There is much speculation about the possibility Burke may have accidentally killed JonBenet in a fight over interrupting his time with the new Nintendo he received for Christmas. Anyone who has children (or has spent any time with children/had siblings growing up) understands that there are times of intense sibling rivalry. Im not suggesting all children are capable of murder, or that all families experience sibling rivalry, just that it is a possibility. I can remember the Atari games from my childhood, if the console got pulled off/fell off the top of the television set, the screen would change to a series of coloured rectangles, the game would be lost, and we would have to shut down/unplug the console entirely, remove the game cartridge, and restart, losing all game memory. This would be enough to make angry a young child who had to put off his game play time to attend a party, only later to have the entire game broken by his little sister. Is there any evidence suggesting JonBenet was strangled with something other than the nylon cord, that the real tool used for strangling was removed and replaced with the nylon cord as part of "staging"?... perhaps the real tool of strangulation being the cord of the Nintendo? Also, for those of you who may have had the N64, would it be strong/heavy enough to crack the skull of a young child? In looking at the autopsy photos of JonBenet's cracked skull, has there been any speculation about what type of object would not only a crack, but also make a hole in the middle of the skull? I know theories have been made about the use of a baseball bat, golf club, flashlight, etc. Would any of these objects make the hole and subsequent crack? Perhaps the force of the object that caused the hole resulted in the crack as the impact spread (immediate impact causing the hole, residual force causing the crack)? Are there any buttons, controls, plastic bits, etc. on the Nintendo64 consistent with the size of the abrasions found on JonBenet's mandible/back? Is there any reason Burke would have had a stun gun? Could he/JB got hold of one at the Christmas Party or in their older siblings room? Any information that anyone within/close to the family owned one? Just exploring possibilities, I don't want to get into a debate concerning the stun gun theory here, i.e., whether or not people think the abrasions were consistent with a stun gun, even the ME re-evaluated his findings after learning about stun guns. And, in asking this question, I am not idiot enough to think it is reasonable to give a stun gun to a child. Just wondering during 1996 there was a particular interest in such gadgets, a fad among children. When I was young, BB guns and pop guns were popular. I have also entertained the idea, as many before have partially suggested, that perhaps the Ramseys purchased a stun gun for Melinda (or Patsy, JAR) as a Christmas present. (I remember in 1996, as a graduate student at a large university, many young women purchased stun guns, pepper spray, etc. after a series of rapes/attacks occurred campus). Maybe Burke was up late after everyone else had gone to bed, JB woke up and used the stun gun to get Burke's attention away from the game/to get him to give her a turn. Or perhaps JB and Burke were playing with the stun gun (anything to do with electricity or fire is very intriguing for a child), and JB collapsed hitting her head against the toliet, bathtub, basin or (?) after being stunned? Along these lines, Burke may have awakened his parents and, realizing the severity of the situation, they told Burke to go to bed immediately (maybe they even gave him some Benadryl to fall asleep quickly/deeply), said that they would take care of everything and JB would be fine. Maybe JR/PR called their doctor and on arrival he/she confirmed the inevitable fatality of the head injury. Perhaps wishing to shield Burke from the fact that he had killed his sister, JR/PR then concocted the elaborate RN and staging, including tying JB's hair up in a top knot to cover the head injury, the focus would then be on the "sexual assault," not the head injury. In such a scenario, of course Burke would have been heard saying "What did you find/what happened?" on the 911 tapes, he went to bed believing everything was ok. This cover-up, staging, calling the police, search for the "kidnapper," etc. would be enough to brainwash a young child, make him shift his focus, re-evaluate what happened and encode the information of JBs injury/death accordingly. Regardless of whether or not you believe a stun gun was used, does anyone know if the shock of a stun gun would be enough cause a young child such as JB to collapse? It would be interesting to know if Burke had the same type of marks/abrasions. As others have postulated on WS's, the possibility that Burke was never questioned extensively/looked at closely because of his age at the time because Colorado law does not allow the prosecution of children. For those of you who know more about this law, would an adult guilty of such a crime as a child be held accountable after they reached adulthood? I understand that there is no statute of limitation concerning murder. Would the law forbid identification of the killer if s/he was a child when it happened but an adult when an admission was made or enough evidence was found? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit: The intention of this strand was to explore the BDI theory. I appreciate the insight provided by IDI and J&PRDI theorists, but for this particular thread and for clarity/organization's sake, please do keep any replies, answers, and comments focused on the BDI theory, particular details and questions arising from this line of thought. I am not intent on pushing the BDI theory, at this point and with the current evidence we have to work with, I don't 100%, wholeheartedly support any particular theory (IDI, RDI, or BDI, etc.), I just want to explore all the possibilities. It is all good and well to note that there is much evidence pointing towards PR/JR and I give such ideas great credience, but there are plenty of other strands to explore such notions. If you do not have any pertinent information to share with regard to the questions at hand, don't feel you have to make a reply just for the sake of making a post. There is really no need to turn every strand of inquiry into a John and/or Patsy did it platform/bashing session. Yes, I hear you RDI theorists, loud and clear!... you not only think the RDI but you have gone to great lengths to support such a notion, over and over again. The last ten years of inquiry and theory-making tells us that it is not enough to simply say J&RDI and to keep our focus on ideas that support such a notion only, repeating such theories endlessly. If this was enough, charges would have already been laid against J&PR. Obviously, when the Grand Jury met there were lingering doubts. If you think J&PR did it, good for you for being able to see things with such clarity in light of the fact that not all evidence has been made public/leaked through the media. One of the simplest rules of Logic is to not just look at the idea you are trying to prove, but to also rule out any other likely possibilities. So please, for the sake of logical discussion, let's do try and explore/rule out any other possibilities and not use every single thread as a J&PR bashing session.