If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[Styngyn]

Exactly! I agree, and I hope that one day someone says something. JDI and PDI theorists fall flat when trying to explain why the other stayed loyal.

All of this is speculation as none of us have any idea what the family dynamic was like in the home. For me to say one single person was responsible would be unfair and completely unfounded. That being said, the short answer is yes. I theorize that he was responsible both in the past and the night in question. If you want more info, my long answer is below! Again, this is all speculation and by no means a fact or my assertion of guilt.

In my theory, one of the two was responsible for the abuse previous to the night of the murder. According to different crime statistics, SA by a parent accounts for roughly 25-40% of ALL reported SA cases, whereas SA by a sibling accounts for 15-25% of reported cases WITHIN FAMILES. (Feel free to research these stats for yourself as I by no means swear by my sources.) Though relatively rare, SA perpetrated by a sibling does happen.

My thinking is this:
If JR was responsible for the past SA, he would have a reason to cover it up by making the attack look like a sexual crime. His hope would be they would see the SA from the "intruder" that night, and not find that it had been ongoing.

However... (This is where I believe multiple scenarios appear

- If BR was responsible for the past SA and the Ramsey's were aware that is had happened or was a pattern, again JR would have a reason to cover it up as stated above, both to protect BR and themselves since they were aware and chose to not disclose it.
- If BR was responsible for the past SA and he had just knocked JBR unconscious (even unintentionally,) one might think this was an opportunity to either continue or see what you can get away with. (Obviously being too young to understand the severity of the head blow and/or following actions.) JR/PR would, again, have a reason to cover it up as stated above, both to protect BR and themselves since they were aware and chose to not disclose it.

I don't debate differing theories when it comes to this as I honestly have no idea and can't imagine being put in any of these scenarios. My theory tends to include BR committing the head blow, SA, and garrote (which I know is not nearly as popular, happy to explain in a different post if interested,) and the family finding her and panicking. At that point, it wouldn't matter whether or not they knew about any previous SA leading up to that night, the cover up would (in my opinion) be the best next step. If it were me, part of that would be sending BR back to bed, instructing him not to wake up, shipping him off to a friends house before investigators can speak with him, etc.

Exactly! I agree, and I hope that one day someone says something. JDI and PDI theorists fall flat when trying to explain why the other stayed loyal.

All of this is speculation as none of us have any idea what the family dynamic was like in the home. For me to say one single person was responsible would be unfair and completely unfounded. That being said, the short answer is yes. I theorize that he was responsible both in the past and the night in question. If you want more info, my long answer is below! Again, this is all speculation and by no means a fact or my assertion of guilt.

In my theory, one of the two was responsible for the abuse previous to the night of the murder. According to different crime statistics, SA by a parent accounts for roughly 25-40% of ALL reported SA cases, whereas SA by a sibling accounts for 15-25% of reported cases WITHIN FAMILES. (Feel free to research these stats for yourself as I by no means swear by my sources.) Though relatively rare, SA perpetrated by a sibling does happen.

My thinking is this:
If JR was responsible for the past SA, he would have a reason to cover it up by making the attack look like a sexual crime. His hope would be they would see the SA from the "intruder" that night, and not find that it had been ongoing.

However... (This is where I believe multiple scenarios appear

- If BR was responsible for the past SA and the Ramsey's were aware that is had happened or was a pattern, again JR would have a reason to cover it up as stated above, both to protect BR and themselves since they were aware and chose to not disclose it.
- If BR was responsible for the past SA and he had just knocked JBR unconscious (even unintentionally,) one might think this was an opportunity to either continue or see what you can get away with. (Obviously being too young to understand the severity of the head blow and/or following actions.) JR/PR would, again, have a reason to cover it up as stated above, both to protect BR and themselves since they were aware and chose to not disclose it.

I don't debate differing theories when it comes to this as I honestly have no idea and can't imagine being put in any of these scenarios. My theory tends to include BR committing the head blow, SA, and garrote (which I know is not nearly as popular, happy to explain in a different post if interested,) and the family finding her and panicking. At that point, it wouldn't matter whether or not they knew about any previous SA leading up to that night, the cover up would (in my opinion) be the best next step. If it were me, part of that would be sending BR back to bed, instructing him not to wake up, shipping him off to a friends house before investigators can speak with him, etc.

All theories have a hole. It's about finding the smallest one

 

[Tower]

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."

In the eyes of the law, it is not SA or murder if done solely by Burke. I do not believe the parents would desecrate their daughter’s body to cover up any harm done by a 9-year-old, even to preserve the facade of a perfect family. It is my belief that an adult was the primary driver of this tragedy.

I believe the GJ testimony, instead of pointing to anything done by Burke, points to uncertainty of which parent or close friend was most responsible for the murder. The GJ believed charges of endangerment would stick because both parents put her at risk, not from Burke but from each other and/or a close friend (adult).

 

[PolyDot]

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."

It’s a good theory, just wondering why you think BR rather than JR did it ?

-

 

[PolyDot]

The housekeeper reported the two “playing doctor” in bed and other inappropriate behavior to investigators when she was interviewed. You can find her interview transcripts online.

The feces in JBR’s bed, Xmas presents, and candy was reported by police officers during the investigation and can be found in many different reports, interviews, and law enforcement documents from the investigation. You can find this material online. So, unless all the investigators were lying, it is indeed, fact. What it means or whether it’s relevant is what can be interpreted different.

We are all here trying to discuss the evidence and question what it might mean in good faith. Why the hostility and incorrect fact checking?

Children engaging in “playing doctor” is generally considered a normal part of childhood exploration and development. However, highly sexualized behavior in children can sometimes be indicative of prior exposure to sexual abuse. The interpretation depends significantly on the specific details and context of what was observed or reported.
Highly sexualized actions may suggest a history of abuse involving one or both children, and leds me to believe that JR is responsible .

 

[PolyDot]

In the eyes of the law, it is not SA or murder if done solely by Burke. I do not believe the parents would desecrate their daughter’s body to cover up any harm done by a 9-year-old, even to preserve the facade of a perfect family. It is my belief that an adult was the primary driver of this tragedy.

I believe the GJ testimony, instead of pointing to anything done by Burke, points to uncertainty of which parent or close friend was most responsible for the murder. The GJ believed charges of endangerment would stick because both parents put her at risk, not from Burke but from each other and/or a close friend (adult).

agree with your reasoning , adult did the crime , if the parents are innocent of abuse & murder why in gods name would they cover up in such a way , there are many other ways they could have protected BR .
The cover up / staging is to protect an adult who might go to jail , whose reputation would be ruined etc etc .

 

[Jink3]

Children engaging in “playing doctor” is generally considered a normal part of childhood exploration and development. However, highly sexualized behavior in children can sometimes be indicative of prior exposure to sexual abuse. The interpretation depends significantly on the specific details and context of what was observed or reported.
Highly sexualized actions may suggest a history of abuse involving one or both children, and leds me to believe that JR is responsible .

Totally understand! And I agree, it can definitely be a sign. However, in my opinion, I don’t believe BR’s actions (assuming he did/was committing the previous SA) were sexual in nature, the same way I don’t believe this was a sexual crime. I theorize that he was a troubled child (for reasons we can also speculate on about family dynamics) and was possibly committing these acts out of curiosity, neglect of family, jealousy, undiagnosed mental disorders, and/or lack of understanding, or something else we don’t know about. I have never had an opinion on why he may have committed something like this, but I interpret his involvement from the implications of the evidence.

Could JR have been SA one or both of them? Yes, I have no evidence to prove or disprove it. However, I do think the evidence supports that BR was likely involved.

I also think there are too many questions raised if you assume JR was fully responsible. Why would PR protect him? Why no evidence of past/future offenses, why did PR write the note for him after what had happened? Why hasn’t she come forward? Why was she in the same clothes with full hair and makeup done? Why did she lie about BR being awake for the pineapple snack that night and the 9-11 call that morning?

My point is in order to believe one of the parents did it alone, you have to believe BOTH are evil, or insanely stupid and naive to really not know the truth…

The BR theory erases this question, and assumes NEITHER parent is evil, but wanted to protect the family as a whole. We can all relate to that, even if we don’t agree with their actions. Thoughts?

 

[Jink3]

In the eyes of the law, it is not SA or murder if done solely by Burke. I do not believe the parents would desecrate their daughter’s body to cover up any harm done by a 9-year-old, even to preserve the facade of a perfect family. It is my belief that an adult was the primary driver of this tragedy.

I believe the GJ testimony, instead of pointing to anything done by Burke, points to uncertainty of which parent or close friend was most responsible for the murder. The GJ believed charges of endangerment would stick because both parents put her at risk, not from Burke but from each other and/or a close friend (adult).

Yes, my theory states that BR could not have been prosecuted, which is a fact that I think backs up the BR theory. As I stated at the beginning of my post, that’s where I believe the previous SA comes in. They wouldn’t cover for BR if he had hit her on accident. But if the police would have found out about the ongoing SA, regardless of who was responsible,) which they would have if they had called an ambulance, there would be far more consequences past her death.

In terms of your GJ assessment, do you think there was an intruder and their indictment is reflective of that theory? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This indictment actually shows that the jury did not believe there was an intruder at all. They would not be indicted for “accessory to a crime” unless they willingly let an intruder in, and/or staged the scene for that intruder. Someone can’t be indicted for “child abuse leading to death” because they didn’t fix a broken window or left a door unlocked and someone entered. What we can infer from the GJ indictments is that they had probable cause to believe that the family knowingly put JBR in danger, and participated in the cover up of a crime. Again, what that means is up for debate, but it’s absolutely impossible to infer that the GJ believed the family helped an intruder kidnap and murder their child.

 

[Jink3]

agree with your reasoning , adult did the crime , if the parents are innocent of abuse & murder why in gods name would they cover up in such a way , there are many other ways they could have protected BR .
The cover up / staging is to protect an adult who might go to jail , whose reputation would be ruined etc etc .

What other ways do you think they could have protected him?

If they knew he was SA her, didn’t report it, and then he (accidentally) killed her, he’s going to an institution for YEARS, and their reputation is tarnished forever.

If JR was responsible for the previous SA, they ALSO would cover it up the same way.

Again, it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the SA in my theory. It matters that it was happening, one or both of the adults knew about it, and when she was murdered, everything would come out. REGARDLESS of who did what, the headline would be “death of a knowingly SA child by an influential family.”

 

[Kissee13]

The Ramseys found a ransom note around 5.30 am in the stairs inside their house......logically after reading the note any normal individual would have looked around the house for the child and also to see if the person who wrote that note is still in the house and/or from where that person may have entered the house to make sure the house is now secure because they have another child in the house with them to protect.

I would have personally searched the house relentlessly from top to bottom looking for my precious child before or while my wife would be calling 911. If they would have done that they would have found Jonbenet in the house right then. The fact that Jonbenet was in the house all this time and they failed to locate her is illogical. They never looked for her because if they would have they would have found her...even if it was a big house SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE!! She could have been easily found....they never looked for her because they knew where she was all along. All this case was about her been kidnapped which was not true to later been found in the house.....

At this point to know exactly what happened and who did it is not as important as to simply figure out if it's an inside job or if it's something done by someone from outside. We all know that if Burke was responsible for what happened to Jonbenet either by accident or done intentionally it was impossible for Burke to write that ransom note by himself he was too young to write that and trying to cover it up by himself unbeknownst to the parents is impossible....the parents would have to be involved in this either way.

On the 911 call Patsy sounded/acted out of breath desperate her daughter was kidnapped but she was surely not out of breath searching desperately for Jonbenet in the house because she would have found her....she was in the house.

I will spare you Ramseys strange behavior following the 911 call and the manner in which John Ramsey found Jonbenet later in the house full of guests up to not wanting to speak with the authorities to interviews on TV....illogical again.

To me 1 minute into this case my logic tells me the Ramseys are the ones responsible for Jonbenet's death.

The police should have found her when they searched the home . The parents were in shock . I thought at one time the brother might have had something to do with it but I feel like it could’ve been someone they new bc they new the exact amount of his bonus for ransom. That makes me think someone at the company or someone’s family that wanted her gone

 

[Jink3]

It’s a good theory, just wondering why you think BR rather than JR did it ?

-

Good question, it’s not easy as I think JR makes sense for MOST of it, but I think it breaks down as you get further along. I think there are too many questions raised with the JR theory. I do think JR was involved in the cover up. In fact, his clothing fibers from that night were found in her underwear and under the tape over her mouth. On top of that, I believe he KNEW where the body was before it was found, his mysterious disappearance for 80 mins while under the watch of Detective Arndt was suspicious, and his refusal to speak with police for months while telling his side to the media only shows his involvement. (Lots more, but for another post.)

The problem arises with the fact that PR’s clothing fibers were ALSO under the tape and on the garrote, as well as evidence showing she was likely the author of the note. I believe she was very heavily involved in the cover up as well. The evidence shows an equal effort. If you can set all that aside, I struggle with the idea that she would cover as heavily as she did for JR knowing he was responsible.

I’d say he could have been the one to commit the SA, but again you’re left with the same question. Is PR evil enough to look past the SA and murder of her 6 year old daughter by her husband?

It’s too much of a stretch for me to get behind, but obviously I could be wrong. This case is just too wild!

 

[Jink3]

The police should have found her when they searched the home . The parents were in shock . I thought at one time the brother might have had something to do with it but I feel like it could’ve been someone they new bc they new the exact amount of his bonus for ransom. That makes me think someone at the company or someone’s family that wanted her gone

The police were obviously unprepared for where this case was going to go, no one can argue that.

That being said, are you aware of all facts of the case? If so, can you explain to me how your theory of an intruder goes and how the evidence supports it?

Not an attack at all, I’m genuinely curious how people come to the intruder theory based on all the evidence.

 

[PolyDot]

Totally understand! And I agree, it can definitely be a sign. However, in my opinion, I don’t believe BR’s actions (assuming he did/was committing the previous SA) were sexual in nature, the same way I don’t believe this was a sexual crime. I theorize that he was a troubled child (for reasons we can also speculate on about family dynamics) and was possibly committing these acts out of curiosity, neglect of family, jealousy, undiagnosed mental disorders, and/or lack of understanding, or something else we don’t know about. I have never had an opinion on why he may have committed something like this, but I interpret his involvement from the implications of the evidence.

Could JR have been SA one or both of them? Yes, I have no evidence to prove or disprove it. However, I do think the evidence supports that BR was likely involved.

I also think there are too many questions raised if you assume JR was fully responsible. Why would PR protect him? Why no evidence of past/future offenses, why did PR write the note for him after what had happened? Why hasn’t she come forward? Why was she in the same clothes with full hair and makeup done? Why did she lie about BR being awake for the pineapple snack that night and the 9-11 call that morning?

My point is in order to believe one of the parents did it alone, you have to believe BOTH are evil, or insanely stupid and naive to really not know the truth…

The BR theory erases this question, and assumes NEITHER parent is evil, but wanted to protect the family as a whole. We can all relate to that, even if we don’t agree with their actions. Thoughts?

You bring up some interesting points .
I can see PR going along with the staging / lying/ random note ( all of it) because she has just discovered what her husband has done - she is fearful (terrified) of what he might do to her or her son , she is fearful about her future , he convinces her with a mixture of threats & blaming over many hours and basically wears her down .


I do believe it is a sexual crime - the garrotte , the evidence of possible abuse ( yes I agree it is not conclusive) , the repeated UTI’s etc etc .
At this stage DNA found on JBR is from her immediate family , which is normal . No DNA from an intruder has been found . Touch DNA may not prove anything .
So highly likely it is one of 3 people - and the sexual nature of the crime would lead to believe it is JR . Of course this is my thoughts on it .

I think it is unlikely to result in conviction . Which makes me very sad - way too many children & women are killed with out any justice for them .

Again just my opinion .

 

[PolyDot]

Good question, it’s not easy as I think JR makes sense for MOST of it, but I think it breaks down as you get further along. I think there are too many questions raised with the JR theory. I do think JR was involved in the cover up. In fact, his clothing fibers from that night were found in her underwear and under the tape over her mouth. On top of that, I believe he KNEW where the body was before it was found, his mysterious disappearance for 80 mins while under the watch of Detective Arndt was suspicious, and his refusal to speak with police for months while telling his side to the media only shows his involvement. (Lots more, but for another post.)

The problem arises with the fact that PR’s clothing fibers were ALSO under the tape and on the garrote, as well as evidence showing she was likely the author of the note. I believe she was very heavily involved in the cover up as well. The evidence shows an equal effort. If you can set all that aside, I struggle with the idea that she would cover as heavily as she did for JR knowing he was responsible.

I’d say he could have been the one to commit the SA, but again you’re left with the same question. Is PR evil enough to look past the SA and murder of her 6 year old daughter by her husband?

It’s too much of a stretch for me to get behind, but obviously I could be wrong. This case is just too wild!

Yep maybe PR is protecting her remaining child , maybe she is scared what he might do , maybe she thinks or he convinces her he will get away with it !, maybe she is worried about her financial future, maybe BR was also being abused and participated abuse JBR Admittedly it was a long time to stand by him - but it gets harder and harder to come clean especially when she gets unwell again .

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The housekeeper reported the two “playing doctor” in bed and other inappropriate behavior to investigators when she was interviewed. You can find her interview transcripts online.

Do you have a link?

The feces in JBR’s bed, Xmas presents, and candy was reported by police officers during the investigation and can be found in many different reports, interviews, and law enforcement documents from the investigation. You can find this material online. So, unless all the investigators were lying, it is indeed, fact. What it means or whether it’s relevant is what can be interpreted different.

As far as I know, the only one reporting this was Kolar, who wasn't there. So not all of them.

But you said the feces belonged to Burke. How can you know that when even Lost admits the hypothetical feces wasn't tested?

We are all here trying to discuss the evidence and question what it might mean in good faith. Why the hostility and incorrect fact checking?

I'd like the discussion to be grounded in fact.

 

[Jink3]

You bring up some interesting points .
I can see PR going along with the staging / lying/ random note ( all of it) because she has just discovered what her husband has done - she is fearful (terrified) of what he might do to her or her son , she is fearful about her future , he convinces her with a mixture of threats & blaming over many hours and basically wears her down .


I do believe it is a sexual crime - the garrotte , the evidence of possible abuse ( yes I agree it is not conclusive) , the repeated UTI’s etc etc .
At this stage DNA found on JBR is from her immediate family , which is normal . No DNA from an intruder has been found . Touch DNA may not prove anything .
So highly likely it is one of 3 people - and the sexual nature of the crime would lead to believe it is JR . Of course this is my thoughts on it .

I think it is unlikely to result in conviction . Which makes me very sad - way too many children & women are killed with out any justice for them .

Again just my opinion .

I agree, she may have been so fearful that she complied with the cover up. However, that seems very hard to believe, especially given the fact she lied so well and never wavered in all the years leading up to her death. But I will admit, I can’t prove that didn’t happen, because in that case, MOST of the pieces would fit again. I used to be a JDI believer.

But if I can just say - the BDI fits ALL of the evidence. He seemed to be (and seems to still be) troubled.

His family kept him in psychiatric help for at least 2 years (that we know of) after her death, even though he seemed unbothered in his interviews with LE. Why?

They shielded him from EVER speaking for his entire life up until a damning CBS interview was released, and the interview did not help his cause. Why?

On the morning of the murder, they tell LE they never asked him if he heard anything, even though he admits to being up late that night to play with his Xmas toys. Why?

They say he never woke up, but there is evidence he was awake and speaking in the background during the 911 call. Why?

They shipped him off to their friends house to avoid police questions while JBR was still only “missing,” then turn around and accuse that same friend of possibly being a suspect. Why?

They deny ever giving him pineapple, even though the bowl is clearly there on the table with his fingerprints. Why?

He’s confronted with the picture, and even he shuts down and refuses to admit what’s in the bowl. They had even just discussed it being his favorite. Why?

And most importantly (in my opinion,) one of their first steps after the discovery of her body is to seal his medical and psychiatric records from not only becoming public, but being accessible to police as part of the investigation… why?

In terms of the DNA, I may be misunderstanding. Just to be clear and transparent as I’m not trying to mislead anyone. There IS DNA on her that does not match the family. That’s what causes so much debate in this case. However, it is touch DNA and widely regarded (by those that understand the case) as useless and easily transferred a zillion different ways. That doesn’t mean, however, that it isn’t there and should be totally disregarded.

I do honestly believe that the intruder theory is ridiculous and no one that knows the case can honestly believe it to be true, but I respect people’s opinions, even if they’re uninformed.

I hope that one day she can have justice but sadly I agree with you, I believe we will all be having these same debates forever.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Do you have a link?



As far as I know, the only one reporting this was Kolar, who wasn't there. So not all of them.

But you said the feces belonged to Burke. How can you know that when even Lost admits the hypothetical feces wasn't tested?



I'd like the discussion to be grounded in fact.

Like this?

Do you have a link?



As far as I know, the only one reporting this was Kolar, who wasn't there. So not all of them.

But you said the feces belonged to Burke. How can you know that when even Lost admits the hypothetical feces wasn't tested?



I'd like the discussion to be grounded in fact.

But you offer plenty of opinions that are not fact and take a lot of liberty drawing your own conclusions.
Please dont insist from others that in which you do not do.

 

[Jink3]

Do you have a link?



As far as I know, the only one reporting this was Kolar, who wasn't there. So not all of them.

But you said the feces belonged to Burke. How can you know that when even Lost admits the hypothetical feces wasn't tested?



I'd like the discussion to be grounded in fact.

Anything you want to research yourself can be found in both statements by lead investigators and law enforcement and now books by those involved. I choose to believe them but if you want to call them liars you can, that’s your choice.

You can also do you own research using the below link to all documents and info regarding the case.

Other than that, I’m not going to debate facts of the case with you just because you like trolling and/or are too lazy to research the case yourself.

In fact, why don’t you post your theory? Would love to see how you make all the evidence fit for an intruder without leaving anything out.

I never said my theory was right, that’s why it’s a theory. But I sure as hell back it up. So if you want to wine “but the DNA” (even though I’ve addressed its fallacies,) while ignoring every other piece of evidence, then head on over to an IDI thread where you can help exonerate the family once and for all. Because that’s what we all want, right?

s-Flight755-15thStreet.htm

JonBenet Ramsey Case Transcripts

www.acandyrose.com

 

[Tower]

Yes, my theory states that BR could not have been prosecuted, which is a fact that I think backs up the BR theory. As I stated at the beginning of my post, that’s where I believe the previous SA comes in. They wouldn’t cover for BR if he had hit her on accident. But if the police would have found out about the ongoing SA, regardless of who was responsible,) which they would have if they had called an ambulance, there would be far more consequences past her death.

In terms of your GJ assessment, do you think there was an intruder and their indictment is reflective of that theory? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This indictment actually shows that the jury did not believe there was an intruder at all. They would not be indicted for “accessory to a crime” unless they willingly let an intruder in, and/or staged the scene for that intruder. Someone can’t be indicted for “child abuse leading to death” because they didn’t fix a broken window or left a door unlocked and someone entered. What we can infer from the GJ indictments is that they had probable cause to believe that the family knowingly put JBR in danger, and participated in the cover up of a crime. Again, what that means is up for debate, but it’s absolutely impossible to infer that the GJ believed the family helped an intruder kidnap and murder their child.

My last line says each other and/or a close friend, not someone unknown, i.e., an intruder. I don’t think there is existing evidence to prove anything definitively and this crime will never be solved. I think there are holes in all theories.

 

[PolyDot]

What other ways do you think they could have protected him?

If they knew he was SA her, didn’t report it, and then he (accidentally) killed her, he’s going to an institution for YEARS, and their reputation is tarnished forever.

If JR was responsible for the previous SA, they ALSO would cover it up the same way.

Again, it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the SA in my theory. It matters that it was happening, one or both of the adults knew about it, and when she was murdered, everything would come out. REGARDLESS of who did what, the headline would be “death of a knowingly SA child by an influential family.”

I think they could have told the truth - he was 9 yrs old, accidental death , they could have used their wealth to get him best legal representation-likely he would have received treatment he needed & no custodial sentence - given his age .

 

[Jink3]

My last line says each other and/or a close friend, not someone unknown, i.e., an intruder. I don’t think there is existing evidence to prove anything definitively and this crime will never be solved. I think there are holes in all theories.

Got it, but someone known (outside the family) would be considered an intruder, no? Unless you think the family helped cover for them, knowing they killed JBR?

And I agree there is so much mystery. But for the sake of argument, can you point out the holes in my theory? I welcome them because I want to figure it out. Obviously I’ll never know, but I welcome problems so I can reevaluate!