Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[GRT]

The coroner identified the small marks as petechia, which is a common result of strangulation.

RSBM

That's only partially correct. Meyer also noted "abrasions" above and below the ligature.

 

[GRT]

Key words there, “home phone records”. They did not get JR’s work phone records.

More key words, "cellular records."

The work phone records were landlines at Access Graphics.

You made the claim that JR made a phone call after JBR died before the call to 911.

Did he drive to Access Graphics and make that call?

Neither PR or JR could remember exactly when JR lost his cell phone, but she does say it was one she had bought for him a few years before. His personal cell phone. JR had at least one work cell phone possibly two, paid for by LM. That was not the “lost” phone and those records they were never able to obtain.

There is no evidence that the "company phones" were not landline phones. Even Steve Thomas doesn't make that assertion.

 

[Ponytale]

More key words, "cellular records."

The work phone records were landlines at Access Graphics.

You made the claim that JR made a phone call after JBR died before the call to 911.

Did he drive to Access Graphics and make that call?

It has been indicated that the phone system that they had at their house was able to accept up to 6 different phone lines that also could be linked to other phone systems that do not need to be at the same site. If that is so, there was no need for John to drive to Access Graphics to make that call.

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/1h9d0o5/i_found_the_ramseys_phone_system

 

[GRT]

It has been indicated that the phone system that they had at their house was able to accept up to 6 different phone lines that also could be linked to other phone systems that do not need to be at the same site. If that is so, there was no need for John to drive to Access Graphics to make that call.

As far as I know, that would not affect the phone records, which are linked to the user's account, not specific numbers.

 

[CloudedTruth]

More key words, "cellular records."

The work phone records were landlines at Access Graphics.

You made the claim that JR made a phone call after JBR died before the call to 911.

Did he drive to Access Graphics and make that call?

There is no evidence that the "company phones" were not landline phones. Even Steve Thomas doesn't make that assertion.

JR also had at least one work cell phone. Those records were never handed over, neither were the land line records from his business.

It has long been suspected that JR may have made a phone call that night to someone, prior to the 911 call. There is at least one person (the radio talk show host) who claimed to have seen the phone records that contain evidence of that call. That's what I have referred to.

PR refers to his company cell phone in a police interview. As an executive officer in LM who travelled extensively for business one would expect that he had a business cell phone so that he was easily accessible when needed.

 

[CloudedTruth]

RSBM

That's only partially correct. Meyer also noted "abrasions" above and below the ligature.

View attachment 563416

Yes, he did. And had you used my full quote instead of snipping it, you can see that I also referred to bruising. I also should have added the word abrasions as that would have been most correct, I inadvertently forgot to add that.

But in all fairness, if you are going to quote someone please include the full quote for proper context.

 

[GRT]

Yes, he did. And had you used my full quote instead of snipping it, you can see that I also referred to bruising. I also should have added the word abrasions as that would have been most correct, I inadvertently forgot to add that.

But in all fairness, if you are going to quote someone please include the full quote for proper context.

Yes, you did mention bruising. The reason I snipped--and I did put "RSBM" as is required--was to focus on your claim that "The coroner identified the small marks as petechia..." which isn't exactly correct because the marks could have been abrasions. Meyers doesn't specify further.

I didn't include your part about bruising because the original question had been about the "half-round" marks above the ligature. Not about bruises.

 

[Bean&Cheese]

The scream was heard sometime between midnight and 2am. Then what sounded like metal on cement, not the grate moving. There is no proof that JBR was ever in the suitcase. There were no claw marks on her neck and no proof that she was tased. That was Lou Smit’s theory that he could not prove because no stun gun existed that matched the marks, which the coroner identified as bruises. The vast majority of experts consulted agreed, the head blow came first.

Sure. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[crb73]

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.)


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Yes interested in further BDI

 

[gumshoe1]

This is perfectly stated, and I agree with you almost entirely! I believe all the evidence clearly points to a parental cover-up.

What happened before that is where we have to theorize—and we may never truly know. Personally, I lean toward the BDI (Burke Did It) theory, as I find it hard to believe the parents would cover for each other or intentionally plan something like this. That said, we have no idea what was happening behind closed doors, so it doesn’t mean that scenario is impossible; I just can’t offer much more there.

Where I think the case becomes even more significant is with the evidence of previous SA. I believe this detail is central to everything that happened. If members of the family knew about the prior abuse—regardless of who was responsible—it would mean that finding JonBenét’s body would implicate the family no matter what, even if the head blow was accidental. This, to me, explains why a cover-up became necessary. From there, multiple theories can stem as to how and why they agreed that staging the scene was their best option.

I agree with your logic on why (to cover up prior SA of JonBenet) John would do all the staging if Burke accidentally killed JonBenet.

If BDI, why would Patsy go along with covering up Burke's involvement? Burke was too young to be prosecuted.

 

[Swirlz]

There were TWO types of fibers located in association with the sexual assault on JBR, dark blue and dark. The dark blue fibers were described as cotton towel material and the dark fibers were scientifically matched to the sweater John was wearing on the night of the homicide. No fibers were matched to Burke. If John wiped JBR simply to cover for Burke, he managed to completely remove any trace of Burke but was somehow also careless enough to leave his own fibers. This isn't plausible. John didn't cover for Burke. This is not about Burke Ramsey.

 

[Ponytale]

There were TWO types of fibers located in association with the sexual assault on JBR, dark blue and dark. The dark blue fibers were described as cotton towel material and the dark fibers were scientifically matched to the sweater John was wearing on the night of the homicide. No fibers were matched to Burke. If John wiped JBR simply to cover for Burke, he managed to completely remove any trace of Burke but was somehow also careless enough to leave his own fibers. This isn't plausible. John didn't cover for Burke. This is not about Burke Ramsey.

No fibers were matched to Burke because his pyjamas (or actually any of his clothes), that are seen on the Christmas morning photograph, were never found or collected as evidence to be tested.
IMO the "blue cotton towel material" could very well be from his pyjama pants or sleeves. Funny, that from all the things at the house, Burkes clothing is what went missing... coincidentally with of all the items that the alleged "intruder" brought in to the house with him...

 

[Swirlz]

Snipped from the autopsy summary: During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia. [...] Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area.

Prosecutor, Bruce Levin: I understand your position. In addition to those questions, there are some others that I would like you to think about whether or not we can have Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I understand you are advising her not to today, and those are there are black fibers that, according to our testing that was conducted, that match one of the two shirts that was provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt. Those are located in the underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in her crotch area, and I believe those are two other areas that we have intended to ask Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in explaining their presence in those locations.

The dark blue fibers are described as "consistent with a cotton towel". Pajamas aren't a cotton towel. The "dark" fibers referred to are clearly the "black" fibers referred to by Bruce Levin. There is no mention of any other fibers.

 

[Swirlz]

his pyjamas (or actually any of his clothes), that are seen on the Christmas morning photograph

On the Christmas morning photograph, Burke is wearing bright blue not dark blue pajamas.

 

[gumshoe1]

You have Steve Thomas and James Kolar with very different opinions of BR. The question is who is correct?

Either one could be correct. But Lou Smit ain't correct.

 

[Ponytale]

On the Christmas morning photograph, Burke is wearing bright blue not dark blue pajamas.

IMO it is a matter of interpretation.
Looking at different photos taken of Burke wearing his PJ's on Christmas Morning, I think that it can not be stated for sure that that color can not be classified as "dark blue". If you take out a color wheel of shades of blues, the color of the PJ's sure can be classified to the darker tones of blue. It sure isn't light blue. And I believe that PJ's are most commonly made of cotton material.
So as long as we can not prove or dispute both ways I see it too as a possibility to consider.

And the fact remains, that his PJ's were never found or tested to be matched.

 

[Swirlz]

I'm pretty sure the medical examiner can tell the difference between pajama and cotton towel material.

 

[gumshoe1]

This is perfectly stated, and I agree with you almost entirely! I believe all the evidence clearly points to a parental cover-up.

What happened before that is where we have to theorize—and we may never truly know. Personally, I lean toward the BDI (Burke Did It) theory, as I find it hard to believe the parents would cover for each other or intentionally plan something like this. That said, we have no idea what was happening behind closed doors, so it doesn’t mean that scenario is impossible; I just can’t offer much more there.

Where I think the case becomes even more significant is with the evidence of previous SA. I believe this detail is central to everything that happened. If members of the family knew about the prior abuse—regardless of who was responsible—it would mean that finding JonBenét’s body would implicate the family no matter what, even if the head blow was accidental. This, to me, explains why a cover-up became necessary. From there, multiple theories can stem as to how and why they agreed that staging the scene was their best option.

If Burke accidentally inflicted the fatal head blow on JonBenet's head, I can see why John would do a cover up so John's previous SA of JonBenet did not come to light. But why would Patsy go along with a cover up to protect John from being arrested for molesting JonBenet? I would think that Patsy would be extremely angry with John for molesting JonBenet. It's not like Patsy had to worry about Burke being arrested. What would be Patsy's motive?

 

[Ponytale]

I'm pretty sure the medical examiner can tell the difference between pajama and cotton towel material.

I do not argue that. Unfortunately, we have not been able to read the full and lengthy report from the medical examiner.

 

[Swirlz]

I do not argue that. Unfortunately, we have not been able to read the full and lengthy report from the medical examiner.

So you're suggesting the medical examiner added that it could be pajama material but that ended up being snipped from the autopsy summary?