Once Again

[ajt400]

Okay, so was Burke the molester? I find it hard to see that ngle, maybe the older brother. Does anyone know of any behavior problems with Burke @ school, church, etc? Any sort of proof that he would act out that way. (BTW, I do believe this was a sexual crime, so an accident is ruled out by me)

 

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Ivy
Good point about the friends providing a buffer zone and about John's motive, Britt. Along the same lines as John's motive, I think that when Patsy did her Lazurus performance and threw herself on JonBenet's body, she was trying to deposit fibers and hairs on the body in case any were found there during the forensic examination. I guess she didn't realize fibers consistent with her jacket fibers would be found tangled in the neck cord knot and on the strip of mouth tape, which was in the basement at the time of her performance.

A way of testing for this theory would be to find out whether Patsy did the same whenever she was confronted with the dead body of someone she loved. Time having passed since death should not be an issue; Lazarus had been dead for four days before he was raised up. So, when Beth died and her body was brought to Atlanta, was Patsy's first reaction to throw herself on Beth and ask God to raise her as he raised Lazarus? If not, why not? Was Patsy okay with Beth being dead? When Nedra died, did Patsy throw herself on her body and ask God to raise her as he raised Lazarus? If not, why not? Was Patsy okay with Nedra being dead?

I take as a working hypothesis that Patsy never threw herself on the bodies of other people she loved who met with death. I also believe, in a Patsy-did-it scenario, the purpose of throwing her body over JonBenet's would be to contaminate the body with forensic evidence in a witnessed context.

Coincidence or not? Lazarus came from the town of Bethany. Patsy has said her first thought when she saw the ransom note was that it was something to do with Beth. Also, Patsy told Woman's Magazine in 1996 of how she was first told she was cured of cancer (and thereby saved from death as was Lazarus?) by a nurse named Bethany, whom she took to be a manifestation of Beth watching over her. In my own constitutionally-protected opinion on the theory of the crime's motive, Patsy wanted to sacrifice JonBenet on Christmas as a way of drawing John to her side after he had begun to drift away physically and emotionally, and in this theory she would know that the most powerful button of John's she could push would be to make JonBenet's death more memorable and dramatic than Beth's on the undistinguished date of January 8th (note, that would be 1/8 when abbreviating with numbers in the US).

 

[Ivy]

I believe Burke was the "molester," if it could be called that. I have no proof he would "act out" in this way, but apparently visitors to the Ramsey home reported catching Burke and JonBenet playing "doctor." The Globe, which I realize is a tabloid, reported this, but so did Ryan Ross, who is a Denver-based legal affairs expert and author of crime-related articles who's even appeared on Nightline as an authority on legal matters.

Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said she sometimes found JonBenet and Burke in Burke's bed together and that she thought from the way they reacted when she walked in, that they were engaged in sexual play. She also said that once, when she walked into one of their bedrooms to put clean clothes into a drawer, Burke and JonBenet were in a blanket tent on the floor, and Burke yelled for LHP to GET OUT! She said she suspected something naughty was going on in that tent. None of this is proof of anything, especially that Burke killed JonBenet, but I don't find it hard to believe that 6- and 9-year-old siblings would play doctor.

Years ago, some posters at Justice Watch whose kids attended Burke's school said that around the time JonBenet died--before, I think--kids at the school were playing choking games. I don't know if the games were erotic asphixiation games or whether cords--or hands--were used. As far as I know, BPD didn't investigate the matter. Maybe no one told them, or, if someone did, maybe the BPD didn't bother to investigate. Why would they? The police never considered Burke a suspect in JonBenet's death.

 

[ajt400]

That is a good point...I have never thought of it that way. Yes, most kids do play 'doctor' or 'mommy and daddy' and such..

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
That is a good point...I have never thought of it that way. Yes, most kids do play 'doctor' or 'mommy and daddy' and such..

Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

 

[Ivy]

Exactly, Shylock. An adult pedophile, especially one with murder on his mind, wouldn't have "gently" molested her with the handle of a paintbrush, or any other object. (I don't recall which of the people involved in the case called the molestation "gentle," but at least one of them did when comparing JonBenet's vaginal trauma to the injuries of other victims of sex crimes.)

I think the insertion of the paintbrush handle is what made JonBenet's acute vaginal injury, which caused JonBenet to scream--or at least react by trying to flee--and that is when Burke panicked, and in a knee-jerk reaction, yanked the neck cord and pulled, and with his free hand cracked her skull with the Maglite.

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

An adult could do that, but most likely an adult who had not ever had sex before, was intimidated by the act of sex, or had very little limited sexual contact.(The insertion of the paintbrush points to the need to have penetration, but by someone who was too mentally immature to use their penis...)

By the way, were cells from JonBenet's vagina found on the paintbrush? The paintbrush wasn't found inserted in the vagina was it?

Also, I think it would be necessary to find out if Burke and his classmates were playing with garrotes and exactly what kind of asphyixiation games they were playing, if any. Maybe if he had seen any movies taht involved such things.....the molestation is child like, but the garrot suggests some sort of sexual maturity.

 

[Britt]

Shylock and Ivy - good points and of course you could be right that it was Burke. But the described molestation could also be explained by staging to cover up previous molestation by adult digital penetration.

 

[Ivy]

You could certainly be right, Britt, but I would think that if the acute injury was inflicted to cover up prior digital abuse, the acute injury would have been more pronounced and caused more damage. As it was, the acute injury was relatively minor and didn't at all mask the chronic inflammation.

 

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Shylock
Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

This is the one aspect of the case which lends a whiff of credibility to the Burke-did-it theory. A child, whether boy or girl, has no idea that a vagina has depth and extends into the body for a distance of inches. An adult does. The abrasion which is considered evidence of sexual assault is found right at the entrance to the vagina and does not extend inwards to any appreciable measure. It is as if the abrasion was made by someone who thought just poking at the entrance to JonBenet's genitalia was as much as could be done to her. I find this indicative of either a juvenile with no familiarity with penetration, or an adult who was repulsed at the idea of penetrating JonBenet but needed to stage it anyway as part of a larger cover-up.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by why_nutt
In my own constitutionally-protected opinion on the theory of the crime's motive, Patsy wanted to sacrifice JonBenet on Christmas as a way of drawing John to her side after he had begun to drift away physically and emotionally, and in this theory she would know that the most powerful button of John's she could push would be to make JonBenet's death more memorable and dramatic than Beth's on the undistinguished date of January 8th (note, that would be 1/8 when abbreviating with numbers in the US).

This theory is fascinating, why_nutt, and believable IMO... but what about John? How do you explain John's willingness to cover for Patsy? And which of them did the vaginal abuse, in your opinion? Did Patsy do it in order to implicate John and force him into the cover-up?

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
...I would think that if the acute injury was inflicted to cover up prior digital abuse, the acute injury would have been more pronounced and caused more damage. As it was, the acute injury was relatively minor and didn't at all mask the chronic inflammation.

This could be explained by the fact that the Ramseys aren't medical experts nor experienced criminals. It could also be explained by the possibility that the molester and the stager were two different people. I wonder if Burke was the molester, but had nothing to do with JB's mortal injuries... and the stager, who was also the killer (or helping the killer with staging) - John or Patsy - tried to hide the molestation done by Burke.

 

[Ivy]

Britt, even if John and Patsy knew that Burke and JonBenet had played sexual exploration games from time to time, why would they auomatically think that these sexual games had caused chronic inflammation in JonBenet's vagina?

 

[Toth]

An adult could do that, but most likely an adult who had not ever had sex before, was intimidated by the act of sex, or had very little limited sexual contact.
....... or simply someone who really had no interest in perversion; just wanted to leave the Ramseys with a little thought to creep into their minds at night and to mislead the investigators into thinking this was the work of a pedophile.

>By the way, were cells from JonBenet's vagina found on the paintbrush? The paintbrush wasn't found inserted in the vagina was it?
..........No, except for a missing piece, it was found on the carpet. Birefrigent material is thought to be shellac from the paintbrush.

Also, I think it would be necessary to find out if Burke and his classmates were playing with garrotes and exactly what kind of asphyixiation games they were playing, if any.
.........No playing with garottes, no asphyxiation games.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by why_nutt
This is the one aspect of the case which lends a whiff of credibility to the Burke-did-it theory.

Now add in the scenario that when the parents discover the sexual contact between the two children they are not sure if Burke can be charged with "incest"--so they look the word up in the dictionary...

 

[Toth]

Originally posted by Shylock
Now add in the scenario that when the parents discover the sexual contact between the two children they are not sure if Burke can be charged with "incest"--so they look the word up in the dictionary...

Aside from the fact that this "dictionary open to the word incest" is pure internet myth, do you really think that ANY adult in the entire city of Boulder needs to resort to a dictionary for that word?

 

[Nehemiah]

Toth, how do you know there were no garrotting/asphyxiation games? I think you would have to know the family intimately to really know this for a fact. Or, are you guessing?

 

[ajt400]

I thought they might be smart enough to know what incest means. They were alledgedly smart enough to know what a garrote was and auto-erotic ashpysixiation as well.

Thats the thing that bothers me most about the R's did it theory--how could they be so criminally sophisticated to do certain staging elemaents, but be so stupid to not know what incest means.....

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
Aside from the fact that this "dictionary open to the word incest" is pure internet myth, do you really think that ANY adult in the entire city of Boulder needs to resort to a dictionary for that word?

It's NOT an "internet myth" when it's been published in a book written by a detective on the case who had the photographic evidence right in his hand. NOBODY directly involved with the case has contradicted Thomas' story about the dictionary--not even Lou Smit.

And YES, while I think 99% of adults know that "incest" is sex between a parent and their child, I also think a vast majority of them may not be sure if the defination of "incest" includes sex between siblings--therefore they might just have to look it up.

None of the Ramsey friends have ever described John and Patsy as a "sensual" couple, or even commented about their sexual nature. They appear to be a real goody-2-shoe, Baptist holy-roller family. Just the type of people who wouldn't know the complete defination of the word "incest".
It fits perfectly with what we know of their nature--which you are usually so quick to point out, Toth.

 

[ajt400]

You have photographic evidence of the Ramsey's holding the dictionary open to the page incest is on???

What do you mean by photographic evidence. Just because people attend church doesn't mean that they wouldn't know what incest means....although I agree that they may not have known if it included sex between siblings. Beside, do you relly think it was actual intercourse or just playing touchy-fely?