BURKE did it, and WHY the Ramseys covered up -an Opinion

[i_dont_chat]

BURKE did it – and why the Ramseys covered up



I agree 100% with BlueCrab’s assessment. Go here to read BlueCrab’s theory. You’ve got to read this to understand my theory.



http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24045



I agree that Burke did it and that LE and the grand jury found this to be true. The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.



A 9-year child cannot be held responsible in Colorado – and so it should be, in my opinion.



Although John and Patsy Ramsey didn’t kill their daughter, they hold some responsibility. And they don’t want their part it in to come to light. Their part in it is this: It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



I am proposing that Burke saw either his father perform this on his mother, or else Burke saw a man perform this on a woman – at a neighbor’s or friend’s home. Perhaps the “false” 9-1-1 call was the result of a child witnessing EA and they were frightened and called the police.



In any case, John and Patsy were keenly aware of where Burke “learned” the choking game. And the purpose of all their lies, ransom note, and cover up was to keep that a secret. Their “close” friends who knew the same – did their part to cover up, as well, to protect themselves.



I believe that the scream heard by a neighbor was Patsy when she found JonBenet. Perhaps Burke woke up his parents when he realized he had hurt JonBenet. Perhaps Patsy, as it was her routine, had gotten up to take JonBenet to the restroom so she wouldn’t wet the bed, and found the children downstairs.



As soon as Patsy and John saw what had happened, and realized that Burke was “acting out” what he had seen them or their friends doing, the Ramsey’s acted together to do whatever staging necessary – to take the suspicion off of Burke and place it on an intruder(s). I believe they gave Burke sleeping medication at that point – to get him out of the way. They had the rest of the night to plan what they would do to blame it on an intruder, not so much as to protect Burke, but to keep themselves from coming under scrutiny because of their sexual activities.



BlueCrab is correct that JonBenet’s death was the result of a sexual act. I propose it was the result of a sexual experiment. Only teen couples and adult couples would find it pleasurable to engage in EA, to increase the intensity of an organism. Children the age of JonBenet and Burke are too young to be at the “intensifying organism” stage. But it makes perfect sense that Burke would want to mimic or act out what he saw adults doing with each other. He used his sister as his partner, and since he didn’t understand the complicated details of erotic asphyxiation, he simply choked her to death. JonBenet was fighting for her life – and that probably scared Burke, and he hit her hard on the head – to silence her and to keep from getting found out. Experts have said that either the choking or the hit on the head could have caused death, and that either could have been afflicted by a child.



From the moment the parents found JonBenet, they went into the cover-up mode, not so much to protect Burke – but to protect the part they played in her death.



Although Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are not illegal between consenting adults – the parents could have been found “unfit parents” if they allowed their son/children to witness such sexual behavior, or they could have been judged to be neglectful if the children were exposed to this at a neighbor’s home, if the Ramseys knew such behavior was occurring.



As BlueCrab said, Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are extremely dangerous when performed by teens and adults. Can you imagine how dangerous when being duplicated by a 9-year old with his 6-year sister? So dangerous, in fact, to cause death.



To get to the bottom of this, LE should ask John Ramsey and every adult who socialized with the Ramseys to take another lie detector test, and ask them what they know about erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), and if they had any knowledge of Burke witnessing such acts.

The above is my opinion only, and based only on the known information.

[michelle]

I thought it was proven that BR could not have bashed her skull in the way it was??

[i_dont_chat]

I thought it was proven that BR could not have bashed her skull in the way it was??I don't know how one could prove this.

A 9-year old boy, I think, has the strength to bash in the skull of a 6-year. With a weapon, or course. A flashlight or a bat or something substantial.

This is my humble opinion.

[wenchie]

I think that if John had been involved, he would have edited the ransom note and have it be more believeable!


I also don't think that kids that age use that kind of force. If they did, they would be constantly killing each other. I've had to break up more than one fight between boys Burke's age who were extremely enraged at each other. They usually punch each other in the back and then roll around on the floor.

Not saying it's impossible that Burke did it, but (for me) it doesn't add up. Burke was entranced by his Nintendo, and it doesn't sound like he paid much attention to his little sister.

[SuperDave]

About two years ago, a nine year old did just that!

[michelle]

I just remember hearing one of those forensic people talking about how hard it is to actually crack someones skull like that. I am not saying it cant happen, that is just what I remember hearing.. For a 9 year old that it.

[Chebrock]

I don't believe Burke did it even if he was able for the following reasons:

1. His parents sent him to school the following January. If they thought there was any chance of him spilling the beans, they wouldn't have let him out of their sight.

2. They allowed Burke to testify before the Grand Jury. Burke was just a little kid. As we've seen from other cases involving children, they are very easy for the police to "lead" into coherced statements. J&P would never have allowed this with Burke if there was any chance he would tell.

3. All of the early law suits were charged by the Ramsey's on Burke's behalf. They always filed in his name for defamation of character. They NEVER filed in their own name even though they were being skewered in the media (much worse than Burke ever was). This is because they could prove Burke didn't do it. They didn't charge on their own behalf because they would have to prove they didn't do it and they weren't even going to try!

[LaMer]

I don't believe Burke did it even if he was able for the following reasons:

1. His parents sent him to school the following January. If they thought there was any chance of him spilling the beans, they wouldn't have let him out of their sight.

2. They allowed Burke to testify before the Grand Jury. Burke was just a little kid. As we've seen from other cases involving children, they are very easy for the police to "lead" into coherced statements. J&P would never have allowed this with Burke if there was any chance he would tell.

3. All of the early law suits were charged by the Ramsey's on Burke's behalf. They always filed in his name for defamation of character. They NEVER filed in their own name even though they were being skewered in the media (much worse than Burke ever was). This is because they could prove Burke didn't do it. They didn't charge on their own behalf because they would have to prove they didn't do it and they weren't even going to try!

Good points, Chebrock!

In addition, JR asked Fleet White, if Burke could be taken to his house, that morning. If BR had been involved, the Ramseys would have wanted Burke to stay home, where they could keep an eye on him. It would've been too dangerous to let a 9 year old be around White's family and guests, possibly saying something incriminating.

[sandraladeda]

I don't think the BDA would have gone throught he charade of flying JMK home from Bankok if, in the eyes of all LE involved, BR had done the killing but was simply too young to charge.

I have a great deal of respect for Bluecrab's knowledge for this case, but imo, the arrest of JMK put an end to the possible validity of his BDI theory.imho

[MysteryAddict]

I don't doubt that Burke could have bashed JonBenet in the
head- especially if he came downstairs during the night and caught her messing with his new Nintendo.

But--that alone didn't kill her.

No way did Burke entwine his Mother's sweater fibers in
the garrotte and strangle his sister to death!

[michelle]

I don't doubt that Burke could have bashed JonBenet in the
head- especially if he came downstairs during the night and caught her messing with his new Nintendo.

But--that alone didn't kill her.

No way did Burke entwine his Mother's sweater fibers in
the garrotte and strangle his sister to death!I have always thought that JR and PR would cover for him but he could not do all of what was done to her himself.

[Elliemae]

BURKE did it – and why the Ramseys covered up



I agree 100% with BlueCrab’s assessment. Go here to read BlueCrab’s theory. You’ve got to read this to understand my theory.



http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24045



I agree that Burke did it and that LE and the grand jury found this to be true. The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.



A 9-year child cannot be held responsible in Colorado – and so it should be, in my opinion.



Although John and Patsy Ramsey didn’t kill their daughter, they hold some responsibility. And they don’t want their part it in to come to light. Their part in it is this: It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



I am proposing that Burke saw either his father perform this on his mother, or else Burke saw a man perform this on a woman – at a neighbor’s or friend’s home. Perhaps the “false” 9-1-1 call was the result of a child witnessing EA and they were frightened and called the police.



In any case, John and Patsy were keenly aware of where Burke “learned” the choking game. And the purpose of all their lies, ransom note, and cover up was to keep that a secret. Their “close” friends who knew the same – did their part to cover up, as well, to protect themselves.



I believe that the scream heard by a neighbor was Patsy when she found JonBenet. Perhaps Burke woke up his parents when he realized he had hurt JonBenet. Perhaps Patsy, as it was her routine, had gotten up to take JonBenet to the restroom so she wouldn’t wet the bed, and found the children downstairs.



As soon as Patsy and John saw what had happened, and realized that Burke was “acting out” what he had seen them or their friends doing, the Ramsey’s acted together to do whatever staging necessary – to take the suspicion off of Burke and place it on an intruder(s). I believe they gave Burke sleeping medication at that point – to get him out of the way. They had the rest of the night to plan what they would do to blame it on an intruder, not so much as to protect Burke, but to keep themselves from coming under scrutiny because of their sexual activities.



BlueCrab is correct that JonBenet’s death was the result of a sexual act. I propose it was the result of a sexual experiment. Only teen couples and adult couples would find it pleasurable to engage in EA, to increase the intensity of an organism. Children the age of JonBenet and Burke are too young to be at the “intensifying organism” stage. But it makes perfect sense that Burke would want to mimic or act out what he saw adults doing with each other. He used his sister as his partner, and since he didn’t understand the complicated details of erotic asphyxiation, he simply choked her to death. JonBenet was fighting for her life – and that probably scared Burke, and he hit her hard on the head – to silence her and to keep from getting found out. Experts have said that either the choking or the hit on the head could have caused death, and that either could have been afflicted by a child.



From the moment the parents found JonBenet, they went into the cover-up mode, not so much to protect Burke – but to protect the part they played in her death.



Although Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are not illegal between consenting adults – the parents could have been found “unfit parents” if they allowed their son/children to witness such sexual behavior, or they could have been judged to be neglectful if the children were exposed to this at a neighbor’s home, if the Ramseys knew such behavior was occurring.



As BlueCrab said, Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are extremely dangerous when performed by teens and adults. Can you imagine how dangerous when being duplicated by a 9-year old with his 6-year sister? So dangerous, in fact, to cause death.



To get to the bottom of this, LE should ask John Ramsey and every adult who socialized with the Ramseys to take another lie detector test, and ask them what they know about erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), and if they had any knowledge of Burke witnessing such acts.
So how do you explain the stun gun marks?

:waitasec:

[michelle]

So how do you explain the stun gun marks?

:waitasec:But are they stun gun marks??

[JBRMod2]

Please check your private messages.

[newtv]

BURKE did it – and why the Ramseys covered up



I agree 100% with BlueCrab’s assessment. Go here to read BlueCrab’s theory. You’ve got to read this to understand my theory.



http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24045



I agree that Burke did it and that LE and the grand jury found this to be true. The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.



A 9-year child cannot be held responsible in Colorado – and so it should be, in my opinion.



Although John and Patsy Ramsey didn’t kill their daughter, they hold some responsibility. And they don’t want their part it in to come to light. Their part in it is this: It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



I am proposing that Burke saw either his father perform this on his mother, or else Burke saw a man perform this on a woman – at a neighbor’s or friend’s home. Perhaps the “false” 9-1-1 call was the result of a child witnessing EA and they were frightened and called the police.



In any case, John and Patsy were keenly aware of where Burke “learned” the choking game. And the purpose of all their lies, ransom note, and cover up was to keep that a secret. Their “close” friends who knew the same – did their part to cover up, as well, to protect themselves.



I believe that the scream heard by a neighbor was Patsy when she found JonBenet. Perhaps Burke woke up his parents when he realized he had hurt JonBenet. Perhaps Patsy, as it was her routine, had gotten up to take JonBenet to the restroom so she wouldn’t wet the bed, and found the children downstairs.



As soon as Patsy and John saw what had happened, and realized that Burke was “acting out” what he had seen them or their friends doing, the Ramsey’s acted together to do whatever staging necessary – to take the suspicion off of Burke and place it on an intruder(s). I believe they gave Burke sleeping medication at that point – to get him out of the way. They had the rest of the night to plan what they would do to blame it on an intruder, not so much as to protect Burke, but to keep themselves from coming under scrutiny because of their sexual activities.



BlueCrab is correct that JonBenet’s death was the result of a sexual act. I propose it was the result of a sexual experiment. Only teen couples and adult couples would find it pleasurable to engage in EA, to increase the intensity of an organism. Children the age of JonBenet and Burke are too young to be at the “intensifying organism” stage. But it makes perfect sense that Burke would want to mimic or act out what he saw adults doing with each other. He used his sister as his partner, and since he didn’t understand the complicated details of erotic asphyxiation, he simply choked her to death. JonBenet was fighting for her life – and that probably scared Burke, and he hit her hard on the head – to silence her and to keep from getting found out. Experts have said that either the choking or the hit on the head could have caused death, and that either could have been afflicted by a child.



From the moment the parents found JonBenet, they went into the cover-up mode, not so much to protect Burke – but to protect the part they played in her death.



Although Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are not illegal between consenting adults – the parents could have been found “unfit parents” if they allowed their son/children to witness such sexual behavior, or they could have been judged to be neglectful if the children were exposed to this at a neighbor’s home, if the Ramseys knew such behavior was occurring.



As BlueCrab said, Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are extremely dangerous when performed by teens and adults. Can you imagine how dangerous when being duplicated by a 9-year old with his 6-year sister? So dangerous, in fact, to cause death.



To get to the bottom of this, LE should ask John Ramsey and every adult who socialized with the Ramseys to take another lie detector test, and ask them what they know about erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), and if they had any knowledge of Burke witnessing such acts.
what I will never understand is this fixation on john and patsy as sexual gymnasts..where does anyone get this idea. Neither of them appear to have a sexual bone in their bodies, but more than that-not one person has ever come forward and suggested they were part of a swingers group.
If you are part of a swingers group it will eventually come out-someone talks..I dont understand how anyone comes up with this notion of them being into sexual kinkiness.
Its this kind of thinking that makes me really wonder?

[michelle]

what I will never understand is this fixation on john and patsy as sexual gymnasts..where does anyone get this idea. Neither of them appear to have a sexual bone in their bodies, but more than that-not one person has ever come forward and suggested they were part of a swingers group.
If you are part of a swingers group it will eventually come out-someone talks..I dont understand how anyone comes up with this notion of them being into sexual kinkiness.
Its this kind of thinking that makes me really wonder?I dont see PR and JR as being that type either. That is the part that baffles me.:confused:

[southcitymom]

what I will never understand is this fixation on john and patsy as sexual gymnasts..where does anyone get this idea. Neither of them appear to have a sexual bone in their bodies, but more than that-not one person has ever come forward and suggested they were part of a swingers group.
If you are part of a swingers group it will eventually come out-someone talks..I dont understand how anyone comes up with this notion of them being into sexual kinkiness.
Its this kind of thinking that makes me really wonder?
This is a great point and I agree with you. If John and Patsy ever HAD much sex anymore at that time in their lives (what with the cancer and the kids and the busy work schedule coupled with the fact that they come across as relatively sex-less), I honestly doubt they were having unusual or kinky sex.

I think JBR's death was accidental and I am almost 100% sure it was at the hands of an adult.

[rashomon]

BURKE did it – and why the Ramseys covered up



I agree 100% with BlueCrab’s assessment. Go here to read BlueCrab’s theory. You’ve got to read this to understand my theory.



http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24045



I agree that Burke did it and that LE and the grand jury found this to be true. The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.



A 9-year child cannot be held responsible in Colorado – and so it should be, in my opinion.



Although John and Patsy Ramsey didn’t kill their daughter, they hold some responsibility. And they don’t want their part it in to come to light. Their part in it is this: It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



I am proposing that Burke saw either his father perform this on his mother, or else Burke saw a man perform this on a woman – at a neighbor’s or friend’s home. Perhaps the “false” 9-1-1 call was the result of a child witnessing EA and they were frightened and called the police.



In any case, John and Patsy were keenly aware of where Burke “learned” the choking game. And the purpose of all their lies, ransom note, and cover up was to keep that a secret. Their “close” friends who knew the same – did their part to cover up, as well, to protect themselves.



I believe that the scream heard by a neighbor was Patsy when she found JonBenet. Perhaps Burke woke up his parents when he realized he had hurt JonBenet. Perhaps Patsy, as it was her routine, had gotten up to take JonBenet to the restroom so she wouldn’t wet the bed, and found the children downstairs.



As soon as Patsy and John saw what had happened, and realized that Burke was “acting out” what he had seen them or their friends doing, the Ramsey’s acted together to do whatever staging necessary – to take the suspicion off of Burke and place it on an intruder(s). I believe they gave Burke sleeping medication at that point – to get him out of the way. They had the rest of the night to plan what they would do to blame it on an intruder, not so much as to protect Burke, but to keep themselves from coming under scrutiny because of their sexual activities.



BlueCrab is correct that JonBenet’s death was the result of a sexual act. I propose it was the result of a sexual experiment. Only teen couples and adult couples would find it pleasurable to engage in EA, to increase the intensity of an organism. Children the age of JonBenet and Burke are too young to be at the “intensifying organism” stage. But it makes perfect sense that Burke would want to mimic or act out what he saw adults doing with each other. He used his sister as his partner, and since he didn’t understand the complicated details of erotic asphyxiation, he simply choked her to death. JonBenet was fighting for her life – and that probably scared Burke, and he hit her hard on the head – to silence her and to keep from getting found out. Experts have said that either the choking or the hit on the head could have caused death, and that either could have been afflicted by a child.



From the moment the parents found JonBenet, they went into the cover-up mode, not so much to protect Burke – but to protect the part they played in her death.



Although Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are not illegal between consenting adults – the parents could have been found “unfit parents” if they allowed their son/children to witness such sexual behavior, or they could have been judged to be neglectful if the children were exposed to this at a neighbor’s home, if the Ramseys knew such behavior was occurring.



As BlueCrab said, Erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) are extremely dangerous when performed by teens and adults. Can you imagine how dangerous when being duplicated by a 9-year old with his 6-year sister? So dangerous, in fact, to cause death.



To get to the bottom of this, LE should ask John Ramsey and every adult who socialized with the Ramseys to take another lie detector test, and ask them what they know about erotic asphyxiation (EA) and autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), and if they had any knowledge of Burke witnessing such acts.
As for BlueCrab, he has posted other outlandish theories here too. One of them for example was that JB was 'hog-tied' by her wrists and ankles to be 'shockingly displayed'. I forgot to ask him if he thought Burke had done his too. :)

If JB had that cord tied around her neck and it was too tight, she would have tried to get it off, getting pieces of her own skin under her fingernails. And the cord itself would not have remained in a perfectly circular position around her neck.
And just for the sake of the discussion: suppose Burke had killed JB in an EA session, do you really believe that the parents would then have left the scenario as it was, e. g. not have removed the 'garrote' as incriminating evidence?

[i_dont_chat]

Yes, I believe the parents would have left the device around her neck, because it was obvious to anyone looking at her, that she was strangled. It would have drawn them into the cover-up if they removed the cord.

The Ramseys wanted LE to believe an intruder strangled her.

This is only my opinion.

[rashomon]

Yes, I believe the parents would have left the device around her neck, because it was obvious to anyone looking at her, that she was strangled. It would have drawn them into the cover-up if they removed the cord.

The Ramseys wanted LE to believe an intruder strangled her.

This is only my opinion.
But the head bash does not not fit into this scenario at all if you imply that JB died from erotic asphyxiation done by Burke.

[shoe_horn]

Isn't is odd that Burke's middle name is "Hamilton"...also the name of John Mark Karr's hometown in Alabama?

well maybe it's not that weird afterall.

[i_dont_chat]

You said:
"As for BlueCrab, he has posted other outlandish theories here too. One of them for example was that JB was 'hog-tied' by her wrists and ankles to be 'shockingly displayed'. I forgot to ask him if he thought Burke had done his too."


I agree with BlueCrab in that the way JonBenet's body was positioned when she was found in the middle of the next day -- was probably far different than how they found the body sometime in the middle of the night. In my theory, the parents found the body the first time, when no one was in the house. Then, later in the day when people were milling around, John "found" the body the second time. Most likely the first time the body was found -- it was a more gruesome sight.

The parents probably did what they could to remove any obvious sexual appearance. Wipe her off, change her panties, cover her -- to give her as much dignity that they could.

But they knew they could NOT do anything about the cause of death. Goes without saying they didn't know at that time exactly what killed her. They couldn't do anything about the bash on the head and they didn't want to remove the cord around her neck or the authorities would have known that someone had "altered" the murder scene.

[i_dont_chat]

But the head bash does not not fit into this scenario at all if you imply that JB died from erotic asphyxiation done by Burke.The head bash does fit into this scenario when you consider that JonBenet was being choked to death and was fighting for her life, and it frightened Burke to the point that he just wanted to shut her up and he grabbed something substantial and hit her on the head as hard as he could. He was probably very much afraid of being caught by their parents while doing anything harmful to JonBenet.

In my opinion, it was a typical childish reaction to strike out to silence her.

[julianne]

The head bash does fit into this scenario when you consider that JonBenet was being choked to death and was fighting for her life, and it frightened Burke to the point that he just wanted to shut her up and he grabbed something substantial and hit her on the head as hard as he could. He was probably very much afraid of being caught by their parents while doing anything harmful to JonBenet.

In my opinion, it was a typical childish reaction to strike out to silence her.
I don't know what type of kids you know, but it certainly is not a "typical childish reaction" to break your sisters skull in two pieces.

[i_dont_chat]

You are right about that. What happened that night was not typical.

I am saying that it is possible that Burke hit his sister over the head and cracked her skull. Hitting her was not an accident -- but killing her was an accident. It is not a stretch, in my opinion.

[questionable]

I don't think the Ramseys performed strange sex acts either. I do agree however that the boy did mimick what he saw somewhere? I found out from this thread that he owned a Nintendo. Now, my guess is that he either stole a sex tape from his parents and or relatives and mimicked the actions on his sister or there is a Nintendo game out there somewhere that he mimicked. It may have been a war torture game of some kind and he may have added the sexual part on his own but that's not likely because he was after all just nine years old? Maybe he had gotten new games for Christmas? Anyone know of any popular Nintendo games around 1996 with this type of scenario?

[close_enough]

here's part of an interview with Patsy answering questions about Burke....

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6076

[close_enough]

Details about Burke's 1/8/97 interview....good read, imo...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14914

[i_dont_chat]

Thank you, Close Enough, for posting the information on Patsy Ramsey's and Burke's Ramsey's interviews. And, again, thank you, Blue Crab for your contribution towards getting to the truth.



I had not read these accounts before, and I believe they give more support to my theory.



One of the reasons, I think -- and this is just my opinion -- people have a problem accepting that Burke "accidentally" killed his sister is because if that were the case, WHY didn't the parents, even in their grief, simply call the police? Burke was a child, and would not have been held responsible.



But I think it is obvious to most people that the Ramsey's, instead, went into a drastic cover-up mode. Why would the parents go to such means (ransom note, altering the scene, lying) to protect Burke when Burke didn't need protecting? A reasonable person understands that children can and accidentally do things which cause harm. It was an accident and accidents do happen.



The behavior of the parents became suspect from the beginning. Add to that -- the actions of their friends and neighbors, some say because they wanted so much to protect Patsy and John. But I say there was something more personal about how a few of the neighbors and friends came to the rescue. Not so much to protect Patsy and John, but something to do with protecting themselves. That's why LE was thrown off -- The parents brought suspicion onto themselves. Their closest friends jealously protected the Ramseys. In a suble way, everybody appeared to be guilty, or hiding something. Why?



I relate it to the elephant in the living room. Everybody knows it's there, but no one wants to talk about it.



The elephant in the living room is this: The way JonBenet died -- that darn cord around her neck. I am theorizing that Burke had seen this very exact thing being done -- and not in a video -- but in real life. And some of the Ramsey's close friends, and most certainly Patsy and John, KNEW exactly why Burke did what he did. They knew where he had seen it done before. And it involved them in a dramatic way. They felt threatened that IF the public/LE found out WHAT Burke was trying to do, and HOW he knew about erotic asphyxiation (EA) otherwise known as the "choking game", then they would have some responsibility.



It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



Patsy and John Ramsey and some of their close friends and neighbors (my theory) knew this. I propose that they knew or guessed HOW Burke had been exposed to this sexual activity. They are not stupid. My theory is they realized, perhaps silently, individually, without having to discuss the matter, that their lives would be greatly affected if the truth came out that Burke did it. Because it would follow -- the public/LE would want to know WHERE Burke learned of such things.



Child Protective Services would get involved and children could be removed from homes when the parents don't protect their children from being exposed or affected by such sexual behavior. The ramficiations were huge: child neglect charges, children placed in foster homes, divorce, public humilitation and shame.



All of this is mute at this point, because most likely, the statute of limitations has passed to charge the Ramseys with giving false statement, destruction of evidence.



This murder case has tugged at our collective consciousness because the TRUTH has not be revealed.



My theory suggests why the truth was hidden. Burke did it -- he was doing to his sister what he had seen saw adults doing. These adults (who had unintentionally set the wheels in motion for this terrible and senseless accident) were successful in confusing the investigation by shielding Burke and more importantly by shielding WHY Burke did what he did.

[close_enough]

hi Chat!....yeah, there's so much info/interviews/news articles etc, packed in this forum....

i'll be honest...i can't 'grasp' the whole EA thing, as far as the R's & their friends go, BUT i do think it's possible that BR somehow got wind of this EA stuff...i understand how folks are 'taken back' with BR being a suspect, & i was the same way for a long time....no way, he had anything to do w/this, BUT over time, & knowing that there's a lot of children 'out there' that do these horrible things to other children, i think it IS conceivable....i'm also starting to lean toward another person being there w/BR...

i know that Steve Thomas doesn't believe BR had anything to do with JBR's death...he thinks Patsy did it, which i also did, for a long time...it's just been over the last two years or so, that i started thinking more about BR....

OK, if PR flew into a rage with JBR, & threw her up against something in the bathroom, to crack her skull, then all this elaborate 'cover up' just seems too much, imo.....i think that it's possible that the garrotte might have already been down in the basement..who knows?? someone might have been using it on themselves in the past????.....do we KNOW that the garrotte was made that night?...could BR have been 'turned on' to AEA by a friend?..maybe the garrotte had it's secret place down in the basement.....

but then i go back & think that maybe JBR was being molested, prior to all of this...eww, it's just so sickening to think about, but interesting at the same....

[Nuisanceposter]

Chat, you've presented the most plausible BDI theory I've heard yet.

One problem I've always had with BDI is that I can find no evidence of Burke ever acting jealous or resentful enough of his sister to really hurt her like that. There's the golf club incident, but the accounts I've heard of that sound like it was nothing more than an accident and not something he planned. And in my mind, if Burke could do something like that to his own sister, and get away with it, then he would exhibited some of the same behavior at some point afterwards.

But if he was copying something that he had seen adults doing, and it wasn't something meant to be violent, that would explain some of it...but why would JonBenet comply with a cord around her neck?

Why is there no sign of a struggle with the cord around her neck, such as the lack of internal damage - including her tongue being unblemished? Choking victims usually bite the insides of their cheeks and their tongue while struggling to breathe.

If she was struck on the head trying to fight off Burke, why are there no defensive wounds?

And how was Burke able to keep it together and not reveal anything when he was interviewed by the police?

[close_enough]

Chat, you've presented the most plausible BDI theory I've heard yet.

One problem I've always had with BDI is that I can find no evidence of Burke ever acting jealous or resentful enough of his sister to really hurt her like that. There's the golf club incident, but the accounts I've heard of that sound like it was nothing more than an accident and not something he planned. And in my mind, if Burke could do something like that to his own sister, and get away with it, then he would exhibited some of the same behavior at some point afterwards.
But if he was copying something that he had seen adults doing, and it wasn't something meant to be violent, that would explain some of it...but why would JonBenet comply with a cord around her neck?
Why is there no sign of a struggle with the cord around her neck, such as the lack of internal damage - including her tongue being unblemished? Choking victims usually bite the insides of their cheeks and their tongue while struggling to breathe.

If she was struck on the head trying to fight off Burke, why are there no defensive wounds?

And how was Burke able to keep it together and not reveal anything when he was interviewed by the police?

maybe because it was a "game" that BR talked JBR into playing???

i can see how this wouldn't be behavior that he would have exhibited later...it was a game that 'went wrong'...his sister was accidently killed playing this game....

as far as defensive wounds, scratching would be the only one i can think of, & from what i understand, the samples under JBR's nails is useless .... i guess with everything that went on w/this case, i imagine we'll never know if BR had any scratches on his body that morning, before he was whisked off ....

[gaia]

"And how was Burke able to keep it together and not reveal anything when he was interviewed by the police?"__________________

This has been one of the hard things to explain away when it comes to taking the BDI theory seriously. I'll tell you, though, I think if Burke was told (in a certain way!) by his parents (especially his DAD!), this kid would do whatever they wanted. I believe this family operated that way about a lot of things. I don't think they were in a child porn sex club or any of that malarky, but I do think they were a family riddled with problems and secrets (like many families) and knew how to keep one another from exposing these things to the outside public. Burke was young, but not THAT young and he's certainly no dummy. After the first moments of the day, I think his parents gave him a BIG TALK and he was INSTRUCTED what to talk about and what to avoid - at all costs. This could even help to explain why Burke acted kinda WEIRD that day when he was going being ferried away from his house. Does anyone remember that? The description was on the order of - he seemed to be kinda spaced-out and just really involved with his toy. Didn't talk much and asked no questions about what was going on with JonBenet and his family. Seems pretty strange to me.

[close_enough]

"And how was Burke able to keep it together and not reveal anything when he was interviewed by the police?"__________________

This has been one of the hard things to explain away when it comes to taking the BDI theory seriously. I'll tell you, though, I think if Burke was told (in a certain way!) by his parents (especially his DAD!), this kid would do whatever they wanted. I believe this family operated that way about a lot of things. I don't think they were in a child porn sex club or any of that malarky, but I do think they were a family riddled with problems and secrets (like many families) and knew how to keep one another from exposing these things to the outside public. Burke was young, but not THAT young and he's certainly no dummy. After the first moments of the day, I think his parents gave him a BIG TALK and he was INSTRUCTED what to talk about and what to avoid - at all costs. This could even help to explain why Burke acted kinda WEIRD that day when he was going being ferried away from his house. Does anyone remember that? The description was on the order of - he seemed to be kinda spaced-out and just really involved with his toy. Didn't talk much and asked no questions about what was going on with JonBenet and his family. Seems pretty strange to me.

i agree....it certainly seems strange that BR didn't 'crack' while being interviewed, but it's definately not impossible, if he had been "INSTRUCTED"...

i remember what you're talking about...i read someone that was interviewed in one of my books... :banghead: can't remember which one now...they said BR acted odd.....certainly out of character for a child to have all this commotion & conversations going on about his little sister...

[i_dont_chat]

maybe because it was a "game" that BR talked JBR into playing???

i can see how this wouldn't be behavior that he would have exhibited later...it was a game that 'went wrong'...his sister was accidently killed playing this game....

as far as defensive wounds, scratching would be the only one i can think of, & from what i understand, the samples under JBR's nails is useless .... i guess with everything that went on w/this case, i imagine we'll never know if BR had any scratches on his body that morning, before he was whisked off ....
Am I correct that it was John Ramsey’s intention to fly his family out of town that morning? But the police nipped that in the bud? That flight would have gotten Burke away from having to answer probing questions, including being checked for scratches, etc.



Am I correct that it was FW who took Burke to his house? Burke was taken straight away from his bed, to the neighbor’s?



Am I correct that it was FW who was with John when they discovered JonBenet's body? (In my theory, John and Patsy had already discovered her body at some point during the night, and this mid-day finding was the second time John Ramsey saw her.)



All of this is of course conjecture. It seems to me that FW might have made a snap judgment, when he saw her body, that it was Burke's doing and thus FW instantly went into the mode of cooperating with the Ramseys in getting Burke away from the police. It is possible there was never a conversation regarding what to do. I'm saying it was obvious what to do -- get Burke outta there -- to people who had some prior knowledge of the children's awareness of deviate sexual play.



I am suggesting that at least these two families knew the connection between what Burke had done and some previous encounter with erotic asphyxiation. EA is defined as obtaining pleasure from the feeling of being suffocated, and the use of it within the context of sex play.



In the practice of EA, the person who benefits is the person whose breathing is controlled. Apparently, after being deprived of oxygen to the brain, intense sexual pleasure is felt at the moment of organism. I'm fairly sure of one thing, it was not JonBenet's intention to be a willing participant in the choking game. It was not a sexual act. I’m saying that what happened was an accident when 2 children try to "act out" what they've seen. That's what makes me think there were adults involved somehow -- to give Burke the idea that he needed his sister to "play with." My theory, Burke was duplicating what he had seen. Two people doing this choking thing. From his child-like perspective, the adults seemed to like it. Nobody was hurt or angry. What Burke didn't comprehend was -- when and why to "release" the ligature. He simply choked JonBenet her to death. Whether the head bash came before, during, or after is not material.



Some have suggested that Burke could have learned about solo (AEA) masturbation -- at school or even from the Internet. If that were the case, he could have experimented on choking himself while masturbating. But how would he have gotten the idea on his own to apply a cord around another person's throat, unless he had seen it done?



That's why I think Burke was "acting out" what he had seen. He could have easily coaxed JonBenet into "playing" and to allow him to put the cord around her neck. If she and Burke had in the past experimented with masturbation, then this session could have started like others. There was a mark, the cause of which isn't known, on her neck which could indicate force, if not just holding her down forcefully. I can imagine that when JonBenet started having trouble breathing, she fought for her life.

[luvbeaches]

I don't believe Burke did it even if he was able for the following reasons:

1. His parents sent him to school the following January. If they thought there was any chance of him spilling the beans, they wouldn't have let him out of their sight.

2. They allowed Burke to testify before the Grand Jury. Burke was just a little kid. As we've seen from other cases involving children, they are very easy for the police to "lead" into coherced statements. J&P would never have allowed this with Burke if there was any chance he would tell.

3. All of the early law suits were charged by the Ramsey's on Burke's behalf. They always filed in his name for defamation of character. They NEVER filed in their own name even though they were being skewered in the media (much worse than Burke ever was). This is because they could prove Burke didn't do it. They didn't charge on their own behalf because they would have to prove they didn't do it and they weren't even going to try!


I don't think Burke did it...and those are all good reasons. Even though I know the 911 background sounds have never really been verified, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Burke's voice was really on the tape asking, "What did you find?" Or whatever the wording was.

But I do believe that Burke heard something that night...and most likely knows what happened. Poor kid.

[i_dont_chat]

"And how was Burke able to keep it together and not reveal anything when he was interviewed by the police?"__________________

This has been one of the hard things to explain away when it comes to taking the BDI theory seriously. I'll tell you, though, I think if Burke was told (in a certain way!) by his parents (especially his DAD!), this kid would do whatever they wanted. I believe this family operated that way about a lot of things. I don't think they were in a child porn sex club or any of that malarky, but I do think they were a family riddled with problems and secrets (like many families) and knew how to keep one another from exposing these things to the outside public. Burke was young, but not THAT young and he's certainly no dummy. After the first moments of the day, I think his parents gave him a BIG TALK and he was INSTRUCTED what to talk about and what to avoid - at all costs. This could even help to explain why Burke acted kinda WEIRD that day when he was going being ferried away from his house. Does anyone remember that? The description was on the order of - he seemed to be kinda spaced-out and just really involved with his toy. Didn't talk much and asked no questions about what was going on with JonBenet and his family. Seems pretty strange to me.
Consider this possibility -- when John and Patsy discovered what had happened, and they realized they had lost their daughter, they had the SERIOUS talk with Burke that he should NEVER tell what happened -- no matter what. Because if he did, it could mean that he would be taken away from his mom and dad. And that his mom and dad could go to jail. The parents could have promised him that they would NEVER tell anyone what he did, that they knew it was an accident, and that they all three had to stick together. Also, they probably told him that they were going to say that a stranger came into the house that night and hurt JonBenet.

AND if the Ramseys had any knowledge of EA and how Burke may have learned about it -- separation and jail was a distinct possibility for the parents. The Ramsey's could have been charged with neglect or abuse, to allow their son/children to be exposed to this sexual practice.

I also think that after the SERIOUS talk, the parents probably gave Burke a sleeping medication -- to knock him out. It could have been Benadryl. They needed him out of the way - so they could do the cover-up, moving suspicion away from Burke, even if it meant drawing suspicion on themselves. They knew no evidence could prove THEY did it -- because they didn't. It was Burke whom they were protecting -- and at the same time protecting themselves.

[MysteryAddict]

The evidence doesn't suggest Burke did it!

How would he have obtained fibers from the sweater his
Mother was wearing that night to entwine in the garotte?

How did he place a fiber from his Father's shirt in his
sister's underpants?

Poor kid, his sicko parents killed his sister and they would
rather he remain under suspicion than confess.

[i_dont_chat]

The evidence doesn't suggest Burke did it!

How would he have obtained fibers from the sweater his
Mother was wearing that night to entwine in the garotte?

How did he place a fiber from his Father's shirt in his
sister's underpants?

Poor kid, his sicko parents killed his sister and they would
rather he remain under suspicion than confess.
We don't know either of these two facts are true. We know that at one time, authorities CLAIMED these fibers existed. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that fibers from Patsy sweater was in the knotted cord on the broken paint brush handle.

As far as fibers of John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear, I think definitely that was a fabrication, an attempt to get John to confess, and John called their bluff.

Like others, I think much of this supposed evidence was leaked to pressure a confession out of the parents.

My theory is that the parents had all night to get rid of anything that pointed to Burke and to the children's attempt to mimic EA. That included wiping down JonBenet's body, changing her panties, whatever it took to give their daughter's body some dignity in death. A lot of fiber exchange could have taken place during this "staging" period.

Someone -- most likely John -- found that unopened package (size 10/12) of girls' underwear in a drawer in JonBenet's room. He hurriedly grapped "Wednesday's" pair, and took them down stairs to be put on JonBenet. That accounts for why the size was not JonBenet's size. It makes sense to me that John would decide on a new pair of panties, just out of the package -- rather than take a chance on selecting a pair which wasn't pristine clean. JonBenet was a bedwetter and did wet her pants. It wasn't Patsy who grabbed the Size 10/12. Patsy knew that JonBenet's washed and cleaned underwear was kept in the bathroom; Patsy would have picked the correct size.

With all due respect, if there is evidence which states that fibers from Patsy red sweater was in the knot on the cord around JonBenet's neck, or that fibers from John's shirt was found in her underwear, please show me the links.

[Love_Mama]

I don't know how one could prove this.

A 9-year old boy, I think, has the strength to bash in the skull of a 6-year. With a weapon, or course. A flashlight or a bat or something substantial.

This is my humble opinion.

Michele............just 3 days ago, here in San Diego CA.......a 11 yr. old girl beat her 5 yr. old sister to death!


xxxxxxxxxxoooo
mama

[Love_Mama]

I just remember hearing one of those forensic people talking about how hard it is to actually crack someones skull like that. I am not saying it cant happen, that is just what I remember hearing.. For a 9 year old that it.

Probably is hard to crack a skull but I'm telling you that my nine yr. old grandson could crack someones skull with a bat. He's a fantastic hitter!

Anyhow.......don't know that this brother of Joh Benets played much baseball

xxxxxxxxooo
Mama

[gaia]

Well, I think a young kid like Burke could have hit his sister with a mightly whack and, if it was placed right, could do some very serious damage. There's not doubt in my mind. Is this something that's the norm and happens everyday? No, but it does happen. The golf club incident is an example plus if he could do it once, he could do it again. My nephew did the same kind of thing with a golf club and nearly killed his brother.

I've always wondered if Burke was actually a bit upset with all the attention given his sister and sometimes took it out on her when no one was around...like maybe hitting her with something! Like I said, he did it once, so why couldn't or wouldn't he do it again?:cool:

[UKGuy]

BURKE did it – and why the Ramseys covered up



I agree 100% with BlueCrab’s assessment. Go here to read BlueCrab’s theory. You’ve got to read this to understand my theory.



http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24045



I agree that Burke did it and that LE and the grand jury found this to be true. The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.



A 9-year child cannot be held responsible in Colorado – and so it should be, in my opinion.



Although John and Patsy Ramsey didn’t kill their daughter, they hold some responsibility. And they don’t want their part it in to come to light. Their part in it is this: It is apparent to me that Burke had, at some time, witnessed adult sexual partners engaging in Erotic asphyxiation (EA).



I am proposing that Burke saw either his father perform this on his mother, or else Burke saw a man perform this on a woman – at a neighbor’s or friend’s home. Perhaps the “false” 9-1-1 call was the result of a child witnessing EA and they were frightened and called the police.


...

The above is my opinion only, and based only on the known information.

i_dont_chat,

Your BDI theory is a variant of Lou Smit's Intruder Theory applied to Burke.

You offer no forensic evidence to back up your assertions, these are no different from John Mark Karr's theory that he did it!

e.g. no forensic evidence behind either theory.

Also

The choking was unintentional. Burke choked her to death and smashed her skull to keep her from crying out.

If Burke had choked her to death, she could hardly cry out?

I will assert that JonBenet was initially manually strangled, the evidence for this can be seen in the autopsy photos, which reveal extensive bruising, contusions and abrasions beneath the ligature. There are none around the area of the ligature!

The garrote was applied after she was killed, her hair is embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle, and the knot on the ligature is fixed and would not have functioned in any manner as a breath control device! Her embedded hair would also have acted as a restraint to any form of EA activity.


If you read Perfect Murder Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller or Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas, these contain information regarding the fiber evidence, or read JR's response to the fiber allegations, the size-12's and undressing Jonbenet here: http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm


.

[Cigar]

This is a great point and I agree with you. If John and Patsy ever HAD much sex anymore at that time in their lives (what with the cancer and the kids and the busy work schedule coupled with the fact that they come across as relatively sex-less), I honestly doubt they were having unusual or kinky sex.

<snip.
How, presumably based on public images, does a couple "come across as relatively sex-less?"

[i_dont_chat]

U.K. Guy,
You said:
Your BDI theory is a variant of Lou Smit's Intruder Theory applied to Burke.


How can that be? Burke is not an intruder. I am suggesting that the parents got rid of all of the evidence that connected Burke to the "accidental" killing of their daughter. The Ramsey's would hardly have gotten rid of evidence to protect an intruder who killed their daughter.

My theory answers the question as to WHY the parents would go to the extreme to protect Burke. WHY it was so important that Burke not be questioned; not checked out that day by a physician, etc. etc. Because if he had, Burke would have been asked where he learned about the choking game. That's why Burke was protected -- not because he would have suffered so much by the revelations. But that the Ramseys and possibly others (who were aware that Burke might have witnessed the choking game) would face certain scunity as to their fitness to keep their children.

[Maybe So]

I don't know how one could prove this.

A 9-year old boy, I think, has the strength to bash in the skull of a 6-year. With a weapon, or course. A flashlight or a bat or something substantial.

This is my humble opinion.

Actually I dont think most 9 year olds and completely crack the skull of a 6 year old to the extent that JBRs skull was damaged IN ONE SINGLE BLOW as was done in this case. If it was so then there would be dead kids all over the place as kids hit each other with things all the time.

Photos of Burke taken that Christmas day do not show an overly large or strong looking kid.

Of course stranger things have happened but I can't figure out what would have led to such a disagreement in the middle of the night on Christmas when both children should have been absolutely exhausted from the Christmas activities.

[lovebites]

Am I correct that it was John Ramsey’s intention to fly his family out of town that morning? But the police nipped that in the bud? That flight would have gotten Burke away from having to answer probing questions, including being checked for scratches, etc.



Am I correct that it was FW who took Burke to his house? Burke was taken straight away from his bed, to the neighbor’s?



Am I correct that it was FW who was with John when they discovered JonBenet's body? (In my theory, John and Patsy had already discovered her body at some point during the night, and this mid-day finding was the second time John Ramsey saw her.)



All of this is of course conjecture. It seems to me that FW might have made a snap judgment, when he saw her body, that it was Burke's doing and thus FW instantly went into the mode of cooperating with the Ramseys in getting Burke away from the police. It is possible there was never a conversation regarding what to do. I'm saying it was obvious what to do -- get Burke outta there -- to people who had some prior knowledge of the children's awareness of deviate sexual play.



I am suggesting that at least these two families knew the connection between what Burke had done and some previous encounter with erotic asphyxiation. EA is defined as obtaining pleasure from the feeling of being suffocated, and the use of it within the context of sex play.



In the practice of EA, the person who benefits is the person whose breathing is controlled. Apparently, after being deprived of oxygen to the brain, intense sexual pleasure is felt at the moment of organism. I'm fairly sure of one thing, it was not JonBenet's intention to be a willing participant in the choking game. It was not a sexual act. I’m saying that what happened was an accident when 2 children try to "act out" what they've seen. That's what makes me think there were adults involved somehow -- to give Burke the idea that he needed his sister to "play with." My theory, Burke was duplicating what he had seen. Two people doing this choking thing. From his child-like perspective, the adults seemed to like it. Nobody was hurt or angry. What Burke didn't comprehend was -- when and why to "release" the ligature. He simply choked JonBenet her to death. Whether the head bash came before, during, or after is not material.



Some have suggested that Burke could have learned about solo (AEA) masturbation -- at school or even from the Internet. If that were the case, he could have experimented on choking himself while masturbating. But how would he have gotten the idea on his own to apply a cord around another person's throat, unless he had seen it done?



That's why I think Burke was "acting out" what he had seen. He could have easily coaxed JonBenet into "playing" and to allow him to put the cord around her neck. If she and Burke had in the past experimented with masturbation, then this session could have started like others. There was a mark, the cause of which isn't known, on her neck which could indicate force, if not just holding her down forcefully. I can imagine that when JonBenet started having trouble breathing, she fought for her life.

OR Burke saw his brother using the device (more likely than his parents) and knew where his brother kept it. He was curious and while trying to replicate what he'd seen his brother doing, JonBenet walked in, asked what he was doing and he was "showing" her.

When we were right around that age we used to "faint" each other (which is also a possibility). It wasn't done to be sexual at all nor did anyone gain any "pleasure" of that sort from it - it was just neat to us to make each other pass out.

How we'd do it was - the person being "fainted" would inhale as deeply as possible while the "fainter" pressed on either side of the neck. Surprisingly it only took mere seconds for the person to pass out, drop like a sack of potatoes and they'd convulse on the floor to everyone's amusement (God we were stupid!!!!!). What if Burke and JonBenet were doing this and when JonBenet passed out she struck her head.
When discussing the possibility of an accidental asphyxiation by the kids (Burke and JonBenet) it's presumed that it MUST have been sexually motivated or that they'd seen adults do it - we did it and it was neither!

[i_dont_chat]

Lovebites,

I can accept that what you-all did when you were young was not sexual -- just making each other faint or nearly faint, become light-headed, dizzy, etc.

But in this case, there was evidence that JonBenet was being sexually molested. And that plays into the theory that this choking game was sexual in nature -- perhaps not in the actual sense, because I doubt that JonBenet was a willing participant. All I am saying is this was a child's attempt to mimic EA.

[i_dont_chat]

Lovebites, I'm not picking on you. (smile) But I must address this because it is so important.



You said:

. . . Burke saw his brother using the device (more likely than his parents) and knew where his brother kept it. He was curious and while trying to replicate what he'd seen his brother doing, JonBenet walked in, asked what he was doing and he was "showing" her.

END



First, some definitions:

Erotic Asphyxiation (EA): Involves obtaining pleasure from the feeling of being suffocated, within the context of sex play, with at least one other person involved in the control of the breathing.



Solo masturbation rituals or Autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA): involves restricting your own oxygen (hypoxia) to enhance organism.





My point is this: IF Burke saw anyone doing the solo masturbation, cutting off their oxygen, to achieve an organism, it would follow that Burke would copy what he had seen and experiment on his own.


There is no way a 9-year could jump from witnessing solo masturbation techniques -- to attempt to play “the choking game” with another person. It just is beyond comprehension that he would have done this to JonBenet without him seeing it performed by others.



This is key to the whole theory. It is the missing link in this mystery. The adults involved had a lot at stake and a lot to lose if Burke were to explain “the choking game” and where he saw it.

[lovebites]

Lovebites,

I can accept that what you-all did when you were young was not sexual -- just making each other faint or nearly faint, become light-headed, dizzy, etc.

But in this case, there was evidence that JonBenet was being sexually molested. And that plays into the theory that this choking game was sexual in nature -- perhaps not in the actual sense, because I doubt that JonBenet was a willing participant. All I am saying is this was a child's attempt to mimic EA.
Or perhaps the sexual abuse and the death were not linked.

[lovebites]

Lovebites, I'm not picking on you. (smile) But I must address this because it is so important.



You said:

. . . Burke saw his brother using the device (more likely than his parents) and knew where his brother kept it. He was curious and while trying to replicate what he'd seen his brother doing, JonBenet walked in, asked what he was doing and he was "showing" her.

END



First, some definitions:

Erotic Asphyxiation (EA): Involves obtaining pleasure from the feeling of being suffocated, within the context of sex play, with at least one other person involved in the control of the breathing.



Solo masturbation rituals or Autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA): involves restricting your own oxygen (hypoxia) to enhance organism.





My point is this: IF Burke saw anyone doing the solo masturbation, cutting off their oxygen, to achieve an organism, it would follow that Burke would copy what he had seen and experiment on his own.


There is no way a 9-year could jump from witnessing solo masturbation techniques -- to attempt to play “the choking game” with another person. It just is beyond comprehension that he would have done this to JonBenet without him seeing it performed by others.



This is key to the whole theory. It is the missing link in this mystery. The adults involved had a lot at stake and a lot to lose if Burke were to explain “the choking game” and where he saw it.

I was referring to the possibility that Burke just as easily could have witnessed his brother using the device as his parents and I should have been clearer that my reference to the "fainting" game was meant as a totally separate idea/theory.

Now my thought process was that if Burke had indeed witnessed his brother using the device, maybe he didn't understand the sexual nature of it - for example, if Burke walked in on his brother, the stick end of this device closed in a closet door and the other end over or through the door somehow and around the his neck - his brother immediately stopped touching himself but it would take longer to untangle himself from the noose etc. So, Burke may not have seen any of the masturbation that was going on and thus was just fascinated with what it *looked* like his brother was doing. Choking himself. His brother could have even been setting things up in preparation to begin the sexual act on himself and Burke came bursting through the door to ask a question and just saw his brother as he was preparing to begin masturbating. I just find it more likely that if Burke witnessed someone using this kind of contraption it would more likely be an older brother than John and Patsy IMO.

If and that's a big *if* I was to lean toward one of these scenarios, it would be the fainting game and that we are assuming that the murder involved or was motivated by her prior sexual abuse and it really wasn't.


This is all just speculation - I'm just throwing ideas against the wall...
I'm not committed to any theories with regard to this case because nothing makes sense!

[icedtea4me]

Am I correct that it was FW who took Burke to his house? Burke was taken straight away from his bed, to the neighbor’s?



Am I correct that it was FW who was with John when they discovered JonBenet's body? (In my theory, John and Patsy had already discovered her body at some point during the night, and this mid-day finding was the second time John Ramsey saw her.)



All of this is of course conjecture. It seems to me that FW might have made a snap judgment, when he saw her body, that it was Burke's doing and thus FW instantly went into the mode of cooperating with the Ramseys in getting Burke away from the police. It is possible there was never a conversation regarding what to do. I'm saying it was obvious what to do -- get Burke outta there -- to people who had some prior knowledge of the children's awareness of deviate sexual play.
Burke was taken over to the Whites' house shortly after 7 a.m., six hours before the "official finding" of JonBenet's body.


-Tea

[LinasK]

Someone -- most likely John -- found that unopened package (size 10/12) of girls' underwear in a drawer in JonBenet's room. He hurriedly grapped "Wednesday's" pair, and took them down stairs to be put on JonBenet. That accounts for why the size was not JonBenet's size. It makes sense to me that John would decide on a new pair of panties, just out of the package -- rather than take a chance on selecting a pair which wasn't pristine clean. JonBenet was a bedwetter and did wet her pants. It wasn't Patsy who grabbed the Size 10/12. Patsy knew that JonBenet's washed and cleaned underwear was kept in the bathroom; Patsy would have picked the correct size.

I disagree that John picked the size 12 Bloomies. Just before JMK was arrested we had a couple of threads about the Bloomies, Jayelles even photographed with a dummy model the difference in size- the general consensus was the Patsy picked the size 12 ones because they were the Wednesday pair, and that was more important appearance-wise to the stager than the fact that they were so much larger. The size 6 ones JB had apparently soiled earlier that evening, perhaps prior to going to the White's party.

[UKGuy]

U.K. Guy,

You said:
Your BDI theory is a variant of Lou Smit's Intruder Theory applied to Burke.


How can that be? Burke is not an intruder. I am suggesting that the parents got rid of all of the evidence that connected Burke to the "accidental" killing of their daughter. The Ramsey's would hardly have gotten rid of evidence to protect an intruder who killed their daughter.

My theory answers the question as to WHY the parents would go to the extreme to protect Burke. WHY it was so important that Burke not be questioned; not checked out that day by a physician, etc. etc. Because if he had, Burke would have been asked where he learned about the choking game. That's why Burke was protected -- not because he would have suffered so much by the revelations. But that the Ramseys and possibly others (who were aware that Burke might have witnessed the choking game) would face certain scunity as to their fitness to keep their children.

i_dont_chat,


You said:
Your BDI theory is a variant of Lou Smit's Intruder Theory applied to Burke.

Because in Lou Smit's theory JonBenet is killed by a psychopathic predator, who has a professional fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation combined with sexual assault.

In Lou Smit's theory as in yours the garrote takes a central role. Lou Smit characterises the killer as a professional e.g. a recidivist, based on the professional manner in which the garrote was constructed, and in tandem with the JonBenet's sexual assault reveals a perverse sociopath.

I repeat the theory of Erotic Asphyxiation originated from Lou Smit, this is the man who pronounced the Ramsey's innocent after praying with them!



The Ramsey's would hardly have gotten rid of evidence to protect an intruder who killed their daughter.

Sure, and they would do it to ensure neither of them were implicated in the crime-scene, this will explain why there are no Ramsey fingerprints on the ransom note, or on the flashlight. Yet John Ramsey has very poor eyesight!

The only choking applied to JonBenet was that of being manually strangled.

By assuming EA activity you are simply parroting Lou Smit.


.

[i_dont_chat]

i_dont_chat,


Because in Lou Smit's theory JonBenet is killed by a psychopathic predator, who has a professional fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation combined with sexual assault.

In Lou Smit's theory as in yours the garrote takes a central role. Lou Smit characterises the killer as a professional e.g. a recidivist, based on the professional manner in which the garrote was constructed, and in tandem with the JonBenet's sexual assault reveals a perverse sociopath.

I repeat the theory of Erotic Asphyxiation originated from Lou Smit, this is the man who pronounced the Ramsey's innocent after praying with them!



Sure, and they would do it to ensure neither of them were implicated in the crime-scene, this will explain why there are no Ramsey fingerprints on the ransom note, or on the flashlight. Yet John Ramsey has very poor eyesight!

The only choking applied to JonBenet was that of being manually strangled.

By assuming EA activity you are simply parroting Lou Smit.


.Hi.



For clarification, I am not parroting Lou Smit. I honestly have not read anything Mr. Smit had to say about the crime. I have read (and believe it to be true) that Mr. Smit is motivated to throw suspicion away from the Ramsey family.



BlueCrab’s posts on this forum is the first place I’d seen the explanations of EA and AEA. So, I am not parroting Lou Smit. Actually I am parroting Blue Crab. The only thing I am adding into the mix is the reason why it was so imperative that Burke not be singled out.



So, if Lou Smit originally came up with the EA, I am not surprised, because it was obvious – that’s what it was. And IMMEDIATELY upon finding JonBenet’s body(the FIRST time--in the middle of the night), the parents knew exactly what their son was doing to JonBenet which caused her death. And the parents realized their part in it – and acted immediately to keep Burke from being quizzed. Also they got Burke out of the house (conveniently BEFORE JonBenet was "officially" found) because Burke probably had scratches and physical evidence on his body.



This tragedy happened because children were acting out what they had seen adults doing. If the LE would look at this angle – they’d soon discover that Burke did it, and the adults were guilty of obstructing justice.

[Brefie]

By assuming EA activity you are simply parroting Lou Smit.


This is pretty rude, imo, and uncalled for.

If someone agrees with an aspect of even the most unpopular figure's theory, it is not 'simply parotting'.

[i_dont_chat]

I’d like to say, again, how my theory is not at all the same as Mr. Smit’s theory.

According to UKGuy, Lou Smit's theory is that JonBenet was killed by a psychopathic predator, who has a professional fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation combined with sexual assault.

My theory is quite different. I think that the evidence shows that JonBenet was accidentally killed by her brother Burke, who was experimenting, trying to duplicate Erotic Asphyxiation. I believe that Burke had seen this deviate sexual activity, either in his own home or in the home of a neighbor. And I believe he witnessed it within a few days of his trying it on his sister. Because of his age of sexual development, Burke didn’t understand the subtleties of EA, that is, breathe control and organism. EA is extremely dangerous for adults; it goes without saying that it is quite reckless for children to be allowed to view such behavior, because of children’s fascination to try things for themselves.

Further, I believe that as soon as the Ramseys made the gruesome discovery (in the middle of the night) that their son had accidentally killed his sister, they realized their legal exposure. I’m not saying that they, themselves, engaged in such things; some people choose to be voyeurs, rather than participants. It is impossible to speculate exactly how Burke had become privy to such behavior – but in my opinion, based on his parents’ behavior, I say that his parents knew how Burke was acquainted with EA. My theory is that in addition to his parents knowing, some of the neighbors knew, as well.

In my opinion, the Ramseys were very successful in accomplishing their goals. The truth that Burke did it (and why and how it happened) has not come out. Mom and dad and Burke have presented a united front, insisting that an “intruder” did the deed. The neighbors helped shield Burke and also came to the support of Patsy and John. No parents in the neighborhood were charged with abuse or neglect or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. No children in any of the households were removed from their parents’ custody or put in foster homes. No one has been charged with obstructing justice. If the TRUTH had come out immediately after the murder, each of these were a distinct possibility.

Ironically, those people involved in keeping the truth hidden may have had to endure consequences worse than if they would have been truthful from the beginning.

Who is to say that the adults who know the truth are wrong to keep it from the public? Do we citizens have the right to know what happened? What are the lessons here to be learned? Do our officials owe we citizens the truth (thus alleviating our fears, etc.) or do our officials owe the Ramseys special protection?

The above are my thoughts on this subject, based on the evidence I have read on this case.

[i_dont_chat]

Blue Crab, come out, come out, where ever you are!

[UKGuy]

I’d like to say, again, how my theory is not at all the same as Mr. Smit’s theory.

According to UKGuy, Lou Smit's theory is that JonBenet was killed by a psychopathic predator, who has a professional fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation combined with sexual assault.

My theory is quite different. I think that the evidence shows that JonBenet was accidentally killed by her brother Burke, who was experimenting, trying to duplicate Erotic Asphyxiation. I believe that Burke had seen this deviate sexual activity, either in his own home or in the home of a neighbor. And I believe he witnessed it within a few days of his trying it on his sister. Because of his age of sexual development, Burke didn’t understand the subtleties of EA, that is, breathe control and organism. EA is extremely dangerous for adults; it goes without saying that it is quite reckless for children to be allowed to view such behavior, because of children’s fascination to try things for themselves.


i_dont_chat,

I never said it was the same, just a variant.

Try here for a very good overview of Lou Smit's intruder theory:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

The erotic asphyxiation angle is illusionary, a product of Lou Smit's alter ego e.g. the one that does not pray.


.

[Jennifer]

I haven't posted anything on websleuths since the Laci Peterson case, but this is an interesting theory. I've never really thought Burke did it, but... What if it wasn't EA that Burke was trying to mimick, but instead just the "choking game" that over the last few years has been in the news several times because of causing the death of young children. Maybe he and JonBenet were playing, and she passed out, but he couldn't get the rope off her neck.

If this happened, she could have even still been alive. Maybe John or Patsy found out at this point, and realized she would be "neurologically devastated" from the oxygen depravation, and decided they couldn't have their beauty queen be a vegetable, especially with Patsy's precarious health, so they either finished choking JonBenet to death or hit her over the head and placed the garrote to make it appear a child molester was responsible. The rest was a jumbled mix of staging based on their thought patterns of staging what kind of person would do this, including the ransom note to stall the police, and give them time to get friends over, contaminate the crime scene, move Burke out of the house,etc.

[i_dont_chat]

I haven't posted anything on websleuths since the Laci Peterson case, but this is an interesting theory. I've never really thought Burke did it, but... What if it wasn't EA that Burke was trying to mimick, but instead just the "choking game" that over the last few years has been in the news several times because of causing the death of young children. Maybe he and JonBenet were playing, and she passed out, but he couldn't get the rope off her neck.

If this happened, she could have even still been alive. Maybe John or Patsy found out at this point, and realized she would be "neurologically devastated" from the oxygen depravation, and decided they couldn't have their beauty queen be a vegetable, especially with Patsy's precarious health, so they either finished choking JonBenet to death or hit her over the head and placed the garrote to make it appear a child molester was responsible. The rest was a jumbled mix of staging based on their thought patterns of staging what kind of person would do this, including the ransom note to stall the police, and give them time to get friends over, contaminate the crime scene, move Burke out of the house,etc.Thank you, Jennifer, for pointing out to me that I have been, erroneously, using "the choking game" and erotic asphyxiation interchangeably. There is a difference. The objective of the choking game is to get "high" without drugs. And the objective of EA is to intensify an organism.

In this case, it seems to me that there is a sexual objective - either molestation, masturbation, or experimentation -- because of the presence of pieces of the paint brush handle. That's what's so confusing about this. The victim appears to have died during EA, which is sexual in nature. But could such young children understand the complexities of breathe control and organism? I think not. I think Burke saw adults doing this; had no idea about the objective of EA, and was simply "acting out" the physical activity. And he simply choked her to death. He didn't know when to stop. He hadn't the concept that she could die. My opinion is that he had seen this done before; nobody got hurt, they seemed to enjoy it; he wanted to be like the grownups.

I can't explain the bash on the head. Perhaps she convulsed, and he hit her on the head to make her stop. I don't hold with the theories that her head injury could have been done by falling, or hitting a wall. It looks to me like something small and rectangular-shaped, bashed in her skull. Like a golf club -- but I don't know if a golf club would be substantial enough to cause the damage. It seems like a baseball bat would have made a bigger indention.

Your scenario is a possibility. But personally I don't think either parent could have killed their daughter, even if it were a mercy killing, as you suggest.

In my opinion, these parents would have opted to do whatever they could to save the life of their daughter -- so I am sticking to my theory that JonBenet was already dead when her parents found her (the first time--in the middle of the night). Then they started the cover-up.

[Jennifer]

I agree it would be unlikely that John or Patsy would actually kill JonBenet. I just have a hard time believing that the would find her dead and cover it up.

I think it would be extremely unlikely Burke witnessed EA in person, maybe he found a video, but I just think it is more likely he would be trying to pass out for the high. My thoughts on the choking game are that it was something that Burke and JonBenet could have been doing, with the sexual abuse being part of the coverup to divert attention away from Burke. In other words, how could anyone suspect a nine year old of this crime? Like I said, I've never thought it could be possible that Burke killed JonBenet, because I didn't see why the parents would cover for him, especially considering the anger/grief they would be feeling, but if it was a "game" gone horribly wrong, I think it's possible.

[UKGuy]

If Burke had been playing a choking game with JonBenet, and its difficult to see why, since the high is meant for him not JonBenet, then JonBenet's resulting death is an accident not a homicide, furthermore at that point in time Burke was beneath the age of criminal responsibility!

This EA choking stuff is nonsense, take a look at the autopsy pictures, view the abrasions and contusions that are below the ligature, these are not the consequence of any game!


Also why are you so enthusiastic to blame Burke and not either of the parents?

.

[i_dont_chat]

The evidence doesn't suggest Burke did it!

How would he have obtained fibers from the sweater his
Mother was wearing that night to entwine in the garotte?

How did he place a fiber from his Father's shirt in his
sister's underpants?

Poor kid, his sicko parents killed his sister and they would
rather he remain under suspicion than confess.
To Mystery Addict (and anyone else who can help):

You recall I asked you to please provide your source of information on the above statements.

With all due respect, if there is evidence which states that fibers from Patsy’s red sweater were found entwined in the knot of the cord around JonBenet's neck, or that fibers from John's shirt were found in her underwear, please show me the links.

Since you haven't replied to my request to substantiate your claims, I am assuming you have conceded that these were rumors, and not facts about these particular fibers.

[i_dont_chat]

If Burke had been playing a choking game with JonBenet, and its difficult to see why, since the high is meant for him not JonBenet, then JonBenet's resulting death is an accident not a homicide, furthermore at that point in time Burke was beneath the age of criminal responsibility!

This EA choking stuff is nonsense, take a look at the autopsy pictures, view the abrasions and contusions that are below the ligature, these are not the consequence of any game!


Also why are you so enthusiastic to blame Burke and not either of the parents?

.Exactly -- that is what I am hoping to show by explaining my theory that Burke had witnessed EA being practiced by adults.

To make a small correction, I am speculating that Burke was "trying" to copy erotic asphyxiation (EA) -- not the "choking game." The choking game gives a high to the person being choked. EA gives heightened organism to the person being choked. Of course, Burke didn't know this subtle difference. He was acting out the behavior. He had no idea of how it worked. He simply strangled his sister, duplicating what he had seen done with impunity.

You asked a good question -- Why would the parents go to such drastic lengths to protect Burke since his age was protection enough?

That's my point. The Ramseys were actually protecting themselves from serious charges of neglect and abuse of their children. They knew the child/children were simply experimenting because of what the child/children had seen. The parents went to great lengths to keep this from getting out.

You asked why I am so enthusiastic to blame Burke and not either of the parents?

I am not blaming Burke. Yes, I believe he killed his sister, but he didn't INTEND to kill her. He was the victim here, also. It is children's natural tendency to copy adults and simulate what they see.

And, of course, I AM blaming the parents. I am proposing for consideration: What they did to Burke and ultimately, to JonBenet, was the crime. They abused these children by allowing them to be exposed to EA, either by commission or omission.

No adults should ever allow children to be around people known to be sexual deviates. No parents should allow children to go into the homes of people where the parents know such deviate sexual practices might be going on. The behavior of the parents indicate to me that they WERE GUILTY OF SOMETHING and they were protecting themselves by obstructing justice.

I've considered, what if when they found JonBenet's body in the middle of the night, they asked Burke "What were you doing?" and what if he said "I was doing what I saw X and Y doing, etc. etc." Let's say for argument's sake that this came as a complete surprise to the parents. In that case, I think the Ramsey's would have allowed Burke to explain that to the police -- because surely Patsy and John would have wanted to stop whoever exposed their son to this perversion. But, no, the Ramsey's took another route -- to lie, obstruct justice, and destroy evidence.

This is ONLY my theory to explain why the TRUTH was concealed. It seems to me that LE could get to the truth if they would pursue an investigation into every adult who had contact with the Ramsey children, and inquire about their knowledge/familiarity with erotic asphyxiation (EA).

Incidentally, I propose that the false 9-1-1 call is someway connected to what Burke witnessed and what, on the night of December 25, Burke was "trying out" on his sister. Whoever dialed 9-1-1 was considerably disturbed about something. I don't think it was an accident or a coincidence.

If this explanation of how JonBenet came to be murdered is true, some day it will come out. At some time in Burke's life, perhaps after the passing of his father, he will tell what happened.

[MysteryAddict]

To Mystery Addict (and anyone else who can help):

You recall I asked you to please provide your source of information on the above statements.

With all due respect, if there is evidence which states that fibers from Patsy’s red sweater were found entwined in the knot of the cord around JonBenet's neck, or that fibers from John's shirt were found in her underwear, please show me the links.

Since you haven't replied to my request to substantiate your claims, I am assuming you have conceded that these were rumors, and not facts about these particular fibers.

Sorry about that!

This information I have read so many times,
I thought it to be common knowledge.

Guess I was wrong.