Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

[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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

Not buying it either, especially since two adults and another child were home. Cobwebs by the window weren't disturbed either.

An an intruder who spends two minutes in a home may not leave any trace, but it's hard to believe one could do this while in a home for over two hours.

[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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

It is indeed a well established fact that children with autism and other neurological issues are more likely to have encopresis and toilet training issues. I am not sure what objection you have to accepting basic facts, but lets take a look:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01058155
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422208001753 - noting specifically, Children and adults with developmental disabilities are more likely to evince encopresis, soiling and constipation than the general population. This set of related behaviors can produce a great deal of stress and can be a major restriction in independent living.

Also, from several know autism sites:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/07/aspergers-children-and-encopresis.html
http://www.airpnetwork.org/atf/cf/%7B21E91B8F-D0F9-424E-8242-C281E1B81562%7D/guide_for_managing_constipation.pdf

[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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

I agree that there is usually little physical evidence but there was quite a bit here. Patsy's fibers from her coat from the night before were on the paintbrush and the rope and the tape on her mouth. Fibers from her dad's shirt were in her underwear. I think that the evidence establishes that her parents did it. NO evidence of an intruder other than trace DNA which is way controversial has ever been discovered. No hair, prints, nothing.

I don't know who hit her, but that happened first and the rest seems to be just a bungled cover up. The level the parents went to cover up evidences that there was really something to cover, though. I have to imagine it was Burke who hit her - by all accounts her parents had never hit her and he had hit her by "accident", sending her to the hospital, on two prior occasions. He was also seeing a psychologist and there is speculation, as discussed in several of the books on the case, that he may have been molesting her and her parents knew. If Patsy accidentally killed her, with the hit to the head, I do not see why her husband would cover for her. If her husband killed her, I guess maybe Patsy would have covered for him. Pretty much all authorities that have considered the subject agree that the ransom note was written by Patsy. The only way I see Patsy and her husband doing this together is if Burke or the husband killed her accidentally with the blow to the head. Its not clear who did the redressing - Patsy may have been involved in the redressing of the body given that the underwear put on her, made sure to have the correct day of the week, may have came from a packet of those underwear wrapped in the basement for her niece, OR her husband grabbed the underwear which were much, much too large, from the girl's drawer, not knowing they were too big. That issue just depends on where the underwear were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

I agree that there is usually little physical evidence but there was quite a bit here. Patsy's fibers from her coat from the night before were on the paintbrush and the rope and the tape on her mouth. Fibers from her dad's shirt were in her underwear. I think that the evidence establishes that her parents did it. NO evidence of an intruder other than trace DNA which is way controversial has ever been discovered. No hair, prints, nothing.

I don't know who hit her, but that happened first and the rest seems to be just a bungled cover up. The level the parents went to cover up evidences that there was really something to cover, though. I have to imagine it was Burke who hit her - by all accounts her parents had never hit her and he had hit her by "accident", sending her to the hospital, on two prior occasions. He was also seeing a psychologist and there is speculation, as discussed in several of the books on the case, that he may have been molesting her and her parents knew. If Patsy accidentally killed her, with the hit to the head, I do not see why her husband would cover for her. If her husband killed her, I guess maybe Patsy would have covered for him. Pretty much all authorities that have considered the subject agree that the ransom note was written by Patsy. The only way I see Patsy and her husband doing this together is if Burke or the husband killed her accidentally with the blow to the head. Its not clear who did the redressing - Patsy may have been involved in the redressing of the body given that the underwear put on her, made sure to have the correct day of the week, may have came from a packet of those underwear wrapped in the basement for her niece, OR her husband grabbed the underwear which were much, much too large, from the girl's drawer, not knowing they were too big. That issue just depends on where the underwear were.

Also, there was a ton of testimony that Patsy would never have worn the same outfit two days in a row, and it was her "party" outfit. It seems much more likely that she never took it off. And that seems to mean that she must have been there when JB was hit in the head or was there right after. Anyway, she had not yet gone to bed when the hit to the head occurred, which is estimated to have been between 10-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

It is indeed a well established fact that children with autism and other neurological issues are more likely to have encopresis and toilet training issues. I am not sure what objection you have to accepting basic facts, but lets take a look:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01058155
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422208001753 - noting specifically, Children and adults with developmental disabilities are more likely to evince encopresis, soiling and constipation than the general population. This set of related behaviors can produce a great deal of stress and can be a major restriction in independent living.

Also, from several know autism sites:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/07/aspergers-children-and-encopresis.html
http://www.airpnetwork.org/atf/cf/%7B21E91B8F-D0F9-424E-8242-C281E1B81562%7D/guide_for_managing_constipation.pdf

Not according to the scientific literature. The first two links are the same article. And there a bazillion "known" autism sites; some that recommend chelation and bio-med treatments. That's not proof or facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

It is indeed a well established fact that children with autism and other neurological issues are more likely to have encopresis and toilet training issues. I am not sure what objection you have to accepting basic facts, but lets take a look:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01058155
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422208001753 - noting specifically, Children and adults with developmental disabilities are more likely to evince encopresis, soiling and constipation than the general population. This set of related behaviors can produce a great deal of stress and can be a major restriction in independent living.

Also, from several know autism sites:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/07/aspergers-children-and-encopresis.html
http://www.airpnetwork.org/atf/cf/%7B21E91B8F-D0F9-424E-8242-C281E1B81562%7D/guide_for_managing_constipation.pdf

I think the question was someone said Burke was ASD or had autism and someone asked for THAT to be backed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

I agree that there is usually little physical evidence but there was quite a bit here. Patsy's fibers from her coat from the night before were on the paintbrush and the rope and the tape on her mouth. Fibers from her dad's shirt were in her underwear. I think that the evidence establishes that her parents did it. NO evidence of an intruder other than trace DNA which is way controversial has ever been discovered. No hair, prints, nothing.

I don't know who hit her, but that happened first and the rest seems to be just a bungled cover up. The level the parents went to cover up evidences that there was really something to cover, though. I have to imagine it was Burke who hit her - by all accounts her parents had never hit her and he had hit her by "accident", sending her to the hospital, on two prior occasions. He was also seeing a psychologist and there is speculation, as discussed in several of the books on the case, that he may have been molesting her and her parents knew. If Patsy accidentally killed her, with the hit to the head, I do not see why her husband would cover for her. If her husband killed her, I guess maybe Patsy would have covered for him. Pretty much all authorities that have considered the subject agree that the ransom note was written by Patsy. The only way I see Patsy and her husband doing this together is if Burke or the husband killed her accidentally with the blow to the head. Its not clear who did the redressing - Patsy may have been involved in the redressing of the body given that the underwear put on her, made sure to have the correct day of the week, may have came from a packet of those underwear wrapped in the basement for her niece, OR her husband grabbed the underwear which were much, much too large, from the girl's drawer, not knowing they were too big. That issue just depends on where the underwear were.

Also, there was a ton of testimony that Patsy would never have worn the same outfit two days in a row, and it was her "party" outfit. It seems much more likely that she never took it off. And that seems to mean that she must have been there when JB was hit in the head or was there right after. Anyway, she had not yet gone to bed when the hit to the head occurred, which is estimated to have been between 10-12.

How do you testify that someone would not wear an outfit two days in a row? Could you honestly testify that about one of your friends and know it to be 100% accurate?

[Anonymous]

I think we can forgive the same outfit two days in a row. If I had an emergency I'd grab the first thing I saw and throw that in rather than think about what I was wearing the day before and select something different. To me that would be far more suspicious. Ultimately, I think the police department did such a poor job containing the crime scene and there were random people milling about and the police bungled the investigation making it impossible to know what really happened.

If they had searched the house and not found her body in the wine cellar, that would have been the perfect chance for them to ditch the body and create the cover up they wanted. So why would John risk blowing it by finding the body of he knew it was there? There is no way he was involved because he wouldn't have outed himself like that. The basement was searched, they could have thrown the police off by ditching the body later. Stuff it in a suitcase or something and be gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

This individual (presumably) cracked JonBenet's skull. Carried her down two flights of stairs. Sexually assaulted her and strangled her using items collected from around the house. Unwrapped Christmas packages to find underwear to redress her in. Sat at a desk in the home and wrote a long winded ransom note on a notepad and with a pen belonging to the house....

Oh, and supposedly squeezed through a small window in the basement leaving no footprints, no threads from their clothes, no hair....

Nope. Not buying it.

I agree that there is usually little physical evidence but there was quite a bit here. Patsy's fibers from her coat from the night before were on the paintbrush and the rope and the tape on her mouth. Fibers from her dad's shirt were in her underwear. I think that the evidence establishes that her parents did it. NO evidence of an intruder other than trace DNA which is way controversial has ever been discovered. No hair, prints, nothing.

I don't know who hit her, but that happened first and the rest seems to be just a bungled cover up. The level the parents went to cover up evidences that there was really something to cover, though. I have to imagine it was Burke who hit her - by all accounts her parents had never hit her and he had hit her by "accident", sending her to the hospital, on two prior occasions. He was also seeing a psychologist and there is speculation, as discussed in several of the books on the case, that he may have been molesting her and her parents knew. If Patsy accidentally killed her, with the hit to the head, I do not see why her husband would cover for her. If her husband killed her, I guess maybe Patsy would have covered for him. Pretty much all authorities that have considered the subject agree that the ransom note was written by Patsy. The only way I see Patsy and her husband doing this together is if Burke or the husband killed her accidentally with the blow to the head. Its not clear who did the redressing - Patsy may have been involved in the redressing of the body given that the underwear put on her, made sure to have the correct day of the week, may have came from a packet of those underwear wrapped in the basement for her niece, OR her husband grabbed the underwear which were much, much too large, from the girl's drawer, not knowing they were too big. That issue just depends on where the underwear were.

Also, there was a ton of testimony that Patsy would never have worn the same outfit two days in a row, and it was her "party" outfit. It seems much more likely that she never took it off. And that seems to mean that she must have been there when JB was hit in the head or was there right after. Anyway, she had not yet gone to bed when the hit to the head occurred, which is estimated to have been between 10-12.

If she was just going downstairs to start a pot of coffee and maybe get some bags for packing she probably didn't put on a fresh outfit. Maybe she just through on her party clothes because she knew that she'd be running around gathering items for the trip, feeding kids, etc and she didn't want to put on her travel clothes until after her shower.

I've done things like that before. In fact, I rarely put on fresh clothes before I've had the chance to shower. What is odd to me is that she had full makeup on. I can't imagine going to sleep w/o at least wiping some of that off her face. I think I read somewhere that she said that she had applied her makeup that morning which makes no sense. You wouldn't apply makeup and do your hair until after your shower. And if she was already showered, why would she put party clothes on from the night before. Something there doesn't sound right.

[Anonymous]

This is a great AMA by the author of Foreign Faction, who thinks the family is responsible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

It is indeed a well established fact that children with autism and other neurological issues are more likely to have encopresis and toilet training issues. I am not sure what objection you have to accepting basic facts, but lets take a look:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01058155
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422208001753 - noting specifically, Children and adults with developmental disabilities are more likely to evince encopresis, soiling and constipation than the general population. This set of related behaviors can produce a great deal of stress and can be a major restriction in independent living.

Also, from several know autism sites:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/07/aspergers-children-and-encopresis.html
http://www.airpnetwork.org/atf/cf/%7B21E91B8F-D0F9-424E-8242-C281E1B81562%7D/guide_for_managing_constipation.pdf

Not according to the scientific literature. The first two links are the same article. And there a bazillion "known" autism sites; some that recommend chelation and bio-med treatments. That's not proof or facts.

I just went on google scholar and saw hundreds of articles. My son has ASD and our dev ped and all of the specialists we have seen have told us this. There is a section of Children's dedicated to these issues and they have told me almost all patients have ASD or other condition. I am done discussing this with you, I do not know what level of proof you think is required for something to be established but I am guessing you would be a defense lawyer's dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Compared to whom and according to whom?

Compared to neurotypical children and according to every doctor or research person that works with children with autism. See, as one of thousands of examples, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0300443032000079069. Kids with neurological conditions generally have low tone with causes issues with bowel movements. Seriously, though, this is not a peer review board, stop demanding a citation for noncontroversial statements. Also, google is your friend if you are really interested.

I'm not the poster asking about Burke, but please stop posting crap about people on the spectrum. What you said is not true and the article you cited, says that "No data for children on the spectrum were found in the literature search, and indeed very little research related to this topic..."

Yeah, kids on the spectrum can have communication or behavioral issues that make them difficult to potty train, but stop making sweeping generalizations about autism.

DP. Ugh. Please stop, guys. No one is going to post any theories if they have to back up everything with sources and constantly worry about who might take things the wrong way and be offended.

A theory is a theory. Everything about the Ramsay murder is speculative b/c we don't know. However, don't state things as part of a theory that are factually untrue. For example, Jenny McCarthy did this for years about vaccines causing autism, which is untrue, but many, many people still believe it.

Facts are facts. Stick to them.

It is indeed a well established fact that children with autism and other neurological issues are more likely to have encopresis and toilet training issues. I am not sure what objection you have to accepting basic facts, but lets take a look:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01058155
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422208001753 - noting specifically, Children and adults with developmental disabilities are more likely to evince encopresis, soiling and constipation than the general population. This set of related behaviors can produce a great deal of stress and can be a major restriction in independent living.

Also, from several know autism sites:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/07/aspergers-children-and-encopresis.html
http://www.airpnetwork.org/atf/cf/%7B21E91B8F-D0F9-424E-8242-C281E1B81562%7D/guide_for_managing_constipation.pdf

I think the question was someone said Burke was ASD or had autism and someone asked for THAT to be backed up.

I think that is just a theory. We do know that he had a fine motor delay, Patsy testified about that, and apparently that was corroborated - she had to tie his shoes still - and so it does not seem likely that he could have tied the knots. But it did seem odd that she was so insistent on the point. I think - and this is my theory, source wingnut - that Patsy was a caring if odd mom - the pageant stuff is so weird to me - and it really does not sound like she hit or abused her kids. She was running JB to the doctor constantly - would you be doing that if you were an abuser, does anyone know anything about that? Or if you suspected a family member of abuse?

The clothes/makeup thing is odd. I know when we are leaving early for a flight, not that we have a private plan, ha, I make sure to get totally ready and then wake the kids up and dress them quickly. IT sounds like she was ready to go make coffee and get them going. They were leaving a 7 and this was after 5. They had to get to the airport, and they could not call and cancel the plane without looking incredibly suspicious. They knew that they had no way to get the body out of the house. I wonder how that factors into the ransom note? Why would they write it if they knew the body was going to be in the house? Regardless of who did it?

[Anonymous]

Either Patsy killed her by accident/in a rage over Jonbenet having an accident (urinating on herself) or Burke did it. Either way, Patsy was the one who staged the scene.