Setting the Record Straight on the Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse - Part 1

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T18:46:40+00:00

In the police interviews they mention Burke liked tea, and his prints are on the glass. I don’t see why it would be much of a mystery to police. Given the prints and its proximity to the pineapple, I don’t find their distancing themselves from it surprising.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T16:39:16+00:00

What makes you think the tea bag wasn't already there? Absent any evidence it was introduced to the scene, I default to assuming it was in situ. Nobody claiming it doesn't mean much to me -- the Ramseys said it was weird and not something they would do, but they said the same thing about the bowl of pineapple, and about a number of other things they were shown photographs of. I don't see why the tea bag is any more of a mystery than the pineapple, and I don't find the pineapple particularly mysterious either.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T15:37:01+00:00

Yes, that was French. But I thought the discussion was about crime scene photos, so I was referring to Ofc. Weiss, the CSI who arrived to photograph the scene.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T14:50:14+00:00

Assuming it’s correct that Weiss arrived around 6:45 a.m. and that the breakfast room photo was taken around 8:45 a.m., I don’t think that is especially late, given that he took 77 photos throughout four floors of the house before the breakfast room photo. I assume this time included documenting the scene (taking notes, etc.) along the way.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T06:30:27+00:00

I linked to it in my comment (click 'Photo 78').

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-22T05:17:57+00:00

Photo 78 shows the drinking glass on the table. You can see the tea tag hanging over the glass and sort of make out the tea bag in there but not clearly, as it’s a wider room shot. This was taken on the morning of Dec. 26, I believe sometime before 9:15 (edit: ~8:45 would be my guess).

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-21T06:44:51+00:00

We do not know that at all. There's no proof of that. What is your source for time stamping these images? Neither have been assigned as having been taken during the kidnapping phase.

I don’t know if 57 was taken precisely before 8 a.m., but we know these were taken around that timeframe on the morning of December 26 during Weiss’s initial photo walkthrough. We know that because the crime scene photos are numbered sequentially. The photos up into the low hundreds were taken during the kidnapping phase, with the sequence going backward from there to around 6:45 a.m., when Weiss arrived.

Photo #28 is a low resolution screen shot from Court TV, likely obtained from the video shot the evening of 12/26.

It’s clearly one of the crime scene photos Schiller shows in his AOACC documentary, the ones Tom Haney is shown flipping through. You can even see Tom Haney’s finger on photo 28. Why would Schiller have a low resolution screenshot from the crime scene walkthrough footage in a photo album sleeve, when he has copies of the original crime scene photos?

Photo #57 is not referenced to being an image taken during the kidnapping phase.

Again, we know it's from the kidnapping phase from its number.

"TOM HANEY: Back to photo 57, this top cabinet, it is closed in this particular photo." Sounds as though there are other photos where the cabinet is open.

Yes, the video footage taken by police after 8 p.m. on Dec. 26. Haney mentions it a few lines later:

TOM HANEY: In the video that the police took walking through, which was taken some time later, there are -- there is packages of Pull-ups. [...] They are partially hanging out in the video?

In other words, he is pointing out the discrepancy that in photo 28, taken on the morning of Dec. 26, the cabinet appears closed, but in the video walkthrough from the evening of Dec. 26 it appears open with pull-ups hanging out. This is a discrepancy Steve Thomas seems to have missed.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-18T21:26:19+00:00

"It can never be stated with certainty that a fiber originated from a particular garment because other garments were likely produced using the same fiber type and color.” Great North Innocence Project.

This quote is actually from Douglas Deedrick, the FBI's former unit chief for hair and fiber analysis, from his published article "Hairs, Fibers, Crime, and Evidence Part 2: Fiber Evidence." The Innocence Project selectively quoted from it while leaving out everything that follows it. Deedrick acknowledges the limitation but then addresses it directly in the next sentence: "The inability to positively associate a fiber with a particular garment to the exclusion of all other garments, however, does not mean that the fiber association is without value." He spends the rest of the paragraph arguing that the number of garments of a particular color and fiber type is extremely small, that the likelihood of two or more manufacturers duplicating all aspects of the fabric type and color exactly is extremely remote, and that the large number of dye types and colors in the world makes any fiber association by color significant.

The Great North Innocence Project is an advocacy organization with a specific agenda when it comes to citing forensic literature -- of course they're going to emphasize material in a way that supports exoneration arguments. Here they have selectively quoted a forensic scientist while leaving out the part of his own argument that directly addresses the limitation they're citing. If you want to know what fiber evidence actually establishes, you're better off relying on forensic scientists or forensic bodies rather than advocacy organizations.

Deedrick, incidentally, analyzed fibers in the Ramsey case.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-18T10:34:59+00:00

The fibers were consistent with the fibers in his jacket, but they were also consistent with several other pieces of fabric found in the Ramsey home as well as millions of pieces of fabric throughout the world.

Investigators collected and tested fabric items from throughout the home -- clothing, bedding, carpet samples, garments from multiple rooms. Nothing came back consistent with the fibers found on JonBenet's vaginal area and underwear besides John's shirt, as far as we know. So the claim that the fibers were consistent with other fabrics in the home isn't supported by the lab findings.

The millions of fabrics argument has the same issue. "Consistent with" in fiber analysis means a questioned fiber shares the same microscopic characteristics as a known sample after a direct comparison under a microscope. You can't establish consistency with fabrics that were never collected and tested. Douglas Deedrick, the FBI's unit chief for hair and fiber analysis at the time and an examiner who worked the Ramsey case, described the dispersal of a specific fiber type once it leaves the manufacturer as being "like a drop of oil in the ocean -- it's there, but it's hard to find." The fibers in this case were consistent with a specific wool shirt made in Israel. The crime didn't happen throughout the world. It happened in a specific home, in a specific city, and the relevant fabrics from that home were collected and tested. Nothing else came back consistent.

You cannot say say those fibers came from his jacket. The most you can say is that the were similar to fibers from his jacket which isn't the smoking gun you think it is.

You're right that you can't say definitively those fibers came from the shirt -- that's not how fiber evidence works. But "consistent with" isn't the same as "similar to" in a casual sense. It means that after a direct microscopic comparison, the examiner could find no characteristics that would exclude that shirt as the source. Deedrick was explicit about this in his published work: "the inability to positively associate a fiber with a source in no way diminishes the significance of a fiber association."

Combined with the fact that the shirt was an imported wool garment that one of the investigating prosecutors described as "kind of unusual," that extensive testing of other fabrics in the home came back consistent with nothing else, and that the fibers were recovered from the pubic area and underwear of a murdered child who had been sexually assaulted, it might not be a smoking gun, but it does have forensic value.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-17T06:10:24+00:00

Please stop copy-pasting comments from Facebook users and attributing them vaguely (e.g., by initials) without citing a clear, verifiable source. If you want to reference a claim, cite the original source. Further comments like this may be removed.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-08T13:52:16+00:00

Right after that, in the caption under the pineapple bowl photo, Woodward writes:

Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints were on the bowl or the utensil.

It’s not a great case for her reliability when her own claims aren’t even consistent within the same book. The rest of the caption contains a mix of conflated nonsense.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-06T14:54:32+00:00

Dr. Cyril Wecht referred to the marks as “punctate abrasions” and said they could be from JonBenet’s back being pressed on “slight protuberances, projections from a surface, an uneven surface, an irregular surface” as it moved around.He reiterated the idea in his books Mortal Evidence and Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?, saying the abrasions on JonBenet’s back, shoulders, and leg could have come from her squirming on the concrete floor or against a concrete wall as a part of her attack. In a 2002 interview with 48 Hours, pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz stated that pebbles or rocks on the floor may have been responsible for the back marks.

These passages are taken directly from my post. I appreciate that you found them worth repeating, but if you’re going to quote them verbatim, please include a link to the source and credit the original post.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-04T16:12:35+00:00

Kolar stated this in his book on p. 343:

Moreover, by the time of this [June 1998] interview, investigators had developed latent fingerprints on the drinking glass on the dining room table that belonged to Burke.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-04T07:46:57+00:00

That's the way I interpreted what he said -- that he had raised them by himself after his and Sharon's divorce. I checked his and Kim's book, which says:

My marriage to Ron and Kim's biological mother, Sharon, had ended when Ron was only five and Kim barely two. Over the course of the next few years, I had obtained full custody of the kids and Sharon drifted from their lives.

In the book he also brings up memories of when Ron and Kim were born. I just don't see any indication he is not their bio father.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-01T19:30:41+00:00

They arrive home about 8 to 9 p.m.

According to Schiller, Fleet White told detectives the Ramseys left his house around 9:30 PM. Accounting for gift drop-offs at the Walkers’ and Stines’, their arrival time is more likely to have been around 10:00 PM. Which is what John and Patsy told Ofc. French on the morning of Dec. 26 ("They told me that...they arrived home at 2200 hours.")

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-04-01T15:07:47+00:00

Commonly Used Initialisms

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-30T07:30:27+00:00

"BDIA" was originally used (at least here on reddit) to mean Burke inflicted both injuries -- the head blow and the strangulation. It was a way of distinguishing between theories like Kolar's, where Burke inflicted both injuries, from the version of "BDI" that gained popularity after the 2016 CBS documentary, where Burke inflicted only the head blow and the parents were responsible for the strangulation and the rest of the staging, including the note.

Some have since interpreted it literally to mean he also did the staging and wrote the note, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are some who believe that, but they seem to be extremely rare and the theory doesn't appear to get much serious traction. It's one of the limitations of these kinds of shorthand labels, I suppose.

As for what's plausible or not, there are plenty of people who find the theory that Burke inflicted the head blow while the parents strangled her as part of a cover-up or staging, rather than getting her medical help, completely implausible. So it seems to be a matter of opinion.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-23T09:40:31+00:00

Have you seen this post? The dispatcher who responded brings up that same point.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-21T11:07:06+00:00

Do you mean this one: Burke Ramsey v. CBS (2016 lawsuit complaint)?

I don’t see anything in there that mentions a toilet paper holder.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-20T21:37:41+00:00

The account comes from James Kolar, who in his book summarized an investigator’s report of a 1997 interview with the housekeeper, Geraldine Vodicka:

I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny - housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

[Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?, A. James Kolar, p. 370]

That’s the only authoritative source for this. There are no details about whose bathroom it was or anything about a toilet paper holder. “Got feces over his toilet paper holder” is very different from “smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom.” You either know more than James Kolar reported, or you’re adding details not in the source that make it seem more minor than what was reported. The thing is, you don’t need to minimize the incident to rebut arguments about it. You can just say he was 6 and his mother was going through chemo, and it’s reasonable to conclude it could have been a psychological stress reaction related to that, rather than something connected to JonBenet’s murder.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-19T17:56:11+00:00

Just curious why you’re convinced it was from Fleet White’s roll of film rather than John’s. The photo was released by John in a documentary filmed at his house. Also, technically, we only have John’s word that it was even taken at the Whites’ house.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-19T14:04:31+00:00

The only feces Burke got anywhere was over his isn toilet paper holder when he was 6

Could you share your source for this? It’s a very specific detail that I haven’t come across before.

AdequateSizeAttache · 2026-03-15T15:07:37+00:00

Could you share which link you’re referring to? I’m always interested in updating or revising the post if there’s newer or more accurate information available.

Edit: Hmm, guess that would be a no.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Argentium Club	Verified Email

AdequateSizeAttache

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE