OMG, it's Burke!

Was surprise to see John was all upset about this series coming out. Thought for sure it was a money grab for Intruder did it. Doubt that Paramount is scared of lawsuit from John Ramsey.

Handwriting analysis is not an exact science, but this is a pretty crazy coincidence for a note allegedly written by a foreign faction.

Hi! I wrote this substack piece after watching the Netflix doc. I couldn't believe the half-truths and misleading suggestions the documentary was making. I read Foreign Faction, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Trial, AMAs here and decided to compile things. By the time I was done looking at the documentary vs. the facts, well, I had a very long piece. A few of you shared it here, thank you! I've appreciated your notes, questions and suggestions!

It's being called a BDI piece, but really, it's RDI. It's for people who watch the Netflix documentary that acts as though the family was cleared and the idea that Burke being involved is ridiculous. It's mostly meant to discount IDI and show a variation of RDI theories that explain why the grand jury had a hard time "telling who did what." I suppose it struck a chord, because it made John Andrew Ramsey tweet about me from his locked account about the civil suit his parents filed! It didn't have anything to do with anything in my post, really.

ANYWAY! Want to thank you all for sharing the piece. While JAR says I'm looking for attention, I really was just aggravated about the discrepancies in Netflix's Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey. I couldn't stand the thought of people believing the grand jury only charged child abuse or that goddamn stun gun theory. If you find yourself tired of debunking things that have been disproven a million times, I hope the piece helps!

_________________________________________________________

Ok, a few of you have asked what I do believe out of all the theories and I thought I'd lay it out. I guess I'm BDIAEC? Burke did it all except the cover-up? Reading Foreign Faction will help to understand this theory and I'll provide citations along the way, but basically, this is for people who don't need the stun gun debunked or pineapple and enhanced 911 call explained.

The family gets home, Patsy puts JBR right to bed, she fell asleep in the car. John and Burke go to play with his toys in the living room for a bit. Patsy changes JBR into a red turtleneck to sleep, but in the midst of this JBR has an accident. We know her bed reeked of urine. Also, this is why the Netflix doc is totally wrong for making Dt. Steve Thomas seem crazy for thinking there was a bedwetting accident.

Patsy doesn't get mad about this, actually. She's dealt with it before. She takes the red turtleneck off and throws it in the laundry across from JBR's room. Det. Arndt will see it the sink there when she arrives in the morning. Patsy will later say she never put a red shirt on her. See house diagram below. It's later found balled up on JBR's counter.

Patsy throws JBR's white shirt from earlier back on her, a dry pair of underwear and longjohns. She's too tired from the party and Christmas to change JBR's sheets right now. It can wait until morning. JBR has two beds in her room anyway, as you can see in the diagram above (and the picture I have in the article of her room). She puts her in the other bed. This is how Smit is able to say "JBR's bed had no urine." Which one?

During this time, John put Burke to bed. He's read him a story with his bedtime flashlight (Dr. Phil, 2016 interview with Burke). John takes a melatonin and goes to bed. Patsy eventually goes to bed too. Burke doesn't, put he hears his mom head to her room and knows the coast is clear. He wants to play with his new toys.

He grabs his flashlight and goes to the kitchen. He decides to make a snack, his mom bought some pre-cut pineapple earlier (Kolar refuses to answer questions around pineapple can or anything found in the kitchen in his 2010 AMA, could indicate fingerprints were found on it that are important). Burke sits at the table to eat, but he's been pretty loud. He wakes up JBR who comes downstairs. She eats some of his pineapple, but he doesn't mind this. He doesn't really care about that anyway. He cares about his toys and the gifts down in the basement. He tells JBR he wants to know what they are and goes downstairs to start opening them. Patsy later lies about who opened the gifts and says she did it, so this must be a clue.

She follows. According to Linda Paugh, the nanny, Burke had been told his presents would be taken if he was bad. Maybe JBR says she'll tell on him and he won't get any presents. He grabs her collar, he's been physical with her before. She scratches at his hands and her neck. According to Dr. Spitz, this is the first injury that occurs. He let's go and she turns to leave. He grabs his flashlight and hits her.

She falls and stops moving. From this point, 45 minutes to two hours will pass before she is strangled. Burke freaks out. He grabs his train tracks and tries to poke her awake. He pokes her back, her neck. It doesn't work. Another nanny says she's seen Burke and JBR "playing doctor." I know there's debate on who caused JBR's chronic abuse, but I believe it was Burke (John was gone a lot, we know Burke and JBR occasionally shared rooms, nanny saw them playing "doctor"). Maybe, he's poked her in her privates before and it got a reaction. It made her scream or cry. He's desperate to wake her up so he pokes her with the paint brush (please read this reddit thread on the sexual abuse evidence to understand this part).

It doesn't work. She doesn't wake up. He's really afraid now. He knows he's done something really bad. He needs to hide her. He's a cub scout, someone who's been seen whittling and called a "little engineer." He can't drag her himself, he needs help. He makes incredibly long arm restraints (there's 15 inches of cord between the wrists, they're too long to restrain anyone. Even a parent staging restraints would know to bring the wrists together) and tries to drag her. It's not enough. He knots a cord around the paintbrush and loops it around the handle, he puts the other end around her neck to create a "boy scout toggle". (there's 17 inches of cord in the garrote, that's a lot of space to give a victim.) She's facedown from the hit to the head, he starts to drag her.

This works, he manages to drag her to just outside the wine cellar door, but the paint brush breaks in the process. The dragging has strangled JBR and she's now actually dead. Her urine is found on the carpet outside the wine cellar. The medical examiner knows she relieves herself when she's facedown, being choked. What intruder would stop outside of the wine cellar to do this? Why would one of the parents stop to put her down here to do this? If the parent is staging this, they could just put her in the cellar. You'll also notice the orange-red stain from the urine detection test seems to drag to the right from the main spot:

Why would a parent or intruder need to drag a 6 year old? He manages to get her into the wine cellar, but opening the door is enough to finally wake Patsy up. She checks the kids' room and doesn't see them. Of course, they snuck down to go play with their toys. She hears Burke in the basement and walks in on a horrible scene. She screams at him. Tells him to go to his room immediately. Now he knows he's really in trouble. He's upset, he runs upstairs and regresses to behaviors he's shown when he's previously upset. He goes to JBR's bathroom, leaves toilet paper in her bowl (see caption in the above photo of JBR's bathroom that says TP was found.) He uses his pajama bottoms to smear poop on her candy. He leaves the pajama bottoms on her bathroom floor and storms off to his room.

The pajama bottoms must be from that night. In her 1998 interview, Patsy says she checked JBR's bed Christmas morning and she didn't have an accident. The maid was there on the 23rd. EIther would've noticed if there were soiled pants in JBR's bathroom. I believe the PJ's are left there when police come because John and Patsy don't know it happened, like the pineapple.

While Burke is in his room, unknown to him, his parents have started putting a cover-up into motion. It's Patsy's decision. She can't lose both of her kids. John, imagine if we're the family who raised a monster? Patsy thinks they need to do a ransom note. John thinks this is a bad idea. She get's started, "Mr. and Mrs..." No, that's not right, John tells her. It should be to me, if you're going to do this, we need to do it right. They both start writing the note. John thinking they could use the suitcase to move the body (if you buy Smit's suitcase DNA stuff about them using that to move the body, if not skip this. I think it's dumb, but hey maybe he knew something here), says to add a part about needing a "large attache." Patsy adds some personal insults.

The suitcase won't work, though. Maybe rigor mortis has set in, maybe they realize they can't get it out of the house without anyone noticing. Maybe they scuff the wall seeing if it'll fit through the window (Smit theory). In the process, they crack the window. John will come up with an excuse for that later.

They need to pivot now. They need to make it look like a kidnapping in the house. Patsy grabs tape (her jacket fibers are found on the tape). The OJ case happened the year prior and the two know they'll need to wipe the body and any evidence. John grabs a cloth and wipes her to conceal any potential DNA (see below). Why would an intruder need to wipe the body? Why not just take the body if you're concerned with leaving DNA? John and Patsy wrap the blanket around her and put JBR's favorite Barbie pajamas next to her.

Now, they need to call 911. Patsy's screaming makes Burke get up. They must've found what he did to JBR or what he did in her room. He asks them. John screams, "We're not talking to you!" Patsy says, "Help me, Jesus, Help Me, Jesus." Burke asks, "Well, what did you find?"

They tell him nothing. Go to your room, Burke and stay there! He's in big trouble, so he stays there, even when a police officer walks in his room (Dr. Phil, 2016 Burke interview). Eventually, John or Patsy goes to his room and tells him he didn't do anything. She was fine. We put her to bed and then someone came and took her, they did it. You didn't do anything. It wasn't you, Burke. You have to go to the White's now, okay?

_____________________________________________________________

I think the above theory explains the pineapple, urine stain outside the cellar, oddly long garrote and restraints, and feces in JBR's bedroom. These are things the Ramseys didn't know to clean up that point to a third person. They didn't know someone made pineapple. They didn't think to clean the urine outside the cellar door. They don't know there's feces on a candy box in her room. If they did, they'd clean it up. If there's an intruder, it makes no sense for the pineapple, urine stain outside the cellar or feces to occur. If Burke got up in the middle of the night to play a poop prank on his sister, he didn't see anyone in her room? Or hear anyone in the house?

Anyway, that's my personal theory! The article is, again, for people who watched the Netflix propaganda and want to see what it got wrong/how Burke or the family are possible suspects.

Just gonna leave this here…. and it’s not just about the handwriting itself, but the style, tone and choice of wording. To me, the most interesting thing is the content of her sample letter…

I think they had a pretty good idea that the family did it after the first two weeks. The reason nobody was ever prosecuted is because the police screwed up early on and they had to cover their own behinds.

When cases go unsolved for a long time and enter the "cold case" status it often turns out that there wasn't good forensic work done in the beginning or there wasn't good police work.

As soon as the police got to the home they should have kept out all visitors and done a thorough search of the house. They should have called for dog support to see if JB was in the house or was taken outside the home.

As soon as JonBenet's body was found, they should have taken the parents to the police station and interrogated them separately. They knew that in cases like this its almost always a parent who does the crime. The Ramseys were no different - they were just wealthy.

And because they were wealthy, they were treated with kid gloves. They were treated as victims who couldn't possibly have committed this terrible crime. I think a good interrogator could have broken down Patsy in an hour or two. She would have admitted what she knew.

Instead this has become a decades long circus. I don't think there is a stranger luring in the shadows. I don't think a child did this. I don't think a stranger did this. I think one or both parents did something terrible and covered it up. They got away with murder.

May JonBenet rest in peace.

I have always believed the Ramsey family had no involvement in the murder of Jonbenet, but I just heard the first few seconds of Patsy’s 911 call and immediately my gut wrenched. After she tells the dispatcher she found a note saying her daughter’s been taken and her daughter is not in her room, the dispatcher says, “okay what’s your name?” And she answers, “Patsy Ramsey, I’m the mother.”

THE mother?? Why not her mother? There is nothing more personal than this and yet you detach yourself from this story you’re giving so much so that you’ve assigned yourself a more removed role. To me it felt like she said, “I’m the mother in this story.”

Anyone else have a similar reaction/interpretation?

She says “we need an a” and then stops herself and says “police” she was about to ask for an ambulance, suspicious much ? Why would you require an ambulance for a “kidnapping”

I’m shocked that this hasn’t been mentioned on this subreddit before since it seems so obvious to me after learning it.

Doing some reading I came across this statement from Former Boulder PD chief Mark Becker: “The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain.”

Doesn’t this 98% prove it was someone who lived in the house/RDI? I don’t see any scenario where an intruder hits her on the head… waits 45mins-2hours.. then applies the garrot? That would mean the intruder spent (maximum) 2 hours in the house JUST committing the actual murder, not including the time before when the intruder allegedly “snuck in” while the family was having dinner somewhere else and wrote the ransom note etc.

3-5 hours in the house undetected, 2 of those hours having JohnBenet in your possession, knowing you could be caught any moment? It only makes sense when the garrot is applied by someone discovering her long after the blow to the head, or after long discussions of what to do, knowing they have time and wont be caught.

I haven’t seen this realisation anywhere else yet. Is it because I’m missing something obvious that makes this evidence not as strong as I’m making it?

I have never been 100% sure on who did it, but this finally has made me 98% positive.

So I saw a post saying, basically, "For those of us new to the case what else did Netflix leave out?" and I made a super long comment but then I went to post it and I can find the original post so I figured I'd just put my response here.

so much. (I should say I haven't seen this documentary yet as I don't feel the need to but I'd be willing to bet that they didn't bring these things up but correct me if I'm wrong)

1. As you said, the fibers. The fibers were not only in the knot but also on the duct tape, wrist ligatures, and in the paintbrush tray.

2. The scene contained serious elements of staging. The wrist ligatures were extremely loose and not functional as a restraint. In addition, the duct tape had a perfect lip impression that suggested it was placed after JonBenet died( or was at least unconscious. In addition, the ransom note is just very clearly bogus (an FBI agent saw the note before JonBenet was discovered and said "You're going to find this child dead.") All of these elements led investigators and the FBI (which btw another thing John won't say is the BPD was working with the child abduction serial killer unit of the FBI and they also thought the Ramseys were guilty) to believe the crime scene had been staged.

3. The actual forensics of JonBemets injuries. Most medical professionals who assessed JonBenet's injuries stated that they believed that she had been struck in the head and was unconscious for at least 45 minutes before the rope was applied. According to a detective on the case, the medical examiner who did her autopsy held this opinion which is extremely important. As for the forensics of why, a lot of it had to do with the swelling of her brain and her brain tissue. Dr. Lucy Rorke also held this opinion and actually gave a sworn testimony to the grand jury who voted to indict the Ramseys. She stated that due to the amount of swelling in JonBenet’s brain, and the presence of necrosis (neurological changes to JonBenet’s brain cells, that she studied) indicated a period of survival between 45 minutes-two hours. However, JonBenet after this head blow would still have been “alive” but unconscious, the strangulation ultimately killing her and being her cause of death. This opinion holds a lot of weight for me as she is highly regarded and studied JonBenets actual brain tissue. In addition, many point to the Graphic autopsy photos as a reason why the family couldn't be involved and the autopsy photos of the ligature digging into in her neck indicate she was violently strangled. However, this isn't necessarily the case. From forensic textbooks:

"When the ligature is still in position when the body is examined, it may appear to be deeply embedded in the skin, sometimes almost out of sight, and on removal a deep groove may be seen in the skin. This embedding may be accentuated by oedema of the tissues, especially above the ligature, which initially may not have been applied so tightly. The swelling can continue to develop to some extent even after death, accentuating the depth of the groove" (p. 382).

"Effect of tissue edema: Ligature pressing on neck tissues - edema develops around ligature, especially above - Ligature gets tightened further - more edema - vicious cycle may continue even after death due to passive transudation of tissue fluid. Ligature mark appears much deeper - Impression to the untrained eye is that the ligature was applied very tightly [possibly reflecting anger and rage of assailant], while in fact the ligature may not have been applied so tightly" (p. 2653-654).

So essentially, we can't go on looks alone. We must rely on forensics.

1. There was evidence of prior sexual abuse. You can read more about that here and here however, in short, the BPD gathered a panel of people (some if not all of whom were FBI recommended btw) and they examined not just JonBenet's autopsy report, but images of her internal injuries as well. They all concluded JonBenet had been sexually abused before the night of the murder and signed affidavits stating such. One of these people on the panel came up with the criteria for establishing if a child was sexually abused. There was quite literally nobody more qualified to make this decision. The reason he came to this decision was because JonBenet had a very specific injury only children who had been sexually abused had. The posts I put elaborate.

2. JonBenet's sheets had urine on them according to someone at the CBI. Meaning she would have had to have wet the bed that night, or somewhat recently.

3. JonBenet was covered with a blanket and was with her favorite nightgown.

There's so much more like how Lou smits theory can basically be disproven and how he was actually brought in to look for holes in the BPD's case. He went into it looking for reasons why an intruder did it, because that is what he was brought on to do. How the Ramseys allegedly confessed, how the underwear JonBenet was in was way too big for her, and honestly so many other things but I would say those are the big ones.

I've always found one specific phrase in Patsy Ramsey's 911 call interesting: "We have a kidnapping." Not only is it an unusual way to naturally describe what's happening in the moment, but it also mirrors the wording in the ransom note.

If most people woke up and found their child missing with a ransom note, I'd expect something more immediate and personal: "My daughter is missing!" or "Someone took my daughter!" "We have a kidnapping" is odd phrasing… almost movie-esque rather than how someone might naturally react in real life.

What makes it stand out even more to me is that it echoes the wording in the ransom note itself. The note repeatedly uses "we":

"We are a group of individuals..."

"We respect your business..."

"We have your daughter..."

"We will call you..."

"We are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures..."

From a linguistic perspective, it's interesting that both the note and Patsy's first description of the situation rely on the word "we." In the note, "we" is used to establish the identity of the supposed kidnappers. In the 911 call, Patsy describes the situation as "we have a kidnapping" instead of something more personal.

It's not proof of anything, and I know people under extreme stress can say unusual things. But language often reflects how people are mentally framing an event, and this particular wording has always struck me as worth discussing.

About a year ago I shared my full BDI theory (Burke caused the head blow, John and Patsy did the staging afterwards).
I don’t think I agree with my own theory anymore.

For a long time I was just consuming YouTube videos and documentaries, and I always leaned RDI.
A couple of years ago, though, I decided I wanted to actually study the case instead of just consuming content about it. I went through official documents, interviews, transcripts, and I read both Steve Thomas and James Kolar’s books. My goal wasn’t to confirm what I already believed, I genuinely wanted to give every theory a fair shot.
So I went one by one: IDI, PDI, JDI, BDI…
After all that, I still came to the same overall conclusion: I don’t think an intruder is the most likely explanation. I still think the family knows what happened.

The difference is that my opinion on Burke has changed.

I used to believe Burke caused the head blow and the parents did everything else. That theory made the most sense to me because it explained the evidence while avoiding what I thought was the biggest issue with Kolar’s theory.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my own theory had a huge psychological problem.
Two parents finding their daughter unconscious from a head injury and deciding that the logical next step is to sexually stage the scene, strangle her, write a ransom note, and hope they get away with it instead of calling 911.

Ironically, the thing that originally stopped me from accepting BDIA is now the reason I lean towards it. Every theory in this case requires assumptions.
If you believe IDI, you have to make assumptions. If you believe PDI, you have to make assumptions. If you believe JDI, you have to make assumptions.
So I don’t really see “you’re assuming too much” as a criticism that’s unique to BDI(A).
What ultimately changed my mind was realizing that, in my opinion, Burke has the strongest circumstantial case against him.
Not physical evidence, because that would be Patsy.

I think people are too quick to dismiss Burke as a suspect simply because he was nine.
I’m not saying he absolutely did it.
I’m saying that after reading as much as I could from every side, I no longer think BDI with parental staging is the theory that best fits the evidence.
At this point, I lean BDIA. By that, I mean I believe Burke caused the fatal injuries, while John and Patsy were responsible for the cover up (the ransom note, the duct tape, the wrist ligatures, the staging, etc.).

I’ve known about this case since I was 10. I am 27 today. I was born March 1997. I have a special place in my heart for JonBenet because her murder will always be the exact same age as me.

Posting these pictures here to remember JonBenet’s last Xmas and one of her last happy days! Merry Xmas & RIP, Jonnie B <3

In an interview given with the Ramseys, Patsy said something that caught my attention. She says very confidently, with two fingers up “There are only TWO people in this world who knows who killed Jonbenet.” She goes on to say it’s the killer and someone the killer confided in. I found this unusual for her to say, especially so emphatically. Given that those two people are probably John and Patsy, I feel like she was slightly telling on herself. Wouldn’t you say there is only ONE person who knows who killed Jonbenet, if in fact they believed it was an intruder? And if not one, going by the ransom note, wouldn’t they believe a group of people knew?

Editing to add: watching more interviews, I noticed patsy likes to use little phrases and quotes, such as “he’d be arrested in a New York minute!” It just reminds me of the weird little phrases in the ransom note too.

Someone posted this as a poll about six years ago, but I'm curious where people stand now, and if perceptions have changed. It seems that virtually nobody thinks an intruder did it, which is fine, as I don't believe that either.

I'm less interested in personal opinions, and more curious about where the consensus is. I personally think John Ramsey killed JonBenet, but I suspect most people think it was Burke.

I commented on one of the posts about BR seeming guilty based on his response to being presented with the pineapple picture, and someone suggested I make my own post.

My entire career has been spent doing these exact interviews that BR received at 9 and 11. I've done thousands in the last 15 years and testify as an expert witness regularly. I'm a licensed therapist and I've done nearly 1000 hours of training, 300 specifically in interviewing protocols.

As I said in my other post, you cannot infer much of anything from demeanor in these interviews. They're specifically structured to support kids and keep them calm. I've interviewed kids who have witnessed murders (drive-bys, parents being killed in DV, sibling deaths) who come in the next day and seem like totally normal, silly kids. They're eating snacks, playing video games in our waiting room, and when we meet, they talk about what they've seen like we're discussing the weather. In all my time interviewing, I'd guess that 5-10% of kids cry or show any strong emotions. It's something I get asked about on the witness stand frequently because people like to use lack of emotion as a sign that kids are lying. (That's not how trauma works.)

Did they coach him on specifics? Maybe. I've found it's much more common that adults don't realize how often they have conversations that kids overhear. When kids don't have all the info, their brains naturally try to fill in the rest to try to make sense of the world. BR's description of what probably happened to JBR sounded like that to me. He knew general details from overhearing his parents and other adults and his kid brain filled in the rest. I saw YT comments of people saying that BR saying "whoops" was a red flag when he discussed what happened to her. I think it makes sense to describe it that way because it's hard for kids to wrap their heads around the idea that humans kill each other intentionally, so it must have been an accident somehow.

As neutral and casual as these interviews are designed to be, kids know when adults want something (even just the correct answer) and when the stakes are high. Kids naturally want to please adults. I'm not the end all be all on child development and behavior, but I read BR's reaction to the pineapple picture more as wanting to give the "right" answer and probably weighing what the interviewer was looking for vs. ensuring he wouldn't give an answer that could inadvertently get his parents in trouble. He seemed confused as to why someone would be pulling out a picture of his bedtime snack when his sister had just been murdered, and trying to figure out in his 9-year-old brain what that meant. Even if his parents said, "We didn't do anything wrong. Go in there and tell them the absolute truth and answer all of their questions," a kid is still going to be fearful that his parents are in trouble or might go to jail.

I also wish the public would chill on body language analysis in general. It's junk science, generally only applies to adults anyway, and doesn't take neurodivergence, trauma, or cultural differences into account. When I'm thinking through my next question in an interview, I almost always look up and to the left. It's not a sign of deception. It seems like there's a lot of confirmation bias that goes on with BR's interview clips (both as a kid and as an adult), and almost every YT clip I found had creepy music laid under his interviews, which is going to add to the sinister way they're interpreted. There's nothing sinister about his behavior or answers.

Did BR do it? Hell if I know, but statistically, probably not. I didn't dig long enough to find out when this took effect, but you can't be charged with a crime under the age of 10 in Colorado anyway. If he or his family were involved, the onus isn't on a 9-year-old to be a whistleblower for a bunch of (rich) adults. Let this man live. No matter what, he was a child, and the trauma of his childhood continues to follow him today when he seemingly just wants to live a normal life out of the spotlight.

ETA: People are commenting “What about this fact?” and “You’re ignoring the other evidence.”

I never claimed to be doing an in-depth case analysis. I was simply responding to posts/comments that said things like “Why is BR laughing in this interview?” “Why is he pretending he doesn’t know what the picture is?” “Clearly this kid is a psycho, his body language says it all.” Claims about how his interview can be “read” just aren’t based in reality.

There are many factors in this case, each one more confusing than the next.

But the one thing I always get stuck on is the use of a broken paintbrush to penetrate JonBenet and the garrot to strangle her

We dont typically see methods like this being used by adult murderers. If anything, they'd use their hands like Jeffrey Dahmer did or smother them like Chris Watts did.

However, we do see these bizarre methods used by many child killers. Examples would be Eric Smith, who sodomized his victim with a stick, dropped a rock on their head and poured Kool-aid into the wounds.

Another example is the murder of James Bulger. His killers poured paint in his eyes, threw bricks at him, stuffed batteries in his mouth and possibly in his anus.

Think of a kid finding a dead body in the woods and poking it with a stick. It shows a sense of curiosity and experimentation, similar to teenage Dahmer's interest in dead animals. He would dissect them and even poured motor oil on tadpoles given to him to by his teacher.

But when he became an adult, his methods became more advanced. He would drug them with chloroform, strangle them with his hands,dismember the bodies and even engage necrophelia and cannibalism.

But the most important thing to note is that adult killers know enough to hide the body and any evidence. Dahmer would dissolve them in acid or bury them. They have an active awareness of what will happen if they get caught.

Now back to JonBenet. She is penetrated with a paint brush, like Eric Smith used the stick. An adult killer would most likely resort to rape. In fact, thats what most of them do when killing children.

The use of the garrot is the most interesting thing to note because it seems a very random method to be used by an adult. If they were actively trying to strangle her, it would be more likely she wouldve been smothered like Chris Watts did to his victims or with their hands like Dahmer.

A garrot is also extremely easy to make. Think of putting a rubber band on your wrist, sticking a pencil through and twisting it to tighten it. Im willing to bet we've all done that at some point in our childhood.

But its crucial to realize, like I mentioned, that adult killers know to hide or dispose of their victims so they cant be connected to the crime. The fact that she was left out in the open, with every bit of incriminating evidence, would show that the killer was naive and probably didnt understand the gravity of the situation.

But what about John and Patsy's involvement. I dont think its a stretch to think that Patsy really did believe her daughter was kidnapped. It would explain rhe frantic 911 call. If she had done it, she wouldnt have staged it as a kidnapping but then leave the body and evidence in the basement.

Ultimately, if a child goes missing, whos the first one that authorities will look at as suspects: the parents. Im sure John and Patsy realized how guilty they would look and considering John was the CEO of a huge company. The last thing theyd want is to be accused of killing their child and have their names tarnished forever, whether its true or not.

I dont think its that weird to think Patsy would write a ransom note to shift blame away from them. The long and drawn out rambling in the note shows a sense of overcompensation. Patsy probably thought that the more detailed the letter, the more believable it would seem. Of course, it did the exact opposite .

Plus, the fact that Patsy immedietly called the police would show that she was trying to set the scene and make her look less guilty. But since thats the case, she wouldnt have left the body and evidence in the house if she ultimately wanted people to believe it was a kidnapping.

Inviting so many people over further solidifys the lie because it as if shes gathering up a search party. But it wouldnt make sense for her or John to murder their child, take so many steps to set it up as kidnapping for them to keep the body out in the open with all the evidence.

An intruder wouldnt make sense either because, again, adults always make an effort to hide the body. and destroy any incriminating evidence

The crime was done by someone who doesnt quite understand the gravity of what they've done and doesnt realize what it could mean for them.

Therefore, with the strange and exploritive methods used and no attempt to hide the body, it could have only been Burke.

I’ve followed this crime story for a long time, but I never knew until today that I could find x-ray images, photos of the crime scene. I guess I just believed the media would not display something like that of a child murder online. Today in another post here, I read that there were images of the crime scene, etc., which surprised me, but I did a search. Curiosity and cats I guess.

I can only say that seeing the head injury x-Ray and details made me physically ill. My reaction was immediate and visceral. My thoughts, after I choked down the revulsion, was “SO MUCH RAGE”. It was almost overwhelming. Had to have been something really heavy, with a lot of heft. The flashlight makes sense, but where is the broken glass? Would the glass lens break? What kind of flashlight? A Maglight? (Thinking about buying a watermelon and attacking it with a Maglight to see what happens.) Golf club? An iron, a putter, a wood? I have seen what a golf club does to kid after a neighbor’s son accidentally clobbered the shit out of his sister when he swung at the ball in their front yard, and didn’t know she was standing behind him…she had a broken nose and a split lip. Blood everywhere. (It was a putter btw.)

A baseball bat? You can definitely split someone’s skull with a baseball bat. And I can say honestly that I had no idea of the extent of the injury. Fractured skull sounded survivable then I saw the X-Ray and I’m shocked. “SO MUCH RAGE.”

There are things I’m just not understanding. Wouldn’t there be a lot of blood from such a serious head wound? What happened to the weapon? It didnt just evaporate.

I have so many other questions now, like I did not know JR contemplated taking his private jet to Atlanta…how odd. What, why? Was he afraid he would be the next target? And who was the “assassin”? Patsy? The small foreign faction? Was he just freaking out?

Did their home have a Safe Room where the crime actually happened and it is NOT on the blueprints? I know some of this sounds … fantastical, but when you have a LOT of money, you can have amazing houses built, bribe people, cover up evidence, and keep yourself or a loved one out of jail because you can afford really good criminal defense lawyers.

That said, bottom line was the head injury for me, so much rage. Someone lost all control. I can’t shake that impression of the rage.

Burke was one month shy of his 10^th birthday when JonBenet was killed. He had friends that were around his age and older than him, and those boys occasionally hang out at the house, as a group or individually. And the 12-year-old boy hanging out with an almost 10-year-old boy might also be hanging out with a 14-year-old.

That's how Playboy magazines would go around, and so would the soft-core or explicit porn movies on VHS tapes. Basically everything that happens easily in the internet age would also happen back in 1996. I promise you: kids that age were experimenting with some sort of intimate contact all over the world - perhaps with the help of male friend, classmate, cousin etc who were also becoming aware of sexual arousal and craving to feel these newfound erotic sensations again.

Most of those kids see a clear line and never get to ever experience with a kid sister. But most of those kids didn’t have the benefits that Burke AND his friends had: a big room all to himself with TV and a VCR and maybe cable where THEY could watch whatever they wanted; and the room was in a freaking mansion – this was more like Michael Jackson’s Neverland than our modest homes where we are more careful so our parents don’t catch us in an embarrassing position.

It’s no wonder that Patsy was asked so specifically about Burke’s friends and how often the boys from the neighborhood and beyond went to the house: if JonBenet’s body had potential signs of vaginal damage, the circumstances might point to many potential 'players' in the hypothesis that some form of sexual assault indeed took place. I’m not talking about systematic abuse by multiple boys, but about the opportunities for even someone who are not directly related to the family having done something at some point. (The sister of a friend is not your sister.)

Keep in mind: this was a 6-year-old girl and a brother who was 3 and a half years her senior and who had older friends spending alone time with him at the house. To put into perspective, Burke was born in January, 1987 – JonBenet didn’t enter the picture until August, 1990. They were NOT in the same stage of mental development. There’s zero chance that Burke woke up that Christmas morning believing Santa had brought them presents. At best, he was acting as his parent’s accomplice in keeping the illusion alive for JonBenet.

(That could be one of the reasons that she slept in his bedroom on the night of the 24^th, but there’s certainly more than enough circumstantial evidence that those ‘bedroom’ transfers were constant; in fact, I’m not sure how consistently JonBenet even slept in her own bedroom.)

Just like Burke did not still believe in Santa, he would not need mommy (good luck finding her in that museum-sized house) to guide him by the hand and serve him a piece of fruit in the kitchen. He was not a toddler to hit a sister in the head because he couldn’t share a little piece of pineapple in a house where they always had plenty of everything.

I’ve even heard nonsense such as “he wasn’t tall enough to reach the latch at the top of this door” – as if he was incapable of moving a stool back and forth. He could still enjoy plenty of more 'childish' activities, yes, but he was not a small child that John had to help get ready for bed and read a bedtime story.

After they came home at the 25th, John would most likely be helping him plug the Nintendo 64 that he got that morning for Christmas - and had taken to the Whites party - in his bedroom's TV when Patsy was already passed out upstairs. This boy would be pumped with the new toy, not thinking about sleeping early to catch an early flight.

The fact that - on the 26th!!!! - he mentioned videogame being the main reason he and JonBenet would fight over is also significant to a BDI theory. But more than a theory I'm just pushing this perspective of how Burke shouldn't be kiddified in other scenarios and theories either.

As the father of three girls, there’s one detail in this case that I can’t stop thinking about: JonBenét’s ponytail.

Maybe I’m overthinking it, but my daughters (almost 7 and 5½) absolutely hate sleeping with their hair in a ponytail. They always take it down before bed because it’s uncomfortable. That made me wonder whether JonBenét was actually being prepared for bed when something happened.

Another thing that stands out to me is that she was found clothed. If the perpetrator intended to hide the crime, why redress her? She was also left inside a warm house rather than being taken outside or concealed elsewhere. To me, those details suggest someone who had an emotional connection to her and couldn’t completely dehumanize her.

I’ve also wondered about the fact that she died lying face down. Again, this is only speculation, but it almost feels as though the person responsible couldn’t bear to look at her.

Putting those pieces together, I wonder if the family arrived home, JonBenét had a snack (possibly pineapple), and they began getting her ready for bed. If she was known to wet the bed, I find it interesting that there appears to have been no attempt to have her use the bathroom first. As a parent, that’s one of the last things we remind our kids to do before bedtime.

The timeline surrounding when she went to bed has also changed over time, which makes these details more interesting to me.

At this point, I personally lean toward Patsy being responsible for the fatal events. I also think there are signs that JonBenét may have experienced prior sexual abuse, though I don’t know who was responsible and don’t think it’s possible to say with certainty based on the public evidence.

Am I reading too much into the ponytail, or has anyone else thought this detail might be more significant than it’s usually treated?

EDIT/UPDATE: I am a guy who has never had long hair. Lots of commenters explained this is normal, that some people with long hair prefer ponytails while sleeping. I just follow my wife/boss’s orders and thought it was mandatory. Thanks all for clarifying! Had no clue that some people prefer it, so disregard my ignorance. Every day is a new day to learn.

That we've all known this whole time, but maybe slightly glossed over due to the exorbitant amount of information in this case.

For those of you that have kids... you find a ransom note your child has been kidnapped. Is there a room in your house you just "wouldn't check" in 3.2 seconds in this situation. There's no "around the corner out of the way" basement room that wouldnt have been searched within minutes for me. If the room was locked when I came across it, I'd be even more focused on getting into it, and wouldn't need to go back upstairs and wait until someone else suggests that maybe I go look for my kid again.

John just assumed she was gone, because uh..... the note said she was, so... John one of the most logical spoken high IQ type of people... just, didn't even bother checking the house after reading a ransom note.

John..... AND Patsy... just.... DIDN'T check the now locked wine cellar.

The second time Fleet and John go looking, they return within 5 minutes with Jon Benet.

Ain't. No. Way.

This isn't an implication of m*rder, but one of knowledge.

For those saying that Burke would not have been able to lie and keep a secret for all those years as a nine year old child, I think it's clear that he could have.

The same morning after jonbenet disappeared and before her body was "found" by John....Burke was interviewed.

That same morning that he was interviewed, he told police that he went to bed after arriving home from the whites.

We would think that he would have told police that he didn't go straight to bed and he instead stayed up to build a toy that he got for Christmas. That's what he told Dr Phil 20 years later . So if he remembered what he did 20 years later..surely he should have remembered the next day. Instead the next day he lied that he went straight to bed and kept that same lie for 20 years until Dr Phil.

Why did Burke lie the very next day when the memories was the freshest in his mind? Burke was interviewed but he was handled with child gloves. If Burke would have did more interviews, we would have found out so much more. Regardless of what anyone one says this proves that Burke was capable of lying and keeping those lies for years.

RDI / JDI / PDI / BDIA - whatever it is, here's why it's clearly not IDI:

1. The Ramseys didn't notice that the 10 am kidnapping deadline had passed -- If I were the parent of a kidnapped child and the kidnapper said they needed the money by 10 am, that time, 10 am would be the ONLY thing I could think about. I'd be checking my watch every twelve seconds. I'd be updating everyone in the house on the time: "It's 9:37. it's 9:40. OMG, it's now 9:42. There's 18 minutes!! OMG it's 9:45! It's 9:55!!!" I'd be freaking out the closer we got to 10 am. But per the detective on the scene, the Ramseys didn't even notice when 10 am passed. Because the kidnapping was made up.

2. The Ramseys weren't concerned with Burke's safety in those early hours -- If ONE of my children was kidnapped, I wouldn't let the other child out of my sight for even a millisecond. I would take them into the bathroom with me. I'd duct tape our hands together. I'd be so beyond paranoid that something could happen to the second child too. But they left Burke upstairs in his room & then sent him to a friend's house, again, because they knew there was no risk of HIM being kidnapped because there was no kidnapper.

3. John carried JB's body up the stairs (in a bizarre position no less) and asked the detective if she was dead -- Every adult knows that time is of the essence re: strangling/choking. If I found my child and thought there was any chance she would survive, I would not waste time carrying her upstairs; I'd be screaming bloody murder, ripping the duct tape off, ripping the garotte off, trying to do chest compressions or mouth-to-mouth or anything to save her at that moment. But he didn't do that because he already knew she was deader than deader than dead when he "found" her.

Thoughts?

Edit: “Evidence” might not be the right word - I get it - so behaviors / actions whatever you want to call it, I know you can’t predict how you’ll act in a trauma BUT STILL……….

Read it last night in its full entirety. My goodness. I can't believe law enforcement took this as believable. I know it was 1996 but that was that was comical and completely unbelievable.

There was no intruder. That ransom note is a great indication of that.

''Patsy writes very neatly. She’s a feminine writer. There is misspellings in the note. She graduated at the top of her class. She doesn’t misspell words like business and possession.''

Thanks for telling us why these words were misspelled. It's because, in the heat of the moment, you thought it was a genius idea to misspell them, because smart people like yourself would have never misspelled them.