andreww,
In the absence of any medical opinion regarding BR's mental status. If those book titles exaggerate the contents, does this mean its really a brother on sister case gone wrong, with the parents covering it all up?
.
In other words, the books can just as easily be concerning Jonbenet(especially the first one), both of them, or the family in general.
BDI are the ones who make a federal case out of these books.
I wasn't aware of a mega-Burke thing....
In other words, the books can just as easily be concerning Jonbenet(especially the first one), both of them, or the family in general.
BDI are the ones who make a federal case out of these books.
I wasn't aware of a mega-Burke thing....
In other words, the books can just as easily be concerning Jonbenet(especially the first one), both of them, or the family in general.
BDI are the ones who make a federal case out of these books.
I wasn't aware of a mega-Burke thing....
Really? The main posters here who are not BDI(although most are walking away) admit that he is/was very quirky and there's something going on there. They just don't believe he bashed her head in.Come on now, be fair. Other DI theorists ignore everything and anything that doesn't seem normal with BR because it doesn't jibe well with their theories. At least BDI takes PR's issues into account at all.
That isn't true no matter how many times it gets said. You know as well as anyone that if looking at the case from that specific angle, the arrow is aimed in Patsy's direction.....then John's....and much further down the list, you've got a fruit snack with a print that has Burke's name on it and that same snack also has Patsy's print and of course further down the table(John's side of the table) is another glass that conveniently gets ignored.singularity,
BDI is the best theory out there, it explains away more of the forensic evidence....
.
Come on.I can only see it being say PDI, if Patsy deliberately injected BR into the forensic evidence as a case spoiler?
The books represent speculation, so could be just so stories. Far more important and relevant is we know from the house keeper that she walked in on JonBenet and Burke euphemistically playing doctor, also we know that Patsy was relaxed about JonBenet and Burke sharing beds together. Although she tried to play that down, once JonBenet was dead.
So the least amount of evidence out of the three surviving members of the house of horrors that also played doctor with his sister and the sister slept with him at night periodically leads you to a brother on sister case?Thats why I reckon its a brother on sister case, and not a parent on daughter case!
The point is that everyone in the Ramsey circle was aware of this issue to the point of some considering an intervention. The varying levels of concern regarding this issue is beside the point. It exists whether or not certain people believe Burke is the maniacal poopy pants fruit snack killer. It wasn't a mega-Burke thing, it was a mega-Jonbenet thing.Nedra most certainly was not worried about a "mega-jonbenet thing",
Really? The main posters here who are not BDI(although most are walking away) admit that he is/was very quirky and there's something going on there. They just don't believe he bashed her head in.
Most non BDI on the forums believe he was as much a victim of the dysfunction in that house as Jonbenet but simply survived it. I certainly don't need to paint him as a saint to squeeze him into a PDI scenario.
That isn't true no matter how many times it gets said. You know as well as anyone that if looking at the case from that specific angle, the arrow is aimed in Patsy's direction.....then John's....and much further down the list, you've got a fruit snack with a print that has Burke's name on it and that same snack also has Patsy's print and of course further down the table(John's side of the table) is another glass that conveniently gets ignored.
BDI doesn't attempt to explain away more of the evidence. It must conveniently ignore key areas to allow it to sound feasible. CBS did it, Kolar did it, and some online sleuths are doing it too.
The way some speculation is being pushed as simple and obvious facts isn't helping either. Its creating a false narrative.
Come on.
The ONLY way you can imagine PDI is if she tried to frame him with forensic evidence(the extremely miniscule amount there is) even though she's been suspect number one for twenty years for a long list of obvious and much discussed reasons?
None of that indicates murder. Millions of children "play doctor" whether out of genuine curiosity or acting out abuse.
There's also nothing surprising about her sleeping with him. She was a six year old child practically sleeping in her own wing of a mansion. Of course she sought out company. So would any other six year old.
So the least amount of evidence out of the three surviving members of the house of horrors that also played doctor with his sister and the sister slept with him at night periodically leads you to a brother on sister case?
I along with many others are going to need a hell of a lot more than that.
The point is that everyone in the Ramsey circle was aware of this issue to the point of some considering an intervention. The varying levels of concern regarding this issue is beside the point. It exists whether or not certain people believe Burke is the maniacal poopy pants fruit snack killer. It wasn't a mega-Burke thing, it was a mega-Jonbenet thing.
Of course Nedra didn't genuinely care. In her mind, Jonbenet was only "a little bit molested".
With BDI we have the house=keeper telling us what she saw taking place between Burke and JonBenet, apparently consensual, so what does that imply?
Then you have Patsy telling us candidly Burke and JonBenet shared bedrooms, and that is a euphemism.
Patsy's account regarding JonBenet and Burke sharing beds, and we have a classic case of brother on sister gone wrong.
Most people who have studied the case know that most of the evidence is aimed in Patsy's direction, which is why she was suspect number one for twenty years and when the Burke smoke clears, will be again.Neither PDI or JDI display such evidence, that's why BDI is the best theory out there!
Absolutely. The people willing to do it are vanishing unfortunately and what's left in its place is an echo chamber and some speculation pushed as simple facts with no one left to refute it.We've gone over them and then some so it's pointless to do so here again, but a plethora exist.
according to you uk guysingularity,
BDI is the best theory out there. Its consistent with the forensic evidence and the parents post-mortem behaviour.
I'm no soothsayer, so the case could be PDI or JDI, etc. With PDI I cannot see Patsy dressing JonBenet in those size-12's, followed up with Burke's long johns. Outside of a homicide context I can see that happening, but when its a homicide your staging, why inject Burke, where is the percentage in that?
With JDI there is little to go on, other than some fibers and ad hominem accusations regarding incest.
With BDI we have the house=keeper telling us what she saw taking place between Burke and JonBenet, apparently consensual, so what does that imply?
Then you have Patsy telling us candidly Burke and JonBenet shared bedrooms, and that is a euphemism.
In the CBS show they focus on the head injury, i.e. an impulse injury. Yet JonBenet was sexually assaulted, Coroner Meyer confirmed this with a second opinion. Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics re-examined JonBenet's gentitals and patently confirmed Meyer's earlier judgement of digital penetration
99% of people ignore Sirotnak's opinion, but it demonstrates we have a case motivated by sexual assault, not simply one of anger impulse, add in the house-keepers evidence and Patsy's account regarding JonBenet and Burke sharing beds, and we have a classic case of brother on sister gone wrong.
Neither PDI or JDI display such evidence, that's why BDI is the best theory out there!
.
according to you uk guy
it is not the best theory out there.
they all suffer holes andblank spaces.
stop peddling it was a sexual assault. we don't know for sure.
I believe as do many others it was a physical assault caused by PR.
there is nothing you can prove otherwise.
it is an unknown.
and it is not a fact because you wont come at PR dressed JBR in those longjohns. she has admitted to it on the record. big deal.
agree singularity JR has thoroughly enjoyed BR being thrown under the bus.
i keep coming back to why from day dot was 3 reps assigned to JR and one for PR and BR.
their legal stance was telling in my opinion.
BBM: believing is not the same as knowing, e.g. years ago people never knew humans could fly, that the earth circled the sun, or that goblins, unicorns and fairys never existed.I believe as do many others it was a physical assault caused by PR.
there is nothing you can prove otherwise.
it is an unknown.
uk guyk-mac,
Its not fact because its just a theory, something for us to discuss.
BBM: believing is not the same as knowing, e.g. years ago people never knew humans could fly, that the earth circled the sun, or that goblins, unicorns and fairys never existed.
I have no problem with Patsy assaulting JonBenet, I interpret it as part of the staging.
Coroner Meyer stated verbatim during the autopsy that JonBenet been the victim of Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. Her autopsy photographs showed an enlarged hymen. Coroner Meyer sought a second opinion from Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, after a second physical examination of JonBenet's genitals Sirotnak did not disagree with Coroner's Meyer's initial opinion.
So if you are PDI then Patsy must have been sexually molesting JonBenet, or do you think both Meyer and Sirotnak have got it all wrong?
So Patsy is staging a homicide and decides to leave JonBenet in Burke's long johns, OK that's not impossible, but the size-12's, what is all that about, even telling investigators she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, for her use, despite the investigators finding none in the drawer?
Its simply more plausible that Burke redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and his long johns, and that Patsy was inventing explanations after the fact.
Where did JonBenet's pink pajama bottoms vanish to, which motivated Patsy to redress JonBenet in Burke's long johns, why not choose any other pair of JonBenet's pajama bottoms, or her barbie nightgown, why select Burke's long johns?
Looks like Patsy was taking a bullet for BR by offering up those explanations for JonBenet being redressed in such a manner?
.
So if you are PDI then Patsy must have been sexually molesting JonBenet, or do you think both Meyer and Sirotnak have got it all wrong?
Not only is it not impossible, it's likely. We've all heard how she wore his old clothing sometimes.So Patsy is staging a homicide and decides to leave JonBenet in Burke's long johns, OK that's not impossible,
Its simply more plausible that Burke redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and his long johns, and that Patsy was inventing explanations after the fact.
Looks like Patsy was taking a bullet for BR by offering up those explanations for JonBenet being redressed in such a manner?
uk guy
your completely missing the point.
you keep over riding PR doing the assault. because she has vaginal trauma in your theory it has to be sexual.
you can not prove it was a sexual assault.
that damage could have been caused by chronic douching.
completely non sexual contact.
so no I am not ignoring Meyers findings. your ignoring what I take away from his findings.
Sure as could any other non abusive medical technique. So why did Coroner Meyer cite Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact?that damage could have been caused by chronic douching.
completely non sexual contact.
Just because someone is PDI doesn't mean they believe she was molesting Jonbenet. You can make a case that something not kosher was going on(the screams heard by LHP coming from the bathroom for starters), but it doesn't mean it had to be actual molestation.
I realize k-mac doesn't believe she was being molested. I disagree with that. She showed signs of abuse and so did Burke. Two kids acting out to such an extent are waving red flags of some sort.
Not only is it not impossible, it's likely. We've all heard how she wore his old clothing sometimes.
After people got to see the pictures of how she was found and the condition this clothing was in, that scenario no longer flies. For years it was assumed this clothing was in pristine condition and she had been redressed in them so people imagined various theories to include that. As we all know, she was found completely soiled in this clothing.
Also you have Coroner Meyer saying verbatim at autopsy that JonBenet was the victim of Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. Dr. Andrew Sirotnak later that evening re-examined JonBenet's genitals and agreed Coroner Meyer's findings. Detective Harmer presented an anatomy lesson, she showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy child and contrasted it with the picture of the vagina of JonBenet, the visual difference was apparent, described as evidence of prior chronic abuse or in BPD terms: prior vaginal trauma. Spitz is on record stating he thinks the paintbrush was used to enact staging.She showed signs of abuse and so did Burke. Two kids acting out to such an extent are waving red flags of some sort.
Nope, ever since the autopsy we have known the condition of the long johns and underwear worn by JonBenet.After people got to see the pictures of how she was found and the condition this clothing was in, that scenario no longer flies. For years it was assumed this clothing was in pristine condition and she had been redressed in them so people imagined various theories to include that. As we all know, she was found completely soiled in this clothing.
EXTERNAL EXAM: There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words Wednesday on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.
Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
^ "So after being dressed in the size 12's, someone wiped blood off"..........Nothing in the autopsy report concluded that she was wiped down "after," definitively. You're simply jumping to the conclusion yourself that she was wiped "after" being dressed in the bloomies, which is illogical. The logical thing to believe, would be that she was wiped down beforehand, then the underwear was applied, then the strangulation occurred, then her bladder released. The wound (which would still be bleeding even if she was wiped down beforehand) was bleeding from the interior, hence, no reddish stains found on the "exterior."
Also, JR could just have easily been the abuser, for the same reasons a lot of child abusers are. It's been reported that there was never any love -- either physical or emotional -- shared between the two, according to the housekeepers.
If you are correct then Coroner Meyer has no basis for assuming that JonBenet has been wiped down, since the wound would still be bleeding.The logical thing to believe, would be that she was wiped down beforehand, then the underwear was applied, then the strangulation occurred, then her bladder released. The wound (which would still be bleeding even if she was wiped down beforehand) was bleeding from the interior, hence, no reddish stains found on the "exterior."
^ No, you're simply misinterpreting the report to fit your misguided narrative.
The only thing the report states, is that the red drops found on the bloomies were not coming from any exterior wound. That's it.
Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
