What do Burke's interviews tell us?

[eleni777]

I don't find Burke's hesitancy abnormal if this was his first few meetings with the counselor.

When I got divorced I took my daughter to a therapist, she was only 4, but she was having a difficult time dealing with everything. The very first session she wouldn't even look at the therapist and would just shake her head yes/no. And I built it up prior as a positive thing, not scary. Still it took her 4 sessions to get really comfortable and start talking and even then it wasn't about serious stuff. Even though for a 4 year old she had a very advanced vocabulary and could carry on a good conversation. I could hear her answers through the wall (she's loud) with "yes, i like school and my friends". "My mom loves me, I love my mom." She said what Burke said, "my mom gives me lots of hugs and kisses". "Dad is funny." Then 6 months later she was spilling her guts like a grown up. The therapist loved her and loved the time she had with her because she would talk non-stop for the entire hour.

 

[mtwentz]

ITA. Sad, yes. But I'd at least wanted to see them TRY. Put in front of jury on the witness stand, questions could have been asked that never were during the interviews, and people like the coroner could also have been questioned about his decisions to leave out his opinions on the findings or at least he did not make them public. (his opinion on digital penetration, for example, mentioned to Det. Arndt but left put of the report) also his odd decision to put the time she was FOUND as the TOD, when the TOD could easily have been quite closely estimated by the stage of rigor mortis and the contents of the small intestine.
If I could have picked one person to put on the witness stand, it'd be Coroner Meyer.

The chances that the D.A. could have gotten a conviction against the Rs was very small; normally, prosecutors don't try cases that they aren't 90% sure of winning (at least that is my understanding). All the Rs attorneys would have had to do was show reasonable doubt, which would have been no problem.

Frankly, I don't know what to believe myself.

On the one hand, I have a real hard time believing an intruder would break in the Rs house, kill JB, stage a fake kidnapping scene in the basement, and attempt to implicate the Rs by parroting Patsy's handwriting in an overly long RN. I can see someone getting at JR by killing his daughter. I can even see how such a person might want to collect a few dollars while he was at it and extort some money before the body was discovered. But trying to imitate Patsy's writing style and thereby implicate her at the same time as he/she is trying to accomplish the first two objectives makes it start to sound like a bad episode of "24".

On the other hand, there is the DNA evidence. And that is hard to refute.

 

[DeeDee249]

The chances that the D.A. could have gotten a conviction against the Rs was very small; normally, prosecutors don't try cases that they aren't 90% sure of winning (at least that is my understanding). All the Rs attorneys would have had to do was show reasonable doubt, which would have been no problem.

Frankly, I don't know what to believe myself.

On the one hand, I have a real hard time believing an intruder would break in the Rs house, kill JB, stage a fake kidnapping scene in the basement, and attempt to implicate the Rs by parroting Patsy's handwriting in an overly long RN. I can see someone getting at JR by killing his daughter. I can even see how such a person might want to collect a few dollars while he was at it and extort some money before the body was discovered. But trying to imitate Patsy's writing style and thereby implicate her at the same time as he/she is trying to accomplish the first two objectives makes it start to sound like a bad episode of "24".

On the other hand, there is the DNA evidence. And that is hard to refute.

The DNA evidence is not that hard to refute. Remember - it exists NOWHERE else on the crime scene or body. No doors or windows. NOT on the paintbrush handle or tote (though Patsy's fibers were found). NOT on the garrote (though Patsy's fibers were found there). NOT on the tape, which the perp would certainly have handled (though Patsy's fibers were found there). Add that to JR's shirt fibers being found on the inside of the panty crotch and the fact that the "strange male DNA" found was easily transferrable skin cells and NOT semen, blood or other less transferable body fluids and I think the DNA evidence is actually pretty easy to refute. Skin cells could have gotten on the parents' hands at the party- they BOTH admitted touching those longjohns. I actually think the DNA being also found on the panty waistband adds to the likelihood it was transferred from one of the parents. Patsy said she put the longjohns on her that night, and JR's fibers inside the panties link him to having put them on her- and pulling the longjohns up and down to do it.
The Rs also tried to say the box of tissues on the table next to the pineapple bowl didn't belong to them, and they tried to say the pineapple didn't either (though identical pineapple was found in their fridge (it was tested and found or match that in the bowl and her digestive tract). They also first tried to say the bowl and spoon didn't belong to them either, until the identical bowl was seen in a photo taken at their own party three days earlier. They tried to say the flashlight wasn't theirs either, though Patsy admitted to LE that they had one "just like it" that apparently wasn't found in the house, but THIS one (which was identical to theirs) WAS found.
The list if things that the parents would have you believe were carried into the house by the intruder is long and just plain silly. Tissue box? Come on. Yet the intruder was so unprepared as to not bring in a NOTE, preferring to write a 3-page note in Patsy's handwriting while lurking in the kitchen AFTER JB screamed loud enough to be heard across the street and loud enough to be heard in the parent's bedroom.
It will always astound me that some people can actually believe these things all for the sake of not being able to admit to themselves that parents, yes even wealthy, nice parents, can do something like this (or cover up for someone who did).
So that is quite a lot of stuff the "intruder" would have had to bring with him.

 

[mtwentz]

The DNA evidence is not that hard to refute. Remember - it exists NOWHERE else on the crime scene or body. No doors or windows. NOT on the paintbrush handle or tote (though Patsy's fibers were found). NOT on the garrote (though Patsy's fibers were found there). NOT on the tape, which the perp would certainly have handled (though Patsy's fibers were found there). Add that to JR's shirt fibers being found on the inside of the panty crotch and the fact that the "strange male DNA" found was easily transferrable skin cells and NOT semen, blood or other less transferable body fluids and I think the DNA evidence is actually pretty easy to refute. Skin cells could have gotten on the parents' hands at the party- they BOTH admitted touching those longjohns. I actually think the DNA being also found on the panty waistband adds to the likelihood it was transferred from one of the parents. Patsy said she put the longjohns on her that night, and JR's fibers inside the panties link him to having put them on her- and pulling the longjohns up and down to do it.
The Rs also tried to say the box of tissues on the table next to the pineapple bowl didn't belong to them, and they tried to say the pineapple didn't either (though identical pineapple was found in their fridge (it was tested and found or match that in the bowl and her digestive tract). They also first tried to say the bowl and spoon didn't belong to them either, until the identical bowl was seen in a photo taken at their own party three days earlier. They tried to say the flashlight wasn't theirs either, though Patsy admitted to LE that they had one "just like it" that apparently wasn't found in the house, but THIS one (which was identical to theirs) WAS found.
The list if things that the parents would have you believe were carried into the house by the intruder is long and just plain silly. Tissue box? Come on. Yet the intruder was so unprepared as to not bring in a NOTE, preferring to write a 3-page note in Patsy's handwriting while lurking in the kitchen AFTER JB screamed loud enough to be heard across the street and loud enough to be heard in the parent's bedroom.
It will always astound me that some people can actually believe these things all for the sake of not being able to admit to themselves that parents, yes even wealthy, nice parents, can do something like this (or cover up for someone who did).
So that is quite a lot of stuff the "intruder" would have had to bring with him.

Just out of curiosity- do we have any actual DNA experts who have questioned whether the touch DNA truly "clears" the Rs? On a web search, I did find one other D.A. in the state of Colorado who criticized Lacy for clearing Rs as suspects, but his argument seemed to be that until someone is convicted of the crime, it is foolish to clear anyone. He did not seem to be contesting the actual DNA evidence.

Because frankly, I am a novice at this and your argument sounds reasonable to me, but who am I to question the scientists used by the Boulder D.A.? I don't have a degree in any science so I would really like to hear from someone who knows this stuff inside out.

 

[DeeDee249]

Just out of curiosity- do we have any actual DNA experts who have questioned whether the touch DNA truly "clears" the Rs? On a web search, I did find one other D.A. in the state of Colorado who criticized Lacy for clearing Rs as suspects, but his argument seemed to be that until someone is convicted of the crime, it is foolish to clear anyone. He did not seem to be contesting the actual DNA evidence.

Because frankly, I am a novice at this and your argument sounds reasonable to me, but who am I to question the scientists used by the Boulder D.A.? I don't have a degree in any science so I would really like to hear from someone who knows this stuff inside out.

In ANY murder case, NO suspects should be cleared until the killer is IDENTIFIED. With ANY DNA evidence, NO suspect should be cleared until the DNA is sourced to a PERSON. DNA that is unsourced should never exclude anyone. Especially skin cell DNA.
Cynic knows this stuff inside and out. The "scientists" used by the Boulder DA were NOT able to identify a DONOR. The DNA does not even have a full profile of markers. They were not able to identify who left it, when it was left, or wether it was primary, secondary or third-party transfer. If any one of us tested our clothing for DNA we'd find someone else's as well as our own.

 

[Agatha_C]

Why was BR 12/96 LE interview (at FW house) expunged? What could he have said that his parents and all of their lawyers would want hidden not only from the public?

Wasnt that the interview, where he said that JB was awake and walked into the house that last night? I believe that it was, so what else did he say?

The expungement also means that anything he said that might have been over heard by others in the house during this interview cannot be reported or repeated by anyone to anyone....

So again, I ask, what was so darn important about this one interview that it alone has been banished....

Also, this would make ST a very naughty and brave boy, for he alone gave us a small sample and risked everything in the doing.....

 

[circulon]

I have always been a staunch PDI, but in the last few days i've been thinking.

John and Patsy have always been distant from each other by many people's accounts. I always wondered why they seemed to be so distant but stayed together through everything. I mean, if i felt anything less than total and utter devotion to my spouse, and then he went and accidentally (or not) killed my child, i would not be inclined to form a unified front and lie through my teeth and do WHATEVER it took to keep the lie going, even taking the secret to the grave.

However, if my other child accidentally killed my child, i would most certainly form an alliance with the spouse i didn't really care for to keep the remaining child out of the clutches of the law and safe from any kind of detention or incarceration. Forever. I would take THIS secret to the grave.

This actually makes so much sense to me.
Burke was jealous of his sister; she was the favourite, she got all the attention from Patsy and Nedra with the pageants etc. She was easily Mamma's little girl, so i can believe that Burke was jealous.
If Burke has Asperger's or a similar syndrome, that makes it even more likely that he may have acted out.

I don't, however, think that he was having any sexual encounters with JonBenet - he was only 9, what kind of 9 year old is into erotic asphyxiation? Ridiculous.

This is what i think happened in a nutshell:

Burke hit JB over the head with the flashlight OR pushed her or similar and she banged her head on a corner or something. She possibly screamed just before the impact?

Patsy heard the scream and found JB unconscious. She and John conspired to make her "death" look like an intruder and strangled her, not knowing that she wasn't actually dead. Then they followed through with the rest of the staging as well as the ransom note and the rest is history.


In my opinion, it's as they say: the simplest explanations are often correct.
Burke - the jealous brother with Asperger's.

JMO.

 

[boro]

Hello all, I'm new here.

I'm the same age as the Ramsey kids (was 9 at the time she was killed) and have always had an interest in this case. I guess because I was a kid, it was Christmastime, and I couldn't understand why anyone would kill her. I found the whole thing pretty scary.

Growing up I kept up with it when it would pop up again and recently I've been doing a ton of reading...both here, at crimeshots.com, and at acandyrose.com. I've learned a LOT in this short time. Not as much as others I'm sure, but it's a start. I also found something that jumped out of the page at me, a few minor connecting details that I've never seen mentioned before and maybe it will help solve something...

I was going to start a new thread about it but it seems that I have insufficient posting privileges? Probably because I'm new. No matter, I'll post it here because part of what I found comes from the Burke interviews.

Anyway, check this out. All of these quotes come from the Bonita Papers, although in completely different sections. Like I said though, for some reason these minor details jumped out at me, so maybe they are worth something?

(Section discussing Burke's childhood and his relationship to parents)

Due to John's work schedule and his often absence from the family Acme for business travel, Burke and his father had little time together. One of the pastimes Burke did enjoy with his dad was operating remote control model airplanes. John also taught Burke to whittle with a small red Swiss army knife, a gift his parents had brought back for him after a trip to Switzerland. The Ramsey housekeeper often complained about following the youngster from room to room picking up the shreds of wood he left from his whittling.

(Section discussing crime scene in wine cellar)

Inside the room, investigators found the white blanket that John said had been wrapped around JonBenet, and the piece of black duct tape which had covered her mouth. .They also found bundled inside the blanket a child's pink Burble nightgown. A red Swiss army knife was also found lying in the corner of the room away from the blanket. On the floor outside the door to the cellar was a paint tray and acrylic painting supplies. One of the detectives observed a wooden handle to a paint brush, the type used by artists, which appeared to be broken and a piece missing. The floor of the wine cellar was vacuumed to collect any trace evidence. The black duct tape, blanket, nightgown, knife, broken paint brush and paint tray, and vacuumed particles were all collected and logged into evidence.

(Section discussing Burke's interview, in relation to this thread)

When specifically discussing the crime, he related that he did not hear any noises that night and that he was asleep, but he admitted that he usually hears when someone opens the refrigerator door downstairs. Dr. Bernhard asked what he thought happened to his sister. Burke, showing the first signs of irritation during the interview, responded, "I know what happened, she was killed.” Burke's explanation to the doctor was “someone took her quietly and took her down in the basement took a knife out or hit her on the head." He said that the only thing he asked his dad was "where did you find her body", a highly unusual query from a child considering the possible questions a child might ask about the death of a sibling.

?????????

It's been my experience with lying that, especially with kids, little bits of the truth have ways of making their way out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of Burke's interview, had JonBenet's autopsy report actually been released? Would he have known that she had been hit?

And it could be nothing, but like I said I also noticed the connection of the knife. Especially that he specifically mentioned a knife when he wasn't so forthcoming about many other details.

I wonder if he threatened her with it? Maybe it was even the knife used to cut the cord that strangled her and bound her wrists.

I'm not really a BDI, but that is an interesting connection and BDI would explain a lot of the strange behavior and coverup. I was on the fence until I came here and started reading the facts and observations from people close to the family I'm definitely RDI...just not sure which R did it.

That and a lot of the IDI theories seem to stretch a bit. I don't want to name names and no disrespect to the poster, but one theory somehow links JBR's murder to a serial child killer in Australia from over a decade prior? Really? That's pretty ludicrous...but I also feel the same way about the EA theory in conjunction with RDI...I don't see that happening either. I think it was far simpler than that.

I also have a few insights to share based on my medical studies and experience relating to her head injuries that may be of some use, but I don't think this is the thread for it. I'll find the right one.

Take care, and I hope this can small insight helps find justice for JBR!
.
.
.

 

[BBB167893]

Hello all, I'm new here.

Salutations, boro.

I'm the same age as the Ramsey kids (was 9 at the time she was killed) and have always had an interest in this case. I guess because I was a kid, it was Christmastime, and I couldn't understand why anyone would kill her. I found the whole thing pretty scary.

Growing up I kept up with it when it would pop up again and recently I've been doing a ton of reading...both here, at crimeshots.com, and at acandyrose.com. I've learned a LOT in this short time. Not as much as others I'm sure, but it's a start. I also found something that jumped out of the page at me, a few minor connecting details that I've never seen mentioned before and maybe it will help solve something...

I was going to start a new thread about it but it seems that I have insufficient posting privileges? Probably because I'm new. No matter, I'll post it here because part of what I found comes from the Burke interviews.

Anyway, check this out. All of these quotes come from the Bonita Papers, although in completely different sections. Like I said though, for some reason these minor details jumped out at me, so maybe they are worth something?

(Section discussing Burke's childhood and his relationship to parents)



(Section discussing crime scene in wine cellar)



(Section discussing Burke's interview, in relation to this thread)



?????????

It's been my experience with lying that, especially with kids, little bits of the truth have ways of making their way out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of Burke's interview, had JonBenet's autopsy report actually been released? Would he have known that she had been hit?

You may be on to something, boro. No, her autopsy report had NOT been released. Which makes one wonder just HOW he knew that.

And it could be nothing, but like I said I also noticed the connection of the knife. Especially that he specifically mentioned a knife when he wasn't so forthcoming about many other details.

No one had mentioned the knife up to that point. He was the first person to mention it.

I wonder if he threatened her with it? Maybe it was even the knife used to cut the cord that strangled her and bound her wrists.

That's possible.

I'm not really a BDI, but that is an interesting connection and BDI would explain a lot of the strange behavior and coverup. I was on the fence until I came here and started reading the facts and observations from people close to the family I'm definitely RDI...just not sure which R did it.

Neither were the authorities, boro. That's one big reason why they were never charged. But we'll get to that. I don't want to hit you with a whole mess of stuff on your first day!

That and a lot of the IDI theories seem to stretch a bit.

A BIT, he says! :floorlaugh:

I don't want to name names and no disrespect to the poster, but one theory somehow links JBR's murder to a serial child killer in Australia from over a decade prior? Really? That's pretty ludicrous...

(SD stands in the corner BITING his tongue with his hands over his mouth! :crazy::maddening::furious::banghead

but I also feel the same way about the EA theory in conjunction with RDI...I don't see that happening either. I think it was far simpler than that.

I agree, far as that goes.

I also have a few insights to share based on my medical studies and experience relating to her head injuries that may be of some use, but I don't think this is the thread for it. I'll find the right one.

If you can't find one, you can always make one!

Take care, and I hope this small insight helps find justice for JBR!

That's what we all hope.

 

[boro]

Thanks for the welcome, Dave!

My problem with IDI is that the only...and I really mean the only...evidence that could conclusively tie anyone other than the Ramsey's to the scene is the DNA evidence found on her. In the lack of any other evidence, that might mean something. But compared to that, there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence against the Ramsey's on so many levels, right down to fiber evidence that really makes a person wonder how they could end up there...such as the fiber from Patsy's sweater found in the garrote knot, and the fiber from John's Israeli produced shirt found underneath the underwear that was previously sealed and untouched by anyone in the house before that night. Add that to their behavior and other evidence found and it tips the scales way beyond any DNA found on her clothes.
.
.
.

 

[smurf86]

Thanks for the welcome, Dave!

My problem with IDI is that the only...and I really mean the only...evidence that could conclusively tie anyone other than the Ramsey's to the scene is the DNA evidence found on her. In the lack of any other evidence, that might mean something. But compared to that, there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence against the Ramsey's on so many levels, right down to fiber evidence that really makes a person wonder how they could end up there...such as the fiber from Patsy's sweater found in the garrote knot, and the fiber from John's Israeli produced shirt found underneath the underwear that was previously sealed and untouched by anyone in the house before that night. Add that to their behavior and other evidence found and it tips the scales way beyond any DNA found on her clothes.
.
.
.

Hiya Boro and welcome, in regards to the quoted post i think thats exactly the point.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for the welcome, Dave!

My problem with IDI is that the only...and I really mean the only...evidence that could conclusively tie anyone other than the Ramsey's to the scene is the DNA evidence found on her. In the lack of any other evidence, that might mean something. But compared to that, there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence against the Ramsey's on so many levels, right down to fiber evidence that really makes a person wonder how they could end up there...such as the fiber from Patsy's sweater found in the garrote knot, and the fiber from John's Israeli produced shirt found underneath the underwear that was previously sealed and untouched by anyone in the house before that night. Add that to their behavior and other evidence found and it tips the scales way beyond any DNA found on her clothes.
.
.
.

My prayers are answered! You DO understand!

 

[Rdw1981]

I think it's hard to pscyo analyze anyone, let alone a child, just by reading interview questions, answers, and comments from another individual. I think it days a lot that PR and JR agreed to him being interviewed. If he was involved I doubt they would agree to it before their own interview. Just my opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

The only real hope at this point is that some solid piece of evidence will come to light tying John to the actual murder. There's all kinds of evidence linking him to the coverup, but nothing definative linking him to the murder itself. If anything, there is probably more evidence against Patsy than against John. HER fibers were found wrapped up in the garrot, his were found inside underwear she she almost certainly never wore while living.

Chris_Texas,
You outline some excellent points. But if Patsy's fibers were found upon JonBenet's extremities. Why should you favor Patsy over John, when his fibers were found inside and upon JonBenet's genitals?


In other words why privilege Patsy over John. Why should you ignore fibers linking directly to to JonBenet's genitals and instead focus upon Patys's external behaviour?


.
.

 

[tweezybird]

Couldn't an explanation for JR's shirt fibers being on the new size 12 underwear simply be that he was the one who retrieved them either from the basement room or her bedroom and carried them against his shirt? The fibers would then transfer to the panties?
Sorry don't know how to reply with quotes yet.

 

[UKGuy]

Couldn't an explanation for JR's shirt fibers being on the new size 12 underwear simply be that he was the one who retrieved them either from the basement room or her bedroom and carried them against his shirt? The fibers would then transfer to the panties?
Sorry don't know how to reply with quotes yet.

tweezybird,
Yes, of course, but these fibers are still internal. Whilst Patsy's fiber forensic residue is external.

In the area of staging the difference might not be important, but in terms of how the the forensic timelime may have played out it is.

e.g. it may be assumed the internal precedes the external?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

Couldn't an explanation for JR's shirt fibers being on the new size 12 underwear simply be that he was the one who retrieved them either from the basement room or her bedroom and carried them against his shirt? The fibers would then transfer to the panties?
Sorry don't know how to reply with quotes yet.

To use the "quote" feature all you have to do is look at the bottom right-hand corner of every post and you'll see two buttons- quote and thanks. Click on the "quote" button and a box will pop up with the post you wish to quote highlighted in blue. Then, simply start writing OUTSIDE that blue area and hit "submit reply" when finished. Your own post will appear with the post you wished to quote above it.

As far as your comment- JR's shirt fibers inside those panties indicate primarily that he was THERE, handling the panties at the crime scene. Obviously, JR wouldn't have handled the panties at any other time. Anyone wrapping the panties as a gift would not touch the panties anyway as they are in a sealed plastic pouch or tube along with the other 6 pairs in the set.
Who put the panties on her is harder to determine, but his fibers put him at the time and place of redressing JB in those panties.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Chris_Texas,
You outline some excellent points. But if Patsy's fibers were found upon JonBenet's extremities. Why should you favor Patsy over John, when his fibers were found inside and upon JonBenet's genitals?


In other words why privilege Patsy over John. Why should you ignore fibers linking directly to to JonBenet's genitals and instead focus upon Patys's external behaviour?

.

Few things (probably worth very very little):

1. Her fibers were tangled in some way with the actual murder weapon. His were discovered in the panties she was dressed in after death. But note, there is no way in hell she was wearing those before her death. This ties her to the murder and him to the coverup.

2. Statistically, moms are the number one murderer of children that age.

3. It appears to me that mom staged the ransom note while dad staged the body. To support this:

3a. Dad, a business executive, would never have written anything as ludicrous as that ransom note (either in style, length, or content). I believe dad sent mom upstairs to write the note because he knew her writing was nothing like his and no one would believe he could come up with anything that silly.​

3b. On the flip side, mom would never have dressed her little pageant princess in those undies. Not a chance. Dad, knowing that there were clean new evidence free undies wrapped just a few feet away, might. I doubt he knew the difference in sizes anyway.​

 

[dodie20]

What's everyone's opinions on this interview? Does anything stand out?
I'll post what I find interesting in my next post so this one doesn't get too long

My daughters are 23 and 9 years old, so I tried to imagine how my youngest would act in a similar situation. 1st of all, some of BR's reactions, can be chalked up to immaturity, and/or a regression in maturity, due to the trauma. I believe my dd would show signs of regression. 2ndly, all families are different, and children usually reflect their parent's quirks. I think some of this might have been going on.So, with my own daughter in mind, here are a few of my observations. In this situation, my daughter would never feel safe, probably never again. But, if his family had told him over and over, how safe he was, he might have taken their word for it. But, even at 9, my dd is aware enough, to know if her world has been rocked. In a situation like this, my dd might say what she liked best about me was the hugs and kisses, but I doubt it. She would most likely talk about us loving her, and trying to keep the family together. If asked about what she didn't like, she would never mention material things, like expensive toys...no way. She would be dwelling on her fear, that we would never recover from the trauma. I know she would. I don't know what to make of the bedwetting. IMO, it could be physical or psychological. I think his response to doing ok, and 'yep' to missing his sister, were ok. If he went into the interview with a chip on his shoulder, I could understand him not opening up. But my daughter, on the other hand, would be so overcome with grief, that she would literally be starving for someone to talk to, to confide in, and to reassure her. I do know, that my daughter would include her sister in family drawings...probably forever. I can't imagine, after just 13 days, her talking about getting on with her life. This seems abnormal, but here's where parental quirks, may have come in to play. If his parents had spent those 13 days, talking about how important moving on was, he may have picked up on it. Him saying that he knew what happened, points to him either witnessing the murder, or someone telling him...otherwise, he would have said, ' I think'. I'm surprised he knew about the head wound... and him bringing up the knife, disturbs me. This is brutal knowledge for a 9 year old. And I don't understand how he could know all of this, if his only question was, 'where did you find her body?' Also, him putting the game on his head, seems extremely immature for a 9 year old, but could be a form of aggression. MOO

 

[UKGuy]

Few things (probably worth very very little):

1. Her fibers were tangled in some way with the actual murder weapon. His were discovered in the panties she was dressed in after death. But note, there is no way in hell she was wearing those before her death. This ties her to the murder and him to the coverup.

2. Statistically, moms are the number one murderer of children that age.

3. It appears to me that mom staged the ransom note while dad staged the body. To support this:

3a. Dad, a business executive, would never have written anything as ludicrous as that ransom note (either in style, length, or content). I believe dad sent mom upstairs to write the note because he knew her writing was nothing like his and no one would believe he could come up with anything that silly.​

3b. On the flip side, mom would never have dressed her little pageant princess in those undies. Not a chance. Dad, knowing that there were clean new evidence free undies wrapped just a few feet away, might. I doubt he knew the difference in sizes anyway.​

Chris_Texas,

1. Her fibers were tangled in some way with the actual murder weapon.

3. It appears to me that mom staged the ransom note while dad staged the body. To support this:

Well the forensic evidence does not seem to support 1. and 3. together. The ligature and broken paintbrush handle is staging, enacted by Patsy, as her entangled fibers confirm.

3b. On the flip side, mom would never have dressed her little pageant princess in those undies. Not a chance. Dad, knowing that there were clean new evidence free undies wrapped just a few feet away, might. I doubt he knew the difference in sizes anyway.

3b seems highly probable, except that we do not know from where the size-12's originated. Some people think Patsy did indeed redress JonBenet in those size-12's, regarding the Wednesday feature as of some importance?

It appears to me that both parents took an active role in the staging. But I reckon John likely revised a previous plan, without Patsy's knowledge and redressed JonBenet. This might explain the reappearance of the remaining size-12's, which was a major flaw in the Ramsey's version of events, since none were found anywhere in the house!

Also consider , why should Jenny's size-12 underwear be stored in that dirty wine-cellar, who cares who observes what Jenny is to receive for Christmas?

It looks to me as if some incriminating evidence that had been upstairs was moved down into the wine-cellar and explained away as gifts, ok fine, but why were they all partially opened. More staging here?

What was JonBenet's blood-stained pink nightgown doing down in the wine-cellar? That was no Christmas gift. Then there is the Barbie Doll lying in close proximity to the white blanket.

These all look like the remnants of a prior staging or one yet to be enacted. Since those items might have had innocent explanations anywhere else upstairs, but in the wine-cellar they could only have one use e.g. staging.

I reckon its an RDI mistake to assume the contents of the wine-cellar can be explained away by the Ramsey version of events. They might be lying through their teeth, with the contents representing evidence from upstairs that has been, by necessity, relocated down into the wine-cellar, along with JonBenet. In the hope they would have left town before it was discovered?


.