1. The evidence points to the parents. Both John and Patsy are linked to very specific elements of the crime by their physical evidence in the form of fibers.
We both agree that the family covered it up. The question we have to ask—purely in theory, since no one can ever prove it—is why
both parents would be involved in covering for the other. What would compel them to cooperate so completely?
I believe BDI (on accident) makes the most sense which I'll get in to. Obviously, none of it is proof, but I think your reasoning below can be challenged to the point where these questions can't be ignored. None of this is argumentative, I want to get your thoughts and help to open everyone's mind.
It likely will not convince you, but at the very least, it shows that the BDI is just as plausible as any other RDI scenario, and actually far more-so (based on evidence, timeline, and behavior.)
2. All in law enforcement believed a parent was responsible although they disagreed on which particular parent. Linda Arndt implied in her 2000 sworn deposition that Boulder Social Services agreed with her conclusion John Ramsey was responsible for sexual abuse and murder. Susanne Bernhard, the child psychologist who questioned Burke was part of Boulder Social Services. Detective Arndt was an experienced sex crimes investigator.
Detective Linda Arndt’s theory is based on what she observed the morning JonBenét’s body was found. While Arndt was an experienced investigator and her opinion carries weight, it’s still theory. Boulder Social Services’ alleged agreement is also speculative and has never been formally documented. Even if JR were responsible for everything she implied—prior SA and murder—it doesn’t answer the critical question of
how we got to this point. Did he just snap that night? What triggered this specific series of events? Regardless, it offers no opposition to the theory that BR may have been involved.
3. Steve Thomas stated he didn't believe Burke knew anything. Fred Patterson, the detective who interviewed Burke on the morning of Dec. 26, stated he didn't think Burke knew anything. Investigators are trained to spot signs of deception.
While it’s true that investigators like Steve Thomas and Fred Patterson did not suspect Burke Ramsey or believe he knew anything, there are several troubling details that point to the possibility he knew more than he let on. For instance, according to his parents, Burke never woke up during all the commotion that morning—a claim that strains credibility given the chaos in the house. Yet in his interview with
Dr. Phil, Burke admitted he was awake while people were frantically coming into his room but chose to pretend to be asleep. Why? He also admitted during that interview that he had been awake late that night, after parents originally told investigators that he had gone straight to bed. This behavior alone raises questions.
There’s also the 9-1-1 call, where it’s
theorized Burke’s voice can be heard in the background, although this cannot be definitively proven. More concerning is that his parents never claimed to have asked him if he heard anything that night—something you’d expect from parents desperate to find their daughter. Instead, Burke was quickly removed from the house before police could properly question him. When officers did attempt to ask him questions, John Ramsey interrupted and pushed him out of the house with Fleet White, which appears evasive. Then there’s the pineapple bowl and tea glass found on the kitchen table, both bearing Burke’s fingerprints. The scene suggests it could have been prepared by him the night before, yet Burke denied knowing what was in the bowl or how it got there.
It’s also important to note that Burke was never thoroughly “interrogated” but only lightly questioned about that night on a few occasions. While his responses and behavior during those interviews weren’t explored seriously at the time, they did raise concerns that remain unanswered to this day. These details don’t prove Burke’s involvement, but they make it hard to ignore the possibility that he knew more than he shared. The family certainly made a conceded effort to hide him from the public and law enforcement. Again, not evidence of involvement, but in conjunction with the changing stories above and the behavior around him presents a question that must be asked.
4. Investigator Kolar did NOT work the case. He reviewed available evidence while working briefly for the Boulder DA in 2005. He self-published his book, Foreign Faction. Parts of Kolar's book are cribbed from Steve Thomas' account. No other member of law enforcement believed Burke was responsible for the homicide. Read Kolar's book carefully and you'll find evidence pointing away from Burke and toward Patsy.
Your first statement is actually not quite true, though I understand what you are saying. James Kolar served as the LEAD investigator for the Boulder District Attorney's office from 2005 to 2006. He reviewed thousands of pieces of evidence and knows the case as well as anyone.
Parts of James Kolar's account in
Foreign Faction overlap with Steve Thomas' work because both investigators were reviewing the
same evidence collected during the investigation. The conclusions they drew naturally align because the evidence. It’s not that Kolar “cribbed” from Thomas, but rather that the facts speak for themselves when examined critically. Both men reached similar conclusions because the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the crime was staged to look like a kidnapping after something went tragically wrong inside the home.
5. There is zero evidence to suggest the grand jury believed BDI and in fact there is evidence to suggest the grand jury was handed a PDI scenario. The accessory and placing JBR in a dangerous situation charges likely refer to John and Patsy placing JBR in a dangerous situation with EACH OTHER and acting as accessories to EACH OTHER.
The idea that the grand jury suspected only Patsy and John Ramsey while ignoring Burke is pure speculation, and their findings leave room for multiple interpretations. While the grand jury's charges for
"placing JonBenét in a dangerous situation" and
"acting as accessories" could imply John and Patsy were covering for each other, they could just as easily mean they were covering for
someone else—such as Burke.
The evidence suggests the grand jury saw enough to believe a cover-up occurred and that JonBenét had been placed in harm’s way. If they believed Burke struck JonBenét accidentally, this would explain why they viewed John and Patsy as accessories. The parents’ failure to protect JonBenét—by knowingly leaving her in a dangerous situation or shielding Burke from consequences—could easily fit the charges. The grand jury's scope wasn’t limited to PDI, it was about culpability in JonBenét's death and what happened afterward. Since grand jury proceedings are sealed, you (nor me) know their exact reasoning, but dismissing Burke entirely is not an accurate inference of the charges brought and ignores how much the evidence—like the pineapple, the fingerprints, and the timeline—naturally draws attention to him.
6. There is zero evidence to suggest Burke went around getting poop on JBR's belongings. One former maid claimed Burke got bodily waste once on a bathroom wall when he was 6, shortly after Patsy's cancer diagnosis. Poop was found on a candy box belonging to JBR but the box wasn't collected which means it couldn't have been tested. Since the box was in JBR's bedroom and JBR was known to put poop places it wasn't supposed to be, it's a safe bet JBR got poop on the box.
Your are partially correct, but then you speculate just the same as BDI theorists do. We agree there is evidence suggesting that Burke Ramsey engaged in feces-smearing behavior in the past. Former housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh reported finding fecal matter the size of a grapefruit on JonBenét's bed sheets, which she attributed to Burke. Additionally, forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz noted that Burke had previously smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom, indicating a history of such behavior.
These incidents have been discussed in various analyses of the case, with some experts suggesting that such behavior could indicate underlying psychological issues or sibling rivalry. However, it's important to note that while these reports exist, they are part of a larger body of circumstantial evidence and should be considered within the broader context of the investigation. This on it's own does not and cannot either be evidence for or against the BDI theory. We can only speculate.
Can you provide a source that JBR was known to smear feces as well? From what I have read throughout the years, and to my knowledge, there are no documented instances or testimonies attributing similar actions to JBR herself. While there are reports that JonBenét had occasional issues with soiling her pants, it’s a major stretch to imply that she was responsible for smearing feces on her candy box. This behavior aligns far more with someone else in the household, particularly given the context of the crime scene and the documented history of such actions.
7. There is zero evidence to suggest Burke was caught previously being inappropriate with JBR. This very frequently repeated internet rumor got started when the info appeared in a tabloid article. The source remained anonymous and no one claimed to have seen anything beyond Burke and JBR playing underneath a blanket fort.
I agree that claims about Burke being inappropriate with JonBenét have been exaggerated and are largely based on unverified tabloid rumors. Whether those allegations are true or not, they hold absolutely no weight in the BDI theory of an accidental blow to the head followed by a parental cover-up. The BDI theory doesn’t rely on prior behavior but instead focuses on the evidence from that night—like the pineapple, the timeline, and the staged elements of the crime scene.
8. There is zero evidence to suggest Burke struck JBR with a golf club on purpose. Steve Thomas believed the strike was accidental. The clip was to her cheek which would fit with her having walked into a back swing. One former friend, Judith Phillips, said Patsy told her Burke did it on purpose. Phillips told this story decades later.
We agree here, however I think you are dismissing it as irrelevant without understanding what it really tells us. Regardless of intent, the golf club incident demonstrates that Burke had, at one point, caused physical harm to JonBenét. It’s not proof of what happened that night, but it does show that accidents—and possibly a lack of supervision—had occurred before, making the theory of an accidental head blow all the more plausible.
9. There is nothing childlike about object rape. Adult males are capable of accessing foreign objects for the purposes of sexual penetration. Both Kolar and Thomas use the lack of semen and evidence pointing toward an object and in particular the paintbrush handle having been used in the sexual assault as proof of that John, an adult male, wasn't involved although ST's conclusion is that the perpetrator is Patsy. There is no evidence in the form of research (I've looked) to support this.
While it’s true that adult perpetrators have used objects in sexual assaults, context and evidence must be considered when applying this to the JonBenét Ramsey case. What sets this situation apart is that the injuries from the object penetration appear
staged rather than consistent with a typical assault. Experts like Dr. Cyril Wecht have suggested that the injuries were inflicted postmortem or very near death, and the lack of clear signs of a sexually motivated assault supports this conclusion.
What’s significant is that this “assault” aligns more with
covering up prior abuse or creating a false narrative rather than an intentional act of sexual gratification. Staging with a household object—like the paintbrush handle—is far more consistent with someone panicking and attempting to explain away existing evidence of chronic sexual abuse found during the autopsy. This scenario would logically exclude an outside intruder and points instead to someone inside the house, as an adult male intruder would have little reason to stage with such precision or care.
The theory that a child could have caused the acute injuries aligns better with the evidence of prior SA, (though obviously not conclusive) as it suggests a clumsy, confused attempt to replicate something they had seen or been involved in, either consciously or unconsciously. Dismissing this as “not childlike” ignores the context of the case and the reality of what panic-driven staging or accidental injury can look like, especially when the goal was to create a distraction for investigators.
We don’t know who was responsible for the prior SA, and while it may matter for motive or who committed which act, it does nothing to disprove the BDI theory—in fact, it strengthens it. The evidence of chronic abuse and then a reluctant cover up points to knowledge within the family (or at least one person) that it was happening, which would explain why calling the police that night wasn’t an option. Whether the family was aware and failed to protect JonBenét or one parent was the perpetrator, the discovery of prior SA would have been catastrophic, making a cover-up even more likely.
10. That Burke's along with Patsy's prints are on the pineapple bowl only means he touched the bowl at some point. He didn't even necessarily eat out of it. He could simply have pushed it out of the way. He lived there. We only know at about what time JBR ingested a piece of the pineapple. According to ST, one of the responding officers remembered a larger container of pineapple being in the fridge. JBR could even have gotten the piece she took out of the fridge. We don't know.
While it’s true that Burke and Patsy’s fingerprints on the pineapple bowl only mean they touched it at some point, that still raises significant questions when paired with JonBenét’s undigested pineapple. Their prints being there means one of two things: either they prepared the pineapple, or the bowl was dirty. But would Patsy really serve pineapple to her kids in a dirty bowl? I don't believe so. But would a 9 year old grab a dirty bowl and a spoon far to big? Certainly.
The most logical explanation is that Burke likely prepared the pineapple himself. It would make sense for a child to grab a dirty bowl from the sink or dishwasher without thinking twice, which would explain why both his and Patsy’s fingerprints were on the bowl—hers from earlier use and his from handling it that night. This also aligns with the tea glass found next to the bowl, which had only Burke’s fingerprints on it. The scenario fits: Burke grabbed what he needed, prepared the snack, and left his prints on the glass while JonBenét ate the pineapple shortly before her death. This perfectly explains the evidence without requiring any mental gymnastics. Simply dismissing it as meaningless ignores both the evidence and common sense.
Guessing that JonBenét ate pineapple from some unsubstantiated container in the fridge rather than the clearly prepared bowl on the table is a speculative leap at best and does nothing to disprove the BDI theory; it’s simply an attempt to ignore the evidence right in front of us.
Let me know what you think, would love to discuss more! I have my own full/comprehensive BDI theory that I think addresses every single piece of evidence. Happy to share if anyone has any further interest.
