Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[madeleine]

All of these juvenile offenders have a few things in common.

They come from violent homes.

They were abused, sexually, physically, emotionally, or all three.

They had abandonment issues as one parent had disappeared

They were borderline intelligence

They showed disturbing signs before and after their crimes

They are guilty of arson

They did not act alone

There is a family background of drug and alcohol abuse.

They lived in or near poverty.

So...the above are what is known as risk factors...not all apply to every example you have named but most do.

This is not rocket science, it is statistic driven. Show me a murdering child and I'll show you a child who has been victimised themselves or been exposed to something like it in the home.

Burke lacks every single one of these risk factors.

There are also no indicators since. He has grown up to be a perfectly normal young man with a good career, friends, a girlfriend.

Almost impossible, if he was a murdering child.

:cow:

but you were the one who said that BR might have been a victim of abuse
in your opinion this could be the reason he doesn't remember/dettaches
in my opinion this could one of the reasons he had some ...other problems

 

[madeleine]

The boys you gave as examples in your post lived in states that charged them and indicted them then, to best of my knowledge, put them on trial. Based on what has been posted here, Burke could not be charged. There was no reason for Patsy (or any other person being interviewed about Jonenet's death) to be belligerent about Burke. There was no reason for her to defend Burke because at that point she had to know via her lawyers that Burke was not going to prosecuted. Boulder was not, in my opinion, spending money to try and prosecute a case if Burke was the one who killed JonBenet. The police were not out of the loop having no a clue about what went on in that house. Do you think they would have wasted all that time trying to pursue a case that couldn't be taken to court? I don't think so.

good point.but IMO the cops,DA etc were never sure re who did what.in the beginning I am sure they really wanted to solve this and they were trying to make at least one of them spill the beans.plus they were pressured by the media.
even if BDI= no prosecutable case,what about JR and PR?do you let them walk after they lied and covered it up and messed up with a crime scene?

 

[SapphireSteel]

but you were the one who said that BR might have been a victim of abuse
in your opinion this could be the reason he doesn't remember/dettaches
in my opinion this could one of the reasons he had some ...other problems

Of course he might, his sister was so he could have been too. We just don't know. (Personally I feel he was favoured).

This would be cancelled out in my mind by the fact that if he was abused, his parents were his abusers, therefore likely JB's as well. This plus the fact that they did the staging and the cover up, means it follows that they are also the murderers. Went too far this time with the "discipline"...oops.

If Burke had gone out and murdered some unrelated kid outside of his home, then maybe you could compare these crimes.

None of the other risk factors are in evidence for Burke, whereas your examples all had multiple.

There is also zero forensic evidence indicating Burke.

No forensics, no risk factors, no motive, no means = Burke is not his sisters murderer, nor her abuser.

My opinion only.

:cow:

 

[madeleine]

Of course he might, his sister was so he could have been too. We just don't know. (Personally I feel he was favoured).

This would be cancelled out in my mind by the fact that if he was abused, his parents were his abusers, therefore likely JB's as well. This plus the fact that they did the staging and the cover up, means it follows that they are also the murderers. Went too far this time with the "discipline"...oops.

If Burke had gone out and murdered some unrelated kid outside of his home, then maybe you could compare these crimes.

None of the other risk factors are in evidence for Burke, whereas your examples all had multiple.

There is also zero forensic evidence indicating Burke.

No forensics, no risk factors, no motive, no means = Burke is not his sisters murderer, nor her abuser.

My opinion only.

:cow:

re zero forensic evidence- we don't know that and lots of crucial pieces weren't tested
he lived in that house,played with his sister,his DNA/fibers must be all over the place,this makes it harder cause we can't know what's related to the crime and what not (Ramsey fibers+DNA)
ZERO evidence is a red flag itself!sometimes NO evidence IS evidence in cases like this,no evidence means someone cleaned the crime scene.they all lived there,touched JB so their DNA,hairs,fibers MUST be all over the place.

how do you know he had no motive?we don't know who killed her,how can we know the killer's motive..

 

[M.James]

You'd think if BDI then J&P wouldn't have let him out of their sight or talk to anymore and home schooled him out of fear he'd talk.

Hi, MichaelSmith,

This is the thing that interrupts my train of thought everytime I've tried to run the idea that 'Burke did it' through my head.

I already have a hard time with wanting to place a child in the guilty seat. I want to be the advocate, the catcher in the rye, so to speak. But, a little girl is dead, so I allow my mind to go where it resents going.

When I place myself in the position of Burke being my child and commiting this act, I see him never leaving my sight - anger or not, threatened or not. He would have never gone to the White house that morning, and so soon after the fact. Not to school. Not to talk to anyone without me present. A nine year old can't be trusted to not spill his guts when pressured (or in some cases, for a piece of candy). No, I'd have leashed him and held on for dear life. This is too precious a secret.

But, because I just don't know, I just won't say. Everyone has to be considered.

 

[Anyhoo]

Hi, MichaelSmith,

This is the thing that interrupts my train of thought everytime I've tried to run the idea that 'Burke did it' through my head.

I already have a hard time with wanting to place a child in the guilty seat. I want to be the advocate, the catcher in the rye, so to speak. But, a little girl is dead, so I allow my mind to go where it resents going.

When I place myself in the position of Burke being my child and commiting this act, I see him never leaving my sight - anger or not, threatened or not. He would have never gone to the White house that morning, and so soon after the fact. Not to school. Not to talk to anyone without me present. A nine year old can't be trusted to not spill his guts when pressured (or in some cases, for a piece of candy). No, I'd have leashed him and held on for dear life. This is too precious a secret.

But, because I just don't know, I just won't say. Everyone has to be considered.

You make an excellent point to refute BDI. According to BDI, JR and PR went to a tremendous amount of effort to stage and cover up for him and then they send BR somewhere else where they do not have control over him and where he could very likely undo all of their efforts by indicating his guilt somehow, verbally or non-verbally. It just does not follow that they would trust him not to give away the big secret they were trying to keep. And following that same logic, even if BR did not do it but knew who did, would they trust him not to say something? The answer is No. And this leads me to the conclusion that BR does not know who killed his sister. JR and PR were not worried about him saying something because he did not know anything to tell.

The other alternative which I will mention is that BR may have been conditioned so well to keep secrets (over a long period of time) that JR and PR may not have been worried at all about BR saying something, even if he knew who killed his sister. Or JR and PR may have trusted the Whites to help keep the secret because the Whites are not innocent bystanders as most assume they are. This is in line with my alternate theory that nobody wants to look at.

Either way, I think what M. James said is a very strong factor against BDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

I do lean towards BDI, but I do see some point there. However, I believe the parents are involved in the coverup if not the murder. And I simply cannot see them covering up for ANYONE except their son(s). Patsy may not have felt as protective of her stepson, but if her own son was involved, that would certainly be a reason.
As for the hasty removal of BR from the home that morning- keep in mind that FW, who drove him to his own home, came right back to the Rs, and I believe PW did as well. Their son, BR's friend, stayed with BR and there was some talk about BR saying some things to him.
I think the Rs were MORE worried about keeping him home. LE could have insisted on talking to him, as the parents were there, but even if they had tried to prevent that by getting a lawyer to the house right away, that would have been a HUGE red flag as to family involvement. LE could also have paid close attention to body language, as they did with Patsy peeking through her fingers at police to see if they were watching her.
At the time BR left that morning, JB had not been found murdered, and they were still treating this as a kidnapping. FW may have had some very faint whiffs of suspicion, but at this point he had no reason to suspect the Rs. I am, sure JR gave BR strict instructions to keep his mouth shut.
I also feel the parents, who knew JB was dead in the basement, knew that she'd eventually be found and didn't want BR there when that happened.
This is why I discount any idea that the Rs would have not removed him because they worried he might say something. They knew no one would be able to get to him at the White's and question him without their presence.
To me, sending him to the White's indicated more that he WAS involved than he was NOT.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi, MichaelSmith,

This is the thing that interrupts my train of thought everytime I've tried to run the idea that 'Burke did it' through my head.

I already have a hard time with wanting to place a child in the guilty seat. I want to be the advocate, the catcher in the rye, so to speak. But, a little girl is dead, so I allow my mind to go where it resents going.

When I place myself in the position of Burke being my child and commiting this act, I see him never leaving my sight - anger or not, threatened or not. He would have never gone to the White house that morning, and so soon after the fact. Not to school. Not to talk to anyone without me present. A nine year old can't be trusted to not spill his guts when pressured (or in some cases, for a piece of candy). No, I'd have leashed him and held on for dear life. This is too precious a secret.

But, because I just don't know, I just won't say. Everyone has to be considered.

Heyya M.James.

RDI wise, I find it to difficult to apply a rational to the decisions made by the Ramseys, that morning.
Presumptions might not be applicable.
If RDI, it was one high risk decision after another.
JR was ready to fly out of Boulder for that pressing business appointment, Mike Archuleta was on call, the plane was fueled.

If BR was relocated to the Whites, the child could still be ushered away with a phone call. BR could have been flown out to another state.

 

[SapphireSteel]

re zero forensic evidence- we don't know that and lots of crucial pieces weren't tested
he lived in that house,played with his sister,his DNA/fibers must be all over the place,this makes it harder cause we can't know what's related to the crime and what not (Ramsey fibers+DNA)
ZERO evidence is a red flag itself!sometimes NO evidence IS evidence in cases like this,no evidence means someone cleaned the crime scene.they all lived there,touched JB so their DNA,hairs,fibers MUST be all over the place.

how do you know he had no motive?we don't know who killed her,how can we know the killer's motive..

You misunderstand.

I meant "zero forensic evidence" as some are claiming on this forum that it exists, and points to Burke.

I have yet to read about this evidence even though I have now requested a link four times.

We cannot sleuth on what we do not know...only on what we do know.

Heck, my DNA might be in that basement. Doesn't mean I killed JB.

:dunno:

Burke was never questioned or viewed as a suspect by LE, or any of the successive "detectives" except Kolar, apparently, who had a book to sell.

I know LE have done poor job on this one compared to us here on WS, but they didn't even so much as look at Burke. As you say, they likely have evidence we don't know about, but has apparently led them to not even contemplate him.

We have none of Burke's DNA on his sister; an impossibility for someone of such small build to physically hold down a kicking, struggling 6 year old while forcing her thighs open; the lack of LE focus on him (clearly, they did not believe he was a suspect); the fact that there were likely two ADULT abusers in the house no matter which way you slice it.

As I said, based on what we know, its simple.

If you are going to start hinting at "mystery evidence" then it could have been Sandusky, Michael Jackson, the President...the door is wide open for wild speculation.

All I have used for my opinions is msm and other published fact such as the coroner's report, per TOS.

Of course my opinion would change wildly if they have withheld forensic evidence and JB was covered in fingerprints and body fluids belonging to Burke or another intruder...but LE have said it isn't so.

:cow:

ETA

Re motive - by all accounts Burke loved his sister and she loved him.

If he was involved in abusing her sexually or otherwise, he would not wish her dead or marked because

1. he would get in trouble (a biggie for a 9 year old)
2. he would lose his human toy

Once again, there are absolutely no risk factors for Burke being a psychopathic child killer. He would have gone on to repeat the violent behaviour. He has not.

He's a child, never named as a suspect by LE, so I really don't know why we even sleuth him, let alone blame him.

It's a mystery to me why some find a sibling murderer easier to accept than parental murderers, in spite of all the evidence in this case saying otherwise, and the statistics that say that overwhelmingly, children die at the hands of their carers NOT their siblings.

:waitasec:

 

[Tadpole12]

Of course he might, his sister was so he could have been too. We just don't know. (Personally I feel he was favoured).

This would be cancelled out in my mind by the fact that if he was abused, his parents were his abusers, therefore likely JB's as well. This plus the fact that they did the staging and the cover up, means it follows that they are also the murderers. Went too far this time with the "discipline"...oops.

If Burke had gone out and murdered some unrelated kid outside of his home, then maybe you could compare these crimes.

None of the other risk factors are in evidence for Burke, whereas your examples all had multiple.

There is also zero forensic evidence indicating Burke.

No forensics, no risk factors, no motive, no means = Burke is not his sisters murderer, nor her abuser.

My opinion only.

:cow:

Heyya SapphireSteel,

What about the high tech boot print.
BR was said to have worn that type of boot.
Would you consider that a possible forensic connection?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Heyya SapphireSteel,

What about the high tech boot print.
BR was said to have worn that type of boot.
Would you consider that a possible forensic connection?

No.

The child lived in the house, as the OP said, likely played in every room. Why wouldn't it be there?

I would consider a solid forensic connection to be his DNA or fingerprints on the body or on the overgrown underwear, the garrote, the knife.

Something that can be linked directly connected to the crime, not an artifact from a lived-in house.


:cow:

 

[M.James]

Thanks for the opinions. Of course I was only offering what I would do if I were in that position. It’s what makes the most sense to me.

I’ve only been reading here for a couple of years. Sometimes I ask questions that help me decide which direction I’m headed. I’m thankful to people who take a minute to help me out whether they’re RDI or IDI.

No, I don’t use the ‘Thanks’ button. But, it’s because I think everybody here should be thanked for spending time trying to help solve these crimes. I’d be spending every moment I was here just thanking people because I think everybody here deserves it – every room here is filled with people who deserve it, and I’d feel guilty if I left anybody out. I hate that ‘Thanks’ button because I know it could own me.

I never wanted to lean toward JonBenet’s family doing this deed. I wanted it to be an intruder because intruders are the unknown, untrusted, ugly strangers that we warn our kids about. No matter how old we get, we’re all afraid of ‘intruders’. But, everybody is a suspect, and I haven’t got an absolute answer.

The thing I’ve found most valuable here are the differences of opinions. RDI verses IDI - to see this case from all sides both need to be here (for me). Maybe it’s because I’m not a person who is easily swayed; I’m not a good follower.
I’ve read things here that are genius, and some too silly to take seriously – a little of both from either side, maybe. Regardless, I think both sides are very important to this case for it to ever be solved.

Sorry for the ramble. I just wanted to say thanks.
I'll button it up for a while now.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I do lean towards BDI, but I do see some point there. However, I believe the parents are involved in the coverup if not the murder. And I simply cannot see them covering up for ANYONE except their son(s). Patsy may not have felt as protective of her stepson, but if her own son was involved, that would certainly be a reason.
As for the hasty removal of BR from the home that morning- keep in mind that FW, who drove him to his own home, came right back to the Rs, and I believe PW did as well. Their son, BR's friend, stayed with BR and there was some talk about BR saying some things to him.
I think the Rs were MORE worried about keeping him home. LE could have insisted on talking to him, as the parents were there, but even if they had tried to prevent that by getting a lawyer to the house right away, that would have been a HUGE red flag as to family involvement. LE could also have paid close attention to body language, as they did with Patsy peeking through her fingers at police to see if they were watching her.
At the time BR left that morning, JB had not been found murdered, and they were still treating this as a kidnapping. FW may have had some very faint whiffs of suspicion, but at this point he had no reason to suspect the Rs. I am, sure JR gave BR strict instructions to keep his mouth shut.
I also feel the parents, who knew JB was dead in the basement, knew that she'd eventually be found and didn't want BR there when that happened.
This is why I discount any idea that the Rs would have not removed him because they worried he might say something. They knew no one would be able to get to him at the White's and question him without their presence.
To me, sending him to the White's indicated more that he WAS involved than he was NOT.

You make some good points. What about letting him return to school? He's killed his sister and the parents have saved him, they're spending a fortune on lawyers and investigators but are willing to risk it all trusting Burke won't tell a friend or teacher? That's just to hard for me to believe.

You guys know more about the case than me but from what I've read, he hasn't gotten into any trouble growing up, went onto college and graduated and found himself a girlfriend.

 

[SapphireSteel]

You make some good points. What about letting him return to school? He's killed his sister and the parents have saved him, they're spending a fortune on lawyers and investigators but are willing to risk it all trusting Burke won't tell a friend or teacher? That's just to hard for me to believe.

You guys know more about the case than me but from what I've read, he hasn't gotten into any trouble growing up, went onto college and graduated and found himself a girlfriend.

Burke had little to no counselling or therapy after this but according to the BDI's he's managed to self-heal, cure himself of his autism/psychopathy/murderous rages/rapiness.

Clever boy.

But then, he is a sister-murdering criminal genius, under the BDI theory.


:banghead:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It's not that hard to keep a secret, especially one as earth-shattering as murdering your sister.

 

[DeeDee249]

Burke had little to no counselling or therapy after this but according to the BDI's he's managed to self-heal, cure himself of his autism/psychopathy/murderous rages/rapiness.

Clever boy.

But then, he is a sister-murdering criminal genius, under the BDI theory.


:banghead:

Ridiculous. He was a boy with problems. He may now be a young man with problems. But THAT night something terrible happened and JB was killed, and it was probably unintentional. But because what occurred BEFORE that happened was horrible and needed to be kept forever secret, we have what we have now- a coverup of intentional abuse, fatal injury.
And what is "rapiness"?

 

[azwriter]

I do lean towards BDI, but I do see some point there. However, I believe the parents are involved in the coverup if not the murder. And I simply cannot see them covering up for ANYONE except their son(s). Patsy may not have felt as protective of her stepson, but if her own son was involved, that would certainly be a reason.
As for the hasty removal of BR from the home that morning- keep in mind that FW, who drove him to his own home, came right back to the Rs, and I believe PW did as well. Their son, BR's friend, stayed with BR and there was some talk about BR saying some things to him.
I think the Rs were MORE worried about keeping him home. LE could have insisted on talking to him, as the parents were there, but even if they had tried to prevent that by getting a lawyer to the house right away, that would have been a HUGE red flag as to family involvement. LE could also have paid close attention to body language, as they did with Patsy peeking through her fingers at police to see if they were watching her.
At the time BR left that morning, JB had not been found murdered, and they were still treating this as a kidnapping. FW may have had some very faint whiffs of suspicion, but at this point he had no reason to suspect the Rs. I am, sure JR gave BR strict instructions to keep his mouth shut.
I also feel the parents, who knew JB was dead in the basement, knew that she'd eventually be found and didn't want BR there when that happened.
This is why I discount any idea that the Rs would have not removed him because they worried he might say something. They knew no one would be able to get to him at the White's and question him without their presence.
To me, sending him to the White's indicated more that he WAS involved than he was NOT.

Great post as usual Dee Dee. Maybe because I am so strong on my belief that it was Burke who is the guilty party. And I do believe that Patsy had been covering for her son's behavior for a long time. And any imperfections her daughter may have had too. Outward appearances were everything to Patsy Ramsey. She liked to show off the family's wealth, her attemp at Miss America and all her pageant history as well as JonBenet's success in her pageants. She loved all the glory and that is one thing that convinces me that she would risk everything to cover for her family. She could absolutely not be the mother of a child who did a crime like this, even if it first started as an accident or that his young age would keep him from being charged.

But, as for Burke leaving the home the morning of the crime, I am beginning to believe that perhaps John had let Fleet White in on some of what had happened Christmas night. He could have appealed to White to help keep Burke from being questioned and in turn told White he was going to talk with LE and straighten everything out on how Burke was involved. They maybe had a pact. But instead, John went the other way and covered up the truth. That might account for the anger Fleet showed toward John later. And, with the laws protecting Burke because of his age, whatever Fleet had to tell LE wouldn't matter legally. Which would only frustrate and anger Fleet more.
It does not surprise me that the Ramsey parents would work to get Burke out of the house, away from LE and the discovery of the body.

Keep up the great posts Dee Dee.

 

[rashomon]

What about the high tech boot print.
BR was said to have worn that type of boot.

Steve Thomas wrote in his book that the Hi-Tec print could also have been left at the crime scene by a police officer (Kolar in his book says that FBI Ron Walker had in fact worn Hi-Tecs).

But one thing I have never understood about the Hi-Tec boot print:
Even if it was only a partial print: wouldn't it have been fairly easy to tell if the print was from a shoe size fitting a nine-year-old as opposed to an adult shoe size??

 

[OpenMind4U]

Burke had little to no counselling or therapy after this but according to the BDI's he's managed to self-heal, cure himself of his autism/psychopathy/murderous rages/rapiness.

Clever boy.

But then, he is a sister-murdering criminal genius, under the BDI theory.


:banghead:

Not so, my dear!!!... Burke WAS in therapy BEFORE and AFTER JB murder!!! Especially, AFTER...for MANY years.

During 1998 interview w/PR and JR - two years after JB murder - (read Police Files), PR has stated that BR is still visiting his psychologist/psychiatrist to avoid 'blow-up' condition later on, in his 40th...and JR has stated that BR's doctor has prescribed some medication for JR as well...so, looks like ALL members of remaining Ramsey family, years later, still needs extended therapy...

...no such thing as 'cure by himself'....and if BR has nothing to do with JBR murder then WHY HE STILL REFUSE TO TALK TO LE???....like father, like son....jmo

 

[OpenMind4U]

Great post as usual Dee Dee. Maybe because I am so strong on my belief that it was Burke who is the guilty party. And I do believe that Patsy had been covering for her son's behavior for a long time. And any imperfections her daughter may have had too. Outward appearances were everything to Patsy Ramsey. She liked to show off the family's wealth, her attemp at Miss America and all her pageant history as well as JonBenet's success in her pageants. She loved all the glory and that is one thing that convinces me that she would risk everything to cover for her family. She could absolutely not be the mother of a child who did a crime like this, even if it first started as an accident or that his young age would keep him from being charged.

But, as for Burke leaving the home the morning of the crime, I am beginning to believe that perhaps John had let Fleet White in on some of what had happened Christmas night. He could have appealed to White to help keep Burke from being questioned and in turn told White he was going to talk with LE and straighten everything out on how Burke was involved. They maybe had a pact. But instead, John went the other way and covered up the truth. That might account for the anger Fleet showed toward John later. And, with the laws protecting Burke because of his age, whatever Fleet had to tell LE wouldn't matter legally. Which would only frustrate and anger Fleet more.
It does not surprise me that the Ramsey parents would work to get Burke out of the house, away from LE and the discovery of the body.

Keep up the great posts Dee Dee.

Excellent post, Azwriter!...Completely agree with you and DD. Taking BR OUT from the house that morning was less risky than keeping him IN the house when he could be questioning by LE and all Ramsey's friends...

IMO, BR still has a lot of holes to fill out...And if he would care to solve his sister's murder mystery - he would meet with LE today. His silence and non-cooperation tells a lot. jmo