Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Trying to recollect something about the ‘crime’ scene or R kitchen. Whose fingerprints (if any) were found on the flashlight IIUC that was on the kitchen counter? Am I remembering correctly there were no fingerprints at all on that item?

If that is the case that sure IMO leads to a scenario of a scene ‘clean-up’. And if so, to further obfuscate the scene. MOO

 

[erratum]

Yes, I believe it was an accident caused by Burke. I believe that his parents did all the staging and that no additional SA happened during the staging. I have already expressed my opinion on that matter many times.

Because they already lost one child & didn't want to lose BR as well.
This is what I've always imagined the case to be...parents faced with a horrible situation & wanting to cut their losses.

 

[Swirlz]

Why is it that if you venture outside this particular folder you will find a multitude of cases involving adults and in particular mothers covering for adults who have abused and even murdered their child but people find it impossible to have happened here? I have never understood this.

 

[Ponytale]

Patsy's fibers are in the ligature knot and John's fibers link him to SA. There is ZERO evidence linking Burke. How does Burke not leave his own evidence? How do JR and PR attempt to stage Burke out but manage to leave their own evidence? Do the parents want people to believe JR and PR bludgeoned, object raped and strangled JBR?

Actually, there is just no evidence that is talked about that could link Burke as well, just as much as anyone else, as all fiber evidence is circumstantial because no one knows how they got there. There were many fibers found on JB's clothing that do not get nearly enough attention or discussion as Patsy's fibers on the ligature do. Why so? You state that there is ZERO evidence linking Burke. I debate that.

Interview with Burke taken on December 26, 1996 reveals that Burke, to his own account, wore blue fuzzy pajamas on Christmas night. There were blue fibers found on JB's white shirt and other places on her, that could possibly have matched Burkes PJ's, but since they were never found or tested to those fibers, we can not know for sure where they came from. But, it is also a possibility that they could have come from Burke and we should stay open minded to that option also. Since no boy's PJ's were found, taken to the evidence or ever tested, we can not state as a fact that there were no fibers from Burke found on JB.

Patterson: Ok and what happened when you got home?
Burke: Ah….we…. got our pj’s on and went to bed
Patterson: What kind of pj’s do you have on?
Burke: Ah….kind of fuzzy ones like kind of blue and fuzzy


Excerpts from Mark Beckner's Wolf v. Ramsey Deposition:
Wood: Because there were blue fibers found on the crime scene?
Chief Beckner: Yes.
Wood: But you would want to know, it would seem, if he's under suspicion and he submits material to you, in this case hypothetically blue cotton, you would expect it to be analyzed because there were blue cotton fibers found on the crime scene, true?
Chief Beckner: Yes.
Wood: Okay. To your knowledge, have those blue fibers at the crime scene ever been sourced?
Chief Beckner: There are a lot of reports around on fiber evidence. To the best of my recollection, no.

The question that we should ask here is - why is this possibility not talked about? Is this not worth the discussion? Is this not significant to the case? We are allowed to discuss that those fibers could be from a dark cloth that was used to wipe JB or they are from John's bathrobe or his Navy shirt - the fact is that we do not know that they are from those items cause they were never matched. If John's and Patsy's fibers are worth to be discussed, I see no reason to exclude Burke.
So lets just keep an open mind.

 

[Ponytale]

Why is it that if you venture outside this particular folder you will find a multitude of cases involving adults and in particular mothers covering for adults who have abused and even murdered their child but people find it impossible to have happened here? I have never understood this.

I have not seen anyone writing here that this is not a possibility that should be considered. People just write their own ideas, theories and opinions, and it is allowed and welcomed. Not all of them align and we should accept that people have different opinions. We all are here for the same reason and should keep an open mind. As another poster here has written many times - there were four people going into that house that evening and only 3 woke up the next morning.
No one should be eliminated just by someone's opinion.

 

[Swirlz]

The fibers found in JBR's vaginal folds along with some of her blood were described as dark blue and simply "dark". In the pic Burke is wearing bright, not dark, blue pajamas. The dark blue fibers were consistent not with pajama material but with towel material and it was believed this was the towel used to wipe JBR's blood. The "dark" fibers, according to prosecutor, Burke Levin, were matched to John's black sweater.

The R's were asked rather detailed questions about John's interactions with JBR. They both denied he helped her with toileting or dressing. They also both denied the sweater had ever been laundered and the underpants had presumably been taken from straight out of the package since they'd originally been purchased for a relative's child.

Again; these are the only fibers that directly link to the SA.

I would prefer that people back their theories up with facts and evidence rather than just saying it is what they personally happen to feel. I also have a difficult time connecting to the concept of determining a perpetrator based on the fact that people believe the parents would not cover for each other but this is certainly the most commonly sited explanation for believing BDI.

 

[Ponytale]

The fibers found in JBR's vaginal folds along with some of her blood were described as dark blue and simply "dark". In the pic Burke is wearing bright, not dark, blue pajamas. The dark blue fibers were consistent not with pajama material but with towel material and it was believed this was the towel used to wipe JBR's blood. The "dark" fibers, according to prosecutor, Burke Levin, were matched to John's black sweater.

Yes, I read, study and know the facts. At least most of them. Can you refer to where is has been stated that any of the blue fibers found on JB are proven not to be from Burke's PJ's?

 

[Swirlz]

The fibers in her vulva area couldn't be from BR's pajamas if they are consistent with both cotton TOWEL material and John Ramsey's sweater. There are no other fibers in her labia.

 

[Ponytale]

I'm not talking about the fibers found in her vulva area. I'm talking of the blue fibers that have been found on her body, no matter where exactly. There were blue fibers found on her white shirt for instance.
IMO, as I believe that Burke was not present during the staging I do not see why there should be any fibers from him found on her vulva area. If John wiped her down with a dark blue cotton cloth then I believe that it is a possibility and it could have been so. That does not mean that Burke could not have been responsible for the accidental head blow and it does not mean that Burke could not have gotten any blue fibers form his PJ's onto her body or clothing. There are no statements that prove beyond any doubt that there were no fibers from Burke's PJ's linked to the crime - the PJ's were never tested to make a match or prove otherwise.

 

[Swirlz]

I'm not clear on how John could manage to remove all of Burke's evidence from the vaginal area but still managed to leave his own evidence. If he wiped her that well, why are his own fibers still there?

There are 3 elements to the attack; head-blow, sexual assault, strangulation. The fibers leading directly to SA are consistent with John Ramsey being the perpetrator.

If it was John Ramsey who object raped JBR, it's logical to conclude he also struck her. Other than that he happened to be in the house, what evidence is there to suggest Burke was the one to split JBR's skull almost in two?

 

[WhoKnowsWhat]

Trying to recollect something about the ‘crime’ scene or R kitchen. Whose fingerprints (if any) were found on the flashlight IIUC that was on the kitchen counter? Am I remembering correctly there were no fingerprints at all on that item?

If that is the case that sure IMO leads to a scenario of a scene ‘clean-up’. And if so, to further obfuscate the scene. MOO

You are correct. There were no fingerprints on the flashlight or batteries inside.

 

[Warwick7]

Trying to recollect something about the ‘crime’ scene or R kitchen. Whose fingerprints (if any) were found on the flashlight IIUC that was on the kitchen counter? Am I remembering correctly there were no fingerprints at all on that item?

If that is the case that sure IMO leads to a scenario of a scene ‘clean-up’. And if so, to further obfuscate the scene. MOO

Yes....clean up

 

[WhoKnowsWhat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I read from one of the books long ago that JonBenet wouldn’t have been able to to get the pineapple out of the fridge herself; it was a walk in fridge and was hard to open.

 

[Ponytale]

I'm not clear on how John could manage to remove all of Burke's evidence from the vaginal area but still managed to leave his own evidence. If he wiped her that well, why are his own fibers still there?

Why would John need to remove Burke's fibers from the vaginal area if there were no Burke's fibers there? I see no logic here. What evidence was there from Burke that was removed by John?

If it was John Ramsey who object raped JBR, it's logical to conclude he also struck her. Other than that he happened to be in the house, what evidence is there to suggest Burke was the one to split JBR's skull almost in two?

I see no evidence to connect SA with the staging. It is possible that SA was apart from that and happened some time before her death. So I see no logic in thinking that John "object raped" her, cause we do not know who SA'd her in the first place. And there is also no clear evidence of any "object rape" as there are only assumptions and an evidence of "microscopic cellulose material" to base that on.
To me it is not logical to conclude that John accidentally (or on purpose) hit her daughter so hard that it fractured her scull and then decided to "obeject rape" her. It is more logical to me to believe that Burke accidentally hit her and his parents are covering it all up (without any additional SA added to the staging).

There is no evidence that Burke did it and I never stated it as a fact. If it was the case it would, hopefully, be solved by now and there would be no more discussions on the matter of who did what. Since all options are still on the table, we rely on our theories as to who believes what.

 

[Swirlz]

The child abuse expert's opinion was that SA was preformed with a foreign object. The evidence of fibers in her vulva indicate that area having been wiped with a cotton towel by John who's sweater fibers link him. How did John's fibers land there if he didn't wipe her? Are you suggesting he's cleaning up after Burke? Then where are Burke's fibers? John didn't wipe well enough to eliminate all of his own fibers. How did manage to remove Burke's?

Blood is in the crotch of size 12 underpants. Are you suggesting she was walking around in those prior to having been knocked unconscious? How would a slender 6 yr. old have been able to walk in size 12 underpants?

O.k. just to clarify your theory, what you're suggesting is that earlier in the evening, someone sexually assaulted her and then she pulled up size 12 underpants and bled into the crotch and then Burke struck her and then a parent proceeded to wipe down her pubic area and strangle her to death to cover for Burke.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Patsy's fibers are in the ligature knot and John's fibers link him to SA. There is ZERO evidence linking Burke. How does Burke not leave his own evidence? How do JR and PR attempt to stage Burke out but manage to leave their own evidence? Do the parents want people to believe JR and PR bludgeoned, object raped and strangled JBR?

If BR left the most incriminating evidence, you or I will never be privy to it. He would be shielded by Colorado law. There very well could be evidence. One expert thought there was digital penetration. Which would explain the bifringement material from the paint brush that was transferred from the suspects hand/digit. There absolutely could be evidence not released to the public to shield a minors identity.

 

[Swirlz]

The info about fibers found in association with SA was made public before the match with John's sweater. Those were the only fibers and they were matched to John. And even if there were fibers other than just Patsy's in the ligature knot, it still wouldn't explain how Patsy's got in there.

 

[Ponytale]

The child abuse expert's opinion was that SA was preformed with a foreign object. The evidence of fibers in her vulva indicate that area having been wiped with a cotton towel by John who's sweater fibers link him. How did John's fibers land there if he didn't wipe her? Are you suggesting he's cleaning up after Burke? Then where are Burke's fibers? John didn't wipe well enough to eliminate all of his own fibers. How did manage to remove Burke's?

I have never suggested any of those things. Where did I write that John did not wipe her? I'm not suggesting that he was cleaning after Burke cause I do not see why he would as I do not think there were any Burkes fibers there to wipe down. I know that it has been suggested that she had been wiped with a dark cotton cloth and I do not argue that.
I do not understand why you are connecting the blue fibers found on JB's white shirt to the fibers (cloth, John's or any in that matter) found on her private areas.

Blood is in the crotch of size 12 underpants. Are you suggesting she was walking around in those prior to having been knocked unconscious? How would a slender 6 yr. old have been able to walk in size 12 underpants?

Again, I have already posted my opinion on that matter. But here I'll go again... Yes I do believe that it is possible that she was SA'd while she was still wearing her normal size underwear that were never found. Yes, there could have been a lot more blood that could have been needed to been wiped. IMO, after she changed herself to those size 12's it could explain why there was still some blood that stained the crotch area of those large underpants. Yes, I believe that it is possible that after she changed herself (possibly just to get out of her bloody underwear) she did walk around in those size 12, because she pulled her long-johns up on top of them and they held up the underwear and kept them from falling down. I see no reason why it is not a possibility to consider, and actually, I have tested that theory out many years ago on a 6 year old - the PJ's held the underwear up and she did not feel any discomfort from larger underpants. She was able to walk, eat and live a totally normal hour in those without any signs or conversation of discomfort from her side.

O.k. just to clarify your theory, what you're suggesting is that earlier in the evening, someone sexually assaulted her and then she pulled up size 12 underpants and bled into the crotch and then Burke struck her and then a parent proceeded to wipe down her pubic area and strangle her to death to cover for Burke.

Yes, that is exactly what I happen to believe.

 

[Swirlz]

If BR left the most incriminating evidence, you or I will never be privy to it. He would be shielded by Colorado law. There very well could be evidence. One expert thought there was digital penetration. Which would explain the bifringement material from the paint brush that was transferred from the suspects hand/digit. There absolutely could be evidence not released to the public to shield a minors identity.

Video footage of Burke's interview with a mental health professional can easily be found on YouTube. A member of law enforcement self-published a book in 2011 blaming Burke. Trust me, there's no explosive Burke evidence that is being hidden because he was a minor at the time.

 

[Ponytale]

The info about fibers found in association with SA was made public before the match with John's sweater. Those were the only fibers and they were matched to John. And even if there were fibers other than just Patsy's in the ligature knot, it still wouldn't explain how Patsy's got in there.

The fiber evidence is relatively weak. Unless there were unidentified fibers, I don’t see that they are significant. We can never explain any fiber evidence as a fact because fibers (especially the fibers from the members of the same household) are only circumstantial evidence. The only thing that fiber evidence in this case shows is that the owners of the matched fibers were present and living in the same house. The authorities know that it can never be explained as solid proof or stand ground in the court. Discussing the if's and how's of the fibers, are only for the purpose our own entertainment, as they can always be explained in multiple ways.