Burke Did It
JonBenet can't sleep so she wakes Burke and the two of them have some pineapple together. One thing leads to another and either 1. Burke gets upset and swats her with the Maglite or a baseball bat or 2. Burke attacks her sexually, she resists and he swats her. In either case, the parents are awakened by the commotion, see what's happened, and are afraid to call 911 because 1. Burke is now Patsy's only remaining child and she's afraid he'll be arrested; 2. John is alarmed by the injuries to JonBenet's vagina and is afraid he'll be blamed for molesting her, because no one could possibly believe nine year old Burke could be responsible.
From here on out, we have a scenario almost identical to Partners in Crime (see previous post), including all the many fantastic elements in that one. (We can add the option that Burke could be responsible for the "garotte," making it with his knife and using a knot learned in cub scouts. Hard to say why he'd do that, but hey boys will be boys.) Only in this case we also have the fantastic idea that nine year old Burke was sexually active, and also that he would have been strong enough to deliver a blow that, according to experts, could have felled a grown man. Of course, it's possible that the sexual attack and garotte were both part of the staging, but once again we can't help but wonder why a head wound would not have been reported as an accident.
Kolar goes into much detail regarding the possibility that Burke could have been sexually active and having an incestuous relationship with his sister, but he says little about why two otherwise normal parents would suddenly morph into characters from a gothic drama to protect a child who 1. just murdered their beloved daughter and 2. was too young to be prosecuted in any case. There's really no more to be said about Burke Did It, because oddly this possibility sheds no real light on the case at all, only making things even more fantastic than they already appear to be.
So here too we are in the Twilight Zone, I'm afraid, with Burke playing the role of little Chucky, the ventriloquist's dummy.
It's possible, of course, that Burke could have been sexually molesting JonBenet and that John would have wanted to cover it up out of fear that he'd be accused. Patsy could easily be eliminated from this scenario, which would make it very close to the one I've proposed, in which John is the sole villain. I find this possibility more fantastic than any of the others, but as there is no way to prove Burke could not have done such things, we cannot completely exclude it. The problem for Kolar is that this sort of Burke-did-it scenario eliminates none of the contradictions of the case as he sees it, and only adds more elements that seem highly improbable.
I was writing my theory of the case for the thread on Websleuths, including much sarcasm. Now I have to redo it in a serious vein, otherwise it looks like I just paraphrased your website. Thanks for the extra work :-)
ReplyDeleteHey no problem. My pleasure. Any time. :-)
DeleteThe thing about Burke Did It is that it has both Patricia and John Ramsey transforming from normal parents into monsters, in a matter of minutes.
ReplyDeleteIf Burke delivered the skull fracture then almost certainly the parents' first reaction would be to seek medical help. Burke's action could be explained as an accident that happened while kids were horsing around.
We know Jonbenet was alive when the garrotte was applied. So either Burke applied the garrotte before the adults knew about the body, or the adults (at least one of them) applied it shortly after they'd discovered the blow to the head. Again, the rapid transformation from normal parent to monster is just really hard to believe.
If the asphyxiation was complete, by Burke, before the parents discovered what was going on, then it should have been obvious that Burke was a homicidal maniac and that they (the parents) were at risk being in the house with him. It also seems unlikely that they suddenly decide to stage a crime scene making it look for all the world like one (or both) of them killed their daughter. Going to prison for life isn't likely to improve Burke's situation.
Additionally, had Burke done it, a phone call to the family lawyer would inform them that Burke could not be prosecuted, hence, no need for an elaborately staged crime scene.
If the idea was to keep the world from know the "truth" it was an epic fail, as half the world figures Burke was involved anyway.
Just for the record, I don't believe Burke delivered the skull fracture, or applied the garrotte.
One is almost required to imagine John as a prior molester just to explain why he'd go along with the scheme -to cover evidence of his own misdeeds- but that was a failure at any rate, as the coroner easily discovered evidence of ongoing abuse. (The ongoing abuse was not necessarily by JR, we don't have enough evidence to say that). Even with this angle, it's difficult to see how Patricia was induced to go along.
BDI is the loopiest of all the fantastic theories.
"The thing about Burke Did It is that it has both Patricia and John Ramsey transforming from normal parents into monsters, in a matter of minutes."
DeleteYes, that just about says it all, doesn't it? But any theory based on the notion that John and Patsy collaborated on the staging, for whatever reason, strikes me as equally fantastic. It's one thing to assume a boy might have fatally struck his sister, or a father might have been molesting his daughter, and killed her to keep her quiet, or even to assume a mother might have lost it and battered her daughter to death in a rage over bedwetting. It's something else entirely to assume that Patsy and John were so tightly bonded that one would take such huge risks for the other.
Any such scenario would have had no chance of succeeding in a court of law, so it's not difficult to see why no DA has ever wanted to attempt a prosecution.
Put John Ramsey back into the picture as the sole perpetrator of both the murder and the staging, and everything changes.
DeleteIMO the only suspect in this case who can't be excluded with any kind of exculpatory evidence is Burke Ramsey. Incidentally, contrary to what is known about Burke's mental health, he was being seen by a psychiatrist on an outpatient basis. This was revealed in the police interviews of the parents but redacted from the published report.
BlueCrab
What exculpatory evidence excludes John? I could never find any. And by the way, the opinion of forensic document "experts" is opinion, NOT evidence. Nor was the decision to exclude John based on science, because there is no such thing in this field -- which is why many judges will not permit these "experts" to voice their opinions in a court of law.
DeleteIf you are right about Burke seeing a psychiatrist that's interesting, yes. But hardly evidence that he committed murder. Nor is it likely a 9 year old would have been capable of (or even interested in) sexual assault. The great majority of 9 year old boys have absolutely no interest in girls, least of all their 6 year old sisters. While Kolar demonstrated that there were exceptions, the fact that Burke had psychological problems does NOT make him that sort of exception, which is in fact extremely rare. The evidence that excludes Burke is the absurdity of seeing a frail 9 year old capable of both delivering such a powerful blow and committing sexual assault. Which is why, to my knowledge, no one in law enforcement aside from Kolar has ever even considered such a theory.
what about foster, the linguistics expert also said he believed patsy wrote the ransom note. many experts are convinced she wrote it. they cant all be wrong.
ReplyDeleteFoster has been exposed as a fraud. The Shakespeare attribution that got so much publicity turned out to be wrong, as he himself has admitted. He was initially "convinced" of Patsy's innocence and "staked his career" on it, but when the Ramseys showed no interest in his theories he reversed his field and decided she HAD to be the one.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that many so-called "experts" are convinced Patsy wrote the note, those who ruled John out also found it unlikely that she could have written it.
If we go by what all the various "experts" on various aspects of this case have to say, we are lost. Because all these "experts" are all over the place. The lesson to be learned is that what counts are facts, NOT opinions.
i know foster said he thought patsy was innocent, and then changed his mind saying she wrote the ransom note. it doesnt do much for his credibility.
ReplyDeleteImo the guy is a complete charlatan. He was taken seriously only because people in the BPD and DA's office were desperate to pin the case on Patsy once John had been "ruled out." Rule him back in and it's obvious he did this on his own.
Deletei now agree. foster is a charlatan.
ReplyDeleteLet's pretend, for the sake of discussion, that it's BDI. Let's also assume that JR/PR were collaborating to "protect" BR as well as the "family name and reputation". Finally, let's assume that "The Ramseys" didn't know, on the night of the 25th/morning of the 26th, that BR could not be charged with a crime, hence the staging.
ReplyDeleteWhy allow the investigation to continue, focused on the adult Rs, all the while heading closer and closer to possible indictment?
Sometime within a day or two surely the Rs lawyers informed them that BR couldn't be charged. At that point why wouldn't they just go to the DA and say look, off the record, BR did it. We'll give you details if you agree not to charge us with obstruction of justice, or evidence tampering, etc.
Hunter's office was a deal making office, and Hunter was reluctant, to put it mildly, to prosecute for murder. It's hard to believe he'd be hard-nosed about OOJ or other lesser charges.
Essentially, I'm saying if it was BDI the whole case could have gone quietly away within a few days.
Instead, "The Ramseys" let it drag on, very publicly, for nearly 3 years (I'm stopping at the disbanding of the GJ, though of course the case remains open) with great damage to the reputation of the family, and considerable speculation that BDI.
The BDI theory says that the coverup was not to protect Burke from prosecution, but to protect Burke from the knowledge of what he had done. The idea was that Burke could be convinced that he actually didn't kill his sister at all - it really was an intruder. The IDI theory is aimed at only one person: Burke. Perhaps, to this day, Burke believes he is innocent. Last I read, he had claimed to a friend at Purdue that he didn't remember a thing from that night.
ReplyDeleteIn that case... mission accomplished, right? I am willing to admit that J & P may well be/have been cleverer than I ever will be.
Whose BDI are you referring to? I've never heard that one. He was nine years old and certainly not an idiot, so I can't imagine he could be convinced he never did it if he did -- which he didn't anyhow. So. Just another fantastic theory to add to the list. Thanks.
DeleteI think the most interesting thing to come out of Kolar's book is the picture of the train track lined up perfectly with the "abrasions" on JB's back. While it certainly isn't evidence of Burke's guilt, it's an interesting discovery nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, what's most important about the train track is how it functions as an alternative to the absurd stun gun theory. Those marks singled out by Smit could have been produced in any number of ways and the train track evidence is a good example of that sort of thing. But we have to be very careful not to jump to conclusions simply on the basis of personal association. Just because those tracks were part of Burke's train set tells us nothing about who might have attacked JonBenet. It's all too easy to form a picture of Burke torturing his sister with those tracks, but we really have no reason to suspect anything like that. She could simply have fallen on them -- or they might have nothing to do with those marks at all. She could have fallen on all sorts of things, or been pressed against some nails jutting out of a wall, all sorts of possibilities. In such cases one looks for items in the house, one doesn't go shopping for stun guns.
DeleteHi Doc, I was the one posting with you yesterday about Burke committing the crime and JR covering it up. I saw another persons posts about BR and some of that theory was a little out there for me. When looking at all of your posts, I 100% agree that there is no way this was done by an intruder for reasons you have stated, and PR absolutely was not involved due to the 911 call with the body still in the house. So, again that leaves 2 possible suspects which is JR and BR. As I stated in my previous post, I am beyond hung up on your "motive" theory. Your argument is that JBR was going to rat him our for molestation, but if we can assume that BR knows something, then how is JR trusting his son to not say anything for the past 17 years about anything that took place that night? The most important thing in the case to me is the family goes from going to bed to JR getting JBR out of bed and then snaps so bad that he hits her on the head to kill her? We have never heard of any type of anger issues with JR in the past, but 5 hours before he is set to leave with his entire family, he just loses it enough to beat his daughter over the head? You said previously that no evidence points to BR, but what evidence would there be honestly? BR who is on the same floor as JBR, gers her out of bed for a snack and to look for presents. You dont think a 10 year old could be sexually curious and since he was an introvert as you stated, he has no friends other than his sister who he has constant access to. There wouldnt be evidence of any kind pointing to BR because the family allowed zero access or questioning after the crime. There is nothing out there about BR and maybe the family did try and get him help, we will never know.
ReplyDeleteAgain, sorry for the long response, but if you honestly step back and look at motive, I dont know how you dont think BR had more reason and access to not only molest but kill his sister in a fit of rage. All of the aftermath points to JR regarding the cover up and RN, so Im definitely not arguing that.
-J
Hi Doc, just read the 1st post of the above blog and you already go over the BR theory that I have just written about. I am not trying to have to re-write what you have probably gone over a thousand times. My main point is simply the motive is stronger for BR then it would be for JR. Thanks
ReplyDelete-J
Well on this point we can just agree to disagree. I concede that technically there is no way to prove that Burke rather than John killed JonBenet. But as far as motive is concerned, I have to strongly disagree. To me the idea that someone who is molesting a child might be motivated to kill that child out of fear of exposure makes a lot of sense. While the possibility that a 9 year old would sexually assault any female seems really remote. As does the possibility that his parents would go to such lengths to cover for him. Obviously that works for you, but not for me, sorry.
DeleteThat's fair and no reason to beat a dead horse on the Burke issue.
DeleteI was curious and read in your most recent blog post that you always felt the "garrote Device" has always puzzled you. I totally agree that JR's plan was to get the body out of the house and used the RN to buy himself the time to do so. Obviously PR spoiled this plan with the 911 call, but back to the garrote device. Why use that? According to things I have read, after the hit over the head, JBR was still technically alive at that point which is why someone choked her to death. But, JR is up against the clock so why not use a belt, a shirt, anything else that wouldnt have required to tie a knot using a paintbrush handle broken off? You had made the case that JR didnt want to use his hands to choke his daughter to death, but why go thru the trouble of a fancy knot? My point of this wasnt to talk about BR anymore, but the garrote device does actually point more to BR then JR simply because of the Cub Scout angle you had discussed. If PR doesnt make the 911 call then I am with your plan that JR has time to dispose of te body and can get rid of the knot then, but it still doesnt explain why that specific device was used.
-J
Well, once again it just goes to show that we have a very different perspective, not only on this case but life in general, J. As I see it, one is much more likely to learn how to assemble such a deadly device in the Navy than the Cub Scouts. John was a Navy vet and also an experienced boatman, so tying a knot like that would probably have taken him only a few seconds.
DeleteThe bottom line: if John is ever put on trial, he'll have every opportunity to claim he was only covering for his 9 year old son, the Cub Scout turned sex maniac.
Casey Anthony and OJ were so obviously the killers in their crimes, but people tried to come up with other possible suspects which just never made any sense. The JBR case is obviously no different when looking through your blog. JR is the most likely killer and I actually have tried to prove that JR didnt do it, and its extremely difficult because so many things point to him.
DeleteBecause we can rule out PR and an intruder, it was 100% either JR or BR. I guess thats what makes this case so intruiging is that JBR was clearly murdered by someone not only in the house, but by either her own father or her own brother. Great work on this case and I will continue to read your blog!
-J
Good. And thanks.
DeleteJust a thought about BDI. Nothing I can prove but something BDI theorists should give some thought to.
ReplyDeleteIf Burke did it, and even if the blow to the head was intentional, and even if one or both adult Ramseys saw him strike the blow, the head wound wasn't visible. So, it's more likely they'd call an ambulance even if there weren't signs of life. They couldn't know the extent of the damage.
OTOH, if one of the parents (probably JR) hit her with the Maglite, he'd know very well that he hit her with everything he had. He'd know it couldn't be passed off as a childhood accident.
If the extent of the injuries was the head blow, then it could have been reported as an accident. Though as you say, John would have had a pretty good idea of the force behind the blow, making the selling of an accident unlikely.
DeleteThe real problem, however, are the vaginal injuries. Some believe those injuries were inflicted by Patsy post mortem, to stage an attack by a sex crazed pedophile. But as you say, if the head blow were accidental, inflicted either by Burke or Patsy, there would have been no need to stage a sexual attack.
Kolar goes to a lot of trouble to convince us that Burke could have been responsible for the vaginal injuries. And if that were the case, we can assume that John would have been alarmed when he found out, because HE could be blamed for the sexual assault. My take on this is that John, not Burke, was by far the most likely to have inflicted those injuries, and thus most likely to be indicted on the basis of probable cause. Once on trial, he'd have every opportunity to defend himself by pointing to Burke as the guilty party. And at that point I invite anyone convinced that Burke did it to imagine themselves in a jury where the only adult male on the scene tries to convince you that his 9 year old son both sexually abused and murdered his daughter. I'm sorry but I'd have a VERY hard time buying such a defense. To make it stick he'd have to provide an awful lot of details and would have to be supported by testimony from Burke himself. Somehow I can't see that happening.
I hadn't really considered the SA, I was just imagining a real BDI scenario where JR didn't hit her.
ReplyDeleteI can see BR playing doctor, but not causing the kinds of injuries that were inflicted that night. Anything is possible, but not everything is equally probable.
No, not everything is equally probable. Even if Burke were a bit older, and could technically have been indicted, they'd need to establish probable cause, and I can't see them doing that for Burke, because 1. it's hihgly unlikely a child that young, even if 10 or 11, would have been sexually molesting a 6 year old and 2. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of his involvement. John, on the other hand, as an adult male, certainly could have sexually molested her, and judging from his behavior and his clearly deceptive testimony, plus the absurdity of the intruder theory, he certainly could be indicted, even today.
ReplyDeleteHai Doc, I very much like your analysis of the case. I think you are dead right in spotting JR lied about how he broke the basement window (as a part of the unstaging). And this is the KEY to the case. Focus on this and we all shall see that RDI theory is the correct one.
ReplyDeleteI only have some question why you think Patsy was NOT involved at all. As I understand it, you reasoning was that PR absolutely was not involved due to the 911 call with the body still in the house.
While this makes a lot of sense (or the only sensible scenario i.e. the ransom note become purposeful for John to do whatever the needs to do to complete his plan etc). However, I'd like to offer some other scenario.
Why can't we think that Patsy also knew and even involved in the writing of the ransom note (hence the similarity of the handwriting and the notable woman author of the note).
But some how and for some IRRATIONAL reason like for reason of fear and unbearable stress etc...somehow Patsy could not take it anymore that morning aroud 6 am and she made snap decision to call 911 anyway...IS THIS possible?
I even propose that Patsy asked John permission and john agreed.
You would say this does not make sense because...
but that's exactly my point..
this part (911 call) does NOT have to make sense. Maybe that's the KEY to the case also. I tried to imagine that i were patsy or john. So after somehow i killed john bennet and stage and carefully plan everything (ransom note) etc...
in the final moment, due to unbearable pressure, i could still just Called 911 anyway...then call my friends to come over to the house.
this is similar to how JR despite he reportedly said he found the body at 10 am, he was silent. But then for some 'unknown' reason, when he was asked for the second time to search the house..he went straight to the basement at 1 pm (example of unexplainable decision that JR and we all can make in such situation - i bet if we asked jr why he decided to do that, he would answer he doesn't know either).
also a bit similar to the window staging. he staged..then for some 'unknown reason'..maybe he was afraid of what the police said when the officer first arrived..he decided to "unstage" and lied about the last summer break in.
sorry if i am repetitive and if i don't make myself clear. English is not my first language.
I hope you can give your opinion on this. Because i feel it will make so much sense that Patsy killed and John helped cover up. Or the other way around. But it's hard to believe from the body language etc. that JR solely is responsible and PR doesn't know anything.
thank you :)
Hi Winie. Thanks for your input. As I see it, if Patsy wrote the note and then had a change of heart, there would no longer have been any reason for her to report a kidnapping. And the note would no longer have served any purpose, because the body was still in the house and would sooner or later have been discovered. Also, if she'd written it, then it would be evidence that could be used against her. So why would the Ramseys want the police to see a "ransom" note that would be meaningless since there had been no kidnapping? They'd have destroyed it before calling 911. They would also have removed the body from the basement room and displayed it in plain sight. Because, after all, why would a murderous intruder want to hide it?
DeleteThere are other good reasons to exclude Patsy from this crime, as discussed elsewhere on this blog, especially the post titled "Patsy's Role," which you can find by searching this site.
Hi Doc...winie79 here,
ReplyDeleteThanks DocG for clearing that up for me. I makes a lot of sense of what you just said.
When I saw the red dot marks I first thought this could be IDI..But when I saw kolar explanation on the train tracks, definitely it is 100% match. Then everthing became clearer to me that RDI.
Why kolar stil said that it is 'probably' what caused the marks? to me it's 100% matching one-to-one (no need to say probably). But when he demonstrated on the video, he removed the middle pin. Would the middle pin make different mark pattern? Has this been tested? Is there any further info on this? is burke actual train toy has 2 pins or 3 pins?
After reading your blog, I am 99% sure that your theory that solely JDI is the truth.
We all just need john sample writings to help me see even more that John wrote the RN. Can we find this publicly? it's baffling to me that none of john writings is available on the net except some very small sample. I don't need his sample writing given to the police. I just need his 'normal writing' after all he still lives normal lives and writes books etc. Please post some of his writing...Once i saw more of John writings and can see that we can not exclude him. That's it! in my mind and to my peace of heart this case is solved :)
thanks so much doc for the great work on this blog and your dedication to this case!
it just shows that human beings can find out the truth once he uses his brain very calmly and rationally when analysing the facts. Rare quality to find these days :)