The only theory that makes any real sense.

[horatio]

I used to be a full on "PR did it!" supporter, but when you think long and hard about it, it doesn't really add up. If it's an accident, you call the police. If PR or JR is the intentional culprit, there's just no compelling rationale for why they cover for the other. Again, you call the police.

The only way they work together crafting a ransom note and staging the elaborate kidnapping is if the risk (being caught covering up a murder) is worth the reward. What could that valuable reward be, except for the protection of their other child.

A BDI theory is the only one that really makes sense. He kills JBR and the parents realize that his life is now ruined. This one act has taken both their daughter AND their son away from them.

Panic sets in and suddenly the idea of being able to save their child from prosecution doesn't seem so crazy. If there's an outside chance that the charade will work, the R's decide to risk it so that they won't lose their son and he can have a shot at a 'normal' life.

Suddenly all the evidence makes sense. It is just a smokescreen. If the R's did do it, this is really the only logical explanation for the whole entire ruse.

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't think this is the -only- theory which makes sense, sorry. But it's a pretty decent one, very worth exploring.

But would a juvenile of that age really have been put away for an accident? Or even a murder..? Kids that age just are not culpable, legally.

The Ramseys are smart people. Surely they would have realised there'd be a lot more scrutiny and drama and media blah over "a small foreign faction" than over "a tragic accident in the home"?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

But Burke was too young to be charged with JonBenet's murder. So are you saying that the Ramseys didn't know that at the time of the coverup? Okay, but I would think they would become aware of that very soon after, so then why not admit what happened? Did they not want to be known as the family where one child murdered the other child?

 

[zoomama]

We were never given a chance to see any phone records for the whole month of Dec for the Ramseys. It would be so important to see who they called early on that morning for advice as what to do. That may have been when they found out that children under 10 were not responsable for the crime of murder.

 

[horatio]

I don't think this is the -only- theory which makes sense, sorry. But it's a pretty decent one, very worth exploring.

But would a juvenile of that age really have been put away for an accident? Or even a murder..? Kids that age just are not culpable, legally.

The Ramseys are smart people. Surely they would have realised there'd be a lot more scrutiny and drama and media blah over "a small foreign faction" than over "a tragic accident in the home"?

I believe it has been said elsewhere that the R's did not know that juveniles couldn't be charged with murder. My thinking is that they also were worried about the damage this incident would to do BR's future life. Regardless, the scrutiny becomes much more intensified if "a tragic accident" is really an incestuous sexual assault and intentional murder by BR.

 

[horatio]

Did they not want to be known as the family where one child murdered the other child?

Basically, this. Plus, if there was a sexual angle, it would have only made telling the truth that much harder. Besides, after they initially concocted the whole kidnapping story, they couldn't turn back. That would've made them criminals after the fact and ironically they could actually end up doing time for the cover up vs the actual murder.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I believe it has been said elsewhere that the R's did not know that juveniles couldn't be charged with murder. My thinking is that they also were worried about the damage this incident would to do BR's future life. Regardless, the scrutiny becomes much more intensified if "a tragic accident" is really an incestuous sexual assault and intentional murder by BR.

But if, say on 12/27, they had admitted that Burke did it, there would be a few local articles, but it would fade out of the media in a few days. So I'm not sure why they would think it would affect Burke's future life.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Basically, this. Plus, if there was a sexual angle, it would have only made telling the truth that much harder. Besides, after they initially concocted the whole kidnapping story, they couldn't turn back. That would've made them criminals after the fact and ironically they could actually end up doing time for the cover up vs the actual murder.

I think everyone who knew (or knew of) the family would find out very quickly that Burke had killed JonBenet, even if the media wasn't allowed to use their names. The R's were social climbers, and I definitely could see them being worried that their friends would not want to associate with anymore after what happened. They would not want Burke to play with their kids, or stay at their house. The family would be ostracized. Although, the family could move to another city, and no one would have any idea of their past...

 

[LadyL]

This is one of the strong theories but I think the R's were more worried about their image and reputation and money than protecting their child, especially when you consider the fact that if B. did it, he was probably a psychopath-in-training and they probably ignored, heck even encouraged, his anti-social behaviours because they thought he was special. Also, I think Patti's personality wouldn't allow her to believe whatever happened because she'd be losing not only her precious daughter but her entire life. In her mind, the loss of her home and standing in the community would've been just as tragic IMO.

 

[horatio]

But if, say on 12/27, they had admitted that Burke did it, there would be a few local articles, but it would fade out of the media in a few days. So I'm not sure why they would think it would affect Burke's future life.

You really think that BR's life wouldn't be any different than it is now if the R family had admitted that he was the killer from the outset? Of course it would be.

 

[Ausgirl]

Is there any shred of evidence at all that Burke was then or is now inclined toward inappropriate behaviour, and/or sexual assault?

If the Ramseys were cleared by DNA, then wouldn't that include Burke's genetic markers too, by default?

And who established the Ramseys didn't know kids that age can't be charged for murder? And how? (ie, were they living under a rock?)

Genuine questions - I am open to all possibilities, but I also like to see some kind of logical evidence to back any theory up.

 

[Chrishope]

Is there any shred of evidence at all that Burke was then or is now inclined toward inappropriate behaviour, and/or sexual assault?

Apparently there were a couple incidents of them playing doctor. I'd hate to think every kid that does that is seen as a potential molester. But yes, there is just a little suggestion of it. I'm sure other people here have more details on this point.

If the Ramseys were cleared by DNA, then wouldn't that include Burke's genetic markers too, by default?

The "clearing" was inappropriate. To clear the Rs -any of them- is to suggest that they couldn't have done the crime. IOWs it's essentially saying that this is an IDI case. Most of us here think it's RDI.

And who established the Ramseys didn't know kids that age can't be charged for murder? And how? (ie, were they living under a rock?)

They'd have to be living under a rock not to know that in general there is an age below which a child can't be charged. They may not have know what that age was, but one phone call clears up that mystery. It's never been established that the did or didn't know that age 10 is the cut off.

Genuine questions - I am open to all possibilities, but I also like to see some kind of logical evidence to back any theory up.[/quote]

 

[Ausgirl]

The "clearing" was inappropriate. To clear the Rs -any of them- is to suggest that they couldn't have done the crime. IOWs it's essentially saying that this is an IDI case. Most of us here think it's RDI.

[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the reply.

But - were the Ramseys cleared by DNA or weren't they? I am not sure how it's "inappropriate", in any case. If the DNA under Jonbenet's nails and found elsewhere did not belong "to any Ramsey", then I have to lean toward the factual end of somebody else having molested/murdered Jonbenet. It kind of makes sense?

And sorry, not to be rude, but I'm not really concerned with what the majority of persons on this forum think. I'm interested in where the bulk of the evidence actually points, without having to stretch it super thin to fit a theory.

 

[horatio]

But - were the Ramseys cleared by DNA or weren't they?

They weren't cleared by the DNA because even if their DNA didn't match the found samples, it still doesn't preclude them from committing the crime or covering up.

IIRC the DNA in the underwear was poor and could have come from a factory worker sneezing, coughing, etc. The DNA under the fingernails was even worse and inconclusive.

Just because someone's DNA is or isn't a match to a particular sample doesn't necessarily mean that they are cleared and innocent.

Remember, the DNA could have come from any number of sources not directly involved with the crime.

 

[Chrishope]

Thank you for the reply.

But - were the Ramseys cleared by DNA or weren't they? I am not sure how it's "inappropriate", in any case. If the DNA under Jonbenet's nails and found elsewhere did not belong "to any Ramsey", then I have to lean toward the factual end of somebody else having molested/murdered Jonbenet. It kind of makes sense?

I'm sorry my answer seemed vague, I wasn't sure how much background you already knew.

Yes, the Ramseys were cleared, and yes, that would include Burke.

The clearing was inappropriate because it was illogical. If you don't find someone's fingerprints that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime, it just means they didn't leave any prints.

In a similar way, no Ramsey DNA doesn't clear them, logically.

The DNA found at the crime scene is Touch DNA. It's easily transferred, and does not have to belong to the killer(s) Though there is no reason that it couldn't belong to the killer(s)

The problem is how many of the touch dna profiles (there are 6, 5 men and 1 woman) belong to the killer (s) ? Is there 1 killer or are there 6? If there is one, how do we explain the other 5 touch DNA profiles? And if we can explain the 5, why can't we explain the remaining profile the same way? IOWs how do we determine one to belong to the killer?

So, logically, DNA that doesn't have to belong to the killer can't "clear" someone. It's the same as saying this is definitely an IDI case, which is basically Mary Lacey's position (ML was the prosecutor who "cleared" the Ramseys) but it's not definite at all. It's my understanding that the current prosecutor has effectively "uncleared" them, I don't recall the exact wording of his statement, and I'm sure he didn't say "uncleared" but that is the net effect.

I know how frustrating it can be if you are new to the case. To be well informed can take the better part of a year or so - depending on how much time you can spend on this. To unlearn what you think you know for sure can take several more years.

There are a lot of people here who know a lot more than I do about DNA, perhaps someone will write a long detailed post on the topic.

And sorry, not to be rude, but I'm not really concerned with what the majority of persons on this forum think. I'm interested in where the bulk of the evidence actually points, without having to stretch it super thin to fit a theory.

You aren't being rude at all. I mention what most people here think only because most people here have long ago dismissed IDI as nonsense. There are other websites where IDI is taken seriously. It's just how this board happens to be. By all means, don't be swayed by majority opinion.

IMO, you'll drive yourself crazy trying to decide where the bulk of evidence points. There is so much evidence, and it is examined here in such detail that most people simply never form a solid theory of the case. It's not really possible to incorporate every detail. Almost all the evidence can be interpreted in at least 2, or more, ways, so as soon as you think something points one way, someone will show you how it can point another way.

 

[deca]

I think the Rs knew there was a problem- hence all JBR doc appointments, rough cleaning etc.- and had been covering it up lying to their friends, teachers and doctors about what was going on the whole time. When she was murdered they felt that they had to continue their lie. Otherwise they would be answering questions of why they put JBR's life and well being in danger by letting her stay in that situation. Just a theory.

 

[Beyond Belief]

The staging was horrible. I would expect something alot more believable by two adults. It all smells of the work of someone with an 8th grade education including the so called ransom note. IMO

 

[Ausgirl]

Chrishope - thanks so much for the detailed reply.

I've followed this case pretty closely to a point, but as some aspects of the case I'm interested in discussing can't be discussed here, I've kind of wandered off to other threads so I can't pinpoint info here easily. Last I looked, it seemed to me the DNA leaned toward an unknown male being present.

I guess my point is, there's (as far I can see) even less evidence for Burke having killed his sister (and his family then choosing a particularly gruesome and disgusting not to mention stupidly elaborate means of staging his innocence) than there is for an intruder (with "intruder" including persons known to the R's but not actually related by blood) having done it.

I'm not solidly IDI or RDI, FYI - I'm more like a "Somebody Did It and Nobody Actually Can Prove Who That Person Is Right Now, The End" theorist.

I do think both kids were showing what I understand to be symptoms of extreme and ongoing stress. But I can only guess as to why.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The staging was horrible. I would expect something alot more believable by two adults. It all smells of the work of someone with an 8th grade education including the so called ransom note. IMO

They could have done what other parents have done---dump the child's body outside, call 911, and report the child missing. However, if they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body outside, for whatever reason, they had to explain why her body was still in the house. That's where the ransom note comes in. I agree that it's ridiculous, but I think the staging does make sense when you consider they couldn't just have a child with a massive head injury lying on the ground. Other parents, who don't have the money or connections of the R's, would be out of their minds to do the same staging, and would be arrested right away.

 

[Ausgirl]

I just can't see it - perhaps as I have a daughter, and thus it's unthinkable for me - but aside from simple revulsion, it really is a stretch for me to consider a child's parents leaving her strangled with a garrotte and such.. rather than a less horrid option. I truly cannot see PR allowing such a thing to happen, or her daughter being found like that, even if Burke was (and I don't think he was) responsible. UNLESS the RDI! ( But I am truly unconvinced they did at this point, though I did lean that way for quite a long time.)

I can see a staged fall down a staircase, if staging was necessary. But not that crime scene, as it was. Not even to save the reputation of a second child.

Just a mother's POV. A feeling, not an opinion based in fact or claim to fact. It's just terribly hard to 'see' it happening.

Horatio, sorry - thank to you too for the DNA comments. I'm not up to speed with all the opinions and facts regarding that, so I must have a catch-up, it's clear.