Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never read anything about how this plays into the theories. Elaborate.

"which would explain the encocropesis that is made so much of in all of the theories."

A lot of people have pointed to the fact that Burke had accidents frequently and did some odd poop play as evidence of his sexual abuse and general perversion/oddity. Kids with ASD are way more likely to have chronic constipation and have accidents.

Can you cite a legit source for this?

I'm not trying to write a peer reviewed article here. You're not contributing anything Other than source demands. But yes, the book foreign faction written by the investigator on the case for a period gets into this. It's also well documented that Jon Benet had frequent accidents. You can google that one yourself.

How do you know what I'm posting? If you are going to make a statement with off the rail info that no one has heard before then post where you are finding it. Back up your claim.

Yes, we know JB had frequent accidents. That isn't what was bolded or questioned, is it?

It's hardly off the rail. Both investigators that wrote books about the case wrote about it. March kercher and kolar both write about this.

+1

It seems pertinent. Not everything is about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brother - and mom covered for him.

Didn't the brother rape her and then kill her?

Mom covered.

[Anonymous]

A 9year old boy did not rape and murder his sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 9year old boy did not rape and murder his sister.

It COULD happen.

I didn't follow the story. It's been 20 fucking years. But the last thing I remember is the media blaming the brother and the mother covering. The sexual assault came a little later.

They were disgusting parents, however, for turning their daughter into a showgirl. That kid had no chance of a normal childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 9year old boy did not rape and murder his sister.

It COULD happen.

I didn't follow the story. It's been 20 fucking years. But the last thing I remember is the media blaming the brother and the mother covering. The sexual assault came a little later.

They were disgusting parents, however, for turning their daughter into a showgirl. That kid had no chance of a normal childhood.

You think that the boy killed his sister, then his mother covered it up and then the boy snuck downstairs at some point and sexually assaulted his dead sister?

No freakin' way.

[doodlebug]

I googled this and it seems like a PI has been working this case since the beginning and he thinks he know who did, and that man committed suicide a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

doodlebug wrote:I googled this and it seems like a PI has been working this case since the beginning and he thinks he know who did, and that man committed suicide a long time ago.

A PI paid for by the Ramsey family to throw suspicion off of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 9year old boy did not rape and murder his sister.

It COULD happen.

I didn't follow the story. It's been 20 fucking years. But the last thing I remember is the media blaming the brother and the mother covering. The sexual assault came a little later.

They were disgusting parents, however, for turning their daughter into a showgirl. That kid had no chance of a normal childhood.

You think that the boy killed his sister, then his mother covered it up and then the boy snuck downstairs at some point and sexually assaulted his dead sister?

No freakin' way.

I think pp meant that the evidence of possible sexual assault came later. NOT that he went to sexually assault her after he killed her and the mom covered for him...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

Exactly. No one can explain why there were no footprints. The murderer never left the house because it was a family member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

Exactly. No one can explain why there were no footprints. The murderer never left the house because it was a family member.

But there are several reasons why I think it could have been an intruder or someone not in the family: it's been said that the investigation of the crime scene was totally botched and handled incorrectly and that the investigators on the scene were unskilled in this type of investigation. Secondly, they had a house full of people at the Christmas party, so how could investigators distinguish between who's DNA/prints, etc. was and was not supposed to be there?

Also, regarding Patsy wearing her clothes from the night before...couldn't it be that she just threw on whatever was on her floor or bench next to her bed from the night before just to get dressed quickly? I've done that. In fact, I did it this morning. I had to get up to take the dog out so I just threw on the shorts that were on the bench from yesterday.

Lastly, if one of JB's parents did stage this whole bizarre murder scene, it doesn't make sense to me. I could get on board with the "Patsy was angry and took it too far and murdered her daughter with a blow to the head and then put the body downstairs" theory. However, it makes no sense to me that she would have taken the time to then make a bizarre sexual assault weapon, use it on her daughter, among other things. That's too far-fetched. In the mess of everything that may have been going on if she did murder her daughter and write a ransom note, the garrote and sexual assault makes no sense for her to do.

I really think this was an outside job, even if it was someone they knew.

[Anonymous]

The idea of a mother staging the sexual assault of her daughter makes me sick and it really does seem w-a-y out there. The only explanation for that (that I can think of) is that she was in self preservation mode and did what she had to do to keep herself from going to jail. OR she had an idea that JonBenet had been being sexually abused by someone and wanted to cover the abuse up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

Real life cases aren't like episodes of CSI. There is frequently little physical evidence in a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

Exactly. No one can explain why there were no footprints. The murderer never left the house because it was a family member.

Or the killer entered through a walkway that was already disturbed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't know how an intruder could have been all over that home and left so little evidence of himself behind.

Just seems unlikely.

Exactly. No one can explain why there were no footprints. The murderer never left the house because it was a family member.

Or the killer entered through a walkway that was already disturbed.

Or across the patio, or the walkway, both of which had no snow on them. Or the grass which didn't have snow. (The snow was patchy, not fresh.)

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682515/The%20House#SnowontheGround