Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#136 Mar 23, 2014
learnin wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point, Patsy was heavily sedated and didn't give a care what she looked like.


Oh.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#137 Mar 24, 2014
Hm. My last post seems to have vaporized and since I don't plan to be reading topix in the foreseeable future, I'm going to reproduce it....

If Burke killed JonBenet in anger, I think it's safe to say that it was an impulsive act and shows impulsivity. But if Burke has been out in the world since shortly after the murder and hasn't let the cat out of the bag, that would seem to show that he's controlled. These two things seem to be at odds to me. I'm not a psychologist.

Lawyers would no doubt advise the Ramseys not to let their impulsively murdering son out without close supervision--unless these lawyers had determined that he had no first-hand knowledge of the crime.

JMO, YMMV

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#138 Mar 26, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Hm. My last post seems to have vaporized and since I don't plan to be reading topix in the foreseeable future, I'm going to reproduce it....
If Burke killed JonBenet in anger, I think it's safe to say that it was an impulsive act and shows impulsivity. But if Burke has been out in the world since shortly after the murder and hasn't let the cat out of the bag, that would seem to show that he's controlled. These two things seem to be at odds to me. I'm not a psychologist.
Lawyers would no doubt advise the Ramseys not to let their impulsively murdering son out without close supervision--unless these lawyers had determined that he had no first-hand knowledge of the crime.
JMO, YMMV
I believe that the "act" was impulsive. At 9-10 years old, he would have no real idea of the consequences of those impulsivities and never intended to kill her

That doesn't negate the reality that he can be controlled in his behavior and speech later on in life, especially with talking about something that would affect his entire future negatively. We also have no way of knowing whether his "acts" are impulsive to this day or not. Short of committing a crime or having the acts described by others, we just don't know.

Just because he may act impulsively, he is much older now and the same "acts" don't necessarily bring the same consequences and again, it doesn't mean he is a murderer or have a murderous nature just because of what happened then in 1996. Being impulsive doesn't lead necessarily to murder.

That's why CHILDREN have to be supervised. Their impulsive acts can do damage beyond repair. They don't understand the consequences of their actions when it can lead to death.
amber

Wichita, KS

#140 Dec 10, 2014
pinker wrote:
<quoted text>
The invisible skull fracture and a self-defense motive by Burke have not been fully explored… the death has never been resolved. It is a logical scenario. The parents would not cover-up for anyone else. They obfuscated at every opportunity. It appeared they were trying to protect somebody. It appeared they knew the truth but it was too shameful to expose. They were so obstinate they accused and hurt other people yet never looked within themselves. Look at John Ramsey intervening when the police tried to question Burke early in the morning of 12/26. John shooed them away and said Burke didn’t know anything yet John’s movements were explored minute by minute from the 911 call and there is no time he ever spoke with Burke to ask him anything. John Ramsey lied; he did not have the information needed to say what Burke knew, unless it was all a hoax, a scam and a staged ‘crime’.
The most likely reason for the faux garrote is it was used to cover what was thought to be a broken neck. A real garrote is designed to snap the neck and sever the spinal cord. According to the autopsy there was no damage to JonBenet’s spinal cord. Had JonBenet's spinal cord actually been broken it would be assume the garrote was the cause. There was no way for John or Patsy to have known about the surprise hidden skull fracture if they did not witness the ‘fight’. The symptoms presented, a limp nearly lifeless body could be attributed to either.
… They were presented with an ‘almost corpse’… there was no visible head wound, they believed JonBenet had a broken neck. The staging with a faux garrote was to cover up that injury. Was it Burke versus JonBenet or JonBenet versus Burke, there is a difference. One would be self defense, giving Burke an even greater amount of sympathy from his parents, a greater desire to ‘protect’ him, lie for him, and do all in their power to defend him from the truth.
Look at the evidence of what Patsy did to this poor child while she was alive. JonBenet was developmentally delayed. She was 6 and could not even read. She still needed diapers. JonBenet would have had a host of emotional issues from the abnormal situations in her life, emotional issues breed behavioral problems. This was not an Ozzy and Harriet family. JonBenet had one dead half sibling that emotionally devastated her father, a mother who had undergone experimental medical treatments to fight a disease that is usually a death sentence, and the bizarre participation in the kiddie pageants requiring constant groundwork and even bleached hair. This would have been an aggressive disturbed child. She would have easily attacked and fought with Burke over minor issues.
Burke hit her with a golf club once. He might have been jealous.
sthorn

Dubai, UAE

#141 Dec 21, 2014
pinker wrote:
<quoted text>
The invisible skull fracture and a self-defense motive by Burke have not been fully explored… the death has never been resolved. It is a logical scenario. The parents would not cover-up for anyone else. They obfuscated at every opportunity. It appeared they were trying to protect somebody. It appeared they knew the truth but it was too shameful to expose. They were so obstinate they accused and hurt other people yet never looked within themselves. Look at John Ramsey intervening when the police tried to question Burke early in the morning of 12/26. John shooed them away and said Burke didn’t know anything yet John’s movements were explored minute by minute from the 911 call and there is no time he ever spoke with Burke to ask him anything. John Ramsey lied; he did not have the information needed to say what Burke knew, unless it was all a hoax, a scam and a staged ‘crime’.
The most likely reason for the faux garrote is it was used to cover what was thought to be a broken neck. A real garrote is designed to snap the neck and sever the spinal cord. According to the autopsy there was no damage to JonBenet’s spinal cord. Had JonBenet's spinal cord actually been broken it would be assume the garrote was the cause. There was no way for John or Patsy to have known about the surprise hidden skull fracture if they did not witness the ‘fight’. The symptoms presented, a limp nearly lifeless body could be attributed to either.
… They were presented with an ‘almost corpse’… there was no visible head wound, they believed JonBenet had a broken neck. The staging with a faux garrote was to cover up that injury. Was it Burke versus JonBenet or JonBenet versus Burke, there is a difference. One would be self defense, giving Burke an even greater amount of sympathy from his parents, a greater desire to ‘protect’ him, lie for him, and do all in their power to defend him from the truth.
Look at the evidence of what Patsy did to this poor child while she was alive. JonBenet was developmentally delayed. She was 6 and could not even read. She still needed diapers. JonBenet would have had a host of emotional issues from the abnormal situations in her life, emotional issues breed behavioral problems. This was not an Ozzy and Harriet family. JonBenet had one dead half sibling that emotionally devastated her father, a mother who had undergone experimental medical treatments to fight a disease that is usually a death sentence, and the bizarre participation in the kiddie pageants requiring constant groundwork and even bleached hair. This would have been an aggressive disturbed child. She would have easily attacked and fought with Burke over minor issues.
There really isn't much evidence suggesting that Jonbenet put up a fight during the night of her murder nor is there evidence that she was an aggressive child. The parents dont need any other reason to protect a their 9 year old child other than the fact that he is just that...a child.
whodunnit

United States

#142 Dec 21, 2014
Oh dear lord still with the BDI?? Just STOP trying to blame the poor child for the evil act of what was almost certainly a ring of cowardly, pernicious, abusive adults.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#143 Dec 22, 2014
whodunnit wrote:
Oh dear lord still with the BDI?? Just STOP trying to blame the poor child for the evil act of what was almost certainly a ring of cowardly, pernicious, abusive adults.
Sorry whodunit,
Those of us who are of the BDI belief, for the most part (I can't speak for all) believe it was accidental and the cover up of that horror came from a ring of cowardly, pernicious, abusive adults

Without new information, those who have theories about the case will generally not change them just due to time passing

I know it isn't a popular theory but the reality is that it certainly could have happened that way but I don't think we'll ever know for sure
RSim6100

Chengdu, China

#144 Jan 5, 2015
I say it was Burke, also. A 9 year old can have sperm. Was his sperm ever taken?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#145 Jan 5, 2015
Capricorn wrote:
I believe that the "act" was impulsive. At 9-10 years old, he would have no real idea of the consequences of those impulsivities and never intended to kill her
That doesn't negate the reality that he can be controlled in his behavior and speech later on in life, especially with talking about something that would affect his entire future negatively. We also have no way of knowing whether his "acts" are impulsive to this day or not. Short of committing a crime or having the acts described by others, we just don't know.
Just because he may act impulsively, he is much older now and the same "acts" don't necessarily bring the same consequences and again, it doesn't mean he is a murderer or have a murderous nature just because of what happened then in 1996. Being impulsive doesn't lead necessarily to murder.
That's why CHILDREN have to be supervised. Their impulsive acts can do damage beyond repair. They don't understand the consequences of their actions when it can lead to death.
Burke might be much older now, but he wasn't much older then. The Ramseys didn't seem much concerned about letting him be out and about after the crime, socializing, talking to whomever. They had a lot to lose at that point if he decided to let the family involvement slip so that's remarkable.

There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that Burke was involved. I don't know of anyone in law enforcement other than James Kolar who thinks that Burke was involved and Kolar's evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#146 Jan 6, 2015
Had Jonbenet put up a struggle against an intruder, would she not have received bruises when the adult grasped her arms and legs during the assault? I don't recall reading about multiple bruises to her legs and arms--even though cords were applied to her wrists. Had they been tight enough to lift her or to restrain her, would there not have been excessive bruising? Most of her bruising was to the ear and throat area, wasn't it?

Also, the bruising on her neck seems to suggest that there was a confrontation where she may have been choked from the front by means of her shirt collar being twisted around her neck. That being the case, she may have used her nails to free herself since there was evidence she had clawed at her neck. She was able then to wrench herself free from the attacker, and managed to turn and run. At which time, she may have been bludgeoned. That could account for no finger grasps left by an attacker to her shoulders, arms or legs. Just the mark on her neck that could have been left by pressure from a finger or thumb.

And then we would have to wonder how a six year old could manage to free herself from an adult attacker. That is not likely. But she could possibly free herself from a sibling who is three years her senior.

What do a lot of children do when they have done something that is likely to get them in serious trouble, they put off telling a parent. Jonbenet would/could have been mistaken for dead by the time Patsy and John were alerted to the situation. Thereby, prompting them to concoct a scene that would have the police baffled. In fact, the whole world. This having been done to protect their son.

Sounds like a possibility to me.
berrytea333

Saint Louis, MO

#147 Jan 20, 2015
amber wrote:
<quoted text>
Burke hit her with a golf club once. He might have been jealous.
0294
1 was mention of a situation where he apparently
2 hit JonBenet with a golf club up at Charlevoix?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
4 THOMAS HANEY: Could you tell us
5 about that?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: He was taking a
7 practice swing, he was just a little guy, he was
8 two or three, or two and a half, and he was --
9 it was our first summer there, how young they
10 were there.
11 THOMAS HANEY: About what year
12 would that have been?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: That was '93, I
14 believe. And he, you know, he was out there
15 with his little Whiffle ball, golf balls, and
16 she walked up behind and he kind of clipped her
17 right on the cheek. And she screamed bloody
18 murder.
19 And I jumped down off the porch and
20 grabbed her and, you know, slammed ice on it. I
21 thought he got her in the eye, and went down
22 there to the emergency room and, you know, the
23 doctor looked and it was just, you know, that
24 socket around your eye, protects your eye there,
25 so she had a good old black eye for a while.
0295
1 She had a little, I don't remember which eye it
2 was, little abrasion. I took her to a plastic
3 surgeon just to see if there was anything to do
4 to help there. He said it will go away. You
5 know.
6 THOMAS HANEY: So that was just an
7 accidental --
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. You know, he
9 wasn't used to looking around and she walked
10 right up behind him, so --
11 THOMAS HANEY: Okay.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#148 Jan 20, 2015
Patsy was quick to take JB to emergency in that incident
Rangerette

Round Rock, TX

#152 Friday Feb 6
If indeed Burke testified before GJ, I am not sure how much they actually got out of him. But it sure was enough for the GJ to decide to indict!!!

you do know that, don't you? In GJ docs released last year or so, we found out something we never knew...grand jury thought something stunk in that family.

It was Alex Hunter who decided to quash the indictment. Now why in the world would he go against his own GJ?
Because Burke did it or Patsy did it? If it was Burke he'd never go to jail.
Did the Ramseys tell their lawyer or lawyers exactly what happened, why they staged a cover up?...for Burke's sake?
And Hunter decided not to indict based on what the Ramseys revealed about the kids.

But I am not sure at all that Burke did it to protect himself from a 6 year old girl. Maybe the kids did fight, and the blow to the head was administered by the flashlight or a golfclub etc.
In a case of a 9 year old boy doing this, the flashlight or club would be administering the blow/
a child can do unbelievable damage with such an object...especially in rage. Such a heavy object would not need an adult using it to cause injury.

Did JB fall down the stairs as a result of the hit? No one has ever asked that. Just because her body was found in the basement, does not mean it happened there.

Did JB scream before he hit her or possibly after? And was she like a limp dishrag? Did Burke tell them exactly what he did? Perhaps they saw the weapon.
I believe the autopsy did not prove which came first. the ligature was on a living child. the Ramseys believed JB was dead but she was not.

And that is why you had blood flow to the neck.

The Ramseys may have known about the head injury but assumed JB had died. In any case, they are not MEs or doctors. They would never have thought about "oh no, don't strangle her she is still alive "...you see? The strangulation was not to kill but to confuse the cops.

Patsy/John knew Burke had hit her but thought she was already dead. I am sure she looked it.

I think Burke had it in him to hit JB for no provocation. He was jealous of her and things can happen with siblings.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#153 Friday Feb 6
Good points, Rangerette. Someone on one forum had suggested that she fell down the stairs. There was a strand of green garland in her hair--the kind that was wrapped around the bannister, if I am not mistaken. Another poster had also suggested that perhaps the parents thought her neck was broken since they couldn't see the actual wound that caused her unconsciousness.

However, shouldn't there have been more bruises if she had fallen down the stairs? I don't know.

Since: Dec 14

Location hidden

#154 Friday Feb 6
Just Wondering wrote:
Good points, Rangerette. Someone on one forum had suggested that she fell down the stairs. There was a strand of green garland in her hair--the kind that was wrapped around the bannister, if I am not mistaken. Another poster had also suggested that perhaps the parents thought her neck was broken since they couldn't see the actual wound that caused her unconsciousness.
However, shouldn't there have been more bruises if she had fallen down the stairs? I don't know.
If she was hit and fell down the stairs, wouldn't it have been easier to claim all injuries came from the fall and call 911? I doubt anyone would be doing a rape test on her under the circumstances. So why stage anything?
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#155 Friday Feb 6
Jolamom wrote:
<quoted text>
If she was hit and fell down the stairs, wouldn't it have been easier to claim all injuries came from the fall and call 911? I doubt anyone would be doing a rape test on her under the circumstances. So why stage anything?
Very true. Unless the parents were unsure as to whether or not a full examination of the body would be done since this would have been reported as an accident. In those instances, it would be my guess that the examiner would not accept an "accident" as the legitimate cause of death of a healthy, coordinated six year old child. Perhaps I am too suspicious and skeptical of people, but that would be my guess, too.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#156 Friday Feb 6
Jolamom wrote:
<quoted text>
If she was hit and fell down the stairs, wouldn't it have been easier to claim all injuries came from the fall and call 911? I doubt anyone would be doing a rape test on her under the circumstances. So why stage anything?
I think an autopsy would be able to delineate what injuries were from a fall. And once a full autopsy were done, the rest (including an internal exam) would have been performed. It would have been hard to hide the chronic abuse at that point.

Since: Dec 14

Location hidden

#157 Friday Feb 6
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true. Unless the parents were unsure as to whether or not a full examination of the body would be done since this would have been reported as an accident. In those instances, it would be my guess that the examiner would not accept an "accident" as the legitimate cause of death of a healthy, coordinated six year old child. Perhaps I am too suspicious and skeptical of people, but that would be my guess, too.
But in order to have both parents go along with the cover up, I would think they would both have to have a common goal. If JR. had been the one abusing JB, why would PR be willing to cover that up? If he was accused and convicted of the crime, she could have divorced him, received money and all the sympathy. Her standing in the public would have been as a victim along with JB. If PR had accidentally struck her, why would JR. be willing to help cover it up. Sexual abuse and murder do not necessarily go hand in hand. That leads me to Burke. The only one I think they both would have been willing to do the horrendous things that were done to JB for. They did not want to lose him too.
Just Wondering

Oak Hill, WV

#158 Friday Feb 6
Jolamom wrote:
<quoted text> But in order to have both parents go along with the cover up, I would think they would both have to have a common goal. If JR. had been the one abusing JB, why would PR be willing to cover that up? If he was accused and convicted of the crime, she could have divorced him, received money and all the sympathy. Her standing in the public would have been as a victim along with JB. If PR had accidentally struck her, why would JR. be willing to help cover it up. Sexual abuse and murder do not necessarily go hand in hand. That leads me to Burke. The only one I think they both would have been willing to do the horrendous things that were done to JB for. They did not want to lose him too.
Yes, you and I are on the same page about Burke. I was just answering a question that Rangerette had asked about a possible fall down the stairs after being struck on the head by Burke. I should have highlighted her post.

Since: Dec 14

Location hidden

#159 Friday Feb 6
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
I think an autopsy would be able to delineate what injuries were from a fall. And once a full autopsy were done, the rest (including an internal exam) would have been performed. It would have been hard to hide the chronic abuse at that point.
Once the child had died, yes. But I am thinking if she was hit and had fallen down the stairs, why stage anything? She was not dead at that point, why not seek help instead of staging the scene? The initial reaction at the hospital would not have been to check for sexual abuse. And it seems to me a parents first thought after an accident of this magnitude would not be about themselves. That is why I have trouble thinking it was a fall.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 26 min ICU2 90
Media misrepresenting Chief Mark Beckner's remarks 9 hr berrytea333 23
Damning fact, re, ligature strangulation of Jon... 9 hr Rupert 31
JonBenet's Pink Pajamas 10 hr berrytea333 1
Head Blow and Strangulation 19 hr gotgum 18
Beckner's Comments Wiped Clean from Reddit! Fri Legal__Eagle 21
Medical Records and an Island of Privacy Fri Capricorn 3
More from around the web