Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[CrimeTheorist]

What did they say that led you to believe they were less convincing when being asked about Burke than when being asked whether or not they, themselves were the killers?

If you see the video it's not so much what they say it's how they react. They look like they are lying and usually I don't get that impression from them.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Frequently I have asked Burke theorists to explain their reasoning and have asked what evidence specifically draws them to the conclusion Burke is the killer. I'm almost always met with silence. If I get a reply at all they usually either say that it is simply their theory and that they don't need evidence or just that they don't believe the parents would cover for each other.

I choose not to engage with some poster because their style of debate doesn't feel like a debate.
Where would I expect to see evidence that blatantly points to BR that would still shield his identity as a minor? Where would that information be that the public has access to.
If you pay attention to some of the lnterrogation with PR you will find the police line of questioning has a lot to do with BR.

 

[PrairieWind]

So your position is that Burke bopped JBR on the head and then the parents strangled and penetrated her with an object?

Couldn't Burke have done all of those?

 

[Swirlz]

Couldn't Burke have done all of those?

Not without leaving evidence.

 

[PrairieWind]

Not without leaving evidence.

Why? What evidence? What is there about the scene that is inconsistent with Burke having done this and the parents working to cover it up?

 

[GRT]

Why? What evidence? What is there about the scene that is inconsistent with Burke having done this and the parents working to cover it up?

It's hard to argue a negative, but there's no real evidence that Burke committed the crime and his parents covered it up. Just a lot of tabloid speculation.

MOO

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

I tend to lean toward Fleet.

I am intrigued to hear your theory about FW. I lean toward RDI, but theories that aren't over argued fascinate me. Who knows one may sway me away from the family at some point.

 

[Swirlz]

Why? What evidence? What is there about the scene that is inconsistent with Burke having done this and the parents working to cover it up?

Patsy's fibers are in the ligature knot. I'm not seeing any cover-for-Burke scenario that gets fibers into the inside of a ligature knot. In the labia and underpants crotch there were dark blue fibers consistent with a cotton towel and "dark" fibers scientifically matched to John's sweater. The sweater had never been laundered and presumably neither had the underpants which had been purchased for a relative's child. Both John and Patsy denied John helping JonBenet in the bathroom or with dressing that night. There were no other fibers in that area. How did John manage to do a haphazard enough cleanup that he left his own fibers but manage to also remove all of Burke's fibers?

 

[Ponytale]

Patsy's fibers are in the ligature knot. I'm not seeing any cover-for-Burke scenario that gets fibers into the inside of a ligature knot.

Why can't you see it when other possibilities of how it could also have happened have been written here many times. If the only part that Burke played in this crime is the accidental head blow somewhere else in the house, there is no need for his fibers to be in the ligature or anywhere else in that staged crime scene. Patsy's fibers only prove that she was present and in contact with the ligature. How do Patsy's or John's fibers being there make it impossible to see that Burke could have been involved? Especially in something as short as just only hitting his sister on the head out of a moment of anger - it would have not taken him more than 30 seconds to do that.

In the labia and underpants crotch there were dark blue fibers consistent with a cotton towel and "dark" fibers scientifically matched to John's sweater. The sweater had never been laundered and presumably neither had the underpants which had been purchased for a relative's child.

You keep writing the same thing all over again on every comment. No one has argued this statement. Do you think that reading and knowing this should make people understand that Burke, because of the fibers, could not have hit his sister on the head? If so, would you explain how the fibers (any of them) actually prove that Burke did not hit JB and cause the head fracture that was the cause for the cover up?

Both John and Patsy denied John helping JonBenet in the bathroom or with dressing that night. There were no other fibers in that area. How did John manage to do a haphazard enough cleanup that he left his own fibers but manage to also remove all of Burke's fibers?

John and Patsy also said that JB was asleep in the car and John carried JB up and Patsy put her to bed with a red turtleneck. Do you believe that statement as well? Since we all know that they lied about many things, believing something to be a lie and another thing to be truth is just a matter of opinion.

Anyway, am I the only one here who feels like we are going in circles about the same topic over and over again? I think I will save my reply for this post for next time to just paste it in, rather than take my time to write it all over again.

 

[Swirlz]

Back in 2016 when the online sleuthing communities first whole heartedly embraced the Burke theory literally overnight (referring to the night the CBS series aired), the prevailing belief by far was that Burke was responsible for every element of the crime; prior SA/SA on the night of the murder/strangulation/head bash, with people feeling very strongly about this.

Now that the house of cards seems to be crumbling, people have watered it down to; well Burke just did the head blow and then a parent strangled her and violated the body with a foreign object and we don't know who is responsible for prior abuse. And there is no evidence to suggest Burke delivered the blow to the head but we don't need evidence because it is simply our theory.

 

[Ponytale]

I don't think that the house of cards is crumbling at all. I think that what is happening could possibly be the opposite of that, hence all the shows that have been made in the recent months that desperately try to sell the intruder theory. I found myself thinking that maybe it has something to do with John's age and the fact that he might not be around for much more longer. He is after all the only one still left who keeps on publicly fighting for that theory, so he has to put it out there for as long as he still has time. Burke does not seem to want that public attention so I doubt that he will continue the job after John is gone.

I have been lurking around here for 20 years and have believed in my theory for the same time, so not all have believed that Burke always did it all by himself. Yes, I did not comment here since recently, but there were other posters here who thought that Burke just accidentally caused the head blow and his parents covered it up long before 2016.

As for evidence - it lacks in many aspects, not just whether Burke was involved or not. If there was sufficient evidence to cling to one theory only, the case would be solved.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Back in 2016 when the online sleuthing communities first whole heartedly embraced the Burke theory literally overnight (referring to the night the CBS series aired), the prevailing belief by far was that Burke was responsible for every element of the crime; prior SA/SA on the night of the murder/strangulation/head bash, with people feeling very strongly about this.

Now that the house of cards seems to be crumbling, people have watered it down to; well Burke just did the head blow and then a parent strangled her and violated the body with a foreign object and we don't know who is responsible for prior abuse. And there is no evidence to suggest Burke delivered the blow to the head but we don't need evidence because it is simply our theory.

How are your surveying responses? From Websleuths?
How are you collecting your statistics or is this your opinion?

 

[AddieBoo]

RSBM...

Something as simple as washing family members' laundry together could easily explain the fibers. Even when drying separate loads of laundry, fibers can be left in the dryer and come off on the next load that's dried.

The fiber story might make sense if the fibers belonged to the clothing of someone not in the family, but since they all lived together, it's nonsensical.

Sounds like “fiber defense”

But fibers from clothing worn that night from both PR and JR?
Fibers from PR red jacket were found in numerous places in the wine room and importantly found on the garrote intertwined in the knots/handle.
The DNA found is mixed on the garrote (“Frankenstein DNA”) and not identified to one person - yet JonBenet could not be ruled out.

The fibers from JR shirt he wore that night found on JBR, don’t think could be from some sort of family cross contamination, given location found. But that is what experts are hired for. It seems like that would be important evidence for a SA murder though. The underwear was new…

Her Barbie doll nightgown had DNA PR in three places and BR one place. There was some sort of blood splatter (JBR) on that nightgown. So that nightgown had not been washed/dried. Don’t know about any fibers.

I really believe we just don’t know all the evidence presented to the GJ. Mike Kane has even stated as much, and remarked on all the secrets of the case…

 

[AddieBoo]

I tend to lean toward Fleet.

Fleet White was cleared by BPD years ago.

 

[GRT]

Fleet White was cleared by BPD years ago.

Right. And, so were the Ramseys.

 

[Zodiac_Speaking]

Schiller: “On 12-27-1996 at Fernie house, Patsy said, "they've killed my baby" to Pam Griffin and then asked, "Couldn't you fix this for me?" and then "We didn't mean for that to happen." Pam couldn't say why, but she remembered feeling as if Patsy knew who killed JonBenet but was afraid to say.”

Who is "We" , Patsy????

 

[AddieBoo]

How are your surveying responses? From Websleuths?
How are you collecting your statistics or is this your opinion?

Right. And, so were the Ramseys.

The Ramsey’s were not cleared by the BPD.

 

[Tower]

The Ramsey’s were not cleared by the BPD.

Burke was.

 

[AddieBoo]

Burke was.

Source?

 

[Chypre]

When Det.Shuler interviewed him. the information he revealed just about his 2 knives was enough to get your attention. I'm not sure why he wasn't under more suspicion.

Anyone who knew how to tie their shoes could've tied those knots.

Right. Including Burke.

I

If you attribute all those characteristics to John, I bet many would think of it as a clear sign of him being involved. But indeed, somehow when we are talking about Burke, there are those who suddenly see him as not capable of doing anything like that, or even if he said and did all that, it sure is not significant and is not connected to the crime. And there is no logic or reasoning why so, it is just because. IMO. Sadly...

You seem to over look the part where he explains the knife " has a little thing that you tie knots better with".
If an adult had such an item do you think it would be overlooked in an investigation? Burke was a Cub Scout. Burke was a sailor. He knew about knots. He whittled. The paint brush looks possibly whittled. Again put an adult male in the same scenerio and ask yourself if it is significant or not.

IMO

Someone tied the knots on JonBenet.
Someone tied the garrote knots on JonBenet as she was, before, about to be, or after devastating brain injury and suffocated.

Burke and JR both have experience with knots, knives that help knots, but an adult has a lifetime of building momentum.
It is different between them because of the depth of knowledge there is about killers and other symptoms and themes present that are pertinent by not being there.
Burke was not known to neighbors or authorities for torturing and killing animals. He had friends and activities.
Someone that can tie their shoes can tie those knots. but someone that tied JonBenet's knots had to have a longer trajectory of psychopathy in my opinion.