Below are a few open questions I have about BDI. I remain a RDI generalist, unwedded to any particular theory because I acknowledge they all have holes. I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. I should add that this isn't an attack on BDI, just an examination of some of the things that don't make sense.
Why is there a lack of forensic evidence for BDI but much stronger evidence implicating Patsy? The only forensic evidence we have ever read about involving Burke has been his prints on the pineapple bowl/mug and a Barbie nightgown belonging to JonBenet. These items are not directly associated with the murder itself, however. The existing forensic evidence that has a direct connection to the crime (note, rope, paint brush/tote) all implicates Patsy's involvement in the crime. What do you reckon?
Why would the parents let Burke out of their sight if he was the one responsible for the murder? People forget that Burke was interviewed twice within the first ten days after the murder, an incomplete interview at Fleet's on the 26th and one with a child psychologist a week later. This is especially notable given that the parents didn't have their first formal interview until four months after the murder. Both interviews Burke had were not under parental supervision and they could not prevent Burke from saying something incriminating or breaking down. You'd think if they knew he was responsible they'd have kept him close that morning to control the flow of information, right? I'd like your take.
Why did Burke return to school so soon after the murder? If he was truly involved wouldn't the parents fear he'd say something incriminating to a classmate? You would think the Ramseys would pull Burke out for a prolonged period of time or even homeschool him to prevent anyone learning anything about the murder from him. It appears Burke resumed a normal life shortly after the murder. Thoughts?
Have you considered the temporal context of BDI? When the GJ was convened, the Ramseys were preparing for Patsy to be indicted. The housekeeper even said after her testimony that she thought Patsy would be indicted given the direction of the GJ's questioning. Law enforcement at the time including Steve Thomas did not consider Burke a suspect in JonBenet's murder. BDI was tabloid fodder at this juncture; it has only become an ascendant theory since Kolar's book.
AndHence,
Why is there a lack of forensic evidence for BDI but much stronger evidence implicating Patsy? The only forensic evidence we have ever read about involving Burke has been his prints on the pineapple bowl/mug and a Barbie nightgown belonging to JonBenet. These items are not directly associated with the murder itself, however. The existing forensic evidence that has a direct connection to the crime (note, rope, paint brush/tote) all implicates Patsy's involvement in the crime. What do you reckon?
Because Patsy elected to stage BR out of the crime-scene, as far as possible any of his links to JonBenet's death were removed, with Patsy leaving her own forensic trail behind, likely in ignorance. You left out BR's footprint, penknife and touch dna, which are all
direct links to the wine-cellar.
Why would the parents let Burke out of their sight if he was the one responsible for the murder?
...
You'd think if they knew he was responsible they'd have kept him close that morning to control the flow of information, right? I'd like your take.
If the parents were innocent, even ignorant the answer is yes. Because both parents, particularly JR who had a game plan, knew JonBenet would eventually be found, then they might all be arrested and be subject to intrusive questioning?
JR did what he thought was best given the circumstances, i.e. relocate BR to somewhere he thought safe and beyond the reach of LEA, of course he miscalculated, as he did over his escape flight.
So rather than thinking the obvious, i.e. BR is safer with his parents, from their perspective, he his more at risk, since they do not know the outcome and may not be able to control his movements once JonBenet is discovered?
Why did Burke return to school so soon after the murder?
Calculated risk on the parents part, regardless of BR's role.
Have you considered the temporal context of BDI?
Yes. PDI has been promoted by ST as a background to his resignation magnum opus. Bear in mind ST's book and theory were redacted prior to publication, with the R's threatening BPD ongoing litigation, especially over any sexual connotations published in ST's book. So IMO ST's book is simply a safe RDI theory and a long resignation letter of complaint. This will be why ST never expands on his theory in interviews and said little to Kolar about his BDI. Note: not even to say you got it all wrong the case is PDI!
Another aspect of the sexual connotations to the case is Holly Smith's biography which had the whole chapter relating to the R's redacted. Why, because she was the head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team.
Without Kolar's input and before the GJ True Bills were partially published, BDI was the most consistent theory, since neither PDI or JDI were coherent.
With the publishing of Kolar's book, along with his circumstantial evidence implicating BR, the True Bills referencing an anonymous third
person, and no murder 1 charges for the parents, the publication of pictures of JonBenet wearing over sized size-12 underwear and
BR's long johns, and BR stating on Dr Phil he did return downstairs on Christmas Night, also he might have snacked pineapple?
All simply serves to strengthen a BDI theory. There is the caveat that it might all be window dressing though and BR is lying in public, to defend JR since JR and PR staged the wine-cellar crime-scene to deliberately implicate BR and point away from either PR, JR or both?
.
