Was Burke Involved? # 4

[LisaB]

Burke was bright enough he could have written the note long before the event. Wonder if they checked his handwriting carefully? It seems far-fetched, but never underestimate the ability of a prodigy--he may have thought this through from the lure of pineapple to the end. Would make some sense of the weird discontinuities. I am firmly BDI. But how much was his alone? Here we must wear the fez of conjecture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How long before? I mean, the letters were pressed into the notepad in the desk, meaning the last thing written on that tablet was the note...

 

[carolinea]

Right, yes this has been mentioned, but as I said then, and as I'll say now....it's unlikely that statement was taking into consideration the extreme possibility of aggressive masterbation. They were making that statement in terms of what normal touching would do to an average 6 year olds vagina.....they were not even considering the possibility that such extremes could be self inflicted....as awareness of Sensory Processing disorders basically was non existent even to professionals in the field of child development at that time. So if somethings not on your radar, it will obviously not be considered.

I just don't think what normal touching would do, and the evidence left by what this child was doing would be the same as each other. I think there would be considerable differences. And without knowing this child's history, I wouldn't even be surprised that if a hypothetical evaluation was down on her private area, that an ME wouldn't misinterpret what they saw.

"Extreme possibility"? Given what evidence? That level of compulsive masturbation is not at all statistically prevalent. Given the fact that of the hundreds of people interviewed about Jonbenet, zero of them mentioned even a hint of this, the odds that these injuries were self-inflicted are about as likely as an intruder did it.

 

[LisaB]

I have never been a BDI, but since his interviews I had to reconsider. I am most disturbed at his lack of curiosity that morning. Lying in bed, pretending to be asleep as his mother runs through house frantically. It is almost as someone in here suggested, a guilty conscience putting distance between himself and the act. But does that mean the parents never told him they knew? Did they just find the body and go about staging letting BR think he got away with it? He was not given instructions of what to do and say as part of their coverup? If all 3 are part of the coverup they did not have it all planned very well. It fits so much neater if PR did it all and JR and BR were just along for the ride. Did anyone early on ask BR did you hit your sister or do you ever hit your sister? I never heard that but I have only seen clips of his interviews with police and the counselor back then. I am not sure a denial now means anything.

I think he hit her, but had no idea she would die. He was worried about getting in trouble, so he left her where she fell and went to his room, forgetting he had left the pineapple on the table. When he woke up later, his mom was freaking out. He overheard the phone call to 911 and knew that was NOT what he had done, he knew he did not remove her from the house or write a note, so he (wishfully) believed that after he hit her, the kidnapper came in and the rest happened. I doubt his parents ever even ASKED him what he did, because they knew. If he DID ask "What DID you find?" (on the 911 tape) I think it was to clarify that they "found" a note and no sign of his sister, rather than finding her knocked unconscious where he left her. This convinced HIM he did not kill her, and when she turned up in the crawl space, garroted and tied/taped, he became further convinced that by pure coincidence, someone had kidnapped, assaulted, and killed her, leaving the note, AFTER he had gone to bed.

 

[LisaB]

Yeah I agree with you, I don't know who would sleep through their mother going 'psycho' in the house and police officers coming in with flashlights. I mean come on...he was definitely not asleep.

And he acknowledged, shortly after the killing, that he was not asleep, but faking.

 

[LisaB]

Who would go on national TV and describe their mother who was frantically looking for her missing daughter as: "going psycho"? A person with some very serious mental issues, that's who.

Was this from Dr. Phil? I thought it was from the interview shown on the CBS special, conducted when he was either 9 or 11. At the time, he may not have realized he was being recorded, and certainly had no idea it would ever be televised.

 

[LisaB]

Amazingly unsensational and accurate for The Sun! The photos they included of Burke show how inappropriate his expressions are, for the situation. Who grins like that when discussing the murder of a sibling???

The phrase he used to describe Patsy's frantic search for JonBenet, was "going psycho." That implies that he thinks it is NBD that his sister is missing, and his mom is over-reacting. He states this in an offhand way, with smiles. He enjoyed this reaction from his mother. I think if he could only tell someone about what he really did to JonBenet, we'd see the biggest smiles of all.

Accurate?
"Patsy called 911 on Boxing Day morning 1996 to say she had found a ransom note demanding $157,000 and that her daughter was missing from their home in Boulder, Colorado."

 

[Heymom]

How long before? I mean, the letters were pressed into the notepad in the desk, meaning the last thing written on that tablet was the note...

No, the ransom novel was written with a Sharpie pen. There was no impression of it - if anything, it was bleed-through from the ink. There was at least 1 "practice" note that had been started on the same pad.

 

[Heymom]

Accurate?
"Patsy called 911 on Boxing Day morning 1996 to say she had found a ransom note demanding $157,000 and that her daughter was missing from their home in Boulder, Colorado."

For the Sun, still not bad. A lot of the time their articles are sheer unadulterated fiction.

 

[ThinkHard]

"Extreme possibility"? Given what evidence? That level of compulsive masturbation is not at all statistically prevalent. Given the fact that of the hundreds of people interviewed about Jonbenet, zero of them mentioned even a hint of this, the odds that these injuries were self-inflicted are about as likely as an intruder did it.

Respectfully, have you ever worked with children who have sensory processing issues? Have you worked with children with sexual aggression issues? It's more common then you would imagine, just never talked about because most people cannot handle the idea of children engaging in that kind of activity.

It is something that is difficult to even wrap ones brain around so I understand your resistance to even the idea. It's is not something people talk about, as in ever.

But just google this subject and you will see online support groups of people dealing with this issue, and only confessing the extend of their child's problems to anonymous other parents. Also keep in mind this was 20 yrs ago, when this stuff was even less understood and even less talked about.

So please unless you have directly worked with this population of children yourself, I'd kindly ask you to refrain from stating things about this subject if it is not one you have first hand experience with.

If anything this is an opportunity for people to learn about psychiatric illness and sexual abuse and we should do the best we can to put out accurate information forward rather then perpetuating false statements. It's just not far for the children that live with these conditions.

 

[ThinkHard]

I think he hit her, but had no idea she would die. He was worried about getting in trouble, so he left her where she fell and went to his room, forgetting he had left the pineapple on the table. When he woke up later, his mom was freaking out. He overheard the phone call to 911 and knew that was NOT what he had done, he knew he did not remove her from the house or write a note, so he (wishfully) believed that after he hit her, the kidnapper came in and the rest happened. I doubt his parents ever even ASKED him what he did, because they knew. If he DID ask "What DID you find?" (on the 911 tape) I think it was to clarify that they "found" a note and no sign of his sister, rather than finding her knocked unconscious where he left her. This convinced HIM he did not kill her, and when she turned up in the crawl space, garroted and tied/taped, he became further convinced that by pure coincidence, someone had kidnapped, assaulted, and killed her, leaving the note, AFTER he had gone to bed.

Why would the parents upon finding an unconscious child with no apparent head wound in the middle of the night.....then leap to "oh hey lets stage a murder". I just don't see that.

If you found ur child out if bed and passed out downstairs, why would anyone then feel the need to go through all that trouble to cover. No way, there's way more to the story then that in my opinion.

 

[LisaB]

In my opinion kids with older brothers and sisters would definitely be at a greater chance of encountering *advertiser censored* or materials suited for adults. Even tampon boxes have instructions with pictures for proper insertion if a curious child were to go peeking through it, it wouldn't necessarily have to be *advertiser censored*. And perhaps he could have seen things at his friends houses especially if his friends had internet or older siblings. As children we didn't live in a bubble, our parents would shield us but they couldn't keep our friends from telling us things or keep us from learning on our own.

I have actually SHOWN the tampon instructions to guys to help them to understand that we do not pee from our vagina. It is AMAZING how many adults are clueless, but the tampon insert is well illustrated, and easy to understand.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

Respectfully, have you ever worked with children who have sensory processing issues? Have you worked with children with sexual aggression issues? It's more common then you would imagine, just never talked about because most people cannot handle the idea of children engaging in that kind of activity.

It is something that is difficult to even wrap ones brain around so I understand your resistance to even the idea. It's is not something people talk about, as in ever.

But just google this subject and you will see online support groups of people dealing with this issue, and only confessing the extend of their child's problems to anonymous other parents. Also keep in mind this was 20 yrs ago, when this stuff was even less understood and even less talked about.

So please unless you have directly worked with this population of children yourself, I'd kindly ask you to refrain from stating things about this subject if it is not one you have first hand experience with.

If anything this is an opportunity for people to learn about psychiatric illness and sexual abuse and we should do the best we can to put out accurate information forward rather then perpetuating false statements. It's just not far for the children that live with these conditions.

ThinkHard, I've liked and thanked many of your posts and I appreciate what you bring to the table, so it is truly with all due respect that I say this: it's not your place to suggest what people can and cannot post. If you'd like for your fellow posters to weigh your words as those of an expert, I strongly recommend you have your credentials verified. Until then, regardless of your experience, you're a poster here like the rest of us.

I respect your opinions but I do think you may be overestimating the likelihood of JBR being a chronic aggressive masturbator and understating the correlation between SBP and sexual abuse.

(Also, this may seem petty, but every time you misspell "masturbation" it undermines my confidence in your educated opinion on the subject. I've never seen anyone claim expertise in a subject they can't even spell.)

 

[LisaB]

Why would the parents upon finding an unconscious child with no apparent head wound in the middle of the night.....then leap to "oh hey lets stage a murder". I just don't see that.

If you found ur child out if bed and passed out downstairs, why would anyone then feel the need to go through all that trouble to cover. No way, there's way more to the story then that in my opinion.

Per the CBS special, her breathing would have been almost undetectable, as she was dying/brain dead by that point. They probably never thought she was still alive.

 

[johnjay]

Was this from Dr. Phil? I thought it was from the interview shown on the CBS special, conducted when he was either 9 or 11. At the time, he may not have realized he was being recorded, and certainly had no idea it would ever be televised.

As I recall, on Dr. Phil he said something like "she burst into my room really frantic saying oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, running around my room" instead of saying "going psycho", but he beamed as he said it and, to me, conveyed the same sentiment. And Dr. Phil may be fine with his affect while describing this horror but I'm not.

 

[akh]

Per the CBS special, her breathing would have been almost undetectable, as she was dying/brain dead by that point. They probably never thought she was still alive.

But still, it was an injury that had no bleeding. So why see her and think that she'd been harmed versus a seizure, or that if she had been harmed it wasn't an accident and Burke had done it (versus falling for example)? And even if he told them he did it, why stage a more elaborate murder scene that includes brutalizing the body versus just making the coverup that it was an accident?

Even if they rightfully believe her dead, what parent wouldn't call 911 in hopes of them reviving her... or them simply hoping to be wrong and she's not dead? Especially with no physical wounds showing. Even if the body is cold and rigor mortis has set in making it obvious she's dead, the cause of death still wouldn't be obvious visually if it's only the head blow. So that still leaves the argument of an accident on the table vs an elaborate kidnapping gone wrong story as a coverup that includes making themselves accessories to the crime.

The only thing that makes sense in a BDI scenario for the parents to then go to a RN style coverup and IDI implication story is that what BR did left no doubt it was murder and took any type of accident argument off the table. Which means the blow was him and the strangulation was him. And an SA done that night was him as well.

 

[UKGuy]

But still, it was an injury that had no bleeding. So why see her and think that she'd been harmed versus a seizure, or that if she had been harmed it wasn't an accident and Burke had done it (versus falling for example)? And even if he told them he did it, why stage a more elaborate murder scene that includes brutalizing the body versus just making the coverup that it was an accident?

Even if they rightfully believe her dead, what parent wouldn't call 911 in hopes of them reviving her... or them simply being wrong and she's not dead? Especially with no physical wounds showing. Even if the body is cold and rigor mortis has set in making it obvious she's dead, the cause of death still wouldn't be obvious visually if it's only the head blow. So that still leaves the argument of an accident on the table vs an elaborate kidnapping gone wrong story as a coverup that includes making themselves accessories to the crime.

The only thing that makes sense in a BDI scenario for the parents to then go to a RN style coverup and IDI implication story is that what BR did left no doubt it was murder and took any type of accident argument off the table. Which means the blow was him and the strangulation was him. And an SA done that night was him as well.

akh,
Correct, this is also essentially Kolar's theory. To make sense of it all you have to partition any RDI theory into two parts, i.e. BDI and the Parents contribution, personally it works for me.

Why create a homicide out of an accident, where is the percentage in that? Why not dial 911 and get JonBenet immediate medical assistance?

Why would the parents assist each other both before and after JonBenet's death, why would the anonymous third party in the True Bills be charged with Child Abuse as well as Murder in the first degree?

Answers on a postcard to Mr Spitz, care of CBS!

.

 

[Charliegirl610]

The only thing that makes sense in a BDI scenario for the parents to then go to a RN style coverup and IDI implication story is that what BR did left no doubt it was murder and took any type of accident argument off the table. Which means the blow was him and the strangulation was him. And an SA done that night was him as well.

I agree. I think that if the parents came upon her body and believed that she was dead due to Burke's actions, the garrote and rope wouldn't have been pulled so tightly enough to in fact cause her death. Why would her hands have been so loosely tied above her head (enough to easily slip out of) and then they go ape crazy put all their effort and strength into strangling an already dead Jonbenet?

 

[fedfan4life]

But still, it was an injury that had no bleeding. So why see her and think that she'd been harmed versus a seizure, or that if she had been harmed it wasn't an accident and Burke had done it (versus falling for example)? And even if he told them he did it, why stage a more elaborate murder scene that includes brutalizing the body versus just making the coverup that it was an accident?

Even if they rightfully believe her dead, what parent wouldn't call 911 in hopes of them reviving her... or them simply hoping to be wrong and she's not dead? Especially with no physical wounds showing. Even if the body is cold and rigor mortis has set in making it obvious she's dead, the cause of death still wouldn't be obvious visually if it's only the head blow. So that still leaves the argument of an accident on the table vs an elaborate kidnapping gone wrong story as a coverup that includes making themselves accessories to the crime.

The only thing that makes sense in a BDI scenario for the parents to then go to a RN style coverup and IDI implication story is that what BR did left no doubt it was murder and took any type of accident argument off the table. Which means the blow was him and the strangulation was him. And an SA done that night was him as well.

Yep. I have recently come to the realization that Burke is responsible for it all, save the silly note and clean-up (including some unstaging with the bindings and such). It's the only way all of this nonsense works. It's very sobering.

 

[Charliegirl610]

I'm not eliminating the idea he wasn't shown sexual material, or wasn't exposed to innapropriate touching. I'm just saying we can not say that conclusively.

http://www.atsa.com/children-sexual-behavior-problems

It looks like there was at least some inappropriate exposure:
The following is taken from Patsy's 1998 interview at http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

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

 

[Heymom]

That's not abnormal for little boys, they all pee outside, but why would the detectives even be asking this question unless there was a reason for it?