy off-guard before she responds? Regardless, they relate it as both boys being "without their clothes". Patsy then dismisses it as Evan teaching Burke "that it was easier to go pee-pee outside than to take the time to go inside to go pee-pee."

We don't know exactly what the former housekeeper saw, but there is a big difference between the two versions of what was going on. And again, taken as a single event, it probably means nothing. But then, Patsy blames Evan for the unflushed toilet.

(And BTW, I'll leave it to the psych majors here to analyze why Patsy reverts to child-speak when talking to adults about anatomical and sexual matters, but it is duly noted in my mind.)


Yup. And we know now that both JonBenet and BR were getting counseling prior to her death. Burke had reportedly stopped, but then began again.

ITA with that. That was what the R's went to great pains to covered up. That was what caused it.

I agree about the denial, but I still don't think it was JR.

I'm not trying to convince anyone else, but it took a lot to get me to this point. The total of all these things makes me believe both children had been abused. I won't point out the things that make me think who that abuser was, but I think it's obvious with all things considered. I'll leave it to others to make their own conclusions.

JonBenet and Burke were both in therapy ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://nypost.com/1999/05/13/jealous-brother-9-killed-jonbenet-in-a-rage-claims-tab/

Certainly seems the author of this article had a very good source ...IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[borndem]

What is the likelihood of 2 kids from the same family having the same wetting/soiling issues?
For wanting to appear sophisticated and perfect, things must have been real bad behind the scenes.

Agreed, Venom. And is anyone surprised?? No family is perfect, so members just somehow deal with it, each in his or her own way.

 

[borndem]

When I first heard/read about JB's death and read details about the family, etc., my first thought was something like the Star article. I thought that BR was jealous of his sister getting all the attention, especially from PR. All the dresses, the talk about dresses, the talk about how well JB did in the last pageant and the talk about preparation for the next.

I had read that her body was found in the basement. I saw in my mind an argument between BR and JB and BR either hitting her or pushing her, either by accident or on purpose, and her falling down the stairs to the basement. (I knew nothing of the layout of the house -- I simply visualized an open door to basement steps and a concrete floor in the basement.) I have no idea today what the actual layout is w/respect to a door & stairs to a concrete-floored basement. My scenario is prolly impossible -- there may not even be any way that could have occurred.

I figured that JR and PR didn't want to lose both their children so they made up an entirely fictitious story about an intruder -- obviously not well thought out, etc. I knew nothing about any hint of molestation, bed-wetting, etc., etc.

It's still hanging in my mind that BR was involved in her death.

All JMHO.

 

[otg]

JonBenet and Burke were both in therapy ?

Which one are you questioning, Linda? I think Kolar mentioned it (I loaned my book to someone else and can't look it up), but it may have been one of Tricia's webcasts. Even Thomas wrote that he and Det. Gosage had tried to talk to JonBenet's therapist and were told to "talk to the parents' attorneys." (page 117, in my hardback copy)

 

[Linda7NJ]

Which one are you questioning, Linda? I think Kolar mentioned it (I loaned my book to someone else and can't look it up), but it may have been one of Tricia's webcasts. Even Thomas wrote that he and Det. Gosage had tried to talk to JonBenet's therapist and were told to "talk to the parents' attorneys." (page 117, in my hardback copy)

I do vaguely remember thinking..WTH ...

Not disbelieving at all, just IMO stunned at the ISLAND of PRIVACY they were gifted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

I do vaguely remember thinking..WTH ...

Not disbelieving at all, just IMO stunned at the ISLAND of PRIVACY they were gifted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty convinced it was the most critical gift, and it kept on giving...without that concession I think the whole house of cards would have crumbled.

 

[Sandstorm]

http://nypost.com/1999/05/13/jealous-brother-9-killed-jonbenet-in-a-rage-claims-tab/

Certainly seems the author of this article had a very good source ...IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*********************************************************
Thanks for the article.
This the first I have heard that Burke's Swiss Army knife was found beside JonBenet's body.
Anyone know more about this?

 

[txsvicki]

The linked article above is dated 1999. I didn't realize that anyone knew about what B shouted to the therapist until Kolar's book.

 

[ShadyLady]

It was said that Patsy wasn't thrilled with the dog because it wasn't completely housebroken. (as if it mattered in that messy house- probably no one bothered to walk it regularly). The dog spent a lot of time at the Barnhill's across the street.

JBR, BR and dog had bathroom problems? What does that say about Patsy?

I really wonder about Patsy's up bringing, and why did she turn JB into a sexual imagine. I think she went way beyond, and I read somewhere her dad liked to babysit her kids.

I really wonder what evidence LE held out from public. You know there is more.

I wonder if even the GJ heard all the evidence. Everyone seems in fear of the Ramsey lawyers.

 

[Haileyscharm]

I have always been one to think PDI. I never really followed the case closely until recently. In reading articles,books and seeing interviews on the case, I have become more convinced BDI. There are so many post asking those "Million Dollar Questions" and dismissing the BDI theory because it doesn't make sense. IMO, it makes more sense that BDI did it because of all the lies and unanswered questions.
The Pineapple: remember this is solely MOO. I believe because I do have a great theory as to what happened that night and sequence of events, that JB woke up after PR got her dressed for bed and went down to the kitchen for a snack. I believe BR also came in for a drink and PR gave JB a bowl of pineapple and BR a glass of tea. So why did PR deny this?? Because she left them to do other things and BR was the last known persons to be with JB alive and they would certainly have questioned him. IMO he then asked her to go to the basement to look for presents. So PR wanted to leave the story as JR carried her up to bed and that is the last anyone saw her. She wanted BR as far away from any scenario that places him with JB.
The Hi Tech boots/ sneakers: IMO they deny this as well because they don't want BR questioned. It is one of the many things left behind at the scene that they simply were too exhausted or time was running out to cover up every avenue.
The White Blanket: I actually think PR used this to wrap her baby as the last motherly thing to do. Why was BR's DNA On it? Moo she told him to grab the blanket out of the dryer before the R's sent him to his room.
The Garrotte: IMO, this was made by BR maybe not even that day but possibly another day as a weapon for play. I do not believe he made this as a sexual toy as some theorize but simply as a little boys weapon for dramatic play. I do believe he used this to scare her in the basement and once he let go , JB screams as she panicked, he was choking her. I don't think he meant to harm her. Once she screams , he has the flashlight and hits her with this to make her stop because he is in big trouble.
The 911 call: What did you find? Ok this is where my theory is a little different but again MOO, I believe once they sent him back to bed , PR gave him a sleeping aid so they could finish dealing with this horrible tragedy BR created. At some point i believe they convince BR that they saved JB but then an intruder came in and took her. I think the R's created the RN note together to help stage this even for BR's sake to take away the emotional damage of him being the one to have killed JB. I believe that question he asked was what did you find? meaning the RN note.