Why Burke did not kill JonBenet

twizzler333 said:
So what you are saying is that she could not have been lying on her back with her head turned to the side with the right side up? If I recall the autopsy report correctly, she had a comminuted skull fracture (which means the fracture is in pieces) which extends from the right occipital (located kind of behind/below the ear area) to posteroparietal area (near the top side closer to the back but still on the side of the cranium). It is impossible to strike someone lying with their head turned to the side while lying on the floor???? Is that what you are saying? They HAVE to be in the upright position to take a blow to that area? just checking.

I never said it was impossible. I said it would be awkward and strange to select that action.
Besides - if she had just been strangled - why strike her in the head (while she is lying down unconscious or DEAD) in the first place?
The scenario just makes no sense.

What does make sense is that she was struck in the head in a fit of rage and in horror at what he/she had done - the perp/stager panicked and came up with a staged scene to divert attention from the real truth.
Why do you think so much TROUBLE and care was taken to wipe her down and pull her panties and pants back up after she was violated?
And then a blanket spread out to lay her on - and one to cover and wrap her up in.
Because the whole killing was never INTENDED.
The staging of course was.
 
K777angel said:
Vicktor - There was no "lump" on her head because there was a big HOLE in her skull at the point of impact instead.

To add additional info to clarify: JB was not found to have any external swelling or depressions in the scalp-skull. Underneath, there was a long crack in the skull, which had a circular piece about the circumference of an egg in the middle broken apart from the surrounding bone. There was no hole or depression in the skull, but it was the point of impact. Think of it as a sidewalk that is level, yet has areas that have cracked off to form individual pieces. The scalp swells when hit by a hard object, with fluid and blood. This shows that within 1-2 min. after the blow, tissue processes and blood flow had stopped.

The claim that she couldn't be struck while laying down back or front, doensn't make sense.

RE: post #96 You can cite medical facts and quote 'experts' statements to justify a particular idea, but IMO that doesn't bring it into the realm of possibility, let alone probability.
 
K777angel said:
I never said it was impossible. I said it would be awkward and strange to select that action.
Besides - if she had just been strangled - why strike her in the head (while she is lying down unconscious or DEAD) in the first place?
The scenario just makes no sense.

What does make sense is that she was struck in the head in a fit of rage and in horror at what he/she had done - the perp/stager panicked and came up with a staged scene to divert attention from the real truth.
Why do you think so much TROUBLE and care was taken to wipe her down and pull her panties and pants back up after she was violated?
And then a blanket spread out to lay her on - and one to cover and wrap her up in.
Because the whole killing was never INTENDED.
The staging of course was.

You may well be right in your theory but you can also look at it in other ways too that do include staging but that doesn't mean the parents did it. A sexual perp could have been someone she knew and someone who in all likelihood cared about her but he also had this strange fascination and sexual perversion with young girls, who molested her, strangled her and after realizing just what he had done (because he did personally in some way care about this child), was so overcome with rage (at himself) that he picked something up, saw her lying there in the floor and in frustruation bashed her skull in with a flashlight possibly. He cleaned her up by wiping away evidence. He was not stupid, he knew there would be DNA so he had to be sure and get rid of any evidence he could have left behind. He covered her up because of the part of him that cared about her. The monster in him killed her and he hates himself for it. He is still angry and lashing out at people he loves to this day, while keeping this secret. I imagine he has a short fuse and I would hate to be someone in his life, as I imagine the guilt he feels takes its toll on him and his relationships with loved ones. Now this is just my theory, and it may be a bunch of bogus crap when the truth eventually comes out and your theory may very well be correct. But it is not the only theory that would fit. For every theory we all come up with here to point to the parents it can be disputed and pointed in yet another direction to make sense of the intruder theory as well. There are just to many different aspects, truths and untruths going around about this case, it is hard to really say. All the theories make some sense in one way or another but I believe the one that has the most "common" sense to it will be the one that proves true one day. In my opinion, it makes more "common" sense that an intruder did it, but like I said, I could be wrong. Either way, I truly hope that this case is solved soon.
 
twizzler333 said:
A sexual perp could have been someone she knew and someone who in all likelihood cared about her but he also had this strange fascination and sexual perversion with young girls, who molested her, strangled her and after realizing just what he had done (because he did personally in some way care about this child), was so overcome with rage (at himself) that he picked something up, saw her lying there in the floor and in frustruation bashed her skull in with a flashlight possibly.

Excellent post, Twiz. There is a suspect that fits your description almost perfectly. He's Gary Oliva. It easily could have been a 1-way relationship. He frequented a church 1 block from the Ramsey house and might have seen JB on numerous occasions. In one of the few verite moments in the case, a neighbor volunteered that she was awakened by a girl's scream at 1-2 AM.( It was corroborated by her husband, who heard some kind of a 'clank' a few minutes later.) This could have provoked Oliva to strike JB out of fear A/O anger.
 
I have no idea who Gary Oliva is, and I really don't know of any suspects that fit my profile at all, I just am basing this on the evidence that is there. Did this Oliva person know the Ramseys? I still feel like she trusted this person somehow. The ONLY thing that is hard to pinpoint or make sense of is the pineapple, but I suppose it could have been someone she knew and talked her into going downstairs for a snack and possibly convinced her that they had a Christmas surprise for her downstairs and got her to go down with them quietly. The finger prints on the bowl belonging to Burke and Patsy could very well have been a bowl left in the sink/dishwasher that was not cleaned yet, and the person just got it and used it for the pineapple. Was there ever any evidence of pineapple rinds, or a knife left that was used to cut it? I really don't know EVERYTHING about the case, so I still have some questions. Would like to know more about it though. There are lots of things I have read over the past several days that could make quite a number of scenarios if one chose to come up with them and they would probably all fit. IMO.....oh who knows? (sigh)
 
twizzler333 said:
You may well be right in your theory but you can also look at it in other ways too that do include staging but that doesn't mean the parents did it. A sexual perp could have been someone she knew and someone who in all likelihood cared about her but he also had this strange fascination and sexual perversion with young girls, who molested her, strangled her and after realizing just what he had done (because he did personally in some way care about this child), was so overcome with rage (at himself) that he picked something up, saw her lying there in the floor and in frustruation bashed her skull in with a flashlight possibly. He cleaned her up by wiping away evidence. He was not stupid, he knew there would be DNA so he had to be sure and get rid of any evidence he could have left behind. He covered her up because of the part of him that cared about her. The monster in him killed her and he hates himself for it. He is still angry and lashing out at people he loves to this day, while keeping this secret. I imagine he has a short fuse and I would hate to be someone in his life, as I imagine the guilt he feels takes its toll on him and his relationships with loved ones. Now this is just my theory, and it may be a bunch of bogus crap when the truth eventually comes out and your theory may very well be correct. But it is not the only theory that would fit. For every theory we all come up with here to point to the parents it can be disputed and pointed in yet another direction to make sense of the intruder theory as well. There are just to many different aspects, truths and untruths going around about this case, it is hard to really say. All the theories make some sense in one way or another but I believe the one that has the most "common" sense to it will be the one that proves true one day. In my opinion, it makes more "common" sense that an intruder did it, but like I said, I could be wrong. Either way, I truly hope that this case is solved soon.

Twizzler, there is a big foundational problem with your theory.
Nowhere in your stated theory do you mention one of the most important FACTS of the case: The note. It would not fit in your theory but you cannot simply ignore major piece of factual evidence in the case.

Kidnappers who kidnap for ransom are motivated by money.
Sexual perverts who are brazen enough to enter a home on Christmas night of all the nights to choose of the year - enter the home to abduct their victim so that they may do their dirty deeds to the victim and satisfy their lust. They grab their victim and RUN!
I must point out that NIETHER of these motivations were the true motivations in this crime.
The child was never kidnapped for ransom.
The child was never raped and molested as you see occur with true pedophile sexual predators.
And yet a 'ransom note' was left at the scene. But wait - this was not a typical or real ransom note. It was fake. So why would a sexual predator intent on satisfying his motivation of sexual perverseness - not only bother to take the time (in the house mind you) to write a bogus 'ransom' note - but why would he even THINK of it? He is single minded. Perverted sex.....not money.... but wait.
No, that's not right either. Because the molestation done to JonBenet was not on the scale of a sexual predator (which you MUST call this person were it an intruder who BROKE INTO the home intent on sexual abuse).
So really the evidence shows NEITHER motivation was true.
Not sexual rape and extreme abuse that those intent on it commit.
And not kidnapping for ransom as kidnappers for ransom commit.

You must look at what was MADE OBVIOUS by the killer.
And what was HIDDEN by the killer.
Hidden? The head wound.
Hidden? The sexual molestation. (minor compared to what is seen by predators as in the Polly Klass case and the Danielle VanDam case for example. Whose molesters and killers TOOK THEM AWAY from their homes the split second they grabbed them. Not so in the JonBenet case. Because the motivations in them were completely different) Child was not only wiped down (something sexual predators do not do) but care was taken to pull her pants back up and cover and wrap her in a blanket. Layer upon layer trying to "cover" up not only the victim - but the abuse.

Possibly hidden? Manual strangulation which was then attempted to be covered up by placing a cord around her neck to divert attention away from that. Not a fact - just a possibilty that has been raised.

Made Obvious?
Cord around the neck and loosely tied around the wrists. (With victim's mother's jacket fibers entwined in the knot of the cord wrapped around victim's neck I might add - not to mention same fibers discovered in paint tote where paintbrush handle was grabbed from that was used in the cord tied around victim's neck....)
Tape on mouth. No tongue imprints were found on tape - indicating she was not even conscious and perhaps already dead when applied so what is the point other than a "visual"? Neither did the coroner detect any markings on her skin around her mouth where the tape was.
The fake note.
Why an attempt to create a "visual"? Something obvious?
To create the illusion that "THIS" is what happened officer - to of course hide what REALLY happened.

There is NO evidence of any intruder entering that house that night.
There is plenty of evidence and circumstances of the case to indicate that this was a sad familial homicide that took place that night and was covered up.
 
K777angel said:
Kidnappers who kidnap for ransom are motivated by money. Sexual perverts who are brazen enough to enter a home on Christmas night of all the nights to choose of the year - enter the home to abduct their victim so that they may do their dirty deeds to the victim and satisfy their lust. They grab their victim and RUN!
I must point out that NIETHER of these motivations were the true motivations in this crime.
The child was never kidnapped for ransom.
The child was never raped and molested as you see occur with true pedophile sexual predators. And yet a 'ransom note' was left at the scene. But wait - this was not a typical or real ransom note. It was fake. So why would a sexual predator intent on satisfying his motivation of sexual perverseness - not only bother to take the time (in the house mind you) to write a bogus 'ransom' note - but why would he even THINK of it? He is single minded. Perverted sex.....not money....

And to me that would fall in with someone who knew her, had planned on getting in the house to see her specifically, things didn't go the way they planned, decided to stage a "kidnapping" to buy some time, hoping they would not find her quickly, as they would be distracted thinking it was a kidnapping

No, that's not right either. Because the molestation done to JonBenet was not on the scale of a sexual predator

again, this was someone she probably knew and that was fighting this awful perversion that was compelling him to commit the unthinkable on someone he cared about and someone that trusted him- He probably was a very mentally torn, angry person who on one hand was trying NOT to do what he WANTED to do, yet he still had these perverted ideations that he wanted TO DO. I think the person was conflicted and in a manic sexually deviant state.

You must look at what was MADE OBVIOUS by the killer.
And what was HIDDEN by the killer.
Hidden? The head wound.
Hidden? The sexual molestation. (minor compared to what is seen by predators as in the Polly Klass case and the Danielle VanDam case for example. Whose molesters and killers TOOK THEM AWAY from their homes the split second they grabbed them. Not so in the JonBenet case. Because the motivations in them were completely different) Child was not only wiped down (something sexual predators do not do) but care was taken to pull her pants back up and cover and wrap her in a blanket. Layer upon layer trying to "cover" up not only the victim - but the abuse.

and someone she knew again- not only were they making things hidden because they cared about her in normal day to day life, they were in a way trying to comfort her and tell themself that what they did was bad but they didn't mean to hurt her that way and that was their way of making things somewhat okay in their mind. The killers of the other girls were typical of killers/predators that kill/molest children without any remorse, probably (I do not know the facts on those cases) did not know the girls on a personal basis, and did not care one bit about them, only cared about themselves and getting their "fix". So, yes, these are two different kinds of predators. Another reason I believe it was someone she knew.


There is NO evidence of any intruder entering that house that night.
There is plenty of evidence and circumstances of the case to indicate that this was a sad familial homicide that took place that night and was covered up.

Well, I have YET to see any FACTS that point to this belief whatsoever, only speculation and heresay. The things I have seen/read are very consistent with an intruder, i.e., the evidence at the window in the basement inside and outside being one.

It's no wonder many people are sent to prison who are indeed innocent and other's get away with murder. People can make a theory up out of nothing and turn into all kinds of things. Look at the crap going on in the SP case. He will probably get away with murder just because his high paying lawyer will argue that the case should be dismissed because of incorrect statements being presented to the court (a "witness" stating that SP told how he would do away with a body using rope, tape, etc.- Now the lawyer wants the case dropped because SP or a source said he NEVER mentioned TAPE!!!!- it is okay that he may have said all the other crap, but since he never said the word TAPE- c'mon!). What is the world coming to?????
 
twizzler333 said:
Did this Oliva person know the Ramseys? I still feel like she trusted this person somehow. The ONLY thing that is hard to pinpoint or make sense of is the pineapple, but I suppose it could have been someone she knew and talked her into going downstairs for a snack....

Oliva didn't know the Ramseys. He was a homeless, ex-sex offender (7 year old girl), paranoid schizophrenic who went to the church around the corner to get his mail and a meal. The problem with the pineapple is as follows: due to where it was found in her upper intestine, it was likely consumed 1-2 hours before death. Burke said that JB was up and awake when they arrived home @9;30. The Ramseys said that she was asleep and was put to bed never getting up. This statement was given before the autopsy findings. The facts point to her being up and eating pineapple shortly before going to bed. IMO, the R's were caught in this lie, but decided for the sake of consistency to not admit it or change it. In and of itself the pineapple doesn't have to affect what happened later on. Its the R's reaction that has created a problem.
 
I believe one one occasion Burke said she was asleep and on another said she was awake. Thomas decided Burke didn't really remember whether or not she was awake. It's somewhere in his book.
 
IF Burke knows what happened (and I think he does), can you imagine the guilt he is walking around with, and how he must feel?
Is he on any kind of medication? Has anyone seen or heard him speak publicly?
 
I just don't see how anyone that had NO prior criminal history could ever keep all that pent up inside all these years without breaking down. This was not just some little incident, this was brutal and there is no way IMO you could carry this with you all these years, medication or not. They would have already slipped up by now BIG time, one of them (PR more than likely) would have been committed to a mental institution in some way, shape or form. I don't see how you could keep a consistent secret of this magnitude for all these years and someone not slip up at some point and tell, break down, or something. People who have a history of criminal activity find it much easier to do this. People who loved their children the way they obviously do and as told by many who were in their inner circle, could not do this, albeit an accident or whatever and not break down. I don't see how you could maintain a normal life again at all. Just does not make sense to me.
 
HaleysSurprise said:
Is he on any kind of medication? Has anyone seen or heard him speak publicly?

I'm not aware that he has ever called a press conference to discuss his knowledge of the case. There was a report in the American Star Ledger, a weekly paper, now defunct, in 2001, that he did take vitamins( with iron) and occasionally tried various botanicals such as St. Johns wort and Kava Kava.
 
twizzler333 said:
I just don't see how anyone that had NO prior criminal history could ever keep all that pent up inside all these years without breaking down. People who have a history of criminal activity find it much easier to do this..

Seems that way to me also Twiz333. Actually Oliva did break down. He called a friend he had known since high school about 3 days after it happened and began sobbing, saying that he had hurt a child. It was another rare moment of verite in the case. Knowing criminals way of describing an event in terms of what they thought would happen rather than what did happen, or by minimizing something they did, it not suprizing that he used that term. He was able to talk about the case in a Oct. 2002 newsmagazine show. But after answering a few questions and making a couple of comments, he refused to discuss it further.
 
vicktor said:
I'm not aware that he has ever called a press conference to discuss his knowledge of the case. There was a report in the American Star Ledger, a weekly paper, now defunct, in 2001, that he did take vitamins( with iron) and occasionally tried various botanicals such as St. Johns wort and Kava Kava.


well, i didn't mean "press conference" ....
I was just wondering if he was ever interviewed or any talk shows.
I think there's some validity in knowing what Burke is up to these days.

Comment editted by Amraann as it was off topic and directed towards another poster.

Thanks
 
WOW HaleysSuprise... I didn't take it to be a smart alec answer from Vicktor. I thought that was a honest straight-forward reply. Guess I just don't see the meanness in people you see, if that is what it indeed was. I would like to know what Burke is up to myself but I seriously doubt the Ramsey's will allow him to be exposed in any way to the media after the things the media has done to them already. I certainly would not allow them near my child.
 
twizzler333 said:
WOW HaleysSuprise... I didn't take it to be a smart alec answer from Vicktor. I thought that was a honest straight-forward reply. Guess I just don't see the meanness in people you see, if that is what it indeed was. I would like to know what Burke is up to myself but I seriously doubt the Ramsey's will allow him to be exposed in any way to the media after the things the media has done to them already. I certainly would not allow them near my child.


I guess not all people read things the same?
 
I find some of these BDI theories fascinating. I've followed this case since day 1, and have always felt that John was the one responsible for Jonbenet's death, but the more I consider the Burke theory, the more sense it makes.

As for children keeping secrets, my nephew is 9 years old, and if his Mother
instructed him to keep a secret, he'd keep it, without question.
I'm sure John could have "instructed" him in such a way that Burke would be
downright scared to talk about his sister at all.
 
If Burke did do it then why would the Ramseys have him in therapy? Would they not be afraid that now he is getting older he will tell his therapist? Seems to me they are really taking a chance having him in therapy. If he did do it or knows what happened then that just makes no sense to me.
 
I'm wondering what kind of therapy Burke was really in and what it entailed. I am sure he was treated gently, whatever the therapy was. That is, if he was actually in therapy at all.

Schuler, the police psychologist, interviewed Burke and didn't interpret Burke's odd behavior and comments as indicating he had killed JonBenet. That's because Schuler and the BPD considered Burke a poor little kid who'd just lost his sister, and handled him with kid gloves. He was treated only as a possible witness.

imo, BDI is the only theory that fits all the evidence and everything else we know about JonBenet's death.

IMO
 
Ivy said:
I'm wondering what kind of therapy Burke was really in and what it entailed. I am sure he was treated gently, whatever the therapy was. That is, if he was actually in therapy at all.

Schuler, the police psychologist, interviewed Burke and didn't interpret Burke's odd behavior and comments as indicating he had killed JonBenet. That's because Schuler and the BPD considered Burke a poor little kid who'd just lost his sister, and handled him with kid gloves. He was treated only as a possible witness.

imo, BDI is the only theory that fits all the evidence and everything else we know about JonBenet's death.

IMO


Ivy,

Burke was in therapy. From the 1998 interviews when Burke was questioned for three days in a row:

TOM HANEY: "There were like three days, and the first two days were pretty basic questions, but on the third day there were questions where the discussion was around JonBenet and death. And I am no psychologist or psychiatrist, but immediately noticed a change in Burke and his demeanor. He's curled up on the chair something like this, not sitting like this, but in the chair like this, and he's half in a fetal position and it seems to a real struggle, a real difficult time. I am wondering if you noticed anything similar, any changes?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Well, I may have -- I have had him in therapy just for this reason."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

TOM HANEY: " ... Dr. Jaffee works with him on a fairly regular basis?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Right."

TOM HANEY: "How often?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh, every three weeks , maybe."

JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
931
Total visitors
1,043

Forum statistics

Threads
589,930
Messages
17,927,798
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top