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

[FergusMcDuck]

Nah. That doesn't explain it.

It absolutely does. The wild thing about this case is that no one really wants to ask "why?" in regards to what the Ramseys do or say. This is very much true here as well.

 

[CloudedTruth]

"So the obvious option here is that French got it wrong".

Why is that the "obvious option"? French wasn't the only officer on the scene whom John told that story to. And why is it that the credibility of only those who are investigating the Ramseys is questioned? Regardless of questions about original statements, there are plenty of lies and misrepresentations from the Ramseys over the years that calls their credibility into question. And it isn't just us "armchair detectives" who have seen that.

The Ramseys only started "correcting" what was originally said over 4 months later, after having consulted with lawyers.

How does one go from reading her a bedtime story to "she was zonked" and never woke up. Two stories that are so contradictory from one another it's hard to understand how anything could have gotten confused. In the original statements there was never any mention of her being asleep when they got home. If there were, it might be understandable that there was confusion over who was reading what and to whom.

Burke has also come out to contradict what John & Patsy have said. And the excuses offered up for that was that they never spoke with him about anything, or that maybe he misunderstood the question or misspoke. These excuses simply do not pass the smell test.

 

[Ponytale]

Oh there are so many inconsistensies...

First they changed statements about what happened after the Whites party. They got home straight from the Whites to stopping at the Stine's to stopping at multiple friends houses to drop off gifts.
Then they change their stories about who went to drop off the gifts at the door and who stayed at the car. Then they do not know who was awake and who was asleep. Burke and JB both being asleep to JB being asleep to no one being asleep as Susan saw JB up and bubbly.

John describing JB as zonked and , quote, "Boy, she is really out" Because I sort of struggled a little bit. It wasn't graceful getting her out, and yet she didn't wake up. And carrying her up stairs, up the back stairs and laying her on the bed." To reading to her after arriving home.
And Burke stating that - "He [Burke] said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed."

And to add here the strange fact that Stine's lived the closest to the Ramsey house but they weren’t among the friends called to the Ramsey house on that morning. After the murder the Stine's just happened to quit their jobs and moved out of state to live with the Ramsey's. Doesn't raise any eyebrows?

Then changing stories about weather Burke went straight to bed or stayed up. And with what toy, if any, was he wanting to play with.
And of course they also changed their stories about what time they arrived back home from the Whites - first they told French that they arrived home at 10, but in later interviews it suddenly became "9-ish". A whole hour, although Stine's lived like 3 minute drive away? Hmm..

Oh, and they did not remember and changed their stories about who did or did not had received a bike that morning for Christmas present. And they changed their stories about Burke owning Hi'tec boots.

Patsy first claimed that in the morning after waking up she got out of bed, went by JB's room and OPENED JonBenet's bedroom DOOR, acknowledges JB is not in her bed, and then goes downstairs and finds the ransom note and rushes back to JB’s room. But later she has said she never opened JB’s bedroom door the first time.

John's story about the basement window has changed multiple times from not knowing about it to breaking it alone to breaking it with Burke being present.
And John booked a flight on his private jet a half hour after carrying JB's body up from basement for a "meeting he can not miss". Then later changed that story during an interview and said they were going home to visit family in Atlanta. - Really, 30 minutes after finding out your daughter has been murdered in your house, you want to go for a visit? Well, they stayed for a couple of more hours and then decided that instead of staying behind to answer questions about their beloved daughters kidnapping/murder they'd rather board their plane and fly out of state.

Patsy did not even recognize her own handwriting from their family photo album. And neither did she remember what size underwear her only daughter wore and owned.

If I remember correctly, there were also some different stories about partially wrapped gifts in the basement - weather Patsy had opened them or someone else in the family.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more...

 

[Chypre]

I strongly agree with everything you said except the bolded sentence. She certainly appears to have had poor healthcare based on what we’ve been told.

But every time JBR was taken to a doctor, PR was risking someone would uncover the SA, if PR knew it was occurring. If she wanted to cover it up, she would not risk any outsiders examining JBR.

Exactly.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

"So the obvious option here is that French got it wrong".

Why is that the "obvious option"?

Because it makes no sense for them to change the story when they had the police accounts they could follow. The changes don't affect anything , so why make them unless they're correcting?

French wasn't the only officer on the scene whom John told that story to.

Arndt didn't hand in her report until weeks later. I don't find her credible.

And why is it that the credibility of only those who are investigating the Ramseys is questioned?

Because it makes sense for French to misunderstand a pair of hysterical parents whose daughter is missing. It doesn't make sense for the parents, if they are guilty, to change a story that didn't need changing when they were given the means to keep it straight.

Regardless of questions about original statements, there are plenty of lies and misrepresentations from the Ramseys over the years that calls their credibility into question. And it isn't just us "armchair detectives" who have seen that.

Nebulous.

The Ramseys only started "correcting" what was originally said over 4 months later, after having consulted with lawyers.

Why would lawyers tell them to change the story? The changes have no effect on the murder.

How does one go from reading her a bedtime story to "she was zonked" and never woke up. Two stories that are so contradictory from one another it's hard to understand how anything could have gotten confused. In the original statements there was never any mention of her being asleep when they got home. If there were, it might be understandable that there was confusion over who was reading what and to whom.

It's incredibly easy. John said they put the kids to bed and then he read before going to sleep. The people telling a story often overestimate just how clear we're being, and that's when we're not hysterical over a missing child. French misunderstanding this as John reading to the kids makes perfect sense from his perspective.

Burke has also come out to contradict what John & Patsy have said.

When did he do that and about what?

And the excuses offered up for that was that they never spoke with him about anything, or that maybe he misunderstood the question or misspoke. These excuses simply do not pass the smell test.

Wait, is this about Burke being downstairs alone putting together a toy before his father came to get him to put him to bed? Because any additional bit about him sneaking downstairs and using flashlights and whatnot come from Dr Phil and not Burke.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Because it makes no sense for them to change the story when they had the police accounts they could follow. The changes don't affect anything , so why make them unless they're correcting?



Arndt didn't hand in her report until weeks later. I don't find her credible.



Because it makes sense for French to misunderstand a pair of hysterical parents whose daughter is missing. It doesn't make sense for the parents, if they are guilty, to change a story that didn't need changing when they were given the means to keep it straight.



Nebulous.



Why would lawyers tell them to change the story? The changes have no effect on the murder.



It's incredibly easy. John said they put the kids to bed and then he read before going to sleep. The people telling a story often overestimate just how clear we're being, and that's when we're not hysterical over a missing child. French misunderstanding this as John reading to the kids makes perfect sense from his perspective.



When did he do that and about what?



Wait, is this about Burke being downstairs alone putting together a toy before his father came to get him to put him to bed? Because any additional bit about him sneaking downstairs and using flashlights and whatnot come from Dr Phil and not Burke.

RSBMBFF (bold above):

Thank you for the reminder and indicating that the death of JBR was a murder. I too, have always believed that….. whether accidental or intentional. MOO

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Oh there are so many inconsistensies...

First they changed statements about what happened after the Whites party. They got home straight from the Whites to stopping at the Stine's to stopping at multiple friends houses to drop off gifts.
Then they change their stories about who went to drop off the gifts at the door and who stayed at the car. Then they do not know who was awake and who was asleep. Burke and JB both being asleep to JB being asleep to no one being asleep as Susan saw JB up and bubbly.

John describing JB as zonked and , quote, "Boy, she is really out" Because I sort of struggled a little bit. It wasn't graceful getting her out, and yet she didn't wake up. And carrying her up stairs, up the back stairs and laying her on the bed." To reading to her after arriving home.
And Burke stating that - "He [Burke] said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and walked up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed."

And to add here the strange fact that Stine's lived the closet to the Ramsey house but they weren’t among the friends called to the Ramsey house on that morning. After the murder the Stine's just happened to quit their jobs and moved out of state to live with the Ramsey's. Doesn't raise any eyebrows?

Then changing stories about weather Burke went straight to bed or stayed up. And with what toy, if any, was he wanting to play with.
And of course they also changed their stories about what time they arrived back home from the Whites - first they told French that they arrived home at 10, but in later interviews it suddenly became "9-ish". A whole hour, although Stine's lived like 3 minute drive away? Hmm..

Oh, and they did not remember and changed their stories about who did or did not had received a bike that morning for Christmas present. And they changed their stories about Burke owning Hi'tec boots.

Patsy first claimed that in the morning after waking up she got out of bed, went by JB's room and OPENED JonBenet's bedroom DOOR, acknowledges JB is not in her bed, and then goes downstairs and finds the ransom note and rushes back to JB’s room. But later she has said she never opened JB’s bedroom door the first time.

John's story about the basement window has changed multiple times from not knowing about it to breaking it alone to breaking it with Burke being present.
And John booked a flight on his private jet a half hour after carrying JB's body up from basement for a "meeting he can not miss". Then later changed that story during an interview and said they were going home to visit family in Atlanta. - Really, 30 minutes after finding out your daughter has been murdered in your house, you want to go for a visit? Well, they stayed for a couple of more hours and then decided that instead of staying behind to answer questions about their beloved daughters kidnapping/murder they'd rather board their plane and fly out of state.

Patsy did not even recognize her own handwriting from their family photo album. And neither did she remember what size underwear her only daughter wore and owned.

If I remember correctly, there were also some different stories about partially wrapped gifts in the basement - weather Patsy had opened them or someone else in the family.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more...

A good summary there of just some of the fibs they told. Come on, they were only asked about this like the next day. These are simple questions, it shouldn't be that hard to remember.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Also very telling is JR "losing" his cell phone.

 

[Chimera]

The pilot, who was familiar with the family, would also have noticed JBR wasn’t traveling with the family. Whatever story they’d have made up to cover for that would be quickly found to be a damning lie once it was found that she was dead. Not to mention he’d have noticed the odor of decomposition, so that finding would probably have landed the Ramseys in the Charlevoix clink immediately upon landing there.

Note: I added the last phrase before noticing @ispy… had “liked” the original post. That wasn’t kosher. Sorry.

Agreed. ^^^

Hence the, "We have a kidnapping.." tale.
In retrospect-- what odd phrasing.
Imo.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Arndt didn't hand in her report until weeks later. I don't find her credible

Arndt was not the 2nd officer that John told that story to, she recounted it in her report as told to her by French. And yes, we know you don't find her credible. You have made it very clear that you find fault with a lot of people who were trying to investigate this case, unless of course they are Ramsey supporters.

It does make sense for them to change their story once they realized and the lawyers probably pointed out the original stories didn't line up very well with the intruder theory and the estimated TOD. And it's a built in excuse to be able to say they were upset or frantic and that's why they got it wrong at first. John was never described by anyone present as "frantic". He was calm, cool and collected. But no one who was present was credible, right? Unless their last name was Ramsey, because him not being frantic goes against the narrative.

Burke did specifically say he went back downstairs to put together a toy after he thought everyone else was in bed. I made no mention of a flashlight you're right, Dr. Phil brought that up. And Burke's response was that he didn't remember. So neither provable or not provable. Nebulous to use your word. But the recent interview that John gave he disputed that Burke was downstairs by saying he must've misunderstood the question. John has already admitted more than once they never spoke to Burke about any of this, and yet he refuses to admit the possibility that what Burke said was true. It's Burke's memory, not his. Why would you say your child's memory must be wrong or impaired? Because it doesn't fit with the story you want told seems to be the most logical reason. It's just a less aggressive way of saying Burke's a liar.

It kind of feels as if, and let me make clear this is my impression, my opinion only that Burke and Patsy are the wild cards, with John having to try to ensure that they don't say anything that upends the narrative. But on occasion they have, so John then has to go in and do damage control by editing anything contradictory they have said.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Arndt was not the 2nd officer that John told that story to, she recounted it in her report as told to her by French.

Who was the second officer and where can I read their report?

And yes, we know you don't find her credible. You have made it very clear that you find fault with a lot of people who were trying to investigate this case, unless of course they are Ramsey supporters.

That's nonsensical. There were plenty of investigators who could have done a better job - in the alternate universe where Larry Mason (who was plenty suspicious of the Ramseys) wasn't removed from the case I suspect it might have been solved within the year. FBI agent Ron Walker could also have done a better job, and he's also been clear he suspects the Ramseys. BPD intransigence prevented them both from contributing. Instead we got Steve Thomas who was a disaster. And Arndt's further career speaks for itself.

It does make sense for them to change their story once they realized and the lawyers probably pointed out the original stories didn't line up very well with the intruder theory and the estimated TOD.

How? Genuinely how? The time of death was hours away from the end point of either story. In both cases John and Patsy put JonBenet to bed, she's just awake in one of them. Is the idea that John believed the police would assume he read to JonBenet for hours? And how would it conflict with an intruder? Either he broke on after the Ramseys went to bed, or while they were out, but that wouldn't be affected by JonBenet being awake or asleep when coming home.

And it's a built in excuse to be able to say they were upset or frantic and that's why they got it wrong at first. John was never described by anyone present as "frantic". He was calm, cool and collected. But no one who was present was credible, right? Unless their last name was Ramsey, because him not being frantic goes against the narrative.

You should read Schiller's book, since plenty of people noted how distraught he was. Not everyone shows emotions the same way.

Burke did specifically say he went back downstairs to put together a toy after he thought everyone else was in bed.

Not according to the transcript. He said he was downstairs after the others were "kinda" in bed, putting together a toy. John told the same story back in 1997, they had put JonBenet to bed and then he went down to find Burke, help him and put him to bed.

I made no mention of a flashlight you're right, Dr. Phil brought that up. And Burke's response was that he didn't remember. So neither provable or not provable. Nebulous to use your word. But the recent interview that John gave he disputed that Burke was downstairs by saying he must've misunderstood the question.

Because everyone treats Dr Phil's words as coming from Burke. Dr Phil is a godawful interviewer with long rambling questions where you're not always clear on what is asked and he's also terrible at remembering facts correctly. And that's been the case long before the Burke interview.

 

[Slebby]

I remember the good old days when Dr Phil seemed so sensible. He jumped the shark a long time ago, imo.

 

[jjleroche]

Whether or not you believe JB was SAd or not, it cant be discounted as to a reason for a cover up if it was done by either male in the home. If BR killed her but there were signs of abuse, look how difficult it is to this day to believe a 10 year old could be responsible. I believe JR would have blamed no matter what. Either rightly or wrongly.
Off topic, but I believe if BR was responsible, JR has reason to keep the intruder theory going. If it were he and PR, he would quietly disappear. This case will never loose momentum and one day imo someone will talk or write a book posthumously. If I wasn't watching over my flock, I'd feel responsible for the rest of my life.

There have been many statements that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. Jonbenet's paediatrician adamantly refuted this:
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

extras.denverpost.com

The following may be considered OT, but I do think it is relevant. I was a teenager living in Australia when the infamous Azaria Chamberlain case occurred. Many "facts" actually were not facts at all. Rumours took hold ("the Chamberlains were a weird religion", "Azaria was sacrificed by her parents", "you could tell by Lindy's manner that she did it" and so on. None of the rumours were true - I'll admit that Lindy certainly appeared to be very sullen (so would I if I were falsely accused of the murder of my child.) (IMO who knows how any of us would react in a traumatic situation.)
The court of public opinion, as well as the jury found Lindy guilty, and she spent three years in prison - away from her young family.
She would still be there today if it were not for the unexpected discovery of Azaria's baby-suit showing clear evidence of a dingo attack, which Lindy had always stated had occurred.

'The police were feeding information to the press': The Australian mother wrongly convicted of murder

After being convicted of murder in 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated six years later. In these exclusive BBC Archive clips, she describes what it was like to be wrongly accused.

www.bbc.com

MOO

 

[Slebby]

There have been many statements that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. Jonbenet's paediatrician adamantly refuted this:
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

extras.denverpost.com

The following may be considered OT, but I do think it is relevant. I was a teenager living in Australia when the infamous Azaria Chamberlain case occurred. Many "facts" actually were not facts at all. Rumours took hold ("the Chamberlains were a weird religion", "Azaria was sacrificed by her parents", "you could tell by Lindy's manner that she did it" and so on. None of the rumours were true - I'll admit that Lindy certainly appeared to be very sullen (so would I if I were falsely accused of the murder of my child.) (IMO who knows how any of us would react in a traumatic situation.)
The court of public opinion, as well as the jury found Lindy guilty, and she spent three years in prison - away from her young family.
She would still be there today if it were not for the unexpected discovery of Azaria's baby-suit showing clear evidence of a dingo attack, which Lindy had always stated had occurred.

'The police were feeding information to the press': The Australian mother wrongly convicted of murder

After being convicted of murder in 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated six years later. In these exclusive BBC Archive clips, she describes what it was like to be wrongly accused.

www.bbc.com

MOO

In fairness, Dr Beuf was friends with the Rs and was potentially biased.
(I know what bias feels like. I have a friend currently charged with a shocking crime, I find it impossible to believe)
Paediatricians do not perform internal exams on little girls, so Dr. B could only base his certainty on his impression of JB as a happy girl.
IMO

 

[Ponytale]

There have been many statements that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. Jonbenet's paediatrician adamantly refuted this:
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

How often do we see, hear or witness cases where we think of someone being happy; being in a good relationship; being healthy; being lucky; having a wonderful life? We are so sure that they have it all together and must be and feel so lucky and happy. Then we hear/see or witness the opposite, after learning about it, it just does not fit to our imagination that it could be true. Denial. "No way - she was so happy".; "Oh, no way they broke up - they were so in love" ;"I can't believe she was so sick, I just saw her and she was all well." ; "I just can not believe he would do something like that". etc -
It happens quite often, doesn't it? It is so easy to assume, especially when we think we know the person/family well. And if something out of the ordinary happens, we are in total denial and disbelief. It suddenly can't be true. I think we can all connect to these situations in some way or another. So why should we believe or think that their family pediatrician must have known the truth? He did not perform an internal exam on her. He could have just thought in denial too - "No way that JB was SA'd in any way" ; "She was just a wonderful and happy kid." It could be just his opinion. Sexually assaulted children (and adults) can also seem happy to others.

 

[CloudedTruth]

How often do we see, hear or witness cases where we think of someone being happy; being in a good relationship; being healthy; being lucky; having a wonderful life? We are so sure that they have it all together and must be and feel so lucky and happy. Then we hear/see or witness the opposite, after learning about it, it just does not fit to our imagination that it could be true. Denial. "No way - she was so happy".; "Oh, no way they broke up - they were so in love" ;"I can't believe she was so sick, I just saw her and she was all well." ; "I just can not believe he would do something like that". etc -
It happens quite often, doesn't it? It is so easy to assume, especially when we think we know the person/family well. And if something out of the ordinary happens, we are in total denial and disbelief. It suddenly can't be true. I think we can all connect to these situations in some way or another. So why should we believe or think that their family pediatrician must have known the truth? He did not perform an internal exam on her. He could have just thought in denial too - "No way that JB was SA'd in any way" ; "She was just a wonderful and happy kid." It could be just his opinion. Sexually assaulted children (and adults) can also seem happy to others.

Yes. Well said. And SA typically starts out with a grooming process for a purpose.....not only to fool the victim that it's something innocent and normal, but also to ensure there are no outward signs that could be noticed.

That said, Dr. Beuf is part of the weave of this story whose role does invite scrutiny, from his personal relationship with the Ramseys to his seemingly nonchalant attitude towards JonBenet's recurring issues which did pay a role in the high number of doctor's visits that many have found to be concerning. Rather than adequately explain his conclusions, he is instead dismissive to the point where he denies that 30 visits (some have put this number at 33) in a 3 year period as not unusual at all. Arguably, it is much higher than average for a child her age who was deemed by that pediatrician to be for the most part "healthy".

There were also signs that all was not well with JonBenet which were becoming noticeable by those in her orbit. Teachers noticed that she had become clingy and less confident. The landscaper noticed she was exhibiting sadness which was unusual, which she said was due to her father always being gone. The episode at the part on 12/23 where she was observed crying and upset, and said that she "didn't feel pretty". The apparent increase in moments of rebellion with Patsy about outfits that Patsy wanted her to wear.

The last known appointment that JonBenet had with Dr.Beuf was some time in November. The teachers noted the changes about a month before the murder, so it is possible they occurred after he saw her. And it may not have been something obvious that one would see during a one time visit. We do not know if Patsy was concerned and even if she was, in reading through her answers to the doctor's questions about JonBenet's habits, etc. we have seen that she was not always truthful and forthcoming. There is some evidence though that despite her protestations to the contrary, there was concern about the chronic bedwetting that had become a nightly occurrence. I would expect that given her age and how long it had been going on, most doctor's would have either run some tests to determine if there was a physical or possible genetic cause, or referred her to another doctor to explore emotional or psychological reasons as the culprit. It is common knowledge that bedwetting can be a sign that there is SA going on. Given that it had progressed to such a stage that it had, it feels as if it was not adequately addressed by the doctor.

 

[jjleroche]

How often do we see, hear or witness cases where we think of someone being happy; being in a good relationship; being healthy; being lucky; having a wonderful life? We are so sure that they have it all together and must be and feel so lucky and happy. Then we hear/see or witness the opposite, after learning about it, it just does not fit to our imagination that it could be true. Denial. "No way - she was so happy".; "Oh, no way they broke up - they were so in love" ;"I can't believe she was so sick, I just saw her and she was all well." ; "I just can not believe he would do something like that". etc -
It happens quite often, doesn't it? It is so easy to assume, especially when we think we know the person/family well. And if something out of the ordinary happens, we are in total denial and disbelief. It suddenly can't be true. I think we can all connect to these situations in some way or another. So why should we believe or think that their family pediatrician must have known the truth? He did not perform an internal exam on her. He could have just thought in denial too - "No way that JB was SA'd in any way" ; "She was just a wonderful and happy kid." It could be just his opinion. Sexually assaulted children (and adults) can also seem happy to others.

You raise a very good point Ponytale. I'm not intending to take sides per se. My interest is in maintaining objectivity in any discussion. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was a teenager living in Australia when the Azaria Chamberlain case occurred. It was absolutely massive - a part of Australian history. The power of unsubstantiated public opinion turned out to be truly horrifying. It taught me the importance of objectivity, and avoiding assumptions. Here is an excerpt from my post:

"Many "facts" actually were not facts at all. Rumours took hold ("the Chamberlains were a weird religion", "Azaria was sacrificed by her parents", "you could tell by Lindy's manner that she did it" and so on. None of the rumours were true - I'll admit that Lindy certainly appeared to be very sullen (so would I if I were falsely accused of the murder of my child.) (IMO who knows how any of us would react in a traumatic situation.)
The court of public opinion, as well as the jury found Lindy guilty, and she spent three years in prison - away from her young family.
She would still be there today if it were not for the unexpected discovery of Azaria's baby-suit showing clear evidence of a dingo attack, which Lindy had always stated had occurred."

'The police were feeding information to the press': The Australian mother wrongly convicted of murder

After being convicted of murder in 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated six years later. In these exclusive BBC Archive clips, she describes what it was like to be wrongly accused.

www.bbc.com

Back to Jonbenet's pediatrician refuting claims that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse, respectfully, we are talking about a highly-trained professional in the field of medicine. Thus, IMO he was far more likely to maintain objectivity than the average person. Additionally, he gave official statements, and would have been very well aware (as any such professional would) of the consequences of providing false or misleading information (ie career destroyed), either by straight-out lying, or by omission of relevant facts. He would also have been very well aware that his statements would be subjected to very close scrutiny.

In addition to his professional opinion the matter, Jonbenet's autopsy results noted the vaginal injuries which she sustained in the attack, but also refer to a lack of any indications of on-going sexual abuse.
MOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

I’ve been following this case from the beginning and have always been in the RDI camp only not so much the theory that BDI, and please forgive me if the following has already been brought up as I haven’t been on JB’s threads for awhile, but does anyone think the following theory is viable? There’s more to the theory in my head/thoughts of course, but the shortened/succint version:

JR did everything and convinced PR that BR did it, forced PR to write the ‘ransom note’/dictated what to write to her, as he convinced her they had to cover for their remaining child, told her that he (JR) was going to remove JB’s body from the house and bury her somewhere and explain to cops that he left the house to deliver the ransom money but the perps/small foreign faction never showed with an ‘alive’ JB. That initially PR agreed to go along with JR’s plan to ‘save their remaining child’ but then after the hours passed with more time to think, PR panicked/freaked out about JB’s body being left out in the wilderness (not having a proper burial) and decided to call the cops while JR was upstairs showering or whatever that morning, and then immediately called the friends over because she was afraid of what JR might do when he found out she ignored their very own note’s instructions and called the cops,
so called the friends over as once JR found out she’d called 911, didn’t want to be alone with him for very long before the cops showed up?

IMHOO

ETA-clarity

 

[887sMtreme]

There have been many statements that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. Jonbenet's paediatrician adamantly refuted this:
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

extras.denverpost.com

The following may be considered OT, but I do think it is relevant. I was a teenager living in Australia when the infamous Azaria Chamberlain case occurred. Many "facts" actually were not facts at all. Rumours took hold ("the Chamberlains were a weird religion", "Azaria was sacrificed by her parents", "you could tell by Lindy's manner that she did it" and so on. None of the rumours were true - I'll admit that Lindy certainly appeared to be very sullen (so would I if I were falsely accused of the murder of my child.) (IMO who knows how any of us would react in a traumatic situation.)
The court of public opinion, as well as the jury found Lindy guilty, and she spent three years in prison - away from her young family.
She would still be there today if it were not for the unexpected discovery of Azaria's baby-suit showing clear evidence of a dingo attack, which Lindy had always stated had occurred.

'The police were feeding information to the press': The Australian mother wrongly convicted of murder

After being convicted of murder in 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated six years later. In these exclusive BBC Archive clips, she describes what it was like to be wrongly accused.

www.bbc.com

MOO

Dr. Beuf’s statement is irrelevant to the forensic evidence we have concerning SA prior to the night of JonBenet’s death. The vaginal evidence from the Medical Examiner’s autopsy was reviewed by a team of experts. One abstained because they couldn’t tell from a photo, but others who saw the evidence agreed it looked like earlier, partially healed SA.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I was going to write a longer comment on some new thoughts, but then I changed my mind. I'm still debating what role Burke had in this. And I'm trying to decide if it's possible he did almost the whole thing. Except writing the note. That's based on the idea that his next-door neighbor friend and classmate was over that night too. That would be a lot of work for a 9-year-old boy. But the arrows kind of point to him for some reason.