Why do so many RDI's think Burke did it

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#893 Oct 24, 2013
There was no cover-up so there was no one to cover for.
Patsy did the whole thing and did it deliberately.
John found the body around 11 am.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#894 Oct 24, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
But if Patsy wrote the note, then the very simplest explanation is that Patsy is responsible for all of it.
There is probably evidence that John got out of bed, took a shower and shaved and there is probably a lack of evidence that Patsy put on her makeup that morning or even slept that night. If John woke up unaware of what happened, he certainly wouldn't know for sure who had done what. He wouldn't even know JonBenet was dead until he found the body. He might suspect Patsy was responsible, but how would he know she wouldn't point the finger back at him? From all reports, they didn't much like each other.
In John's place, I think I'd do the same thing; get everybody out of the house, get lawyers, take their advice and stonewall.
I'm not sure to what extent John turned Burke over to Patsy afterwards. I think John had a lot of free time on his hands. And there does seem to be some evidence that Patsy had terrible fights with JonBenet, but not with Burke.
We may get more idea about the evidence from the indictment. Those eighteen pages must be about something.
"In John's place, I think I'd do the same thing; get everybody out of the house, get lawyers, take their advice and stonewall."

I don't know, Fr. Brown, I can only speak for myself. If my daughter had been murdered, and I suspected my wife, I wouldn't stone wall anything. I'd be right down at the police station getting to the bottom of it hell or high water. Wife, or stranger,
I'd want the villain to see justice. But, if I was guilty of some kind of abuse, then yes, I'd be stonewalling.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#895 Oct 25, 2013
learnin wrote:
"In John's place, I think I'd do the same thing; get everybody out of the house, get lawyers, take their advice and stonewall."
I don't know, Fr. Brown, I can only speak for myself. If my daughter had been murdered, and I suspected my wife, I wouldn't stone wall anything. I'd be right down at the police station getting to the bottom of it hell or high water. Wife, or stranger,
I'd want the villain to see justice. But, if I was guilty of some kind of abuse, then yes, I'd be stonewalling.
But maybe even you'd like to figure out whether or not she's guilty first?

I'm not a big fan of John's. Just his treatment of the Whites puts him way beyond the pale in my book.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#896 Oct 25, 2013
learnin wrote:
Good posts, koldkase. I want to copy one of your
paragraphs, here:
"Like the head-blow, I don't think we know who was the sexual abuser of JonBenet before that night. It could have been another male family member not even present that night, as far as I know."
I have a theory that might be my number one theory if I didn't believe PR is the most likely RN author. My theory is based upon who I believe most likely abused JBR. It's, also, based upon this person, readily, producing evidence for an alibi days after the murder. People, who need an alibi, frequently keep movie ticket stubs, etc. for proof they couldn't have been at the crime scene. I believe JAR is the most likely abuser. Access; semen on blanket; flirty half-sister who is made to look older; a half-sister who wasn't afraid to ask others to "clean" her; drinker.
He had access to the pen and note pad and could've written the note in advance of the "plan". The ransom note had an adolescent bent to it with movie references, etc. In this scenario, he would've hired a friend to do the dirty work; a friend who JBR was acquainted with and trusted. The friend did the deed while JAR went to a movie and produced the "evidence" days later. In this scenario, JR woud have slowly pieced together the puzzle may, perhaps, figured out who the abuser was prior to that night. This would explain his actions as he knew it was an "inside job" and knew the cops would know that.
Oh, learnin, been there, done that. Even down to the "Harrier Jet in his backyard" Thomas mentioned.(Lockheed Martin's company air field was a few miles from JAR's mother's house!)

And I can tell you right now...DUCK!!

lol

It's a theory that has merits...except for one thing: like a lot of interesting theories, so far we've seen no actual evidence to lift it above interesting speculation.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#897 Nov 29, 2013
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, learnin, been there, done that. Even down to the "Harrier Jet in his backyard" Thomas mentioned.(Lockheed Martin's company air field was a few miles from JAR's mother's house!)
And I can tell you right now...DUCK!!
lol
It's a theory that has merits...except for one thing: like a lot of interesting theories, so far we've seen no actual evidence to lift it above interesting speculation.
Exactly.

There has to be a conspiracy involving several people being willing to give JAR an alibi for murder.

It's not certain that a mother/sister would necessarily give an alibi, but ok, even if Lucinda/Malissa give him an alibi, we still have 5 more people who claim JAR was in the Marietta area that night/morning of the murder.

And ok, maybe Stuart Long was talked/cajoled into providing an alibi too, but that still leaves four people who provided JAR an alibi for murder.

And yes, the ATM photo is grainy and yes he could have given his ATM card and password to someone else, but really, 7 people giving him an alibi and an ATM withdrawal. "unless there was a wide ranging conspiracy and a Harrier...."

People might as well give up on this one. It just doesn't have wings.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#898 Nov 29, 2013
Replying to the original question, now more than 3 year old, people believe BDI because;

1. They think both John and Patsy were involved to some extent, but they can't see why one would cover for the other.

If people could question their premise that both John and Patsy are involved they wouldn't need to consider BDI.

2. People spend years twisting and turning this case over and around and inside out until they no longer can apply common sense. They consider every possibility as though all scenarios were equally probable.

It's this simple - John and Patsy didn't run the risk of being charged with murder when Burke wasn't in any legal danger. They didn't run the risk of being charged with murder to save the family honor when an indictment would destroy the family honor.

People loose their common sense because they don't question their premises.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#899 Nov 29, 2013
As an aside, the bigger of the Ramsey planes, the Beachcraft Air King C-90 is capable of making the flight within the allotted time. It would have to stop to refuel.

So, for the tinfoil hat crowd, keep the conspiracy theory alive and well if you must.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#900 Jan 26, 2014
The specfic wording of the indictment proves a third party was responsible for the catastrophy in the Ramsey family that night and John and Patsy Ramseys together 'protected' this third party.

AND

This third party was not legally 'available' for prosecution or indictment.

Burke fits. He could never be charged because of his age.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#901 Jan 27, 2014
Delta88 wrote:
Replying to the original question, now more than 3 year old, people believe BDI because;
1. They think both John and Patsy were involved to some extent, but they can't see why one would cover for the other.
If people could question their premise that both John and Patsy are involved they wouldn't need to consider BDI.
2. People spend years twisting and turning this case over and around and inside out until they no longer can apply common sense. They consider every possibility as though all scenarios were equally probable.
It's this simple - John and Patsy didn't run the risk of being charged with murder when Burke wasn't in any legal danger. They didn't run the risk of being charged with murder to save the family honor when an indictment would destroy the family honor.
People loose their common sense because they don't question their premises.
Who do you think the jury would be more willing to believe molested Jonbenet? Burke or John? John had a lot to sell to a jury if he didn't cover for his son. Patsy wanted the world to think of them as a perfect family. She would not have wanted Burke to face a lifetime of finger pointing and whispering by the very people she tried so hard to impress.(When really, she didn't need to impress anyone.) She and John, both, would have felt guilty responsible that Burke had done this to his sister--that they hadn't protected her and gotten him help sooner.

Since: Aug 09

Round Rock, TX

#904 Sep 20, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Hey Cyn, too tired tonight to do a long post, but I believe he accidentally struck the blow to her skull, and the parents covered up his crime and staged the scene. I will go in more detail tomorrow :)
I disagree that this is a complicated case! I think it is so simple and if the police thought so as well and had looked at it as a horrible accident they might have solved it!

My first choice is Burke did it accidentally. He had actually coldcocked JB in the FACE with a golf club several years before. So there is prior situation. who cares WHY he did it? Kids do violent things all the time and obviously he had a mean streak in him.

Once Patsy saw what happened, she must have sent him on to bed, and she took care of things. So what would he remember the next day? Not much since he was in bed, and they would not want him revealing his part in the accident.

Second choice is Patsy did it. JBs sheets reeked of urine. That is enough to send a sane woman up the wall. And if she was tired and packing and had to deal with that as well, she might have pulled JB out of bed and into the bathroom and the head injury occurred. But no one wants to go there, because everyone thinks the flashlight did it!!!

A bathtub can cause a horrible injury if you fall onto it without trying to stop yourself.

So if it happened between JB and Patsy then Patsy would also cover that up altho I still cannot imagine the lengths she or a so called intruder went to over HOURS arranging the body...

This family did not deserve this hell. It was an accident that would have been in the boulder papers a while and not even a blip for long on the national news as other crimes would over take it.
But Patsy caused all this hoopla and I think she revealed the truth to someone on her team and they revealed it to authorities who wisely decided not to indict a 9-10 year old!!!!
Or a cancer sticken woman.

Just my humble opinions.
mystery

Omaha, NE

#905 Apr 24, 2015
I don believe it was burke the way that family is presented before jonbenets death is untrue they were deemed as the perfect all American family living the American dream if that was so true why did patsy have to put jonbenet in those beauty pageants even for attention when her husband was the owner of a vary vary successful business the family underneath the perfect image was a trail of lies and deception I think there were some serious issues going on in that house and that lead to jonbenets death
p i n k e r

Elkhorn, WI

#906 Dec 24, 2015
Burke is the most logical choice for who could have accidentally smashed in Jonbenet's skull.

He would have had more physical contact with Jonbenet either positive such as hand to hand passing small items or bumping shoulders in the back seat of a car and negative such as hitting her. Sibling relationships are intense but even more complex when families are blended such as this one.

I don't think Patsy would cover for anyone other than Burke and John would not cover for anyone but any of his 3 surviving children.
Sig Turner

Haddonfield, NJ

#907 Dec 25, 2015
p i n k e r wrote:
Burke is the most logical choice for who could have accidentally smashed in Jonbenet's skull.
He would have had more physical contact with Jonbenet either positive such as hand to hand passing small items or bumping shoulders in the back seat of a car and negative such as hitting her. Sibling relationships are intense but even more complex when families are blended such as this one.
I don't think Patsy would cover for anyone other than Burke and John would not cover for anyone but any of his 3 surviving children.
Actually, it is utterly absurd to even suggest that Burke did it.

Why?

Well, if the fact that ZERO evidence of his involvement has ever been presented by anyone, and the fact that he was a mere nine years old at the time and thus could not possibly have written the ransom note, nor have had the strength to cause the severe cranial damage discovered at autopsy, is not convincing enough for you of his innocence, then this should be:

There is NO WAY that the Ramsey attorneys would have allowed John and Patsy to be needlessly exposed to the death penalty in order to cover for their juvenile son.

Of all the idiotic ideas ever promoted by the wacko RDI Cult, the idea that Burke did it is certainly the most idiotic of them all.

“rootlesswriting@ gmail.com ”

Since: Jul 15

The Grit

#908 Dec 25, 2015
Sig Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is utterly absurd to even suggest that Burke did it.
Why?
Well, if the fact that ZERO evidence of his involvement has ever been presented by anyone, and the fact that he was a mere nine years old at the time and thus could not possibly have written the ransom note, nor have had the strength to cause the severe cranial damage discovered at autopsy, is not convincing enough for you of his innocence, then this should be:
There is NO WAY that the Ramsey attorneys would have allowed John and Patsy to be needlessly exposed to the death penalty in order to cover for their juvenile son.
Of all the idiotic ideas ever promoted by the wacko RDI Cult, the idea that Burke did it is certainly the most idiotic of them all.
Brilliantly put. I'd believe the dog did it before I say Burke did. There is more evidence that points to the dog than Burke.

Beaver hair? Seems like something a dog might get into. He also was conspicuously missing from the scene. And that dirty Harry quote? The original mentions talking to a pikenenese poodle. What a coincidence.

More evidence the dog did it than Burke. That shows how crazy BDI are.
Rangette

Round Rock, TX

#909 Feb 7, 2016
moonjack wrote:
The specfic wording of the indictment proves a third party was responsible for the catastrophy in the Ramsey family that night and John and Patsy Ramseys together 'protected' this third party.
AND
This third party was not legally 'available' for prosecution or indictment.
Burke fits. He could never be charged because of his age.
If the wording did include "3rd party" then that is your answer to WHY Alex Hunter and etc, did not pursue and indictment of anyone. He was a child and would never go to jail. the most they could do is prosecute Patsy for blocking a police investigation and the huge amount of money spent on trying to solve it.

I have thought for years that Burke was the one, since I heard that he cold cocked JB with a golf club.(an "accident"?) so there is that past history.

From PR point of view, she could not let the public know her life was not perfect. and she herself could have done it as well. but it is more likely it is Burke due to JRs behavior. Trashing his friends? who does that? claiming maybe it was them?

People in Boulder knew the truth THEN and they know the truth now. According to a friend of mine who lives there. But what can you do?
Bottle blonde

Morgantown, PA

#910 May 6, 2016
jahazafat wrote:
Sorry. I'm not Steve Thomas. He like rest of the male investigators took the hair bleaching for granted with no concept of how painful the process would be to a young child.

See the Lou Smit thread for my identity. I've been posting for over a decade. Steve Thomas does not post about the little girl on this forum.
There is nothing painful about getting your hair bleached

Since: Dec 14

Location hidden

#911 May 6, 2016
Bottle blonde wrote:
<quoted text>

There is nothing painful about getting your hair bleached
Maybe it is painful to a six year old!

“rootlesswriting@ gmail.com ”

Since: Jul 15

The Grit

#912 May 6, 2016
Jolamom wrote:
<quoted text>

Maybe it is painful to a six year old!
Back in the 90s, even young boys got their hair bleached.

Irrelevant. If this is what you call evidence, it's clear your blanket statement that modern IDI doesn't deal with evidence comes from a hypocritical stance.

You have no evidence. In fact, all you have ever stated was "they were in the house". That isn't evidence, because there is evidence someone else was. Evidence you claim is of no value. That is on you, but investigating professionals never once have said it was of no value. Even Marky Mark admits you have to treat it like it comes from the suspect. You can't just write it off. You have an upside down view of how this works. It is from the suspect, unless you can prove otherwise. You have flipped the game and stated it is "innocent evidence until proven useful". That is not how the court of law runs. It is not how public opinion should run, either, lest we find ourselves in a culture of throwing stones at the innocent. My God does not teach me to do such things. I will not try to convert you, but if you do believe, ask yourself if waking up each day throwing stones at a possibly innocent party is something you believe your higher power (if you have one) would approve of.

If it isn't, and you are convinced of guilt. Spill exactly what proof you have.

“rootlesswriting@ gmail.com ”

Since: Jul 15

The Grit

#913 May 6, 2016
And before you even state about the other profiles, know not one was ever put into Codis. They are irrelevant and obsolete. They could come from police officers, medical personal, anyone and everyone. We could never know because they can't be tested.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#914 May 6, 2016
MakeTheArrest wrote:
<quoted text>

Back in the 90s, even young boys got their hair bleached.

Irrelevant. If this is what you call evidence, it's clear your blanket statement that modern IDI doesn't deal with evidence comes from a hypocritical stance.

You have no evidence. In fact, all you have ever stated was "they were in the house". That isn't evidence, because there is evidence someone else was. Evidence you claim is of no value. That is on you, but investigating professionals never once have said it was of no value. Even Marky Mark admits you have to treat it like it comes from the suspect. You can't just write it off. You have an upside down view of how this works. It is from the suspect, unless you can prove otherwise. You have flipped the game and stated it is "innocent evidence until proven useful". That is not how the court of law runs. It is not how public opinion should run, either, lest we find ourselves in a culture of throwing stones at the innocent. My God does not teach me to do such things. I will not try to convert you, but if you do believe, ask yourself if waking up each day throwing stones at a possibly innocent party is something you believe your higher power (if you have one) would approve of.

If it isn't, and you are convinced of guilt. Spill exactly what proof you have.
-- Lets say every sample taken that was taken for DNA testing was matched to each human contribiture. Joe Blow from Chine-- Joe Blow a school teacher who was proven to be visiting relatives in Texas-- Joe Blow a hardware store owner and proven to be out of town .. Joe Blow, well you get the picture.
I ll ask you this -- How long do you think is would take your Marky Mark to put the cuffs on John Ramsey? I say as soon as an arrest warrent was signed -- Minutes

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ramsey grand jury indictment: ACCESSORY to Fir... 7 min Spraguestephens 48
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 49 min Spraguestephens 2,039
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? 1 hr Xandrabirdy 165
Where's the Poop? 1 hr Non-state Actor 26
My theory 2 hr Logic101 398
...infinitesimal chance.....(!) 2 hr Non-state Actor 110
Carnes Erroneous Decision 3 hr Spraguestephens 9
More from around the web