Was Burke involved?

Was Burke involved in JB's death?

  • Burke was involved in the death of JBR

    Votes: 377 59.6%
  • Burke was totally uninvolved in her death

    Votes: 256 40.4%

  • Total voters
    633
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeeDee, couldnt the parents have been charged with failure to protect or any other law that holds them accountable for the negligence that led to their childs death? I know that there are many laws of this nature just not sure how that would play out in CO and the hideous laws that protect their juvenile criminals. Im not saying BR did this, just finding myself much like Alice of Wonderland, curiouser and curiouser..

Not sure. Certainly those charges are appropriate and in any other State (without a law like Colorado's protecting children under 10) they may have been filed. However, to file charges like that (child endangerment or negligence or failure to protect or similar charges, that implies they failed to prevent someone else from killing her. And if that someone was under 10 in Colorado, I do not think such charges could be filed.
There were other kinds of charges that could have been filed as well- tampering with evidence and tampering with a corpse. Making a false police report. These imply staging but not murder. And it also implies someone else committed the murder. And if that someone else was under 10- we are right back to square one.
Obstruction of justice comes to mind as well, but this could apply to the DA as well as the parents.
It was far easier for the cowards in the Boulder DA's office to simply do nothing and let it die. They caved in to pressure from the defense and from the governor's office and took the path of least resistance. And it continues to this day.
 
Well I doubt there is anywhere in the house that Burke could have placed her, at sufficient height, so that she'd hit her head with enough force to make a crack over 8 inches long in her skull. Seems far more likely someone struck her on the head with something.

If the parents discovered later that JB was dead, then BR would have to have done both the blow to the head, and the strangulation. I find it a little hard to believe he'd do both because I think his rage would be spent after hitting her in the head. I could be wrong. I'm just trying to get into the head of a 9 year old with a bad case of sibling rivalry (since that is what most BDI theorists think motivated the killing). If it was a momentary fit of rage would the rage still be strong enough, after the blow to the head, to also strangle? There is no way to pin this down to an exact answer, I'm just trying to think about what seems likely.

I do think the staging was done, at least partly, independently.

Chrishope,
Accepting what you suggest, does this rule out Burke?

Burke may have injured JonBenet but not killed her outright. The person who applied the garrote and ligature probably killed her and I reckon this was done deliberately.

One thing I reckon is staging is the garrote e.g. both the paintbrush handle and ligature. These have been applied to mask a prior strangulation.

Otherwise if JonBenet is already dead why bother with asphyxiation, just blame it on the intruder?

Why use a ligature to asphyxiate JonBenet, why not a plastic bag, a pillow or a hand over the mouth etc? What would drive a relative to such an extreme, for me its for the effect of staging?

So if you and DeeDee249 reckon Burke could not have generated enough force to have caused JonBenet's head injury, then that quickly brings John and Patsy into sharp focus as possible suspects?


Another scenario I have considered is that JonBenet was initially manually strangled, this caused hypoxia, leading to JonBenet going into a coma. This was followed by a deliberate head bash, say to fake a fall or blunt force injury. This appeared not to work, JonBenet had seizures, with cerebral fluid exiting from her nasal passage and/or ears. But there was no visible sign of what caused her to become unconcious etc. So the ligature was introduced to finally kill JonBenet and then the paintbrush handle was added to fabricate a garrote?

So in ye olde sleuthing terms: The Means is someone's bare hands, the Opportunity occurs as she is being molested, the Motive is to silence JonBenet.



.
 
Chrishope,
Accepting what you suggest, does this rule out Burke?

I guess it depend on your definition of "ruled out". If you mean have we logically proven that it would be impossible for Burke to be involved, then no, of course he isn't ruled out.

But I wouldn't rule out an intruder either - in the sense that it's absolutely impossible. It's just very very unlikely. I think BDI is the same - very unlikely.

Burke may have injured JonBenet but not killed her outright. The person who applied the garrote and ligature probably killed her and I reckon this was done deliberately.

If Burke hurt her, but didn't kill her, it makes the blow to the head much more likely to be first in time. If she was strangled first with bare hands, the same person didn't necessarily have to apply the garrotte.

One thing I reckon is staging is the garrote e.g. both the paintbrush handle and ligature. These have been applied to mask a prior strangulation.

Very possible.

Otherwise if JonBenet is already dead why bother with asphyxiation, just blame it on the intruder?

Yes, good point. But also if she's not dead, why the asphyxiation? As BDI theory typically goes, BR bashed JB on the head. Let's say he did not do the strangulation, for the sake of discussion. The parents learn of JBs injury some time later. Why would their reaction be - "Well, BR has hit her in the head, she's pretty bad. Let's finish her off and stage an intruder/killer/kidnapper. " "Yeah, ok, sounds like a plan." ? If the parents could tell she was still alive, then I'd expect an ambulance call - if the parents had not been involved up to that point. If they couldn't tell, then they'd think she was dead, so, as you ask, why not blame it on the intruder? Why the asphyxiation?

Why use a ligature to asphyxiate JonBenet, why not a plastic bag, a pillow or a hand over the mouth etc? What would drive a relative to such an extreme, for me its for the effect of staging?

I agree, the more brutal, the better to fit with intruder theory - at least in the minds of the staggers.

So if you and DeeDee249 reckon Burke could not have generated enough force to have caused JonBenet's head injury, then that quickly brings John and Patsy into sharp focus as possible suspects?

IMO the fact that they are the parents and the only known adults in the house that night brings them into sharp focus as primary suspects. But yes, if BDI is unlikley, as it is IMO, then we are left with the parents, or the highly improbable IDI theory.

I think Burke may have been able to generate enough force to crack her head, with some types of blunt objects - a baseball bat, for example. But I don't think he could have done it with the flashlight.

Another scenario I have considered is that JonBenet was initially manually strangled, this caused hypoxia, leading to JonBenet going into a coma. This was followed by a deliberate head bash, say to fake a fall or blunt force injury. This appeared not to work, JonBenet had seizures, with cerebral fluid exiting from her nasal passage and/or ears. But there was no visible sign of what caused her to become unconcious etc. So the ligature was introduced to finally kill JonBenet and then the paintbrush handle was added to fabricate a garrote?

Possible, but I wonder why they'd go with the blow to the head at that point? Could they tell she was in a comma? If so, why not just continue with the strangulation? People in a comma will die w/o air. If they couldn't tell, and thought she was dead, then we are back to why the secondary cause of death?

So in ye olde sleuthing terms: The Means is someone's bare hands, the Opportunity occurs as she is being molested, the Motive is to silence JonBenet.

The means is both the head blow and the strangulation. It could be bare hands, as you suggest, with the garrotte as staging. In that case do you think BR could strangle JB with his bare hands? The opportunity occurs anytime between arriving home and say 1 or 2 in the morning. It didn't have to be done while the molestation was taking place. Silencing JB is a reasonable inference of motive, but it could have been other motives as well.



.[/quote]
 
Not sure. Certainly those charges are appropriate and in any other State (without a law like Colorado's protecting children under 10) they may have been filed. However, to file charges like that (child endangerment or negligence or failure to protect or similar charges, that implies they failed to prevent someone else from killing her. And if that someone was under 10 in Colorado, I do not think such charges could be filed.
There were other kinds of charges that could have been filed as well- tampering with evidence and tampering with a corpse. Making a false police report. These imply staging but not murder. And it also implies someone else committed the murder. And if that someone else was under 10- we are right back to square one.
Obstruction of justice comes to mind as well, but this could apply to the DA as well as the parents.
It was far easier for the cowards in the Boulder DA's office to simply do nothing and let it die. They caved in to pressure from the defense and from the governor's office and took the path of least resistance. And it continues to this day.


I don't believe DeeDee is correct in assuming that an accomplice could not be charged just because BR is under 10. I have not been able to find anything one way or the other. I've asked DeeDee for a link to explain her theory.

I don't see what is so unusual about CO law - most states, and most other nations, have a minimum age for charging someone with a crime. It isn't always 10, but there is usually some minimum age.
 
I guess it depend on your definition of "ruled out". If you mean have we logically proven that it would be impossible for Burke to be involved, then no, of course he isn't ruled out.

But I wouldn't rule out an intruder either - in the sense that it's absolutely impossible. It's just very very unlikely. I think BDI is the same - very unlikely.



If Burke hurt her, but didn't kill her, it makes the blow to the head much more likely to be first in time. If she was strangled first with bare hands, the same person didn't necessarily have to apply the garrotte.



Very possible.



Yes, good point. But also if she's not dead, why the asphyxiation? As BDI theory typically goes, BR bashed JB on the head. Let's say he did not do the strangulation, for the sake of discussion. The parents learn of JBs injury some time later. Why would their reaction be - "Well, BR has hit her in the head, she's pretty bad. Let's finish her off and stage an intruder/killer/kidnapper. " "Yeah, ok, sounds like a plan." ? If the parents could tell she was still alive, then I'd expect an ambulance call - if the parents had not been involved up to that point. If they couldn't tell, then they'd think she was dead, so, as you ask, why not blame it on the intruder? Why the asphyxiation?



I agree, the more brutal, the better to fit with intruder theory - at least in the minds of the staggers.



IMO the fact that they are the parents and the only known adults in the house that night brings them into sharp focus as primary suspects. But yes, if BDI is unlikley, as it is IMO, then we are left with the parents, or the highly improbable IDI theory.

I think Burke may have been able to generate enough force to crack her head, with some types of blunt objects - a baseball bat, for example. But I don't think he could have done it with the flashlight.



Possible, but I wonder why they'd go with the blow to the head at that point? Could they tell she was in a comma? If so, why not just continue with the strangulation? People in a comma will die w/o air. If they couldn't tell, and thought she was dead, then we are back to why the secondary cause of death?



The means is both the head blow and the strangulation. It could be bare hands, as you suggest, with the garrotte as staging. In that case do you think BR could strangle JB with his bare hands? The opportunity occurs anytime between arriving home and say 1 or 2 in the morning. It didn't have to be done while the molestation was taking place. Silencing JB is a reasonable inference of motive, but it could have been other motives as well.

Chrishope,
Yes, good point. But also if she's not dead, why the asphyxiation? As BDI theory typically goes, BR bashed JB on the head. Let's say he did not do the strangulation, for the sake of discussion. The parents learn of JBs injury some time later. Why would their reaction be - "Well, BR has hit her in the head, she's pretty bad. Let's finish her off and stage an intruder/killer/kidnapper. " "Yeah, ok, sounds like a plan." ? If the parents could tell she was still alive, then I'd expect an ambulance call - if the parents had not been involved up to that point. If they couldn't tell, then they'd think she was dead, so, as you ask, why not blame it on the intruder? Why the asphyxiation?
Because it acts both as staging and to mask any prior strangulation. This is what the wine-cellar crime-scene is, staged. Her longjohns and size-12's mask any prior molestation, just like your Why the asphyxiation? question, why redress, why not let the world see how nasty and brutal the intruder has been? Similarly with the asphyxiation, why the adornments, the ligature, the paintbrush-handle, etc. Manually strangling JonBenet would have been sufficient.

The R's were hiding and masking details of whatever had gone before, e.g. JonBenet's initial injury, her molestation, she was presented as if kidnapped from bed, as per the R's version of events. Yet the forensic evidence fails to support the R's version of events.

Because it's alleged the R's cleaned JonBenet up, e.g. John's black fibers, they also knew she had been molested, this is why there was no ambulance call. They would have been arrested on the spot. So you have collusion between the R that molested JonBenet and whomever assisted in the staging.

If you rule out Burke, that leaves John and Patsy, and both have forensic evidence linking them with the wine-cellar, but not Burke. So you could speculate its JDI with Patsy assisting. Obviously that could be reversed.


.
 
I don't believe DeeDee is correct in assuming that an accomplice could not be charged just because BR is under 10. I have not been able to find anything one way or the other. I've asked DeeDee for a link to explain her theory.

I don't see what is so unusual about CO law - most states, and most other nations, have a minimum age for charging someone with a crime. It isn't always 10, but there is usually some minimum age.

Chrishope,
Possibly not. But who is going to charge an R with being an accessory to crime or whatever, thereby telling us who did it, because there are only two options left?


.
 
Chrishope,

Because it acts both as staging and to mask any prior strangulation. This is what the wine-cellar crime-scene is, staged. Her longjohns and size-12's mask any prior molestation, just like your Why the asphyxiation? question, why redress, why not let the world see how nasty and brutal the intruder has been? Similarly with the asphyxiation, why the adornments, the ligature, the paintbrush-handle, etc. Manually strangling JonBenet would have been sufficient.

Yes, why. Most of the staging really makes no sense. The ligature may also mask the size of hands and/or the depth of "hand marks".

The R's were hiding and masking details of whatever had gone before, e.g. JonBenet's initial injury, her molestation, she was presented as if kidnapped from bed, as per the R's version of events. Yet the forensic evidence fails to support the R's version of events.

I agree.

Because it's alleged the R's cleaned JonBenet up, e.g. John's black fibers, they also knew she had been molested, this is why there was no ambulance call. They would have been arrested on the spot. So you have collusion between the R that molested JonBenet and whomever assisted in the staging.

Right. And it seems unlikely to me that BR did the molestation. If BDI, then BR had to do it after the molestation. If he'd done it before, there'd be no accute injuries, just the chronic injuries, but doctors had seen those injuries before - or should have.

If you rule out Burke, that leaves John and Patsy, and both have forensic evidence linking them with the wine-cellar, but not Burke. So you could speculate its JDI with Patsy assisting. Obviously that could be reversed.

Either of those situations, or a joint effort for reasons that we cannot fathom.


.[/quote]
 
I don't know if this question belongs her or not, but I will ask anyway.

Why did JR lawyer up for John, Melinda and his ex-wife. JR lawyered up so quick the DA got to people before LE even started thinking about it.

I believe that DP had a reservation to Atlanta on the 23rd or 24th. But who is to say that he couldn't have flown in undercover, just as JAR could have done?
 
I don't believe DeeDee is correct in assuming that an accomplice could not be charged just because BR is under 10. I have not been able to find anything one way or the other. I've asked DeeDee for a link to explain her theory.

I don't see what is so unusual about CO law - most states, and most other nations, have a minimum age for charging someone with a crime. It isn't always 10, but there is usually some minimum age.

You ain't gettin' the link either. I do only my own research and anyway, theories by their nature, would not have anything to "link" to because they are, well, theories.

Different states do have differing laws, of course. In some states, BR could have been charged. But that is really besides the point- he lived in Colorado so that is the only State that matters.
 
I don't know if this question belongs her or not, but I will ask anyway.

Why did JR lawyer up for John, Melinda and his ex-wife. JR lawyered up so quick the DA got to people before LE even started thinking about it.

I believe that DP had a reservation to Atlanta on the 23rd or 24th. But who is to say that he couldn't have flown in undercover, just as JAR could have done?

Well, I think we all know the answer to that. JR didn't want LE questioning them. As far as LR (his first wife), she was in Atlanta and was never a suspect on any level. BUT- she was an alibi - for JAR. He claimed to be there Christmas Day. Many people take photos on Christmas morning, and had she been asked to provide photographic proof of his presence there that day, a lawyer would have quickly shot that down. Had gutless wonder AH asked for a warrant for such photos, they could always say there weren't any. The lawyers simply provided a buffer between the rest of the family and LE.
Remember- NO ONE can be compelled to talk to the police. Even if you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. But the silence of family members when LE are trying to solve the murder of a 6-year old member of that family is very suspect. Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

And you are correct that, with JR's access to private planes, passenger lists and flight plans may not have provided any proof.
 
The more I think about things the more I feel I've not been paying enough attention to Burke's potential role in all this......it disturbs me a bit.
 
Yes, why. Most of the staging really makes no sense. The ligature may also mask the size of hands and/or the depth of "hand marks".



I agree.



Right. And it seems unlikely to me that BR did the molestation. If BDI, then BR had to do it after the molestation. If he'd done it before, there'd be no accute injuries, just the chronic injuries, but doctors had seen those injuries before - or should have.



Either of those situations, or a joint effort for reasons that we cannot fathom.


.
[/QUOTE]

Chrishope,
Right. And it seems unlikely to me that BR did the molestation. If BDI, then BR had to do it after the molestation. If he'd done it before, there'd be no accute injuries, just the chronic injuries, but doctors had seen those injuries before - or should have.
This is unknown. It is one thing to claim on the grounds of physical capacity or the laws of gravity and potential energy that Burke could not have caused JonBenet's head injury. Quite another to rule out molestation, since we do not know if all JonBenet's injuries were inflicted in the same time frame, or were coterminous?

It is us who see a causal link between JonBenet's injuries, when in fact they could be independent.

.
 
The more I think about things the more I feel I've not been paying enough attention to Burke's potential role in all this......it disturbs me a bit.

wonderllama,
Whatever his role, he likely knows when JonBenet snacked pineapple, if she was up and walking about the house, after they arrived back from the White's. If she was wearing her barbie-nightgown and playing with a barbie-doll, or dressed in pink pajamas?

He can assist the investigators, but will his father allow him to talk?



.
 
You ain't gettin' the link either. I do only my own research and anyway, theories by their nature, would not have anything to "link" to because they are, well, theories.

Different states do have differing laws, of course. In some states, BR could have been charged. But that is really besides the point- he lived in Colorado so that is the only State that matters.


Theories about the application of state statutes could easily have links. I'd like to know where you got the idea that others can't be charged because BR is underage.
 
Chrishope,

This is unknown. It is one thing to claim on the grounds of physical capacity or the laws of gravity and potential energy that Burke could not have caused JonBenet's head injury. Quite another to rule out molestation, since we do not know if all JonBenet's injuries were inflicted in the same time frame, or were coterminous?

It is us who see a causal link between JonBenet's injuries, when in fact they could be independent.

.[/quote]

It's not a matter of "ruling out" anyone. BR is not, in my mind, ruled out. It's a question of likelihood. 9 year olds can molest, but they typically don't. If they were playing doctor, I'd expect -possibly- some digital penetration. I think the type of injuries suggest an adult.
 
It's not a matter of "ruling out" anyone. BR is not, in my mind, ruled out. It's a question of likelihood. 9 year olds can molest, but they typically don't.

Where's your link for that?

Kids do a lot of brutal things to each other. Kids lie, fight, bully, cover up, rape, and kill.

Here's MY links to back that up:

The Unthinkable: Children who kill -
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/kids2/index_1.html

"Jesse Pomeroy was fourteen when he was arrested in 1874 for the sadistic murder of a four-year-old boy. His rampage had begun three years earlier with the sexual torture of seven other boys".

"Mary Flora Bell wanted to hurt someone. When Mary was eleven, she and Nora lured a boy to the top of an air raid shelter. Two weeks later, the corpse of four-year-old Martin Brown was found, another assumed accident. He'd been strangled and his legs and stomach had been cut with a razor and scissors. They went to trial in 1968 in England, where Mary was convicted of two counts of manslaughter."

"Willie Bosket had committed over two thousand crimes in New York by the time he was fifteen, including stabbing several people".
__

Child on Child Sexual Abuse -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-on-child_sexual_abuse

"The incidence of child-on-child sexual abuse is not known with any certainty, similar to abuse by adults. It frequently goes unreported because it is not widely known of in the public, and often occurs outside of adults' supervision. Even if known by adults, it is sometimes dismissed as harmless by those who do not understand the implications. In particular, intersibling abuse is under-reported relative to the reporting rates for parent-child sexual abuse, and disclosure of the incest by the victim during childhood is rare....."
___

Do Children Sexually Abuse Other Children?
http://www.stopitnow.org/files/Do_Children_Sexually_Abuse_Other_Children.pdf

"Most people already are aware of the risk of sexual abuse that some adults present to our children. There is growing understanding that the vast majority of children who are sexually abused, are abused by someone they know, and often trust. Unfortunately, very few adults recognize that children and adolescents also can present a risk to other children. In fact, over a third of all sexual abuse of children is committed by someone under the age of 18".
__

"Understanding Sexual Behaviors of Children"
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dfs/childrenyouth/sexualbehaviorchildren.htm

Preadolescence (ages 9-12) -
• Interest in sex increases and children may begin to experiment with sexual behaviors with other children.
• Puberty can begin as early as age nine; with the onset of puberty, boys are able to ejaculate and have “wet dreams.”
• “Locker room behavior” is quite common, including comparing genital size and function.
• Older children in this age range may begin to experiment with “petting” over and under clothes, French kissing, and touching or rubbing each other’s bodies.
• Masturbation may be a preferred pastime, although most children feel embarrassed and deny masturbating.
• Children may simulate intercourse (dry humping).
• Sexual intercourse is still uncommon at this age, although it is beginning to occur with greater frequency in today’s culture.

Early school-age (ages 5-9) -
• Children have more contact with peers and may touch each other through activities such as tickling and wrestling.
• Children may like to touch themselves in a less random way and more frequently; they have learned not to touch their genitals in public.
• Dirty jokes are common among children, but they may not be fully understood.
• Children begin to talk about sexual touching and sexual behaviors with their friends.
• Children begin to experience feelings of sexual arousal when masturbating and may want to produce that feeling again.
•Children ask questions such as, “Where did I come from?”
• Children are more inhibited and need privacy.
• Children may hold hands or kiss.
• Children become more aware of sexual preferences
___

Child Sex Offenders -
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/child-sex-offenders.html

In an American Justice Department Survey of 60,991 victims, child sex offenders aged 7-11 years of age were responsible for 3.6% of all sexual assaults committed (Snyder, 2000, p. 84).

72% of child sex offenders who began molesting between 4-6 years of age had documented histories of sexual abuse, whereas 42% of children 7-10 years of age and 35% of children 11-12 years had documented histories of sexual abuse (Cavanagh Johnson, 1993, p. 74; Araji, 19975).

Among adults convicted of sex crimes, 30% began offending before they were 9 years old (Cantwell, 1995, p. 917).

Child sex offenders are immature and tend to act impulsively. Many find it hard to make friends, have poor self-esteem and view themselves as social outcasts (Gil, 19958). "Child sex offenders" provides an interesting article by Judith Levine on children who molest other children.

__

A Question of Abuse -
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/07/question-abuse

"...Three years ago, in November 1993, San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony a grave danger to his sister. Jessie had told someone at school that her brother had "touched her private parts, front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child and even without substantiation, Jessica's elementary school called the Child Abuse Hotline. A social worker elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts; at 4, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath....
San Diego Juvenile Court charged Tony with "sexual abuse" of Jessica "including, but not limited to, touching her vaginal and anal areas...placing a pencil in her buttocks," and threatening to hurt her if she "disclosed the molest."

"It would appear from a review of the case," the social worker wrote, "that Tony is a budding sex offender." Tony was 9 years old.

"....Today, the Vermont-based Safer Society Foundation database lists 50 residential and 396 nonresidential programs that treat "sex offenders" under 12. And at the 1995 Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers conference, about 80 percent of the exhibition tables featured literature on such programs for children and adolescents".

"....[Adult] offenders will tell you they started out young, maybe masturbating in public," says Bill Southwell, co-chair of a countywide task force on juvenile sex offenders."
___

...In fact, I would say that Burke had the easiest access to JonBenet, being that they often slept in his bed together, he was the older brother who could coax and manipulate, experiment and play with her, and he was stronger than her, and could easily threaten her and say 'You better not tell!'. There's also interview testimony regarding housekeeper saying that she walked in on Burke and JonBenet under the covers doing something one time and they yelled at her to go away....
 
Chrishope,

This is unknown. It is one thing to claim on the grounds of physical capacity or the laws of gravity and potential energy that Burke could not have caused JonBenet's head injury. Quite another to rule out molestation, since we do not know if all JonBenet's injuries were inflicted in the same time frame, or were coterminous?

It is us who see a causal link between JonBenet's injuries, when in fact they could be independent.

It's not a matter of "ruling out" anyone. BR is not, in my mind, ruled out. It's a question of likelihood. 9 year olds can molest, but they typically don't. If they were playing doctor, I'd expect -possibly- some digital penetration. I think the type of injuries suggest an adult.



Chrishope,
Well the forensic evidence supports your position. Whether this is because the parents staged the wine-cellar only or because one or both were involved in the abuse of JonBenet is an open question.

Appearances can be deceptive but everything seems to be fine in the Ramsey household until just after JonBenet has her pineapple snack. Not long after she is being molested followed by a head injury then asphyxiation. If she did not fall down or was hit accidently, then assuming nobody killed her with premeditation. It looks to me as if the head injury might represent a failed attempt at staging, so it was supplemented with the garrote!

I wonder if Patsy had another disagreement with JonBenet over the red turtleneck, maybe she tried to dress her in it for bed. With her wearing those hair-ties, she was readied for bed, so it looks like she got that far, but which bedroom did she end up in?

If Burke was present at the pineapple snack I reckon he will know?



.
 
Where's your link for that?

Kids do a lot of brutal things to each other. Kids lie, fight, bully, cover up, rape, and kill.

Here's MY links to back that up:

The Unthinkable: Children who kill -
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/kids2/index_1.html

"Jesse Pomeroy was fourteen when he was arrested in 1874 for the sadistic murder of a four-year-old boy. His rampage had begun three years earlier with the sexual torture of seven other boys".

"Mary Flora Bell wanted to hurt someone. When Mary was eleven, she and Nora lured a boy to the top of an air raid shelter. Two weeks later, the corpse of four-year-old Martin Brown was found, another assumed accident. He'd been strangled and his legs and stomach had been cut with a razor and scissors. They went to trial in 1968 in England, where Mary was convicted of two counts of manslaughter."

"Willie Bosket had committed over two thousand crimes in New York by the time he was fifteen, including stabbing several people".
__

Child on Child Sexual Abuse -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-on-child_sexual_abuse

"The incidence of child-on-child sexual abuse is not known with any certainty, similar to abuse by adults. It frequently goes unreported because it is not widely known of in the public, and often occurs outside of adults' supervision. Even if known by adults, it is sometimes dismissed as harmless by those who do not understand the implications. In particular, intersibling abuse is under-reported relative to the reporting rates for parent-child sexual abuse, and disclosure of the incest by the victim during childhood is rare....."
___

Do Children Sexually Abuse Other Children?
http://www.stopitnow.org/files/Do_Children_Sexually_Abuse_Other_Children.pdf

"Most people already are aware of the risk of sexual abuse that some adults present to our children. There is growing understanding that the vast majority of children who are sexually abused, are abused by someone they know, and often trust. Unfortunately, very few adults recognize that children and adolescents also can present a risk to other children. In fact, over a third of all sexual abuse of children is committed by someone under the age of 18".
__

"Understanding Sexual Behaviors of Children"
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dfs/childrenyouth/sexualbehaviorchildren.htm

Preadolescence (ages 9-12) -
• Interest in sex increases and children may begin to experiment with sexual behaviors with other children.
• Puberty can begin as early as age nine; with the onset of puberty, boys are able to ejaculate and have “wet dreams.”
• “Locker room behavior” is quite common, including comparing genital size and function.
• Older children in this age range may begin to experiment with “petting” over and under clothes, French kissing, and touching or rubbing each other’s bodies.
• Masturbation may be a preferred pastime, although most children feel embarrassed and deny masturbating.
• Children may simulate intercourse (dry humping).
• Sexual intercourse is still uncommon at this age, although it is beginning to occur with greater frequency in today’s culture.

Early school-age (ages 5-9) -
• Children have more contact with peers and may touch each other through activities such as tickling and wrestling.
• Children may like to touch themselves in a less random way and more frequently; they have learned not to touch their genitals in public.
• Dirty jokes are common among children, but they may not be fully understood.
• Children begin to talk about sexual touching and sexual behaviors with their friends.
• Children begin to experience feelings of sexual arousal when masturbating and may want to produce that feeling again.
•Children ask questions such as, “Where did I come from?”
• Children are more inhibited and need privacy.
• Children may hold hands or kiss.
• Children become more aware of sexual preferences
___

Child Sex Offenders -
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/child-sex-offenders.html

In an American Justice Department Survey of 60,991 victims, child sex offenders aged 7-11 years of age were responsible for 3.6% of all sexual assaults committed (Snyder, 2000, p. 84).

72% of child sex offenders who began molesting between 4-6 years of age had documented histories of sexual abuse, whereas 42% of children 7-10 years of age and 35% of children 11-12 years had documented histories of sexual abuse (Cavanagh Johnson, 1993, p. 74; Araji, 19975).

Among adults convicted of sex crimes, 30% began offending before they were 9 years old (Cantwell, 1995, p. 917).

Child sex offenders are immature and tend to act impulsively. Many find it hard to make friends, have poor self-esteem and view themselves as social outcasts (Gil, 19958). "Child sex offenders" provides an interesting article by Judith Levine on children who molest other children.

__

A Question of Abuse -
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/07/question-abuse

"...Three years ago, in November 1993, San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony a grave danger to his sister. Jessie had told someone at school that her brother had "touched her private parts, front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child and even without substantiation, Jessica's elementary school called the Child Abuse Hotline. A social worker elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts; at 4, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath....
San Diego Juvenile Court charged Tony with "sexual abuse" of Jessica "including, but not limited to, touching her vaginal and anal areas...placing a pencil in her buttocks," and threatening to hurt her if she "disclosed the molest."

"It would appear from a review of the case," the social worker wrote, "that Tony is a budding sex offender." Tony was 9 years old.

"....Today, the Vermont-based Safer Society Foundation database lists 50 residential and 396 nonresidential programs that treat "sex offenders" under 12. And at the 1995 Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers conference, about 80 percent of the exhibition tables featured literature on such programs for children and adolescents".

"....[Adult] offenders will tell you they started out young, maybe masturbating in public," says Bill Southwell, co-chair of a countywide task force on juvenile sex offenders."
___

...In fact, I would say that Burke had the easiest access to JonBenet, being that they often slept in his bed together, he was the older brother who could coax and manipulate, experiment and play with her, and he was stronger than her, and could easily threaten her and say 'You better not tell!'. There's also interview testimony regarding housekeeper saying that she walked in on Burke and JonBenet under the covers doing something one time and they yelled at her to go away....


I need a link to say that most 9 year olds don't molest? Are you serious ? I'm not making a claim about statutory law, I'm just saying 9 year old boys are less likely to be molesters than post-pubescent males. If I have to assume someone is molesting JB, BR is not my first choice.

It's equally true that parents don't typically kill their children (sorry, I don't have a link for that).
 
I need a link to say that most 9 year olds don't molest? Are you serious ? I'm not making a claim about statutory law, I'm just saying 9 year old boys are less likely to be molesters than post-pubescent males. If I have to assume someone is molesting JB, BR is not my first choice.

It's equally true that parents don't typically kill their children (sorry, I don't have a link for that).


Oh boy Chris, I wish you hadnt gone there! Im not answering for anyone other then the children that are typically killed by their own parents. You need to do more research on that theory hun. Typically when a child is found murdered in their own home, it was a parent. I hate to be the bearer of that bad news and there are plenty of links for those that doubt it, just go to google...
 
Also watch the news, all you hear about anymore is how a child died at the hands of their parents... I dont understand how in this day and age we still have to explain that too people. I mean where have all the doubters been all of these years. It isnt new, its as old as the bible folks. For crying out loud please someone pay attention as our children really need you too.... Yikes this grows frustrating and this comes from a woman who has spent her entire life putting the lucky ones back together...

Please folks for all the children that have been beaten nearly or all the way to the grave, pull your heads out of the sand....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
988
Total visitors
1,127

Forum statistics

Threads
626,181
Messages
18,522,008
Members
240,959
Latest member
Rxaeiv
Back
Top