Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The garrote is what bothers me. How would Burke or Patsy know how to make that?

Another big one. John did, and the knots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The garrote is what bothers me. How would Burke or Patsy know how to make that?

It's similar to a Boy Scout toggle rope, which is used to drag things, and is made with simple knots. Between Scouts and sailing, Burke knew how to make this kind of object and these knots. One theory is he made it to try to drag the body to hide it and the slip knot tightened and strangled her when she was face down (not intended, he probably believed she was already dead), at which point she released her bladder on the floor outside of the room where she was ultimately found. It makes more sense than most theories I've read. I don't believe a family member meant to strangle her. There was a 45 min-2 hour gap between the head blow and the asphyxiation that led to death.

Anonymous wrote:I think what can be agreed upon is that:
The note is weird AF, but anyone who would do this is weird.

There is hardly any DNA or hard evidence. As stated above, there were Patsy fibers from the jacket she wore at the party and was wearing the next morning, on gloves. It seems gloves may have been worn. It’s hard to imagine a pedo intruder would not have left some DNA. Even on the pineapple bowl it’s only Patsy prints. Patsy prints on everything, the note the pen, alone.

Patsy’s jacket fibers are on the duct tape and the rope. The duct tape and the hand ties sound very staged. They weren’t actually used. The paint brush, hers, also used in an odd not really consistent with a SA way. Child like as described above.

This is why it’s a big old mystery. I personally think we know that Patsy staged the scene. We don’t know why and we may never know.

Anonymous wrote:The garrote is what bothers me. How would Burke or Patsy know how to make that?

Anonymous wrote:The garrote is what bothers me. How would Burke or Patsy know how to make that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, weird poster- since you’re the only one who thinks there was no past abuse (out of like, everyone in the world who read about the case, not just based on her pediatrician who didn’t want to lose his license so of course he’d say she “looked happy and healthy” which I think were his words- mind you this was the 90s so there was much less awareness of SA in kids for pediatricians) , show us the report that says there was no prior sexual abuse. Show the autopsy report and the medical examiner report that says there was none.

Like, OMG. If you make the claim “prior sexual abuse” it’s up to you to prove it or back it up. Which you can’t seem to do.

Ok here is the first google result since you can’t apparently use google
https://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

I can also link the autopsy , but you have to interpret the findings. For example the hyperemia. The coroner is not going to say why it’s there.
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

Sorry, this is the one that discussed the past abuse
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/916rams.html

Yes. No doubt John Ramsey, I forgot about some of this. He was also in the navy. The garrote had navy knots. He purposely contaminated the scene. Cecil explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVUTBaO71WM

Obviously the whole scene was from John and Pat. Even the ransom note seemed super Republican in the language used "foreign faction". No outsider wrote that. They did, and it wasn't to save Burke. Burke wouldve eventually admitted it to investigators. Children at that age cant keep secrets and handle pressure for so long, and he doesnt seem haunted by it as an adult.

Pat was going through cancer treatments, and I suspect that's when John's abuse of JB began.

Cryil says that in this video. He was one of the best Forensic Pathologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVUTBaO71WM

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it was Burke for the simple reason that he's never done anything like that since. Kids who do terrible things like that (and who are too young for the official psychopath/sociopath diagnosis), are not people who are one-and-done. They have repeating patterns. They escalate. They start with animals and move on to humans. They start with a weaker child and then work their way up to adults.

Even if it was some kind of accident, he'd have to have sociopathic traits to not have something like that affect his entire life. From what I've heard, he's a well-adjusted adult.

I think the father was molesting the daughter. The mother walked in on it, and wanted to strike him in the head but hit Jonbenet instead knocking her out. They both had a secret over each other at that point: father abusing the daughter, mother killing the daughter so they had to act fast and stage the "ransom note and kidnapping"

Burke was not involved.

Patsy tried to hit John, who was taller than her? over the head with a flashlight? And then she missed and instead hit jonbenet who was probably two feet shorter than John?

Even if they were both sitting or laying down, the order doesn’t make sense. Jonbenet’s shirt collar was first twisted around her neck while she was conscious, which is why she had some defense marks near her throat. Then she was hit over the head, knocked unconscious and 45 min- 2 hours elapsed while her brain bled. During that time, the paintbrush injuries were incurred, she was poked at with what seems like the ends of burkes electric train tracks, and eventually she was strangled to death by the ligature at which point her bladder let out on the carpet outside the wine cellar.

After her death, duct tape was applied to her mouth and loose string was put around her wrists to make it look like an abduction. Patsys jacket fibers were on the neck and hand ligatures along with the duct tape. Fibers were also found from a pair of cotton work gloves. Jonbenet was at some point wrapped in a blanket from the dryer.

None of the injuries seem consistent with what a capable adult would do. Patsys jacket fibers make it seem like she was the one who found jonbenet, tried to remove the neck ligature, realized she was deceased, and then proceeded to stage the abduction gently with duct tape and loose string around her hands. She would not have known that jonbenet had a skull fracture and would only have seen that she was strangled - and perhaps she assumed sexually assaulted as well if they had been dealing with inappropriate behavior with Burke already.

John strikes me as having been kind of aloof to the family in general. Patsy was overwhelmed at home trying to keep up appearances, raising kids, raising a beauty pageant queen, and dealing (or not dealing) with a son who was exhibiting signs of psychological issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it was Burke for the simple reason that he's never done anything like that since. Kids who do terrible things like that (and who are too young for the official psychopath/sociopath diagnosis), are not people who are one-and-done. They have repeating patterns. They escalate. They start with animals and move on to humans. They start with a weaker child and then work their way up to adults.

Even if it was some kind of accident, he'd have to have sociopathic traits to not have something like that affect his entire life. From what I've heard, he's a well-adjusted adult.

I think the father was molesting the daughter. The mother walked in on it, and wanted to strike him in the head but hit Jonbenet instead knocking her out. They both had a secret over each other at that point: father abusing the daughter, mother killing the daughter so they had to act fast and stage the "ransom note and kidnapping"

Burke was not involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, weird poster- since you’re the only one who thinks there was no past abuse (out of like, everyone in the world who read about the case, not just based on her pediatrician who didn’t want to lose his license so of course he’d say she “looked happy and healthy” which I think were his words- mind you this was the 90s so there was much less awareness of SA in kids for pediatricians) , show us the report that says there was no prior sexual abuse. Show the autopsy report and the medical examiner report that says there was none.

Like, OMG. If you make the claim “prior sexual abuse” it’s up to you to prove it or back it up. Which you can’t seem to do.

Ok here is the first google result since you can’t apparently use google
https://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

I can also link the autopsy , but you have to interpret the findings. For example the hyperemia. The coroner is not going to say why it’s there.
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

Sorry, this is the one that discussed the past abuse
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/916rams.html

Yes. No doubt John Ramsey, I forgot about some of this. He was also in the navy. The garrote had navy knots. He purposely contaminated the scene. Cecil explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVUTBaO71WM

Obviously the whole scene was from John and Pat. Even the ransom note seemed super Republican in the language used "foreign faction". No outsider wrote that. They did, and it wasn't to save Burke. Burke wouldve eventually admitted it to investigators. Children at that age cant keep secrets and handle pressure for so long, and he doesnt seem haunted by it as an adult.

Pat was going through cancer treatments, and I suspect that's when John's abuse of JB began.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, weird poster- since you’re the only one who thinks there was no past abuse (out of like, everyone in the world who read about the case, not just based on her pediatrician who didn’t want to lose his license so of course he’d say she “looked happy and healthy” which I think were his words- mind you this was the 90s so there was much less awareness of SA in kids for pediatricians) , show us the report that says there was no prior sexual abuse. Show the autopsy report and the medical examiner report that says there was none.

Like, OMG. If you make the claim “prior sexual abuse” it’s up to you to prove it or back it up. Which you can’t seem to do.

Ok here is the first google result since you can’t apparently use google
https://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

I can also link the autopsy , but you have to interpret the findings. For example the hyperemia. The coroner is not going to say why it’s there.
https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

Sorry, this is the one that discussed the past abuse
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/916rams.html

Yes. No doubt John Ramsey, I forgot about some of this. He was also in the navy. The garrote had navy knots. He purposely contaminated the scene. Cecil explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVUTBaO71WM

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it was Burke for the simple reason that he's never done anything like that since. Kids who do terrible things like that (and who are too young for the official psychopath/sociopath diagnosis), are not people who are one-and-done. They have repeating patterns. They escalate. They start with animals and move on to humans. They start with a weaker child and then work their way up to adults.

Even if it was some kind of accident, he'd have to have sociopathic traits to not have something like that affect his entire life. From what I've heard, he's a well-adjusted adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it was Burke for the simple reason that he's never done anything like that since. Kids who do terrible things like that (and who are too young for the official psychopath/sociopath diagnosis), are not people who are one-and-done. They have repeating patterns. They escalate. They start with animals and move on to humans. They start with a weaker child and then work their way up to adults.

Even if it was some kind of accident, he'd have to have sociopathic traits to not have something like that affect his entire life. From what I've heard, he's a well-adjusted adult.

If it was Burke (and I do think it was Burke) it seems likely that he was not being adequately treated for his psychological issues prior to jonbenets death. However, he did receive treatment for at least a year and a half after jonbenets death. John Ramsey told Lou Smit in a 1998 interview that he (John) was taking medication prescribed to him by burkes psychiatrist - not unusual given the circumstances for a grieving parent, but interesting for John to offer that Burke was still being treated by a psychiatrist (not a psychologist) 18 months after the fact when his parents insisted he’d slept through the whole ordeal. It is entirely possible that Burkes parents got him adequate treatment for his psychological issues after jonbenets death and once medicated his behavioral issues were controlled.

Let’s not forget that Burke hit jonbenet in the head with a golf club two years prior, two days after her birthday. And somebody was defecating in her bedroom on Christmas, as evidenced by the spoiled pants thought by CSIs to belong to Burke and the feces smeared on her box of chocolates. The housekeeper had also reported finding fecal matter recently in jonbenets bed, and a previous housekeeper reported Burke smearing feces when he was six years old and his mother was undergoing treatment for cancer. He did have a history of maladjusted behavior.

This was also the 90s and patsy was image obsessed. I can very much imagine that burkes issues were brushed off and the parents buried their head in the sand. Perhaps they knew he was sexually abusing jonbenet. Or perhaps they only saw the other violent and maladjusted behavior and couldn’t bring themselves to medicate him for the stigma of it.