Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[GRT]

He’s not defending the offender; he’s rationalizing in his own mind and trying to find hope that his daughter didn’t experience the degree of depravity of what she went through (his mind just does not want to go there and it’s trying to find any ounce of humanity that he could muster up).

I think that's it in a nutshell. No parent wants to believe their child suffered at the hands of a monster before she died. If a parent can turn the event into an accident--or something the killer regretted--he/she will.

 

[Ponytale]

I think that's it in a nutshell. No parent wants to believe their child suffered at the hands of a monster before she died. If a parent can turn the event into an accident--or something the killer regretted--he/she will.

But yet they talk about it seemingly so easily - without any emotions shown or ever stating that it is something hard to talk about or even hard to imagine. In the shows and interviews they (mostly John) do not have any problems stating that a "crazy, sick minded monster" did this - there are no after thoughts after that statement or emotional signs like this is something unimaginable for him, like a pause. If it is a hard topic or something that is hard to fathom, I'd think there would be some sort of emotional reaction supporting this...
For an example - many people who had lost their loved ones in the 9-11 attacks still tear up when talking or remembering that day, although a long time has passed. Of course there are exceptions and maybe it is just John and his overall demeanor... but sure is something I have noticed. A lack of emotion.

 

[snarast]

But yet they talk about it seemingly so easily - without any emotions shown or ever stating that it is something hard to talk about or even hard to imagine. In the shows and interviews they (mostly John) do not have any problems stating that a "crazy, sick minded monster" did this - there are no after thoughts after that statement or emotional signs like this is something unimaginable for him, like a pause. o if it is a hard topic or something that is hard to fathom, I'd think there would be some sort of emotional reaction supporting this...
For an example - many people who had lost their loved ones in the 9-11 attacks still tear up when talking or remembering that day, although a long time has passed. Of course there are exceptions and maybe it is just John and his overall demeanor... but sure is something I have noticed. A lack of emotion.

Some people are like that. It might be the mechanism he uses when he transforms anger to something productive.

Imagine the different grief processes when looking at 911 vs JBR:.

1. 911 - the whole nations mourns with you and goes to war(s) for 10+ years as a result.
2. JBR - LE screws up by demolishing the crime scene, Everything is blamed on the posh hard-to-relate to family. Much of it reinforced by repulsion from being bombarded by zombie-like mini Barbie clips and photos.

I think it’s kind of more likely that 2 leads to compartmentalization - especially if the accusations go on and on and on for 30 years.

 

[Ponytale]

Some people are like that. It might be the mechanism he uses when he transforms anger to something productive.

Imagine the different grief processes when looking at 911 vs JBR:.

1. 911 - the whole nations mourns with you and goes to war(s) for 10+ years as a result.
2. JBR - LE screws up by demolishing the crime scene, Everything is blamed on the posh hard-to-relate to family. Much of it reinforced by repulsion from being bombarded by zombie-like mini Barbie clips and photos.

I think it’s kind of more likely that 2 leads to compartmentalization - especially if the accusations go on and on and on for 30 years.

Yes, it possibly could be so.
And I'm not comparing the two events - it was just an example that came to mind.

 

[GRT]

But yet they talk about it seemingly so easily - without any emotions shown or ever stating that it is something hard to talk about or even hard to imagine. In the shows and interviews they (mostly John) do not have any problems stating that a "crazy, sick minded monster" did this - there are no after thoughts after that statement or emotional signs like this is something unimaginable for him, like a pause. If it is a hard topic or something that is hard to fathom, I'd think there would be some sort of emotional reaction supporting this...
For an example - many people who had lost their loved ones in the 9-11 attacks still tear up when talking or remembering that day, although a long time has passed. Of course there are exceptions and maybe it is just John and his overall demeanor... but sure is something I have noticed. A lack of emotion.

I think it's just that JR is a man who doesn't show emotion easily. But, on the day he found his daughter dead, he screamed and PR wailed over her daughter and tried to make deals with God to bring her back.

We know from their friends that PR verged on an emotional breakdown after JBR died, and I firmly believe her grief in combination with becoming suspects wore her down and didn't let her body fight off the cancer.

I'm a huge bawlbaby, but I never saw my mother cry--not even when my brother died. She was raised to have that stiff upper lip and she was always composed.

There are reports of PR crying when they forced her to write and rewrite the ransom note over and over. That family has had way more than their share of grief and bullying.

 

[Bean&Cheese]

If the intent was to hurt the parents - why again be so "gentle" with the crime. The crime scene showed signs of care (blanket, wiping, redressing). Would an intruder, who does the crime with the purpose to hurt the parents, wipe down the blood from his victim? Would he redress her? Would he care about covering her with her favorite blanket?
If the intent is to hurt and see a reaction - why not violate the body much more and leave it in the plain sight? Or leave evidence of a "cruel and violent attack" behind and take the body so there would be no proper burial? Why not leave signs of torture (like blood) on the scene? Nothing, IMO, suggest sadistic. It suggest care.

It was not a garrote, it has been discussed previously.
And again (sorry for the graphic explanation coming here) - a sadistic pedophile (or even just an intruder with an intent to kill) would have left his victim hanging by her neck, undressed and bleeding for the parents to see as soon as they found her missing - not taking time to clean her up, redress her and hide her away covering with blanket. If the intent was to see their reaction and really hurt them.
It is all my opinion of course, but looking at other crimes that actually have been committed by intruders with sadistic/ pedophile/crazy intents - the common factor is the gruesomeness of the scene left behind after the crime. There is nothing that would suggest it in this crime scene. IMO

The intent was to commit a sex crime on JBR. I believe that he took pictures of his crime so he could relive it. I believe that he took her original underwear as a souvenir. He did not intend to kidnap her ever. I believe he broke into the house right after Ramsay’s went to Christmas party. I believe that he went through every room in their house- especially her room and probably touched, smelled, just relished being in that room. I think that he went looking for pictures of her. The crime was never about John. The crime was about JBR. But, the sadistic part of the pedophile wanted to also play with the parents psyche- that excited him. The offender fantasized about this for a long time. The manner in which JBR was found and the things that she went through, would have taken knowledge only found on the dark web (or mail where pedos send other pedos pictures). A parent just wouldn’t stage their own child’s body like that. I don’t even think a sadistic pedophile would stage their own child’s body like that (ex: BTK).

 

[snarast]

The intent was to commit a sex crime on JBR. I believe that he took pictures of his crime so he could relive it. I believe that he took her original underwear as a souvenir. He did not intend to kidnap her ever. I believe he broke into the house right after Ramsay’s went to Christmas party. I believe that he went through every room in their house- especially her room and probably touched, smelled, just relished being in that room. I think that he went looking for pictures of her. The crime was never about John. The crime was about JBR. But, the sadistic part of the pedophile wanted to also play with the parents psyche- that excited him. The offender fantasized about this for a long time. The manner in which JBR was found and the things that she went through, would have taken knowledge only found on the dark web (or mail where pedos send other pedos pictures). A parent just wouldn’t stage their own child’s body like that. I don’t even think a sadistic pedophile would stage their own child’s body like that (ex: BTK).

From what I understand BTK has yet to confess his crimes to his children. So, he has the victims tagged as play things while his children are marked as precious.

 

[Ponytale]

I think it's just that JR is a man who doesn't show emotion easily. But, on the day he found his daughter dead, he screamed and PR wailed over her daughter and tried to make deals with God to bring her back.

We know from their friends that PR verged on an emotional breakdown after JBR died, and I firmly believe her grief in combination with becoming suspects wore her down and didn't let her body fight off the cancer.

I'm a huge bawlbaby, but I never saw my mother cry--not even when my brother died. She was raised to have that stiff upper lip and she was always composed.

There are reports of PR crying when they forced her to write and rewrite the ransom note over and over. That family has had way more than their share of grief and bullying.

Yes, it is a possibility.
There are people who struggle with showing their emotions. People are different.
And I do believe it was very hard for both John and Patsy. Unimaginable...

 

[Ponytale]

The intent was to commit a sex crime on JBR. I believe that he took pictures of his crime so he could relive it. I believe that he took her original underwear as a souvenir. He did not intend to kidnap her ever. I believe he broke into the house right after Ramsay’s went to Christmas party. I believe that he went through every room in their house- especially her room and probably touched, smelled, just relished being in that room. I think that he went looking for pictures of her. The crime was never about John. The crime was about JBR. But, the sadistic part of the pedophile wanted to also play with the parents psyche- that excited him. The offender fantasized about this for a long time. The manner in which JBR was found and the things that she went through, would have taken knowledge only found on the dark web (or mail where pedos send other pedos pictures). A parent just wouldn’t stage their own child’s body like that. I don’t even think a sadistic pedophile would stage their own child’s body like that (ex: BTK).

Thank you for sharing your theory!
I can imagine that happening and it is still a possibility as no-one has been convicted.
But what I struggle with this (or any IDI theory so far), is the lack of physical evidence that there was someone else in that house that night. I would expect there to be fibers, hairs, footprints, sand/mud.. whatever. Something that Patsy and John could have been able to point out that was amiss or different that would indicate that there had been someone inside the house. Especially if the intruder spent the whole night waiting in their house - looking for the pad and the pen, looking for pictures and touching and smelling her things. There is nothing that would suggest that someone was there at all... unless he wore a hazmat suite.

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Thank you for sharing your theory!
I can imagine that happening and it is still a possibility as no-one has been convicted.
But what I struggle with this (or any IDI theory so far), is the lack of physical evidence that there was someone else in that house that night. I would expect there to be fibers, hairs, footprints, sand/mud.. whatever. Something that Patsy and John could have been able to point out that was amiss or different that would indicate that there had been someone inside the house. Especially if the intruder spent the whole night waiting in their house - looking for the pad and the pen, looking for pictures and touching and smelling her things. There is nothing that would suggest that someone was there at all... unless he wore a hazmat suite.

I think that the offender did use gloves and covered his shoes (with a slip when they found heel prints). We also don’t really know if there actually WAS evidence that you mentioned because the crime scene and house was not secured well and I don’t know that I fully blame BPD for that as they just didn’t have the experience. Hindsight is 20/20. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Investigators should see themselves as purely data collectors, especially in the initial stages because when you make a theory early on; you’re only going to find data that fits that theory and miss the other data at the scene and leave many questions unanswered. For example, if you do an exercise and have your children count the number of blue cars on the freeway for 5 mins, they will give you an answer at the very end. But, if you ask them how many white cars they saw, they’re not going to have an answer. It’s possible to count both colors of cars, but you will need to be methodical, experienced, and capable. I actually am undecided on my stance as to who did what. But, have yet to see evidence that cannot be explained away.

 

[Ponytale]

I think that the offender did use gloves and covered his shoes (with a slip when they found heel prints). We also don’t really know if there actually WAS evidence that you mentioned because the crime scene and house was not secured well and I don’t know that I fully blame BPD for that as they just didn’t have the experience. Hindsight is 20/20. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Investigators should see themselves as purely data collectors, especially in the initial stages because when you make a theory early on; you’re only going to find data that fits that theory and miss the other data at the scene and leave many questions unanswered. For example, if you do an exercise and have your children count the number of blue cars on the freeway for 5 mins, they will give you an answer at the very end. But, if you ask them how many white cars they saw, they’re not going to have an answer. It’s possible to count both colors of cars, but you will need to be methodical, experienced, and capable. I actually am undecided on my stance as to who did what. But, have yet to see evidence that cannot be explained away.

Exactly! That is the problem with all the theories - the evidence can be explained away. Sadly, that is what makes it hard to believe any one of them without some doubt in mind.

I can understand what you are thinking. I agree that he must have worn gloves, as there were no fingerprints found. Possibly shoe covers as well.
But if he did wear gloves, shoe covers, etc. - what is your thought on how he left his DNA on her? If you believe that the DNA is from an intruder. I mean, he was careful enough to not leave any traces of himself at the scene or at the house. He wrote the ransom note wearing his gloves - touched the pad, pen and papers, but did not leave his fingerprints or DNA there. But yet left his DNA on JonBenet - how would you explain that?

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Exactly! That is the problem with all the theories - the evidence can be explained away. Sadly, that is what makes it hard to believe any one of them without some doubt in mind.

I can understand what you are thinking. I agree that he must have worn gloves, as there were no fingerprints found. Possibly shoe covers as well.
But if he did wear gloves, shoe covers, etc. - what is your thought on how he left his DNA on her? If you believe that the DNA is from an intruder. I mean, he was careful enough to not leave any traces of himself at the scene or at the house. He wrote the ransom note wearing his gloves - touched the pad, pen and papers, but did not leave his fingerprints or DNA there. But yet left his DNA on JonBenet - how would you explain that?

The touch DNA is from the long John’s touching his arms as he put them on or took them off. The underwear DNA is saliva (assumption given the high amylase levels) and she used her fingernails somewhere on him. Did JB, BR, or PR have any scratches?

 

[GRT]

The touch DNA is from the long John’s touching his arms as he put them on or took them off. The underwear DNA is saliva (assumption given the high amylase levels) and she used her fingernails somewhere on him. Did JB, BR, or PR have any scratches?

According to Mitch Morrissey, there were two spots that were likely saliva mixed with JBR's blood. We know they were not semen.

That's the real kicker because we can explain away "touch" DNA having come from somewhere else but saliva mixed with the little child's blood? That doesn't happen by accident. I don't even want to think about how that happened, but we do know that the saliva did not match any of the Ramseys.

John Ramsey has been pushing for more DNA testing of the items taken from the house. They took urine-stained carpet samples, a backpack that didn't belong to the Ramsey's, and much more. There very likely is more of the killer's DNA.

They've been running the DNA from the partial profile constantly through CODIS with no hits in almost 3 decades. What John is pushing for now is using new DNA technology to separate the composite sample and then run it through genealogy DNA databases. That's how LE tracked down Brian Kohberger with just one tiny bit of DNA on a sheath. They have enough DNA to run that test for JBR's killer too.

I hope they do it before John passes because I think he deserves to find the killer of his little girl before he dies.

 

[GRT]

what is your thought on how he left his DNA on her? If you believe that the DNA is from an intruder. I mean, he was careful enough to not leave any traces of himself at the scene or at the house. He wrote the ransom note wearing his gloves - touched the pad, pen and papers, but did not leave his fingerprints or DNA there. But yet left his DNA on JonBenet - how would you explain that?

RSBM for focus.

This part is a nightmare for me to think about but I think he may have done something orally to JBR after penetrating her with something. I think he wiped her down after that, took her panties as a trophy, and then found that package of big panties and re-dressed her.

I think the guy (they know it's male DNA) was obsessed with JBR. I think that's why they found her wrapped in a blanket--which is an odd thing for a child-killer do.

All MOO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

According to Mitch Morrissey, there were two spots that were likely saliva mixed with JBR's blood. We know they were not semen.

That's the real kicker because we can explain away "touch" DNA having come from somewhere else but saliva mixed with the little child's blood? That doesn't happen by accident. I don't even want to think about how that happened, but we do know that the saliva did not match any of the Ramseys.

John Ramsey has been pushing for more DNA testing of the items taken from the house. They took urine-stained carpet samples, a backpack that didn't belong to the Ramsey's, and much more. There very likely is more of the killer's DNA.

They've been running the DNA from the partial profile constantly through CODIS with no hits in almost 3 decades. What John is pushing for now is using new DNA technology to separate the composite sample and then run it through genealogy DNA databases. That's how LE tracked down Brian Kohberger with just one tiny bit of DNA on a sheath. They have enough DNA to run that test for JBR's killer too.

I hope they do it before John passes because I think he deserves to find the killer of his little girl before he dies.

And I recently learned that CODIS largely has the “X” chromosome of offenders and BPD has the “Y” (because we know that is t coming from JBR. Meaning that, the offender could very well be in CODIS, but only his “X” chromosome profile

 

[Slebby]

And I recently learned that CODIS largely has the “X” chromosome of offenders and BPD has the “Y” (because we know that is t coming from JBR. Meaning that, the offender could very well be in CODIS, but only his “X” chromosome profile

Can you expand on this, or refer to where you learned this? I am not following what sounds like an unlikely limitation in CODIS. Thx.

 

[snarast]

Do you mean that in the mixed sample iit’s only the Y chr that does not come from JB?

The Y chr is a scrawny thing - not much on there. It’s a problem if the Y chromosome is all they can get. The thing is - they should be able to compare mixed sample Sequences to JBs own genome and remove that.

You might have to do longer read sequencing to complement the mixture of sequences that they have.

IMHO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Can you expand on this, or refer to where you learned this? I am not following what sounds like an unlikely limitation in CODIS. Thx.

Source:
- Episode 11 of The Killing of JonBenet podcast and also from a podcast that I don’t remember the name, but Mitch Morrisey was a guest on the episode.
- I have a degree in biochemistry and cell biology and genetics was part of the curriculum.

So, I’ll see if I can explain better, because I re read my prior post and it is confusing (and has an error).
So, CODIS stores information from samples from 20 core DNA loci and these 20 core loci are “autosomal loci” meaning that BOTH the “X” chromosome and “Y” chromosome have the same gene (but, that gene has a particular DNA “code” or allele). So, when those two alleles from an individual are put together, then they form their own “Code” let’s say A145a273 for an example. So, because the larger DNA sample that we have from JBR is mixed with her blood, and at least one other “X” chromosome from another individual, then we can’t reliably tell what “X” chromosome belongs to the offender. So, the partial Y- STR profile that is available from the offender hasn’t yielded any matches because the FBI uses a stringent search criteria that considers a “match” when there is a 1 in 10 million probability that it belong to one person. So, thinking of it backwards… when the DNA is run in CODIS, it’s actually encountering too many “matches” to the point that it can’t give a good probability. (That’s my understanding at least). So, JAR and investigative team in the podcast interviewed a world-renowned forensic scientist from the UK to discuss how, in other countries, they lower the parameters, so that they can at least get some results (like, lower it to a probability of say 1 in 1 million). I hope that makes sense?

Edited to fix error

 

[Slebby]

Source:
- Episode 11 of The Killing of JonBenet podcast and also from a podcast that I don’t remember the name, but Mitch Morrisey was a guest on the episode.
- I have a degree in biochemistry and cell biology and genetics was part of the curriculum.

So, I’ll see if I can explain better, because I re read my prior post and it is confusing (and has an error).
So, CODIS stores information from samples from 20 core DNA loci and these 20 core loci are “autosomal loci” meaning that BOTH the “X” chromosome and “Y” chromosome have the same gene (but, that gene has a particular DNA “code” or allele). So, when those two alleles from an individual are put together, then they form their own “Code” let’s say A145a273 for an example. So, because the larger DNA sample that we have from JBR is mixed with her blood, and at least one other “X” chromosome from another individual, then we can’t reliably tell what “X” chromosome belongs to the offender. So, the partial Y- STR profile that is available from the offender hasn’t yielded any matches because the FBI uses a stringent search criteria that considers a “match” when there is a 1 in 10 million probability that it belong to one person. So, thinking of it backwards… when the DNA is run in CODIS, it’s actually encountering too many “matches” to the point that it can’t give a good probability. (That’s my understanding at least). So, JAR and investigative team in the podcast interviewed a world-renowned forensic scientist from the UK to discuss how, in other countries, they lower the parameters, so that they can at least get some results (like, lower it to a probability of say 1 in 1 million). I hope that makes sense?

Edited to fix error

I am clearly NOT smarter than a 3rd grader, lol, also blonde??
I appreciate the effort and the tail end of your explanation helps, somewhat.
Thanks!

 

[Tricia]

Do you remember the annoying old days when Websleuths.com had a zillion ads on the site?
Those days are GONE and let's keep them gone. Help us keep ads off of Websleuths.
Sign up for a subscription to DNA Solves.com and make a monthly donation.
Not only does this keep those awful ads off of Websleuths, but you are helping the families of the missing get the answers they deserve.
Find out how you can become a subscriber to DNA Solves.com by CLICKING HERE.
If you want to make a single donation, go to www.dnasolves.com and pick a case you would like to donate to.
Do not comment on this thread. CLICK HERE to ask questions and to learn more.
Thank you very much.