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

[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?

 

[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.