BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.
I believe the above reasoning goes to the heart of the thinking behind the notorious CBS special that has convinced so many of Burke's guilt. In the light of this line of reasoning, BDI would appear to be the only interpretation of the case that makes sense in terms of motive. And, as seen by the CBS investigative team, it all works out quite nicely in the end: Burke struck his sister "by accident," not really meaning to fatally wound her; and her parents can be seen as selfless "heroes," willing to risk life imprisonment for the sake of their precious son.
There is only one problem. When we try to put all the pieces of any possible BDI scenario together, taking all the evidence into account, we wind up with a hopelessly improbable and in fact totally bizarre mess. The absurdity is nicely summarized in a recent comment by MHN:
If Burke did the head blow they would've tried to save her life, not finished her off in this obscene and sexual way. If Burke did the head blow, the sexual assault, and the garotte, there is no way on earth Patsy goes to her grave hated and reviled by all, just to draw suspicion away from the disturbed kid who has murdered her beloved daughter, her pride and joy, her vicarious second self, her princess. If you think they did what they did for the sake of their family reputation, well that worked out about as well as we might have predicted, no?Or, to put in another way, as recently posted by Ms D:
Committing capital murder is not a "cover up", which is exactly what John and/or Patsy did if we're to accept BDI. She was alive when her parents made a decision to sacrifice her life for her brother's, and choked her to death - so let's stop with this whole "cover up" nonsense. A cover up is when, upon finding your daughter unconscious due to a blow to the head inflicted by her brother, you call 911 and say she fell down the stairs. Fashioning a torture device designed to kill is pre-meditated murder, pure and simple. This is why BDIs always stop short of defending their theory past the head blow, of course. The manner of death was asphyxiation, an inconvenient truth for BDIs, who would have us believe she died from an accidental blow to the head delivered by her nine year old brother.If you want to argue that Burke did the garrote strangulation as well as the head blow, then you need to relinquish one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence pointing to Patsy: the presence of her fibers intertwined with the knotting of this disgusting device. You have to wonder also, what Burke was doing in the 45 minute or more interval between the head blow and the strangulation. Poking her with his train tracks?
And you have to wonder also at the reaction of his parents when they discovered a comatose JonBenet, bleeding from the vagina, with strands of ligature buried deep into her neck. I don't know how a raving lunatic might respond, but the response of any normal person would NOT be to sit down and write a phony ransom note, that's for sure. After trying my best to revive my daughter, I would either call 911 right away to report what happened, or call my lawyer to get some advice as to how to proceed. My thoughts would NOT be centered on covering up the truth, but in attempting to grasp the fact that I'd been harboring a little psychopath in my home and wondering how to cope with that. The thought that not only one, but both parents would agree to risk life imprisonment to cover for a child who had so horribly attacked and mutilated his own sister is simply beyond belief.
So. John would not have covered for Patsy, Patsy would not have covered for John -- AND both Patsy and John would not have covered for Burke. Where does that leave us? What have we failed to consider?
What's been left out of consideration by just about everyone following this case, from law enforcement to media people to the general public, is the possibility that John and Patsy were NOT "in it together" at all, but that one was keeping the truth from the other. If we accept BDI because it's the only theory that makes sense in view of the "fact" that John and Patsy were both involved in a cover-up, the same logic also makes it necessary to consider the possibility that the two parents were NOT both involved. If we have no choice but to rule out John doing it with Patsy's help or Patsy doing it with John's help or Burke doing it with the help of both parents, then, aside from the nonexistent intruder whom we've already ruled out, that's the only alternative left to us, no?
Which returns us to the FACT that Patsy is the one who called the police that morning, not John; that Patsy claimed at one point that the call was her idea, in spite of John's claim that it was his. As I've stressed so many times in the past, if Patsy were involved in a cover-up based on the staging of a kidnapping, she would never have called 911 at that time, with the victim's body still in the house.
The problem is that so many have accepted Patsy as being involved almost right from the start, or at least after John was "ruled out" and she was not. Patsy's involvement has become an article of faith and anything she ever said or did that seemed a little strange or possibly suspicious, no matter how trivial (i.e., peeking from between her fingers at a police officer, or failing to recall that a "santa bear" was a recent addition to JonBenet's toy stash, or hanging up on the operator after completing her 911 call, etc. etc.) has been seen as a sure sign of guilt. I recently covered a large number of these alleged lies or suspicious behaviors, demonstrating in case after case the role of confirmation bias in determining the public's reaction.
Ironically, it's the thinking behind BDI, the certainty that the parents would have been willing to conspire in a cover-up ONLY to protect their son, that opens to the door to a very different consideration of the case, based on the only sensible alternative: that both parents could NOT have been involved, that one must be guilty and the other innocent. The only alternatives involve the construction of scenarios that, when tested against ALL the evidence, simply go nowhere.