Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

+1

I don't think we will ever really know, but I don't think it was the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

+1

I don't think we will ever really know, but I don't think it was the family.

Well, certainly we will never really know if we ignore and/or try to misstate the evidence showing it clearly was the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

+1

I don't think we will ever really know, but I don't think it was the family.

Well, certainly we will never really know if we ignore and/or try to misstate the evidence showing it clearly was the evidence.

clearly was the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

There were pictures on one of the specials of the claw marks. They were there. It wasn't the parents, or any family member who did this heinous thing, and I am starting to feel like there is an internet "presence" trying to put out misinformation, here and in other online places.

You sound like a paranoiac nincompoop. You think there's a mysterious presence spreading misinformation about this case on the Internet? It's a bunch of people using their heads!

NP. This cracked me up. Hahaha.

I know. Maybe it is the same "small foreign faction" from the ransom note spreading the misinformation. Victory! SBTC!

[Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/779406111749406720

How would Burke have been determined to be a possible witness? This tweet confuses me (see Lin Wood's reply on 12:44 pm on September 23rd)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/779406111749406720

How would Burke have been determined to be a possible witness? This tweet confuses me (see Lin Wood's reply on 12:44 pm on September 23rd)

How was he NOT a witness? He was in the house at the time of the death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/779406111749406720

How would Burke have been determined to be a possible witness? This tweet confuses me (see Lin Wood's reply on 12:44 pm on September 23rd)

How was he NOT a witness? He was in the house at the time of the death.

He was asleep according to the parents and then removed from the home prior to the body being discovered remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/779406111749406720

How would Burke have been determined to be a possible witness? This tweet confuses me (see Lin Wood's reply on 12:44 pm on September 23rd)

How was he NOT a witness? He was in the house at the time of the death.

He was asleep according to the parents and then removed from the home prior to the body being discovered remember.

He's still a witness. You still have to interview him to find out what he heard, if anything. He can testify to his parent's demeanor and to what they said. He may have knowledge of what the parents said or did in the weeks after the death. No cop or lawyer would let him get by without giving a statement and/or deposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/779406111749406720

How would Burke have been determined to be a possible witness? This tweet confuses me (see Lin Wood's reply on 12:44 pm on September 23rd)

He was too young to be charged with a crime, therefore if Burke hit his sister on the head his action did not constitute a criminal act, therefore he can not be considered a "suspect". The only people that could have been charged with crimes were Patsy and John. And the DA felt there was insufficient evidence to charge them.

This is just a guess.

[Anonymous]

Was the CBS special the last of the Jonbenet shows or are there more coming up?

[Anonymous]

Did John ever go back to work after the murder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did John ever go back to work after the murder?

His business never recovered. Too much bad press. He sold his three homes, boat, plane, and burned through savings and retirement. He says he has done a little consulting. I know they wrote a book and he stays busy with a website he started to further DNA registries to solve crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did John ever go back to work after the murder?

His business never recovered. Too much bad press. He sold his three homes, boat, plane, and burned through savings and retirement. He says he has done a little consulting. I know they wrote a book and he stays busy with a website he started to further DNA registries to solve crimes.

Hey, if he's doing DNA stuff now, maybe he can encourage law enforcement in Boulder to use modern DNA technology on the knotting of the garrote. I know if that were my daughter, I'd be interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was the CBS special the last of the Jonbenet shows or are there more coming up?

As far as I know, it's the last. But it is clearly the best. They had the best scientific specialists through the decades from JFK to OJ.

Even Kim Kardashian tweeted today about how good the show is.

[Anonymous]

Burke.