That is my major problem with the BDI scenario. He was 9. They weren’t going to “lose” him. Legally, he would not be guilty of murder. I think the grand jury findings that John and Patsy put JonBenét in harm’s way really made it seem like Burke was at fault, and that grew wings as a scenario for those interested in this case. But I can’t see them destroying her little body to cover up a hit on the head by a 9-year-old.
I think the evidence we and LE all needed to solve this thing was destroyed at the scene. I think it’s likely one person did all of it, whether RDI, IDI, or “friend did it.” Burke is almost ruled out for me due to age and the lunacy of staging this scene due to a child’s accident. Because of his age, it would be a legal “accident,” even if he did it on purpose because he can’t form murderous intent.
I do think BDI makes more sense than a lot of what we’ve got here, so I understand why people buy into it. As others have said recently, there are huge holes in every theory.
Lots of cases of children killing other children. I think what people forget to address when stating that Burke couldn't have done this is the evidence of SA. More than likely, she was being abused before that night, and more than likely, it was either being done by John or by Burke. I'm a firm believer in BDI (the impact to the head at the least) and there was a cover up not because the initial hit was an accident, but because they knew calling the police would show that she had been being abused.
This is where I'm still unsure about the extent of the cover up and who committed which act. If it was John that was abusing her, he would have staged the cover up to hide the fact that he had been doing that previously. This also can be why the family continuously denies the findings of SA, even though most experts agree that it was taking place. Patsy may not have even known, but again, this is theory and debatable.
The other option is what I believe is the most likely scenario, so stay with me. (Again, this is just my theory based on all the evidence I have seen over the years!) I theorize that Burke was a troubled child and was responsible for the previous SA's, though he may not have even known the extent of his actions or had any criminal intent behind them. He was known to have a temper; and reportedly had smeared feces on her Christmas gifts that year. I believe the parents knew this was taking place and were trying to get him help through ongoing psychiatric visits while keeping it quiet to avoid tarnishing their image in the community. We can all speculate on what lead to the head blow (pineapple, half unwrapped Christmas gifts in the wine cellar, etc) as well as who committed the SA that night, but I believe it occurred while the family was packing for MI after the party. I do not believe they went to sleep as Patsy had her hair and makeup done, as well as the same clothing from the night before. When they realized what Burke had done, you can imagine the predicament they would be placed in. If it were merely an accident, they would have called 9-11. But because of the SA's, questions about its origins would undoubtably be brought up and the family would be reduced to nothing, regardless of who was responsible. If Burke was responsible for the head blow and the SA that night, what's the first thing they would do after staging the kidnapping? Thats right, call their lawyers to seal his medical and psychiatric records from ever becoming public or even seen by police during the investigation. After all, the family deserves some "island of privacy." Why? Well, his records would obviously tell the story, as well as show the parent's knowledge of what may have been going on.
Now here is where it all ties together. In 1998, a Grand Jury issued true bills to indict the Ramsey's for crimes related to the staging of the scene and putting Jonbenet in an unsafe environment resulting in death... This implies that the GJ had enough probable cause to charge the family not for the murder, but for covering up for someone and knowing that she may not have been entirely safe in the home. Could Burke's medical records have been subpoenaed and presented as evidence to the GJ, and is that the evidence that still remains sealed to the public?
Then, why would the GJ vote to indict, but the DA decide not to move forward? Well, I believe for two reasons. The first, they may not have had enough evidence to get a conviction without unarguable proof on who committed which act that night. After all, the Ramsey's attorneys were absolute STUDS. Secondly, I theorize that the DA/BPD were aware of what likely had happened. However, given Burke's age, he could not have been criminally prosecuted. They could, however, prosecute the family for the above indictments by the GJ and in their eyes, ruin the lives of two outstanding (and rich/influential) Boulder citizens who were forced to make an impossible decision in the moment.
Again, this is all theory, but it seems to tie everything together almost too perfectly. (I even left out a lot more, but happy to have a friendly debate in the comments!)
As I have heard from many other in the past and have now begun to steal - and use as my own... "I don't believe in coincidences."
