Burke did NOT kill JonBenet

[ILikeToBendPages]

Looks royal blue to me.

Vintage 1994 Flintstone kids pj.

 

[Meara]

Yes, they believe someone wiped her after a sexual assault. The panties she'd gone to bed in were gone and she was in the large panties with the long johns back on her body.

The fibers are thought to be from whatever the killer used to wipe her with. And the fibers matched a new sweater JR had received as a gift but hadn't yet worn. But fiber technology isn't exact and those fibers on her crotch would also match millions of other pieces of clothing made from black wool.

Plus, there was none of JBR's DNA on JR's sweater, and had she been wiped with that -- there should have been.

GRT, I'm seeing another set of possibilities. Let's say for the moment that JR is the one who wiped JBR down. We don't know what he used for that purpose, but it wasn't necessarily his wool shirt. Here's why. Knitted woolen garments shed fine fibers, especially when they're new; and we're told John's shirt was brand new. If he wore the shirt during the wiping down, wool fibers could have fallen onto JBR or become attached to whatever item was used and then transferred to JBR. But even if he wasn't wearing the wool shirt, he would still have had fibers on his skin and/or whatever top he was wearing that could be shed onto JBR or transferred. If both things are true - that JR used something other than his shirt to wipe down JBR and was shedding wool fibers - this would explain why his shirt fibers were found in her crotch, but her DNA was not found on his shirt. In fact, I'd say the absence of her DNA on his shirt increases the odds that he used some other item to wipe her down and was wearing something else when he did it. But, it's been a while since I last reviewed all the details about the wiping down. If there's anything that rules out the possibilities I've described, please let me know.

 

[Meara]

I think that the offender did use gloves and covered his shoes (with a slip when they found heel prints). We also don’t really know if there actually WAS evidence that you mentioned because the crime scene and house was not secured well and I don’t know that I fully blame BPD for that as they just didn’t have the experience. Hindsight is 20/20. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Investigators should see themselves as purely data collectors, especially in the initial stages because when you make a theory early on; you’re only going to find data that fits that theory and miss the other data at the scene and leave many questions unanswered. For example, if you do an exercise and have your children count the number of blue cars on the freeway for 5 mins, they will give you an answer at the very end. But, if you ask them how many white cars they saw, they’re not going to have an answer. It’s possible to count both colors of cars, but you will need to be methodical, experienced, and capable. I actually am undecided on my stance as to who did what. But, have yet to see evidence that cannot be explained away.

You make good points, and very well. It reminded me, though, that BPD called in the FBI straightaway, since kidnapping is a federal crime, and the FBI are the experts; but when Special Agent Ron Walker assessed the evidence and circumstances he didn't think there had been a kidnapping or an intruder. He said, "You're gonna find a body." He was right. That was the first theory, and the data fit. As you say, BPD lacked the experience to handle the crime scene well, and they made many mistakes. But, I think it is to their credit that they considered other theories and investigated many leads and suspects, even though they believed - with good reason - that Ron Walker's theory was the correct one.

 

[proust20]

JonBenet was wiped to remove evidence. But of what?

 

[Swirlz]

JonBenet was wiped to remove evidence. But of what?

sexual assault

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

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.

Wasn't the whole point of the blue towel to remove evidence?
To say it isn't plausible for JR to remove fibers yet leave his own behind is not . How do you know how much his sweater was shedding as different articles of clothing shed at different rates.

 

[Swirlz]

Wasn't the whole point of the blue towel to remove evidence?

Right, but all of John's evidence wasn't removed so again; in order to believe Burke is responsible for SA, we have to believe John wiped blood out of JBR's vagina thoroughly enough to remove Burke's evidence but not thoroughly enough to remove his own. We also have to believe John was so invested in wanting to protect Burke that he was willing to engage in this particular task on the body of his deceased or unconscious 6 yr. old. And since the underpants were urine soaked, which means she was wearing them when she was strangled; we also have to believe she was already walking around in a pair of size 12 underpants with no one noticing; either that or John wiped her and then called Patsy, who's fibers are in the ligature knot, to come in and help him strangle JBR to death rather than begin resuscitation efforts and call 911. Just so we're clear here on what the Burke theory entails...

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Agreed, a good point and certainly no disagreement from me here! It's possible PR unloaded the clean bowls, and BR grabbed one that night to make his late-night snack. Regardless, these are just minor details that don’t impact the overall theory.

The snack may also been made earlier in the day by Patsy, not eaten by the intended person, and put back in the fridge to be eaten later.
There are many scenarios regarding the pineapple.
I personally think BR made it himself.
He was almost 10. The kids seemed left to their own devices and probably knew how to fend for themselves.
By 8-9 kids can get their own cereal, pour milk ect. No parent necessary.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I agree. Walking in mud for sure.

Just finished/combed through Wechts book and he has different theories. Solid, but different.
But which part was the cover up? The strangulation? Which killed her. If you believe Wecht that was an accident. But then why the skull fracture?
The Grand Jury stated in the indictments that both parents KNOWINGLY placed JB in a dangerous environment.
Thst implies “history” to me. Some reason(s) that they both were aware of, but ignored. I don’t necessarily believe this totally points to Burke. As others have pointed out - it could just mean the GJ indicted both parents because they were unsure which parent was responsible,

I always try to simplify my thinking .
We have a restraining device, a SA, and a head blow. There can be many scenerios but if you just stick to the 3 facts I see the chain of events as follows: restrain, SA, JB struggles, resists, screams ( not fact but expected response from factual info gleaned from autopsy) then headblow to either stop screaming or gain control. While I can't prove my theory, the fact that she received no medical care had it been a head blow reinforces to me there was more going on.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The snack may also been made earlier in the day by Patsy, not eaten by the intended person, and put back in the fridge to be eaten later.
There are many scenarios regarding the pineapple.
I personally think BR made it himself.
He was almost 10. The kids seemed left to their own devices and probably knew how to fend for themselves.
By 8-9 kids can get their own cereal, pour milk ect. No parent necessary.

I think BR made it too....his fingerprint is on the bowl, also on the glass with the teabag in it.

IMO no one went to bed when they got home, and JB was not asleep and carried to bed. They were all awake. PR was doing last minute packing. JR by his own admission told on 12/26 to two different LE officers read to the kids before bed. Likely PR was unaware that Burke had made the pineapple snack, and JR probably didn't notice.

 

[Galaxia]

They should have investigated every last detail of the crime scene, such as shoe prints, etc., and used forensic psychologists to investigate everyone who might have interacted with the victim, including suspects and witnesses of anything unusual. The handwriting on the ransom note they gave to the police closely matched Patsy's handwriting, according to an investigator named Cina.

 

[Galaxia]

They should have investigated every last detail of the crime scene, such as shoe prints, etc., and used forensic psychologists to investigate everyone who might have interacted with the victim, including suspects and witnesses of anything unusual. The handwriting on the ransom note they gave to the police closely matched Patsy's handwriting, according to an investigator named Cina.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I think BR made it too....his fingerprint is on the bowl, also on the glass with the teabag in it.

IMO no one went to bed when they got home, and JB was not asleep and carried to bed. They were all awake. PR was doing last minute packing. JR by his own admission told on 12/26 to two different LE officers read to the kids before bed. Likely PR was unaware that Burke had made the pineapple snack, and JR probably didn't notice.

I see it exactly the same. Parents come home, perhaps a little a little lit up, kids want to play....

 

[Crackakon9]

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.

Amazing points made. I don't at all believe that Burke had anything at all to do with JonBenet's death. The idea that nine year old Burke struck JonBenet so hard to cause damage to her skull equivalent to falling off a three story building is just ridiculous to me. Even if Burke had struck JonBenet with something, like a golf club, a bat, or the flashlight, nothing found in the house that could have inflicted that kind of damaged to her skull appeared to be significantly damaged or marked in any way, and I am particularly referencing the flashlight. I don't know exactly what the condition of the golf club was after the crime happened, but we can assume that nothing really was found off about the club because nothing was ever reported about its condition. I think that its safe to say if some object was used to strike her head, it came from outside of the house and left with whoever was responsible, or came from inside the house and was disposed of shortly after the incident happened.

 

[Charlot123]

Amazing points made. I don't at all believe that Burke had anything at all to do with JonBenet's death. The idea that nine year old Burke struck JonBenet so hard to cause damage to her skull equivalent to falling off a three story building is just ridiculous to me. Even if Burke had struck JonBenet with something, like a golf club, a bat, or the flashlight, nothing found in the house that could have inflicted that kind of damaged to her skull appeared to be significantly damaged or marked in any way, and I am particularly referencing the flashlight. I don't know exactly what the condition of the golf club was after the crime happened, but we can assume that nothing really was found off about the club because nothing was ever reported about its condition. I think that its safe to say if some object was used to strike her head, it came from outside of the house and left with whoever was responsible, or came from inside the house and was disposed of shortly after the incident happened.

First, it had to be someone from home because of that ransom note. A smoking gun. No intruder would know about the bonus.

Then, and I am not following the case much, sadly, there will be no retribution, I think that a naive child could in no way organize it. Both JR and PR, in their own ways, were good planners. Together they could pull it off, so to a degree I suspect that both were involved.

I think that it was, in a way, accidental but the parents’ response was off. They were protecting not Burke, but own cushy life. It has been totally broken, for all of them, anyhow, so what’s there to discuss?

The police should have been more professional. It was their job, their CS.

 

[Crackakon9]

First, it had to be someone from home because of that ransom note. A smoking gun. No intruder would know about the bonus.

Then, and I am not following the case much, sadly, there will be no retribution, I think that a naive child could in no way organize it. Both JR and PR, in their own ways, were good planners. Together they could pull it off, so to a degree I suspect that both were involved.

I think that it was, in a way, accidental but the parents’ response was off. They were protecting not Burke, but own cushy life. It has been totally broken, for all of them, anyhow, so what’s there to discuss?

The police should have been more professional. It was their job, their CS.

I agree about the ransom note. I seriously wonder if either Patsy, John, or together, wrote the ransom note. It is, in my opinion, one of the oddest things about this entire case.

 

[Chypre]

Amazing points made. I don't at all believe that Burke had anything at all to do with JonBenet's death. The idea that nine year old Burke struck JonBenet so hard to cause damage to her skull equivalent to falling off a three story building is just ridiculous to me. Even if Burke had struck JonBenet with something, like a golf club, a bat, or the flashlight, nothing found in the house that could have inflicted that kind of damaged to her skull appeared to be significantly damaged or marked in any way, and I am particularly referencing the flashlight. I don't know exactly what the condition of the golf club was after the crime happened, but we can assume that nothing really was found off about the club because nothing was ever reported about its condition. I think that its safe to say if some object was used to strike her head, it came from outside of the house and left with whoever was responsible, or came from inside the house and was disposed of shortly after the incident happened.

I've wondered IF it was Patsy in the bathroom, whether it was a big heavy can of hairspray

 

[sunspun]

First, it had to be someone from home because of that ransom note. A smoking gun. No intruder would know about the bonus.

Then, and I am not following the case much, sadly, there will be no retribution, I think that a naive child could in no way organize it. Both JR and PR, in their own ways, were good planners. Together they could pull it off, so to a degree I suspect that both were involved.

I think that it was, in a way, accidental but the parents’ response was off. They were protecting not Burke, but own cushy life. It has been totally broken, for all of them, anyhow, so what’s there to discuss?

The police should have been more professional. It was their job, their CS.

That's never made sense to me what you said about the ransom note and the amount of the ransom demanded being similar to John's bonus. Why would someone in the family choose the amount that matched the bonus if no outsiders knew how much the bonus was? As you said, that should be a smoking gun, pointing right at either John or Patsy most likely.

So if it incriminates them, why would they ever willingly use that amount in the note? I can't make that make sense. But I admit I can't explain why such an odd and specific amount was demanded, or why it seems to almost match the bonus amount.

Then again, if I recall correctly, it wasn't actually an exact match, even though it was close. And it wasn't any neat, round figure like you'd expect some random kidnapper to choose, if they could write whatever amount they wanted, And it does seem low, relative to how much John was reportedly worth. But would a stranger intruder know their net worth? And what seems low to some people might have sounded like an exorbitant amount of money to someone who had almost no money of their own. Yes, the note is most intriguing,

 

[CloudedTruth]

That's never made sense to me what you said about the ransom note and the amount of the ransom demanded being similar to John's bonus. Why would someone in the family choose the amount that matched the bonus if no outsiders knew how much the bonus was? As you said, that should be a smoking gun, pointing right at either John or Patsy most likely.

So if it incriminates them, why would they ever willingly use that amount in the note? I can't make that make sense. But I admit I can't explain why such an odd and specific amount was demanded, or why it seems to almost match the bonus amount.

Then again, if I recall correctly, it wasn't actually an exact match, even though it was close. And it wasn't any neat, round figure like you'd expect some random kidnapper to choose, if they could write whatever amount they wanted, And it does seem low, relative to how much John was reportedly worth. But would a stranger intruder know their net worth? And what seems low to some people might have sounded like an exorbitant amount of money to someone who had almost no money of their own. Yes, the note is most intriguing,

IMO, I think it was an attempt to point the finger at Jeff Merrick, who JR named as a suspect very early on with the reasoning that he might be harboring a grudge against JR for having him fired from AG. Jeff filed a complaint against AG for ethics violations and wrongful termination. The amount that he was seeking in severance was $118k. IIRC, Merrick says he got about half of what he was asking for. JR claimed to Lou Smit that Merrick was demanding $250k. JR claims to have paid him "around a hundred thousand-ish", and then paid for outsourcing and outplacement counseling that totaled $250k, however IIRC there is no source to verify JR's claim that Merrick was demanding $250k.

The complaint resulted in an on-site review of AG's business practices. There are some rumors that point to the possibility of financial improprieties that Merrick took the hit for. Jeff has referred to himself as a "whistle-blower". I can imagine that an investigation of AG prior to LM selling it off might make JR uncomfortable, knowing that the value of the company and his reputation could be impacted. IMO it was JR who was holding a grudge.....the way he handled getting rid of Merrick looks like a CYA move and it puts JR's character into question.

 

[proust20]

Much of this BDI discussion is fascinating. It isn't known that what Burke told the GJ. ("I heard my mom going psycho downstairs"?) Of course, he could not be indicted because of his age.

No theory - BDI, PDI, JDI, IDI - offers a complete explanation. What was the motive? SA or compulsive rage or occult ritual? Why the 40 minute gap between head blow and asphyxiation? Which of these dual means of lethality was to cover for the other? This was truly overkill. Was the same person responsible for both actions? Was the killer also the abuser? I agree that the final assault was staging, and demonstrated awareness of what had been happening to JB. But, the stager could be neither the abuser nor the killer. How many people were involved with the staging? Why choose Patsy's brush as a prop if the intention were to point away from the family?

BDI is appealing as it does line up well with available evidence and timeline. However, IMO it is weak on motive. Pineapple snatching does not explain the brutality of the murder. Although, his refusal to identify the pineapple in the photo for the psychologist is curious. No doubt, the parents and their lawyers coached him, as they did for his GJ appearance. He could be the chronic abuser; though I am skeptical.

BR's interview with Dr. Bernhard was mandated by the state. He told Dr. B that he knew what happened, i.e. someone had a knife and led his sister downstairs and whacked her over the head. The Swiss Army knife was found in the basement. Kolar's speculation about the train track pokes is clever, but dubious. Would BR have known of the size 12s? He could have made the mistake of using the wrong size but the right weekday. So could John.

Thomas's PDI concerning bed wetting also does not explain the sustained savagery, and the layers of (re)staging. Patsy's illness provided the context for the events. In a way, it was the catalyst. Christmas was the grotesque climax.

Why did the parents & BR lie about his AM whereabouts? They did not ask him if he knew anything because he was sleeping?!! The Rs did not want BR in the house when the body was discovered. "What did you find?"

SA is most often done by a relative or caregiver. The person who 'finds' the victim is often the killer.