Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is an intruder "throwing LE off the trail" by leaving a note that serves no purpose and whose only possible logical intent is to direct attention away from the household?
Who is the killer? Seems to have worked pretty darn good and still working 23 years later.
Yes. At least we agree on that. The killer(s) of this child has yet to be charged, and most likely never will.
Crazy people say there are "no perfect murders". Um, yes, there are. There are SO MANY murders that have never been solved, and never will.
I read the Hardy Boys detective series as a kid. This is my understanding - it is very difficult to solve a crime if the perpetrator:
1) Does not get seen
2) Leaves no evidence
3) Never talks about it
My dogs have #1 down to a tee. I never see them sneaking around and getting my cookies etc. Just the empty wrappers are left as evidence. So - smarter than many criminals it seems.
Far too many unsolved crimes. I've been a victim of many robberies so I often think about it. Chipping people and installing chip readers could wipe out a lot of crime. People would scream bloody murder - with me yelling louder than most.
Most crimes are done by repeat offenders though. What about chipping repeat offenders? That too has many problems.
One would think the plethora of video cameras would do more than it has done? Yes or no?
There are at least 20 books out about this crime. Yes, some of the info could be factual. And some could not.
Why do you think that one of them was up late, as opposed to an intruder?
The tea was probably left by one of the victim advocates who was there all morning and into the early afternoon. For all we know, so was the pineapple. But you can follow whatever evidence you want.
We all know JonBenet was up late at some point because she was killed around midnight according to LE. Would an intruder put kitchen lights on or use a flashlight to avoid detection?
If it's true Patsy said to her seamstress, "we didn't mean for this to happen", doesn't it sound like more than one of the Ramsey's were involved and up late to cause harm to JonBenet?
We all know JonBenet was up late at some point because she was killed around midnight according to LE. Would an intruder put kitchen lights on or use a flashlight to avoid detection?
If it's true Patsy said to her seamstress, "we didn't mean for this to happen", doesn't it sound like more than one of the Ramsey's were involved and up late to cause harm to JonBenet?
I agree. Neighbors noticed that the kitchen lights were on and that it was unusual. No, an intruder wouldn't have put the kitchen lights on. Someone in the kitchen eating probably put the lights on
"We didn't mean for this to happen" is right in line with what the jury said. They jury said they failed to protect her from someone. (I've forgotten the exact wording.) They knew there was someone who was dangerous to her but they chose to look the other way.
I still think it was Burke. The autopsy results showed that she had been PREVIOUSLY molested. Her pediatrician never noticed--she was in his office for possible asthma and for urinary tract infections. (What can cause UTIs? Sexual abuse often does.) The pediatrician never looked up inside her like they did at the autopsy and so he never saw what had been going on.
I'd say she and Burke probably used to play doctor. But he was bigger and older and very curious so he was putting things inside her, experimenting, playing, making it seem like a game to her. She used to go sleep in Burke's bed--that's been mentioned a lot. There's a lot of stuff that goes on when little kids sleep together, more than most adults can imagine.
https://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/...20Children.pdf
It is not unusual for children to play sex games with other children or masturbate (touching their sexual
body parts). Children also become increasingly curious about adult sexual behavior. By age 10, many
children are showing the first signs of puberty, and their interest in what this means increases.
I think Burke was just a normal kid. The problem was that JBR was being turned into a little sex symbol, paraded around on the stage in sexy clothes, makeup, made to attract male sexual attention. The timing was all wrong for Burke who was just at the age when young boys get curious.
He had this little sex pot right in the house with him! She was sexualized by Patsy and it was impossible for him to avoid her. The two of them had bedrooms on one floor with the parents sleeping elsewhere, on another floor. He only did what most little boys would do. He wanted to know what it was all about.
Besides the touching and experimenting, he was also insanely jealous because she was getting most of the attention. It is perfectly normal to feel jealous when one child is getting fawned over, paraded on stage, winning awards, while the other is just a plain ordinary kid.
Put 1 and 1 together and you get 2.
-A little boy living and sleeping near a girl who was purposely made to look extremely sexy.
-A little boy who lived in the background while this celebrity sister got all the attention. = a little boy who is going to be attracted to this sexy little girl (there is a stage when children are attracted to the opposite sex and then a later stage when they separate and stick with their peers before returning to the attraction to the opposite sex) and the little boy is insanely jealous and secretly resents the H*** out of her.
So the little boy is going to play sex games while also strongly resenting, even hating her for getting all the attention.
That's the prior abuse. That's also the rage that made him hit her. And that's what the parents should have recognized. With all the stress of Patsy's illness and John working a lot, they weren't being great parents. It's all understandable.
If JBR hadn't been sexualized and entered into contests, this never would have happened. It's not one person's fault. The family was dysfunctional and things got complicated and out of hand. Then, not wanting society to see how they had failed so badly, they tried to cover it up.
I agree. Neighbors noticed that the kitchen lights were on and that it was unusual. No, an intruder wouldn't have put the kitchen lights on. Someone in the kitchen eating probably put the lights on
"We didn't mean for this to happen" is right in line with what the jury said. They jury said they failed to protect her from someone. (I've forgotten the exact wording.) They knew there was someone who was dangerous to her but they chose to look the other way.
I still think it was Burke. The autopsy results showed that she had been PREVIOUSLY molested. Her pediatrician never noticed--she was in his office for possible asthma and for urinary tract infections. (What can cause UTIs? Sexual abuse often does.) The pediatrician never looked up inside her like they did at the autopsy and so he never saw what had been going on.
I'd say she and Burke probably used to play doctor. But he was bigger and older and very curious so he was putting things inside her, experimenting, playing, making it seem like a game to her. She used to go sleep in Burke's bed--that's been mentioned a lot. There's a lot of stuff that goes on when little kids sleep together, more than most adults can imagine.
https://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/...20Children.pdf
It is not unusual for children to play sex games with other children or masturbate (touching their sexual
body parts). Children also become increasingly curious about adult sexual behavior. By age 10, many
children are showing the first signs of puberty, and their interest in what this means increases.
I think Burke was just a normal kid. The problem was that JBR was being turned into a little sex symbol, paraded around on the stage in sexy clothes, makeup, made to attract male sexual attention. The timing was all wrong for Burke who was just at the age when young boys get curious.
He had this little sex pot right in the house with him! She was sexualized by Patsy and it was impossible for him to avoid her. The two of them had bedrooms on one floor with the parents sleeping elsewhere, on another floor. He only did what most little boys would do. He wanted to know what it was all about.
Besides the touching and experimenting, he was also insanely jealous because she was getting most of the attention. It is perfectly normal to feel jealous when one child is getting fawned over, paraded on stage, winning awards, while the other is just a plain ordinary kid.
Put 1 and 1 together and you get 2.
-A little boy living and sleeping near a girl who was purposely made to look extremely sexy.
-A little boy who lived in the background while this celebrity sister got all the attention. = a little boy who is going to be attracted to this sexy little girl (there is a stage when children are attracted to the opposite sex and then a later stage when they separate and stick with their peers before returning to the attraction to the opposite sex) and the little boy is insanely jealous and secretly resents the H*** out of her.
So the little boy is going to play sex games while also strongly resenting, even hating her for getting all the attention.
That's the prior abuse. That's also the rage that made him hit her. And that's what the parents should have recognized. With all the stress of Patsy's illness and John working a lot, they weren't being great parents. It's all understandable.
If JBR hadn't been sexualized and entered into contests, this never would have happened. It's not one person's fault. The family was dysfunctional and things got complicated and out of hand. Then, not wanting society to see how they had failed so badly, they tried to cover it up.
This is a pretty good take on it. The best way to solve crimes is to really dig into the overall lives of the people who were involved. It’s a lot of work but almost always will point you to the truth.
(It’s also what made me conclude that Jack Ruby truly was just an unstable guy who decided to take out Lee Harvey Oswald, with no conspiracy involved. Reading several detailed biographies of his entire life—especially Garry Wills excellent 1968 study—-showed that it was exactly the kind of thing that Ruby would have done. It’s who he was.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
