For BDIs: What made Burke strike JonBenet on the head?

Why did Burke bash JonBenet on the head?

  • She wouldn't give him a piece of her candy.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He wanted to try out the knots in his new book.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29
Before the documentary, I firmly believed that he struck her over the head to quiet her while he was "playing doctor" with her. However, after seeing the documentary, I now believe that he struck her after she took some of his pineapple.

The pineapple has to fit into the equation, since it's something so minor for Patsy to have lied about. Why would she deny having pineapple, unless something major involving it happened shortly before JBR died.

IMO: Burke got the flashlight to go downstairs to get some pineapple. JBR followed him and he told her not to take his pineapple. She did, and he got mad and whacked her on the head, not knowing his strength. IMO: the scream was his, when he realized that she went unconscious. John and Patsy ran downstairs at that point and started the cover up.

All :moo:

For some reason I was thinking that BR didn't like pineapple. Am I imagining things? Seems like that was info from way back in the very beginning.
 
21 TOM HANEY: How about Burke?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. He has a sweet tooth. He
23 doesn't like fruit too much. He likes pineapple a
24 little bit, strawberries a little bit, but he would not
25 pour himself a big bowl of pineapple.
 
21 TOM HANEY: How about Burke?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. He has a sweet tooth. He
23 doesn't like fruit too much. He likes pineapple a
24 little bit, strawberries a little bit, but he would not
25 pour himself a big bowl of pineapple.

Tadpole12,
If Patsy is telling the truth then that leaves herself in the frame for pouring a large bowl of pineapple, since both her own and Burke's fingerprints are on that bowl.

Or is she editing BR out of the picture just making sure BDI can have no traction?


Looks to me they just forgot about the pineapple snack when they decided on their version of events, i.e. all went to bed, this forces Patsy into La La land with her story that it was not her tableware, her napkins, or large serving spoon, etc.

IMO its a hint as to how ad hoc the R's staging was, i.e. last minute, otherwise all these details would have been accomodated in their version of events.

.
 
Mybe the bowl of pineapple with Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints on it were a red herring?
John Ramsey said when they came home that night Burke was playing with on of his toys in the living room. I don’t think it was a play garage like John said.
The Nintendo 64 was the big prize, that was what Burke couldn’t wait to set up and play.
Yeah he would've smacked her in the head with the game controller if she tried to play with it.
And what day was 911 called from the home and then someone hung the phone up?
Could the police get any information or hear any background noise from that phone call?
Could Burke have snuck down in the middle of the night to play with his Nintendo. And Jonbenet snuck down later?
And John or Patsy thought it was a burglar and smacked them with the flashlight? Sneaking downstairs in the dark to knock out a burglar?
 
But then I just found this whole thread on another blog:
Diane Hollis was an Executive Secretary for John Ramsey at his company, Access Graphics Inc. Miss Hollis claimed that she was told that JonBenét was killed by accident when Patsy swung an object at John Ramsey when she caught him molesting JonBenét. Diane Hollis stuck firm to her story and a newspaper hired Gene Parker to give her a polygraph test. Hollis had no problem passing the test. Here are comments about that test from the same radio program that was quoted above:
PARKER: Back on 11 December, '97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.
BOYLES: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?
PARKER: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.
BOYLES: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?
PARKER: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.
BOYLES: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?
PARKER: She was an executive secretary.
BOYLES: And how did she come across this information?
PARKER: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.
BOYLES: And you tested Miss Hollis?
PARKER: Yes.
BOYLES: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?
PARKER: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes
\
 
But then I just found this whole thread on another blog:
Diane Hollis was an Executive Secretary for John Ramsey at his company, Access Graphics Inc. Miss Hollis claimed that she was told that JonBenét was killed by accident when Patsy swung an object at John Ramsey when she caught him molesting JonBenét. Diane Hollis stuck firm to her story and a newspaper hired Gene Parker to give her a polygraph test. Hollis had no problem passing the test. Here are comments about that test from the same radio program that was quoted above:
PARKER: Back on 11 December, '97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.
BOYLES: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?
PARKER: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.
BOYLES: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?
PARKER: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.
BOYLES: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?
PARKER: She was an executive secretary.
BOYLES: And how did she come across this information?
PARKER: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.
BOYLES: And you tested Miss Hollis?
PARKER: Yes.
BOYLES: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?
PARKER: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes
\

This is exactly what I always thought had happened. Although, some things to consider here:

Who told Hollis this? Why didn't she specify?

Lie detector tests shouldn't be used as definitive proof of anything. This could simply be a theory that Hollis believes, but that she didn't overhear.
 
Why not more than one simmering reason, which then came to a head? I'm inclined to believe several of the options contributed to the act of violence which gravely harmed JBR.

As for the pineapple possibly being the last straw, there is evidence in one of the interviews with young Burke that he did view his own food and drink as his property. He reacted badly to the therapist accidentally taking a sip from his soda. This isn't that abnormal in of itself. I remember being territorial with my sister over many things, including food on my plate. Even though, looking back now, I can acknowledge it was petty.
Pineapple in milk is to help you poop.
Try it. Have a bowl of pineapple in milk every night for a week. Tell me what happens.
Who was having trouble pooping?
I think too both kids were molested.
Sociopaths are made from abuse/trauma, not born - right?
Psychopaths are born.
Sociopaths don’t need people as long as their needs are met?
Psychopaths love to manipulate, so they need people to play with?
(I’m not sure about these things? Someone chime in please?)
 
Pineapple in milk is to help you poop.
Try it. Have a bowl of pineapple in milk every night for a week. Tell me what happens.
Who was having trouble pooping?
I think too both kids were molested.
Sociopaths are made from abuse/trauma, not born - right?
Psychopaths are born.
Sociopaths don’t need people as long as their needs are met?
Psychopaths love to manipulate, so they need people to play with?
(I’m not sure about these things? Someone chime in please?)

I suppose the dish could be used for that, but then again, milk in pineapple can also simply be a taste preference.

I don't know enough about Psychology off-hand to comment on your other points, sorry.
 
makes perfect sense if you look who the rooms are assigned to...…….girls got one wing, boys got the other wing
So she could watch television
in another room? But, isn’t it easier to move a TV, rather than the entire contents –
clothes, dressers, toys and furniture, to another room?

It’s interesting that they moved JonBenét to the other end of the hall, isn’t it? Was it really for the television or for other reasons? It’s easier to move a television. If JonBenét wanted to watch television, why move rooms –just move the damn television.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Pineapple in milk is to help you poop.
Try it. Have a bowl of pineapple in milk every night for a week. Tell me what happens.
Who was having trouble pooping?

WOW ... when you google search Pineapple and Milk, you get some very odd results.
 
makes perfect sense if you look who the rooms are assigned to...…….girls got one wing, boys got the other wing

dancinunderthemoon,
Maybe. Another take on it is that JonBenet and Burke were being kept apart, i.e. an attempt at solving some family issue?

Indirect proof of this is that Burke admits he regularly slept in JonBenet's bedroom, he just occassionally forgot which bed !

Then again IDI fans will just say Burke wanted to see the movies too, really ?

BDI is really an off the wall theory, since if her head injury was just an accident why does her death require staging along with a sexual assault, why not take her straight to the hospital?

Which must mean BDI has a subplot one that is different from what plays out in the forums. This might be why Burke has been missing in action all these years, after all if he is innocent media appearances, interviews etc, would never hurt him and the fees would be nice.

This is what I think Kolar was hinting at in his book, never spelled out, never addressed head on, just implied via book titles and references to behavoural inclinations?

Then Burke caps it all by referring to his sister as flaunting herself in public, i.e. at the pageants, indirectly letting us know what he really thought about his sister !

.
 
Someone mentioned that the bedrooms were not labeled correctly, switched for the Andrew and the other one....if so it doesnt make perfect sense but by appearances it looks real simple....

The last thing you said, is telling

I wondered how Burke felt about the golden child, we've probably all seen the disgusting looks the golden child can get, it creates bitter jealousy if not down right hate towards them what parents do

some just take it way way way too far

Staging would possibly indicate they are hiding something else

Thanks for the tips, I think ill look into this more, got my curiousity up

dancinunderthemoon,
Maybe. Another take on it is that JonBenet and Burke were being kept apart, i.e. an attempt at solving some family issue?

Indirect proof of this is that Burke admits he regularly slept in JonBenet's bedroom, he just occassionally forgot which bed !

Then again IDI fans will just say Burke wanted to see the movies too, really ?

BDI is really an off the wall theory, since if her head injury was just an accident why does her death require staging along with a sexual assault, why not take her straight to the hospital?

Which must mean BDI has a subplot one that is different from what plays out in the forums. This might be why Burke has been missing in action all these years, after all if he is innocent media appearances, interviews etc, would never hurt him and the fees would be nice.

This is what I think Kolar was hinting at in his book, never spelled out, never addressed head on, just implied via book titles and references to behavoural inclinations?

Then Burke caps it all by referring to his sister as flaunting herself in public, i.e. at the pageants, indirectly letting us know what he really thought about his sister !

.
 
Someone mentioned that the bedrooms were not labeled correctly, switched for the Andrew and the other one....if so it doesnt make perfect sense but by appearances it looks real simple....

The last thing you said, is telling

I wondered how Burke felt about the golden child, we've probably all seen the disgusting looks the golden child can get, it creates bitter jealousy if not down right hate towards them what parents do

some just take it way way way too far

Staging would possibly indicate they are hiding something else

Thanks for the tips, I think ill look into this more, got my curiousity up

dancinunderthemoon.
IMO, the clue is in the staging or lack thereof. If both parents were staging for each other then why did they make such a mess of it, never mind leaving JonBenet in her brother's longjohns thereby implicating him?

Looks to me as if the parents restaged a prior staging and had to leave some forensic evidence behind?

.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
957
Total visitors
1,099

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,838
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top