Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

I think the implication is that they'd have hired someone ... ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A couple thoughts:

Dr Phil does NOT pay his guests and the brother wouldn't need the money, anyway.

The mother was a 2-3 time cancer survivor at that time and as she stated, she didn't care about a little bedwetting, or typical 5-6 yr old stuff. She understood the bigger picture in life. Even if she were covering for someone in the family, I can't see a mother resorting to sexual assault trauma to create a case.

Ok, so now that you've clarified that you're a "friend" I get why you're so defensive, but you honestly don't know any of this for sure. Most people who kill their kids aren't just psychos all the time, sadly. If the speculation is too hard for you, you should probably leave this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

I think the implication is that they'd have hired someone ... ?

I don't think so. PP said they could have paid for a nanny and boarding school, as though their level of money means they could have come up with a non-lethal solution. The mind of a murderer doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

Not never but rarely. Rich people have more to lose and usually recognize this. It's statistically true. Poverty drives most criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

I think the implication is that they'd have hired someone ... ?

I don't think so. PP said they could have paid for a nanny and boarding school, as though their level of money means they could have come up with a non-lethal solution. The mind of a murderer doesn't work that way.

If the parents were murderers don't you think they'd have some criminal activity by that age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

Not never but rarely. Rich people have more to lose and usually recognize this. It's statistically true. Poverty drives most criminal activity.

Sure. Generally. But the crimes you're speaking of don't usually involve young, rich elementary school kids. Also statistically, children are most likely to be killed by their parents. It is FAR more likely that happened, than that a poor person broke in, assaulted her, hung around writing long notes, killed her, and left without a trace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

ok. so who did? why no footprints?

Obviously no one knows. This isn't the first murder where they don't have a suspect. Doesn't mean the parents did it. The parents were too successful and well off to have murdered their own child. They parents didn't have any motive and they could have paid someone to take care of her and then eventually sent to boarding school if they wanted to get rid of her.

What? Are you seriously trying to imply that rich people never commit crimes?

I think the implication is that they'd have hired someone ... ?

I don't think so. PP said they could have paid for a nanny and boarding school, as though their level of money means they could have come up with a non-lethal solution. The mind of a murderer doesn't work that way.

If the parents were murderers don't you think they'd have some criminal activity by that age?

Not necessarily. Are you truly under the impression that a) people never snap and b) everything was peachy and perfect just because there were never any formal charges against anyone before? Pretty much ALL murderers by rich people are done by people with no serious criminal record - and many by poor people, too.

Don't you think if the DNA was actually from a hardened criminal, they'd have gotten a hit on it? They haven't, probably because it is incidental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

Part of me thinks this, but the time between the head thing and strangulation throws me off. It seems weird he would wait that long unless he is a complete sociopath (not an accident) and bizarre that his parents would do the strangling to "save" him instead of calling 911.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the family. No way they did it.

then why is the ransom note so obviously in the mother's handwriting? that's what I really don't understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

Part of me thinks this, but the time between the head thing and strangulation throws me off. It seems weird he would wait that long unless he is a complete sociopath (not an accident) and bizarre that his parents would do the strangling to "save" him instead of calling 911.

Does anyone think that Burke actually DID sexually assault her? THAT would be something worth staging a murder and botched kidnapping to cover up. Especially if there was something sexual committed by Burke either just the night in question and there was also some accident. Or, if patsy was aware of some sort of illicit behavior by Burk in the past either towards JB or in general and that night there was some sort of accident and she put it together that his inappropriate proclivities would surface and would be too much to bear on top of an accidental death of JB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

Part of me thinks this, but the time between the head thing and strangulation throws me off. It seems weird he would wait that long unless he is a complete sociopath (not an accident) and bizarre that his parents would do the strangling to "save" him instead of calling 911.

Does anyone think that Burke actually DID sexually assault her? THAT would be something worth staging a murder and botched kidnapping to cover up. Especially if there was something sexual committed by Burke either just the night in question and there was also some accident. Or, if patsy was aware of some sort of illicit behavior by Burk in the past either towards JB or in general and that night there was some sort of accident and she put it together that his inappropriate proclivities would surface and would be too much to bear on top of an accidental death of JB.

I could see that with the cover up, but I still have a hard time getting behind Burke injuring an sexually assaulting her, and then her parents killing her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple thoughts:

Dr Phil does NOT pay his guests and the brother wouldn't need the money, anyway.

The mother was a 2-3 time cancer survivor at that time and as she stated, she didn't care about a little bedwetting, or typical 5-6 yr old stuff. She understood the bigger picture in life. Even if she were covering for someone in the family, I can't see a mother resorting to sexual assault trauma to create a case.

Ok, so now that you've clarified that you're a "friend" I get why you're so defensive, but you honestly don't know any of this for sure. Most people who kill their kids aren't just psychos all the time, sadly. If the speculation is too hard for you, you should probably leave this thread.

I'm the PP you quoted here. Not sure if you are referring to me though. I'm not a friend and didn't state that I was. I'm not defensive, just stated my opinion. Maybe you need to leave cuz you don't seem to be following the posters in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A couple thoughts:

Dr Phil does NOT pay his guests and the brother wouldn't need the money, anyway.

The mother was a 2-3 time cancer survivor at that time and as she stated, she didn't care about a little bedwetting, or typical 5-6 yr old stuff. She understood the bigger picture in life. Even if she were covering for someone in the family, I can't see a mother resorting to sexual assault trauma to create a case.

Being a cancer survivor doesn't make you a good person or a bad one, just lucky.

The vaginal trauma on the body looked staged as did so many things that's the point.

You also haven't watched the news very much. People do horrible things to their kids all the time. Susan Smith drowned her two children and made up a completely fictitious perpetrator. She probably would have gotten away with it too if she had the money for the lawyers that the Ramseys had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple thoughts:

Dr Phil does NOT pay his guests and the brother wouldn't need the money, anyway.

The mother was a 2-3 time cancer survivor at that time and as she stated, she didn't care about a little bedwetting, or typical 5-6 yr old stuff. She understood the bigger picture in life. Even if she were covering for someone in the family, I can't see a mother resorting to sexual assault trauma to create a case.

Ok, so now that you've clarified that you're a "friend" I get why you're so defensive, but you honestly don't know any of this for sure. Most people who kill their kids aren't just psychos all the time, sadly. If the speculation is too hard for you, you should probably leave this thread.

I'm the PP you quoted here. Not sure if you are referring to me though. I'm not a friend and didn't state that I was. I'm not defensive, just stated my opinion. Maybe you need to leave cuz you don't seem to be following the posters in this thread.

Ok, well, your post is odd then. You speak like you know them, providing insight into her state of mind, yet you say you are NOT the poster claiming to know them. Not sure how you could have any idea what they did or didn't understand or think about life.