Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by alexia, Mar 4, 2005.
I haven't said that in a long time and I'm still sticking with the theory.
how old is he now anyway?
Burke turned 18 on January 26, 2005. He's an adult now, and it's time for certain posters to get off this "innocent little boy" routine when his name comes up.
Burke is involved somehow in the death of JonBenet or the parents wouldn't be lying, dragging their feet in regard to the investigation, and covering up to protect him.
It's time for Burke to be re-questioned and perhaps be given a polygraph examination.
I agree. If not polygraphed, he's at the very least fair game for a sharp query from an investigative reporter. And they'll turn up sooner or later.
The sooner the better.
Blue Crab, can you answer my Q's about Burke on the other thread? (ie medication, psychiatrist etc.?)
I used to think that Burke had something to do with Jonbenet's murder.Some of my theories were that a)Burke molested Jonbenet while they were playing together. b)Burke was playing with the garotte and applied it to Jonbenet,not really understanding what he was doing,or it was deliberate (apparently,Burke resented his sister,and didn't receive much attention from his parents,who were always focused on Jonbenet) c)Jonbenet and Burke got into a fight,things went too far,and the parents covered it up d)Jonbenet wet her bed,and went to her brothers bed like she sometimes did.He woke up,got angry and maybe hit her and knocked her out.
Either way,if Burke was responsible,Patsy and John covered it up out of their own guilt for neglecting him,or because they wanted to keep him protected.
Just thinkin': Do you think Burke was old enough (nearly 10) to know that roping his little sister around the neck was a dangerous thing to do and therefore a no-no? And, if he had done so, and she had tipped over unconscious, do you think he might have had the presence of mind to loosen the lariat so as to prevent her death by strangulation?
Speaking of lariats, and off on a tangent, I recollect that one of JonBenet's numbers was the "cowboy sweetheart" thing where she dressed in western garb and wore a kerchief around her neck and danced, and sang, "I wanna be a..." Maybe some weirdo took her up on that proclamation/invitation.
Look what we have here: the garotte--a lariat; the lariat--a kerchief around the neck. The victim--a pageant kid, crooning her heart's desire.
Who was the weirdo (Oliva?) who exclaimed that in viewing that performance, he recognized that JonBenet was a child genius?
Now, tell me folks, did you normal people see one ounce of genius in that performance? Talk about flawed perception. This guy isn't off the hook in my meat locker of suspects by any means.
Back in orbit: It was christmastime, and fertile territory for arguments and altercations. Did JB wreck some project of Burke's; some toy model, or the like, that he'd received as an xmas gift? If so, did he fly off the handle, striking her with the nearest object he could lay hands on; the baseball bat? OK, what happened after that? Why was JB so soon after wearing her new synthetic nylon necklace? Maybe Burke just went berserk?
Maybe....dunno. Is this theory supported by the evidence?
Start with the dead girl with the nylon necklace and the cracked skull. That's what you're dealt when you find her. What do you add to make it look like the work of an intruder?
Are we making progress?
I'm starting with just the cracked skull here:
I wonder if if the kids were playing after they returned home: B playing his new Nintendo 64 (maybe the friend was there with him and planning to go to Charlevoix with the family. Remember the bag of clothes by the door?) and JB doing whatever little girls do. Perhaps JB, in a bratty state, pulled the plug on his/their game or something similar. (My sons received a N-64 that very same year and it was serious business, let me tell ya.) Out of rage, he/the friend (you choose) picked up a baseball bat and whopped her with it--an almost dead child. Can you imagine the commotion in the house at that time? In order to not only protect B from questioning and the stigma attached to such an event, perhaps Patsy also wanted to protect him from himself; she did not want him to live out his life with the guilt associated with killing his sibling, and on Christmas of all times. Let the staging begin? If a friend were there, the parents were called and they came and picked up said friend.
The next morning, B doesn't know what happened to his sister....someone broke in the house and took her? He knows that he/friend hurt her, but parents said she was okay; therefore, in his mind the kidnapping/murder was real. [Plus, when Patsy/John took the famous polygraphs, one of the questions was "do you know for sure..... That could tie in with a friend being there and them not knowing which child administered the fatal blow (they both hit her?).]
Here, you have an accidentally dead child, and you know that her sibling will have to live with the guilt and stigma for the rest of his life. You yourself are in a state of shock and disbelief and grief, but your mission now is to protect what you still have. What do you do? Would you stage a kidnapping/murder/sexual assault to exonerate the sibling? Remember, you are saving him from himself more than anything. The next morning when he awakes, he is as clueless as a newborn chick. To this day, he would believe that an intruder came in, and that is the reason for the charade and bogus attempts at trying to find the killer--all for the sibling's benefit.
Thus, the reason for the R's lifelong goal/mission of staying out of jail vs. finding the killer of their daughter. The PR campaign--necessary not only for their own reputations, but for what they are truly trying to protect at this time--B.
Of course, this is just all "pretending". As RedChief says, are we making progress?
Would you stage a kidnapping/murder/sexual assault to exonerate the sibling?
Myself, I would Not. How can you stage a sexual assault of a 6YO and live with yourself for the rest of your days. Much less your own 6YO, in order to "save" your 9 YO. Doesn't fly to me.
John, Patsy, and Burke have been lying, obfuscating, refusing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and carrying out an obvious coverup to hide something -- and that something sure ain't an intruder. It has to be a Ramsey family member.
Sorry, but I don't know the answers, other than Burke was seeing a psychiatrist during 1998.
The bag of clothes: were they boys' clothes?
Whopped her with the baseball bat: dont know about the friend; do you think Burke was strong enough to do that damage with a baseball bat? I guess I'm not convinced of that. Do you think she was struck toward the back of the head and from behind?
"..an almost dead child.": yes, key word--almost; so why not request emergency assistance????? I think this is a BIG question. There is no stigma attached to hurting your sister in a fight (the accident), is there?
"...guilt associated with killing his sibling..": Let's see...the child is almost dead (maybe looks dead to Burke?), but not quite, so the parent hustles Burke off to bed and finishes the job?? Maybe just a skosh hard to believe?
If Burke had killed JonBenet with the blow (no doubt in anyone's mind at the scene), it's possible that the parents would lie about what happened; maybe even do a little staging; but, the nylon necklace [more later] and the vaginal injury is maybe a little bit too much? Why not just position her at the foot of the stairs and say she fell? They might even lie about what happened after calling for help, and before the child died (assuming she'd die before first aid could be rendered).
[as promised] There were two things that killed her simultaneously: the head injury and the strangulation ligature. The ligature wasn't applied after she was dead. She was still alive when the ligature was applied. She was still alive when she was whacked on the head.
The Ramseys (polygraph) were asked "Did you administer the injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death." and "Do you know who did administer the injuries that caused JonBenet's death?" Patsy was also asked about the ransom note, but not John: too weird! You could argue that since there were two life threatening injuries, if one had been administered by John and the other by Patsy, they could give a truthful "no" answer to both questions. These are not good questions. A better question would be: did you in any way participate in the events which led to the death of JonBenet?
Is a 10-yr-old that easily duped?
I'll have to look and find out about the clothes. From recollection (which could be flawed), they were kids' clothes in a paper bag somewhere near the door.
Is a 9 yr old boy strong enough to inflict injury/death with a baseball bat? Most definitely. I've had three male 9 year old baseball players and they could do some real damage with a bat. No doubt whatsoever on that point.
An almost dead child...we know from the autopsy that she might not have been dead...but to onlookers, that could be different. Why not call for help? Maybe they/she/he/it definitely thought she was dead. Maybe there was prior sexual abuse involved. Maybe the boy(s) strangled her in addition to whopping her on the head, thus the staged strangulation. Maybe the boy(s) stunned her first and then strangled her and whopped her on the head.
Why not just position her at the foot of the stairs and say she fell? Maybe they had to cover for the strangulation, the stunning, the head blow. Maybe in a state of panic that's the first thing they thought about doing. Perhaps the simple appearance of an accident wouldn't fly and they knew it.
There were two things that killed her simultaneously: the head injury and the strangulation ligature. The ligature wasn't applied after she was dead. She was still alive when the ligature was applied. She was still alive when she was whacked on the head. But to what degree was she alive? We don't know, do we? Would panicked family look at the situation at the time and know to what degree she was dead? Were the extra ponytails developed to hide an injury?
Is a 10 yr old that easily duped? Definitely yes, by persons whom they trust.
Just thinking here....and more and more questions.
Do you think she was struck from behind, say, by a right-handed batter? Does it matter for the madder-than-hell-'cause-she-pulled-the-plug scenario?
She may have been starting to run away. I'll defer to you on the power of the 9-yr-old. Thanks. He was almost ten, but rather a frail-looking chap, eh? John said it would have taken the power of a man; of course, we all know that John is highly trustworthy. (he may be, for all I know). One "expert" said that a blow sufficient to crack a skull like that would have made a noise that resounded throughout the house (I paraphrase). Maybe the batter could get by with it in the basement, especially the wine cellar with the door shut. A strange place to be playing Nintendo? Now, don't hit me; especially with a bat, unless it's a small brown bat that has been disemboweled.
Yeah, the boy could have done all those things. We don't really know, do we. That's why it's important to know the boy. But, when the parents found her, if they found her, prior to 1 PM on the 26th, they should have called for help. Even when folks know the family member is dead, they call for an ambulance right away. Seems maybe a little questionable in some cases, but there is always that outside chance of reviving the seemingly dead person. They ain't daid 'til they's pronounced daid by an MD. Boy, you've thrown a lot of stuff in there! Even prior sexual abuse. This little high-liability woman is a walking dead girl. One little accident and, poof, she's eradicated.
To what degree was she alive? To what degree is anyone alive at any given moment? Sometimes I have to pinch myself to convince myself that I'm alive. The point is that normal parents wouldn't take any chances; they'd call for help. The Ramseys weren't normal? You don't pitch your child into the garbage can that easily. One down, one to go.
If the extra ponytails were fashioned to hide an injury, looks like it worked for a little while; even fooled the coroner. Some ponies have lots of tails, you know. Some even have horns sticking out of their foreheads.
Are 10-yr-olds who are easily duped by their parents, apt to kill their sisters?
My brain hurts....and I haven't been whopped yet, except by this case.
Heck, RedChief, I don't know! That's why I sit on the fence. I don't necessarily believe a thing I posted, except the part about nine year old boys being able to do sufficient harm with a baseball bat.
Maybe by the time they found her, she was absotively deceased. Maybe all that needed to be done was the staging in the basement?
Then again, maybe an intruder came in and did it all whilst the family slept soundly.
One thing that I know that I know...is that the perp knew the grounds and the house well enough to get right inside and get out. The homes on that street are too close for someone to be wandering around and pandering at the windows and doors.
If burke did it, is it possible he doesn't even know he did it. Perhaps he knocked her down the stairs and she hit her head on the railing from a high fall. He may have been sent to bed thinking everything was fine, but P tried to care for JB until she died. Maybe that is when P panicked and staged the body with garote. I can't imagine one parent going this far to cover for the other. But to cover for their child....? In my opinion only...
That is what I am saying, also. Maybe B didn't know that she died as a result of his actions, but the situation was staged for his benefit, and now the charade must be continued. If the GJ did solve the case before disbanding, then that would fit in with BC's theory.
Gee, now we're all beginning to talk like Englishmen. Is Britain ripe for colonization?
It looks to me like JB was alive and struggling when the noose was first looped around her neck, and maybe, dead or comatose when the stick was attached. I think by examining some of these details we can rule out certain scenarios. Maybe I'm just dreaming. If she was alive and struggling against the noose, then she hadn't yet been bonked.
If we could be sure about the vaginal injury; whether it was caused by a genuine attempt to have sex or by a sadistic action, that would be helpful. John Douglas surmised that the injury was inflicted as a control maneuver (I paraphrase); not sure what he meant. Anybody care to enlighten me on this? You know kids can be pretty mean, and behave diabolically sometimes, and get a kick out of it. Bullies behave this way. I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe the vaginal injury (aka sexual abuse) was inflicted for the pure meanness of it or thrill of it, without any decidedly sexual motive.
We could imagine that the marks on the back, etc., were made by cleats on someone's boots/shoes, but the wounds weren't puncture wounds and there was no surrounding contusion.
All is well in the Ramsey household until Christmas night; then all hell breaks loose? Getouttahere!
As for the grounds and the house: isn't it true that one could enter through the basement window without being seen from either the street or a neighboring yard or house? I've been led to believe that's why the perp picked that means of entry/exit. Have I been misled? Actually homes being very close together can be an advantage; hard to see what's happening from a street vantage point.
Is the water muddy enough yet....
The parent/s didn't stumble upon JonBenet's body long after she'd been killed by a mighty blow and do the ligature staging. The coroner said her death was caused by ligature strangulation in association with craniocerebral trauma (or words to that effect). That means she died of both traumas contemporaneously (or simultaneously or coincidentally, if you prefer). If you don't trust the coroner, you can figure it out for yourself. This much we know. No turning back.
The parent/s could have attached the stick and applied the tape over the mouth. That could have been the sum total of what they did as regards staging. If you trust Thomas (can't always), the tape was applied over bloody mucous. It interests me that this bloody mucous wasn't mentioned by the coroner. Make of that what you will. The mystery perp could also have applied the tape and attached the stick, while wearing a red garment similar to that which Patsy furnished the investigators per their request.
Here is a question: If you know you're guilty (haven't repressed the memory) and you don't want to be prosecuted, and you have a year or more to prepare for upcoming events such as the turning over of clothing items, will you ransack your house in order to find THE sweater you were wearing when you applied tape over the mouth and fastened the stick to the garrote? Getouttahere! Further, was this "finding" of the red fibers ever stated by LE as a fact? Did any of them ever say, "This is a fact, so help me God!"? Baiting witnesses/suspects is common practice in police interrogations. It's OK to lie; not ethical, but OK. Whatever it takes. Works better when an attorney isn't present.
Lessee, were there similar red fibers in the knot at the back of the head? Where all were these red fibers? I forget. Why doesn't someone in the know start a trace evidence thread. Please.
uummm...who is "you"? Me?
Separate names with a comma.