JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother Burke

Thank you @MayMuse for linking the documentary. I will come back with my thoughts after viewing.

@BlueBag You raise good points, as always. DNA is subject to transferrance if mishandled. This is hard to dismiss - but two things spring to mind.

1. Surely the Boulder City PD/relevant analysing body (ies?) would have introduced controls as well as reference samples? This even happened in Portugal (see GNR guys dna being found in 5A).

2. Can we assume that JonBenet was wearing the underwear in question for the very first time (and I readily admit logic dictates that after Christmas or Birthday the likelihood of this would spike)? If not, we should (unless we are assuming she was not well looked after - for which I have seen zero evidence) introduce the idea of the underwear being fresh and the added dna elements being either a: unique or b: the result of a sample surviving the washing process (whatever that was in the household in 1996). If either of those yielded (or yields) results then I will happily climb down over the DNA evidence and amend my position to interpret the new information.

ETA: I also agree with the previous observation that it is odd to still be wearing underwear if wearing pyjamas.

To the quote Tony referenced about admissions and yeast infections - to my knowledge (which as always I am open to correction on), their GP testified that there was no prior abuse or evidence of such to his knowledge. Assuming the GP is truthful - and assuming the FBI agent was being truthful about evidence he saw - where do these claims originate?

I am trying to post a link on this thread but I am getting a message to say I have no right to post on here. Anyone know what this means?




That worked, so I'll try again:

DID HE DO IT?
JonBenet Ramsey’s ‘disturbed’ brother ‘smeared her bedroom and Christmas presents with poo’ amid claims HE killed the six year-old beauty queen





https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1826692/jonbenet-ramseys-disturbed-brother-smeared-her-bedroom-and-christmas-presents-with-poo-amid-claims-he-killed-the-six-year-old-beauty-queen/

sallypelt wrote:I am trying to post a link on this thread but I am getting a message to say I have no right to post on here. Anyone know what this means?




That worked, so I'll try again:

DID HE DO IT?
JonBenet Ramsey’s ‘disturbed’ brother ‘smeared her bedroom and Christmas presents with poo’ amid claims HE killed the six year-old beauty queen





https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1826692/jonbenet-ramseys-disturbed-brother-smeared-her-bedroom-and-christmas-presents-with-poo-amid-claims-he-killed-the-six-year-old-beauty-queen/

I come to a brick wall when I see Werner Spitz mentioned. I see him as a kind of 'hero', whose insights and expertise helped the WM3 get justice finally. But I am also infinitely aware of the US policy of allowing 'experts for hire' on both sides of cases.

'They cited the evidence of a housekeeper who said excrement the size of a grapefruit was once smeared on the young girl’s bed sheets.'

Maybe this is just me, but notice the reference is just 'once'. On top of this the average grapefruit size is 4-6 inches. I don't want to belabour such an unpleasant point but is that kind of size and remnant (after smearing) relevant to a nine year old boy? 

More article text:

The operator who took the call, Kim Archuletta, said: "It sounded like she said, 'OK, we've called the police, now what?' and that disturbed me.

"So I remained on the phone trying to listen to what was being said. It sounded like there were two voices in the room, maybe three.


Post-event these assumptions ipso facto mean nothing in an evidentiary sense. I have listened to the call after the fact several times, and certainly hear Patsy and a second voice. But beyond that I feel like we are just applying language to distortion, and as such offering little that would stand up in a court.


ETA 2 - To the idea that charges could be brought against CBS - fantastic. It would open up the proposition of depositions, which would in turn tell us a ton.

BlueBag wrote:The DNA.

The people in the film bought some new panties from a shop.

They were covered in DNA from the manufacturing process.

DNA is can also be transferred by contact with other items of clothing.

The DNA did not exonerate the parents - the authorities were wrong to say it did.

There were political decisions being made all along - the DA was a disgrace.

1st part of the documentary by CBS.. review of the evidence by many leading experts in their specific fields, some even worked on the case at the beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah4UhHe6cX0

April28th wrote:
2. Can we assume that JonBenet was wearing the underwear in question for the very first time (and I readily admit logic dictates that after Christmas or Birthday the likelihood of this would spike)? If not, we should (unless we are assuming she was not well looked after - for which I have seen zero evidence) introduce the idea of the underwear being fresh and the added dna elements being either a: unique or b: the result of a sample surviving the washing process (whatever that was in the household in 1996). If either of those yielded (or yields) results then I will happily climb down over the DNA evidence and amend my position to interpret the new information.

I've never seen it disputed that they were new - and oversized - taken from a new package.

I think the source is Patsy Ramsey, I'll try and find a reference.

edit:
-----------

Patsy Ramsey, Atlanta 2000
" I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on. "


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second%20Floor

This puzzled me.



What possible use was that stick on the end of the cord?

I just saw a thread on Websleuths where it was suggested that it would be useful for dragging the body (two handed). Obviously someone not strong enough to pick her up with ease.

Then it made sense.

BlueBag wrote:This puzzled me.



What possible use was that stick on the end of the cord?

I just saw a thread on Websleuths where it was suggested that it would be useful for dragging the body (two handed). Obviously someone not strong enough to pick her up with ease.

Then it made sense.

The investigators on the show concluded that the whole reason for the stick garrote was to make it look like it was a strangulation and draw attention from the head injury as cause of death. It was so unnecessarily overdone, basically.

nomendelta wrote:

BlueBag wrote:This puzzled me.



What possible use was that stick on the end of the cord?

I just saw a thread on Websleuths where it was suggested that it would be useful for dragging the body (two handed). Obviously someone not strong enough to pick her up with ease.

Then it made sense.

The investigators on the show concluded that the whole reason for the stick garrote was to make it look like it was a strangulation and draw attention from the head injury as cause of death. It was so unnecessarily overdone, basically.

I think they said they couldn't see the point of it.. "what is that?".. the old guy.

As an addition to a garrote device it is 100% useless.

However there is a point and makes it all more understandable.

Why?

If Burke had just hit his sister over the head I think they could have rode that wave - it was terrible, death wan't intentional, it was an accident and he never meant to kill her.... 

If Burke had hit her his sister over the head and in an attempt to deal with the situation (in his autistic 9-year-old way) was trying to move the body somewhere by dragging it using the cord and the handle... well it just looks a whole lot more creepy.

I think the parents found her with the cord and brush stem already a done deal.

That paint brush has puzzled me big time. Now I think I can see what it was about.

BlueBag wrote:

April28th wrote:
2. Can we assume that JonBenet was wearing the underwear in question for the very first time (and I readily admit logic dictates that after Christmas or Birthday the likelihood of this would spike)? If not, we should (unless we are assuming she was not well looked after - for which I have seen zero evidence) introduce the idea of the underwear being fresh and the added dna elements being either a: unique or b: the result of a sample surviving the washing process (whatever that was in the household in 1996). If either of those yielded (or yields) results then I will happily climb down over the DNA evidence and amend my position to interpret the new information.

I've never seen it disputed that they were new - and oversized - taken from a new package.

I think the source is Patsy Ramsey, I'll try and find a reference.

edit:
-----------

Patsy Ramsey, Atlanta 2000
" I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on. "


http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second%20Floor

Same DNA on two separate items of clothing, pants AND leggings, so how can that be explained,  unless I've missed something?

MayMuse wrote:

Same DNA on two separate items of clothing, pants AND leggings, so how can that be explained,  unless I've missed something?

Have you watched the CBS documentary?

Please do.

I don't think the blow to the head killed her, although it probably would have eventually been fatal without immediate attention

The cord did it.

The autopsy gave symptoms of strangulation that would only appear if the heart was still active.

Neither the blow nor the cord were intended to kill.

I think Burke thought she was already dead when he tried to move her with the cord and handle, but if finished her off.

If anyone else can think of another rational reason for that handle I'd like to hear it.

It makes no sense as part of a garroting device, staged or not.

It was for traction and only of use to someone who couldn't lift her.

J

BlueBag wrote:

MayMuse wrote:

Same DNA on two separate items of clothing, pants AND leggings, so how can that be explained,  unless I've missed something?

Have you watched the CBS documentary?

Please do.

YesI uploaded and shared it to this forum!
However I do not agree with everything that CBS purported.
I have also read Kolar,s book and the DNA blurb I find very confusing, the degradation and markers and the placement.  
The thing is there is DNA everywhere, I think it's called "trace" ( stand to be corrected) So even if some believe that the DNA may have been from persons unknown who had no link to the crime, therefore the Ramsey's should have not been exonerated,  it still does not link the Ramsey's.  I have never thought that the DNA would solve this crime and do think that something bigger is being covered up. IMO

It is possible that DNA remained on the underwear from the manufacturer or, if they were not part of a pack any number of people who handled it from packing to delivery, the shop staff and sundry customers.

The note was written by patsy as shown by the writing style and also language used as well as containing knowledge which could only come from someone close to john.

Given burke's age would he have faced charges for murder?
Would he have faced charges for sexual assault especially given her bedwetting and frequent UTI's (often indicative of chronic sexual abuse)

What has got my attention is the fact he was obsessed with his faeces, spreading it around.
This can also be an indicator of ongoing sexual abuse which, given what was going on in the family with JonBenet's issues and the sexualisation of her in pageants would not be a surprise.

The parents were indicted for murder etc by a grand jury, the then prosecutor refused to sign it off fearing he would have to face expensive high powered lawyers and possibly losing , which no prosecutor wants on their CV.

It is worth noting that after patsy died, john married a Vegas showgirl costume designer, i see a pattern

The CBS documentary was extremely thorough - the initial article linked in the OP does it no justice.

I appreciated the level of expert input and forensic analysis. I was surprised to learn that touch dna can exist from literally the factory stage - not just when the underwear is first opened/worn. I had assumed they'd be technically sterile before that.

The flashlight experiments and input from Werner Spitz were revealing. I also hadn't seen the cobweb in the window before - that was revealing.

Obviously there were some lines which they didn't spend too long on - for instance the scat - but that may have just been down to the source, so I can't out of hand say I don't believe it.

I can't say I am 100% convinced by this, but I feel a lot more open to the theory now. Even down to Burke's age being the possible reason the Grand Jury's opinion was not followed (as no conviction could be brought).

Re the garrote/stick - I had assumed the stick was for tightening. Turning the stick instead of using physical force - like a vice. The knot on the garrotte seems too intricate for a child to me, it's one of the sticking points keeping me from completely accepting this.

MayMuse wrote:
The thing is there is DNA everywhere, I think it's called "trace" ( stand to be corrected) So even if some believe that the DNA may have been from persons unknown who had no link to the crime, therefore the Ramsey's should have not been exonerated,  it still does not link the Ramsey's.

But the point is it does not exonerate them.

The BPD were wrong to apologise and exonerate because they found some DNA.

That was politics.

John Ramsey has been talking of running for office as well.

He's a big influential man.

April28th wrote:Re the garrote/stick - I had assumed the stick was for tightening. Turning the stick instead of using physical force - like a vice. The knot on the garrotte seems too intricate for a child to me, it's one of the sticking points keeping me from completely accepting this.

It makes no sense, it has a long lead.

Short garrotes have two handles - I've seen those, like cheese slicers.



I've never seen a garrote with a slip knot, one handle and a long lead - what's the point? Just pull the cord.

Even the forensic guy in the film said it was pointless.

I really think Burke was trying to drag her somewhere, I think she had abrasions on her shoulders.

Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, but what if it was a blow to her head that killed her, but not caused by an implement? I watched the last part of the CBS show and noticed the stairs that were shown in the house when they were recreating what they thought might have happened. If these stairs were an actual recreation of the stairs in the house, then they were very ultra modern, slabs of polished wood or stone. What if JonBenet fell down those stairs? She might have been pushed. She might have been chased and pushed. That might account for abrasions, and also a serious head injury.

Also one needs to ask - why was she wearing what she was wearing when she was found? A white t-shirt, white leggings and underpants. Would she normally have been sleeping in such an outfit? Because as I understand it, she was put to bed by Patsy. Would an abductor have got her out of bed and dressed her? I think her clothing needs to be explained. What would she normally have worn to bed? Is the story supposed to be that she was abducted from her bed by this stranger while the household was sleeping?

And one final point. It may be that Burke was only 9 years old and would not have been charged with murder if he had killed his sister, but did John and Patsy know the law? It may be that they felt they had to cover it up because they didn't know what would happen to Burke if it came out that he caused her death. Perhaps what might have come out in an investigation would have been very incriminating against them as parents. Perhaps an investigation might have uncovered some details about Burke that they didn't want made public. Or about JonBenet. I can think of a number of reasons why John and Patsy might want to make it look like a stranger abduction and killing, in spite of the fact that Burke might not have been prosecuted because of his age.

BlueBag:
 
‘If anyone else can think of another rational reason for that handle I'd like to hear it.
 
It makes no sense as part of a garroting device, staged or not.’
 
I confess I’m not up to speed on the case, but I think the handle & loop would work well for a youngster who didn’t have the strength to pull the two ends of a ‘normal’ garotte, or maybe even the knowledge of how one was used. More of a 'hanging type device' or restraint that could easily have been picked up from children's TV, cartoons etc.
 
Push the stick through the loop and then a hand on the stick either side of the knot (and maybe a knee in the back or even standing, to brace) would do the trick to start with and maybe then a drag & attachment to a door or cupboard handle using the stick as the retainer, in a ‘hanging’ manner.
   
I don’t think it would have anything to do with twisting and tightening.

Doug D wrote:BlueBag:
 
‘If anyone else can think of another rational reason for that handle I'd like to hear it.
 
It makes no sense as part of a garroting device, staged or not.’
 
I confess I’m not up to speed on the case, but I think the handle & loop would work well for a youngster who didn’t have the strength to pull the two ends of a ‘normal’ garotte, or maybe even the knowledge of how one was used. More of a 'hanging type device' or restraint that could easily have been picked up from children's TV, cartoons etc.
 
Push the stick through the loop and then a hand on the stick either side of the knot (and maybe a knee in the back or even standing, to brace) would do the trick to start with and maybe then a drag & attachment to a door or cupboard handle using the stick as the retainer, in a ‘hanging’ manner.
   
I don’t think it would have anything to do with twisting and tightening.

It was a slip knot.

And as the old forensic pathologist guy (who has been involved in 60,000 cases) said, it was unnecessary and useless "why do you need the stick".

@1.22.00

canada12 wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, but what if it was a blow to her head that killed her, but not caused by an implement? I watched the last part of the CBS show and noticed the stairs that were shown in the house when they were recreating what they thought might have happened. If these stairs were an actual recreation of the stairs in the house, then they were very ultra modern, slabs of polished wood or stone. What if JonBenet fell down those stairs? She might have been pushed. She might have been chased and pushed. That might account for abrasions, and also a serious head injury.

Also one needs to ask - why was she wearing what she was wearing when she was found? A white t-shirt, white leggings and underpants. Would she normally have been sleeping in such an outfit? Because as I understand it, she was put to bed by Patsy. Would an abductor have got her out of bed and dressed her? I think her clothing needs to be explained. What would she normally have worn to bed? Is the story supposed to be that she was abducted from her bed by this stranger while the household was sleeping?

And one final point. It may be that Burke was only 9 years old and would not have been charged with murder if he had killed his sister, but did John and Patsy know the law? It may be that they felt they had to cover it up because they didn't know what would happen to Burke if it came out that he caused her death. Perhaps what might have come out in an investigation would have been very incriminating against them as parents. Perhaps an investigation might have uncovered some details about Burke that they didn't want made public. Or about JonBenet. I can think of a number of reasons why John and Patsy might want to make it look like a stranger abduction and killing, in spite of the fact that Burke might not have been prosecuted because of his age.

They came home from a party that evening, JB was asleep, her father put her to bed. The investigation team then thought that Patsy woke her up later to go to the bathroom to prevent her wetting the bed. The pathologist in the CBS documentary stated the shape of skull fracture was most definitely sustained by being hit over the head with the flashlight. This was also re-enacted using a boy of the same age/build as Burke, the result was exactly what the pathologist expected.

BlueBag wrote:

Doug D wrote:BlueBag:
 
‘If anyone else can think of another rational reason for that handle I'd like to hear it.
 
It makes no sense as part of a garroting device, staged or not.’
 
I confess I’m not up to speed on the case, but I think the handle & loop would work well for a youngster who didn’t have the strength to pull the two ends of a ‘normal’ garotte, or maybe even the knowledge of how one was used. More of a 'hanging type device' or restraint that could easily have been picked up from children's TV, cartoons etc.
 
Push the stick through the loop and then a hand on the stick either side of the knot (and maybe a knee in the back or even standing, to brace) would do the trick to start with and maybe then a drag & attachment to a door or cupboard handle using the stick as the retainer, in a ‘hanging’ manner.
   
I don’t think it would have anything to do with twisting and tightening.

It was a slip knot.

And as the old forensic pathologist guy (who has been involved in 60,000 cases) said, it was unnecessary and useless "why do you need the stick".

@1.22.00

Yes, the pathologist stated an adult would not have needed to use an implement like that anyway. I also wondered where a nine year old would have learned how to do this type of knot...could have been a family member I suppose, or he might have been a part of a scout group or similar. I now see all the evidence pointing directly at Burke Ramsey, it all fits, for me anyway.

1. The garrote.

...Non-operational. Only used by the Stagers for purposes of misdirection because the real device used in the strangulation would have contained too much evidence against the real murderer. The autopsy photos show TWO strangulation groove marks on the neck, [and petechiae, proving she was alive when strangled]  one for the twine/rope used in the staged garotte device, the other made by the real murder weapon. [possibly a scarf. Curiously, JB was said to have been buried with a scarf]

2. The DNA

...I'm not sure what the CBS doc claimed about the DNA because I stopped watching once Dr. Werner Spitz insisted conclusively that the head wound came first. Oh really Dr. Spitz? So 7cc's of blood, 1 1/2 teaspoons! from a massive 8 inch head wound, is enough blood to prove the child was alive when struck on the head? According to Dr. Wecht, this is not bleeding 'this is seepage'.  Was the claim the DNA was deposited during the  'manufacturing process'--oh really? So the same factory and the same factory worker produced both the underwear and the long johns?--or was the explanation that 'touch DNA' was transferred between the items? If the latter, I'm going to need to see studies which prove transference of 'touch DNA' is even possible. In any case neither of these explanations address the possibility that the same DNA was found under JB's fingernails, and neither of these explanations reach any level of credibility until it can be proven that all males close to this case have given DNA samples for comparison, Fleet White among them.



3. Was JB asleep or awake when the family arrived home from the White's Christmas party?

...Initially, there was a conflict in the statements of Burke and his parents on this point. I'm sorry I can't remember which way it went but it hardly matters. Burke said one thing, his parents said another. How hard can it be to remember this detail? EIther she 'went skipping' into the house or she had to be carried because she was sleeping. Eventually they all got their stories straight and agreed she WAS asleep. Asleep? Or dead because something happened to her earlier in the evening.. that is the question, in my mind at least.

whodunit wrote:...I'm not sure what the CBS doc claimed about the DNA because I stopped watching once Dr. Werner Spitz insisted conclusively that the head wound came first. Oh really Dr. Spitz? So 7cc's of blood, 1 1/2 teaspoons! from a massive 8 inch head wound, is enough blood to prove the child was alive when struck on the head? 

The autopsy said she was struck first.

The autopsy report said she had a subdural hemorrhage.

The amount of blood found can be limited due to something called the Monro-Kellie Doctrine.

http://casemed.case.edu/clerkships/neurology/Web%20Neurorad/subduralhema.htm

Basically the pressure from expanding brain tissue squeezes other stuff.

I'm not sure your claim is sound.

Websleuths is an excellent resource for this case.

Rather than quote each poster who keeps repeating that there was “little bleeding in the brain” or a “small (or “minimal”) amount of blood”, I’m addressing this to anyone who is under that misconception: 

There was a lot more blood present in her skull (in several different layers) than what most people seem to think. There was about as much blood present as the skull will allow before its swollen state slows down the bleeding. There isn’t that much “room” or “empty space” inside the skull to begin with. To allow for excess blood, the pressure inside the brain has to equalize with the pressure in the arteries. This is what happens when the skull is being inundated with blood and cerebrospinal fluid caused by trauma. Eventually the ICP (intracranial pressure) will overcome the blood pressure, slowing or stopping the blood flow. I know where this misconception of “minimal blood” came from -- it came from Dr. Wecht’s early pronouncement that there was only about one and a half teaspoons of blood. That is not entirely correct. Read the AR for yourself, or read the translation here (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...90#post9054790). That estimate of 7 to 8 cc (1-1/2 teaspoons) only accounts for one area of bleeding: the subdural hemorrhage. In addition to that “subdural hemorrhage”, there was also a “subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere”, “an extensive linear area of purple contusion” which “measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches” (a contusion is made up of blood that leaks from the blood vessels into the affected tissue), and the blood found initially outside of the skull after reflection of the scalp (“an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area” which “encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches.”). In total, this isNOT a “small” or “minimal” amount of bleeding!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?27909-Head-injury-vs-strangulation-***WARNING!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***/page16

I think you should watch the rest of the documentary whodunnit.

BlueBag wrote:Websleuths is an excellent resource for this case.

Rather than quote each poster who keeps repeating that there was “little bleeding in the brain” or a “small (or “minimal”) amount of blood”, I’m addressing this to anyone who is under that misconception: 

There was a lot more blood present in her skull (in several different layers) than what most people seem to think. There was about as much blood present as the skull will allow before its swollen state slows down the bleeding. There isn’t that much “room” or “empty space” inside the skull to begin with. To allow for excess blood, the pressure inside the brain has to equalize with the pressure in the arteries. This is what happens when the skull is being inundated with blood and cerebrospinal fluid caused by trauma. Eventually the ICP (intracranial pressure) will overcome the blood pressure, slowing or stopping the blood flow. I know where this misconception of “minimal blood” came from -- it came from Dr. Wecht’s early pronouncement that there was only about one and a half teaspoons of blood. That is not entirely correct. Read the AR for yourself, or read the translation here (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...90#post9054790). That estimate of 7 to 8 cc (1-1/2 teaspoons) only accounts for one area of bleeding: the subdural hemorrhage. In addition to that “subdural hemorrhage”, there was also a “subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere”, “an extensive linear area of purple contusion” which “measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches” (a contusion is made up of blood that leaks from the blood vessels into the affected tissue), and the blood found initially outside of the skull after reflection of the scalp (“an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area” which “encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches.”). In total, this isNOT a “small” or “minimal” amount of bleeding!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?27909-Head-injury-vs-strangulation-***WARNING!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***/page16

I think you should watch the rest of the documentary whodunnit.

I haven't time to address the autopsy report right now but I do want to stress that for a number of reasons that I will come back to later Websleuths is NOT a good resource on this case.

whodunit wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Websleuths is an excellent resource for this case.

Rather than quote each poster who keeps repeating that there was “little bleeding in the brain” or a “small (or “minimal”) amount of blood”, I’m addressing this to anyone who is under that misconception: 

There was a lot more blood present in her skull (in several different layers) than what most people seem to think. There was about as much blood present as the skull will allow before its swollen state slows down the bleeding. There isn’t that much “room” or “empty space” inside the skull to begin with. To allow for excess blood, the pressure inside the brain has to equalize with the pressure in the arteries. This is what happens when the skull is being inundated with blood and cerebrospinal fluid caused by trauma. Eventually the ICP (intracranial pressure) will overcome the blood pressure, slowing or stopping the blood flow. I know where this misconception of “minimal blood” came from -- it came from Dr. Wecht’s early pronouncement that there was only about one and a half teaspoons of blood. That is not entirely correct. Read the AR for yourself, or read the translation here (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...90#post9054790). That estimate of 7 to 8 cc (1-1/2 teaspoons) only accounts for one area of bleeding: the subdural hemorrhage. In addition to that “subdural hemorrhage”, there was also a “subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere”, “an extensive linear area of purple contusion” which “measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches” (a contusion is made up of blood that leaks from the blood vessels into the affected tissue), and the blood found initially outside of the skull after reflection of the scalp (“an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area” which “encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches.”). In total, this isNOT a “small” or “minimal” amount of bleeding!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?27909-Head-injury-vs-strangulation-***WARNING!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***/page16

I think you should watch the rest of the documentary whodunnit.

I haven't time to address the autopsy report right now but I do want to stress that for a number of reasons that I will come back to later Websleuths is NOT a good resource on this case.

There are all kinds of opinion on Websleuths.

Much like here.

Much of it is good.

The above about the bleeding is a case in point.

Don't waste time attacking Websleuths, address the point about amounts of blood, cranial pressure and the injury.

Looks like trouble ahead; lawyer is suing CBS on behalf of Burke who is also prepared to take a lie detector test, not surprising! 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-burke-offers-8911243

Polygraph tests may be good enough for Jeremy Kyle, but there's a reason they are inadmissible in court. Plus, he may well not be able to take a test if he is taking any anti-anxiety meds or such.

If he really wants to prove his innocence, he should allow himself to be called for deposition regarding the facts in the documentary. A similar thing happened in the West Memphis 3 case, where a potential suspect opened himself up to deposition (in which he really did not look good) because he tried to sue Natalie Maines..

Former neighbour comes out of the woodwork and is prepared to put her name to her statement to The Sun:
 
MURDER FINALLY SOLVED? Friend of beauty queen JonBenet’s family backs theory brother killed her and parents covered it up
 
Judith Phillips, a Ramsey family friend for more than ten years, told how she had often seen flashes of brother's temper
 
BY CAROLINE IGGULDEN IN NEW YORK 25th September 2016, 11:00 pm
 
IT is almost 20 years since the body of six-year-old beauty pageant queen JonBenét Ramsey was found bludgeoned and strangled in the wine cellar of her parents’ suburban home.
 
Yet the world’s fascination with the bizarre circumstances surrounding the Christmas murder shows no sign of fading.
 
Last week a US documentary claimed JonBenét’s brother Burke, who at the time was just nine years old, could be to blame for the death which his parents hastily covered up.
No charges have ever been filed and authorities have stated in the past that Burke, now 29, is NOT a suspect.
He strongly denies he or his parents were involved in the crime and has offered to take a lie-detector test.
 
But a fresh storm erupted this month as viewers say he was grinning while discussing his ­sister’s death with US TV psychologist Dr Phil.
The case unfolded on Boxing Day morning, 1996, when mum Patsy called 911 claiming her daughter was missing and she had found a ransom note in her home in Boulder, Colorado.
Just hours later, after detectives had arrived, John Ramsey discovered JonBenét’s body in the basement.
 
In addition to a fractured skull, the girl’s wrists were tied over her head and duct tape covered her mouth. She had been strangled with a garrotte fashioned from a broken paintbrush — the remnants of which were found in Patsy’s art box.
Footage soon emerged showing JonBenét in child beauty pageants, plastered in make-up with a bouffant. The images made the case unforgettable.
Now, in CBS documentary The Case of JonBenét Ramsey, a former investigator for Boulder’s District Attorney gave his theory that the little girl and her brother clashed over a snack of fresh pineapple.
 
JonBenét’s autopsy report showed undigested pineapple in her system. It was a clue which had baffled investigators, given her parents claimed their daughter was asleep when they returned from a Christmas party and had been put straight to bed.
Crime scene footage showed a bowl of pineapple and a glass of iced tea both bearing Burke’s fingerprints.
Patsy always denied knowledge of the pineapple or how it ended up on the table, despite her fingerprints also being found on the bowl.
 
On the programme former investigator James Kolar states: “I think the Ramseys came home at around 9.30, 10 o’clock. I think JonBenét was asleep.
“I think John did carry her upstairs. Patsy remained downstairs with Burke and served him the tea and pineapple.
“Then she got JonBenét up to make sure she used the toilet.”
James claims JonBenét later went downstairs and grabbed a chunk of Burke’s pineapple causing her furious brother to hit her with a flashlight.
The TV documentary also pointed out two red marks on JonBenét’s lower back could have been made by a piece of Burke’s toy train track.
The new probe suggested Burke may have poked his sister with the track when he realised she wasn’t moving.
 
For many years JonBenét’s millionaire businessman dad John, 72, and Patsy were the chief suspects.
Cops speculated former beauty queen Patsy, who died of ovarian cancer aged 49 in 2006, could have lost her temper, perhaps over JonBenét’s bedwetting.
The family claims an intruder was responsible. Supporters of that theory have pointed to a footprint in the basement from an unknown boot.
In 2008 Boulder’s District Attorney exonerated John and Patsy after DNA belonging to an unidentified man was detected on JonBenét’s leggings and underwear. But critics have claimed the forensics were not robust enough.
 
Judith Phillips, 64, a Ramsey family friend for more than ten years, told The Sun how she had often seen flashes of Burke’s temper and believes the theory he is the culprit.
 
She said: “People always think of JonBenét in the ­pageant costumes but she was a tomboy who loved jumping in piles of leaves or getting muddy.
 
“Burke was quiet, reserved and very into computer technology. I had seen him have emotional outbursts.”
 
Judith first met the Ramseys when the family lived in Atlanta, Georgia. They became neighbours again when the Ramseys moved to Boulder several years after Judith and her family had relocated to the town.
 
Judith said: “When Burke was born he was the absolute apple of Patsy’s eye. Then along came this little girl who stole all the attention. He could well have been very jealous.”
Photographer Judith also claimed Burke had hit his sister with a golf club a year before her murder, leaving her with a scar on her cheek.
In the aftermath of the murder, Judith found it strange when the Ramseys asked their circle of friends not to speak to police or the media.
She added: “To me it seemed odd they would give a big television interview but not work with police.”
And Judith revealed one part of the ransom note seemed familiar.
 
She revealed: “A phrase used, ‘And hence’, leaped out at me. I had received a Christmas newsletter from the family and the phrase was used in that too. It seemed like not something people generally say.”
The bizarre two-and-a-half page letter was written on a pad from Patsy’s writing desk, using a pen found later underneath the Ramseys’ phone.
Imprints on the pad suggest practice notes had been scribbled. Cops ruled out John and Burke as the author but were unable to eliminate Patsy.
Judith admitted: “I agree with the theory Burke killed JonBenét but I don’t think he meant to do it. I think Patsy did everything in her power to protect her living child. I think she wrote the ransom note whilst John staged the scene in the basement.
 
“After calling the police Patsy began inviting friends over to the house and in the commotion John went missing for an hour and half. It is my opinion he was disposing of evidence.”
Operator Kim Archuletta, who took Patsy’s 911 call, believes the panicked mum’s voice changed after
Patsy mistakenly thought she had hung up. Kim said: “You hear the frantic tone in her voice as she was speaking to me. It immediately stopped.”
In the past it has been claimed voice enhancements of the tape pick up John saying: “We’re not speaking to you” before Patsy allegedly asks: “What did you do? Help me, Jesus.”
 
Some claim Burke’s voice can be heard asking: “What did you find?” — even though his parents have always claimed he was asleep at the time.
Burke, who now leads a reclusive life working from home as a software engineer, denied in his recent interview he was involved.
He said: “That’s not what happened. There’s been people who have said that’s not even physically possible for a nine-year-old to do that.”
 
And the Ramseys’ lawyer Lin Wood told The Sun he was unsurprised by Burke’s demeanour during the interview with Dr Phil. He said: “He can come across awkward and he has a nervous smile during difficult conversations. But he wanted to speak out.”
Lin revealed the Ramseys plan to sue over the documentary, which he said contains “no legitimate evidence”.
He added the latest theory ignores evidence of a possible sexual assault and suggestions in the autopsy report that JonBenét may have died by asphyxiation not a blow to the head.
Over the years police have looked into 160 potential suspects and quizzed known paedophiles but none could be reliably placed at the scene.
“If JonBenèt were alive she would be a 26-year-old woman now,” Judith said. “It just breaks my heart she may never receive justice.”
 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1851552/friend-of-jonbenet-family-backs-theory-brother-killed-her-and-parents-covered-it-up/

^^^^^^ All of the above was in the documentary, I suspect the Sun have not interviewed her, just chewing and spewing as usual to make a dime!