The JonBenét Ramsey Case.

[Hally34]

I cannot believe the parents discovering their 9 year old had smashed his sister over the head with a torch would then write that garbled random note and put her in the basement and stage an assault, tie her up etc. It makes no sense! The letter and the tying her up don’t align. If they were staging a kidnapping then they’d hide the body. If they were staging an intruder coming in and tying her up etc they wouldn’t have written the ransom letter. The body was not hidden, they’d have no idea the police would go on to miss searching the train room.
And why is her father continually campaigning to get items retested and items that weren’t tested, tested for DNA after the police bungled it all originally if he was involved and had done all this to protect his son?? He could still claim innocents whilst not pushing for new testing but no he’s petitioning for new tests to find his daughters killer. If Burke did it. His mother would needed to have been involved and Patsy couldn’t have been involved without John noticing she was up.
An intruder was in the house ahead of the crime, potentially had visited several times becoming familiar with the home. The window in the basement was broken for along time ahead of the crime allowing a way in.
They wrote the letter before the crime as they meant to take JB and leave but then changed their mind once in the basement with her.
The ransom note is random and strange. Written by a disturbed individual try to shield their sexually motivated crime as a kidnap for money. If the parents had staged a kidnapping and written a note in a panic it wouldn’t have been written so oddly. They would have kept it simple and more ‘classic’ ransom note.

 

[hehehe]

Me, I think Burke did it. He had form for attacking JB. My theory:

- he killed her by bashing her on head with Maglight tourch
- He then made the garotte (the knot used was one he had learned the previous month at Boy Scouts) - not to strangle her but to drag her into the basement (hence the inclusion of the paintbrush handle in the garotte)
- Patsy discovered it and John dictated the note to her - she adding a few flourishes of her own (it uses very maternal language in places)
- They were up all night which is why Patsy had on the same clothes she'd been wearing the night before

Happy to expand on any of these points. It's an interesting one where, unlike with the McCanns, I don't think we'll ever formally find out the truth.

- There was no forensic evidence on the torch and no blood spatter anywhere in the main house, not even a drop, which there would be even if the parents cleaned it up -- so, no.

- If you want to drag someone anywhere you hold them by the wrists and ankles. Never in the history of humans, let alone 9 year olds, has anyone fashioned a garrotte for the purpose of dragging someone anywhere. The ligature mark was clean and precise on her neck, which it would not be if someone dragged her by the neck. Even if he knew how to fashion a garrotte (knots are standard boy scout training but not garrottes) why would he have the presence of mind to suddenly remember to make one, again specifically for the ridiculous purpose of dragging JB down to the basement. Where's the blood trail from this dragging? All forensic evidence of the crime was inside the basement. So, again no to your point.

- For the millionth time, the handwriting didn't match Patsy's. So, no.

- They had a party the night before which would explain her wearing the same clothes, so even if this is true it's otherwise explainable.

None of your points are credible, sorry.

 

[moldwarp]

- There was no forensic evidence on the torch and no blood spatter anywhere in the main house, not even a drop, which there would be even if the parents cleaned it up -- so, no.

- If you want to drag someone anywhere you hold them by the wrists and ankles. Never in the history of humans, let alone 9 year olds, has anyone fashioned a garrotte for the purpose of dragging someone anywhere. The ligature mark was clean and precise on her neck, which it would not be if someone dragged her by the neck. Even if he knew how to fashion a garrotte (knots are standard boy scout training but not garrottes) why would he have the presence of mind to suddenly remember to make one, again specifically for the ridiculous purpose of dragging JB down to the basement. Where's the blood trail from this dragging? All forensic evidence of the crime was inside the basement. So, again no to your point.

- For the millionth time, the handwriting didn't match Patsy's. So, no.

- They had a party the night before which would explain her wearing the same clothes, so even if this is true it's otherwise explainable.

None of your points are credible, sorry.

- There was no forensic evidence on the torch and no blood spatter anywhere in the main house, not even a drop, which there would be even if the parents cleaned it up -- so, no.

I didn't mention blood. Head injuries can be and have been fatal even if the skin is not broken.

- If you want to drag someone anywhere you hold them by the wrists and ankles. Never in the history of humans, let alone 9 year olds, has anyone fashioned a garrotte for the purpose of dragging someone anywhere. The ligature mark was clean and precise on her neck, which it would not be if someone dragged her by the neck. Even if he knew how to fashion a garrotte (knots are standard boy scout training but not garrottes) why would he have the presence of mind to suddenly remember to make one, again specifically for the ridiculous purpose of dragging JB down to the basement. Where's the blood trail from this dragging? All forensic evidence of the crime was inside the basement. So, again no to your point.

Strictly speaking I shouldn't have called it a garotte because it wasn't one. But, yes, you're correct in that she could also have been carried into the basement by one of her parents and the painbrush & rope contraption fashioned afterwards for staging.

- For the millionth time, the handwriting didn't match Patsy's. So, no.

Handwriting experts are split on this one, actually.

- They had a party the night before which would explain her wearing the same clothes, so even if this is true it's otherwise explainable.

No, Patsy was big on personal grooming, I don't think she would have gone to bed in all her finery, not least because it wasn't particuarly late when they got home. She was dressed because she was up all night.

None of your points are credible, sorry.

No need to apologise! None of us here are going to solve this case, we're all just gossiping and all of our opnions have equal value

 

[Hally34]

- There was no forensic evidence on the torch and no blood spatter anywhere in the main house, not even a drop, which there would be even if the parents cleaned it up -- so, no.

I didn't mention blood. Head injuries can be and have been fatal even if the skin is not broken.

- If you want to drag someone anywhere you hold them by the wrists and ankles. Never in the history of humans, let alone 9 year olds, has anyone fashioned a garrotte for the purpose of dragging someone anywhere. The ligature mark was clean and precise on her neck, which it would not be if someone dragged her by the neck. Even if he knew how to fashion a garrotte (knots are standard boy scout training but not garrottes) why would he have the presence of mind to suddenly remember to make one, again specifically for the ridiculous purpose of dragging JB down to the basement. Where's the blood trail from this dragging? All forensic evidence of the crime was inside the basement. So, again no to your point.

Strictly speaking I shouldn't have called it a garotte because it wasn't one. But, yes, you're correct in that she could also have been carried into the basement by one of her parents and the painbrush & rope contraption fashioned afterwards for staging.

- For the millionth time, the handwriting didn't match Patsy's. So, no.

Handwriting experts are split on this one, actually.

- They had a party the night before which would explain her wearing the same clothes, so even if this is true it's otherwise explainable.

No, Patsy was big on personal grooming, I don't think she would have gone to bed in all her finery, not least because it wasn't particuarly late when they got home. She was dressed because she was up all night.

None of your points are credible, sorry.

No need to apologise! None of us here are going to solve this case, we're all just gossiping and all of our opnions have equal value

Why stage her body whilst also writing a fake ransom????
Handwriting analysis is extremely inaccurate and very very weak evidence. The intruder wrote the ransom note using Patsy notebook which had samples of Patsy’s handwriting in. They may have even been looking at Patsy’s hand writing and (badly) mimicking it to throw police even further off the scent (before they went off plan and killed JB in the basement rather than taking her from the house). I don’t even think the writing looks like Patsy’s but this is entirely subjective.
And also IF the torch was the ‘weapon’ that Burke hit her with why oh why would they leave it laying on the kitchen counter after for all to see. They were not to know there wasn’t any forensics on it. At the very least it would be tucked away to be got rid of later. Having gone to all the trouble of doing all this staging they decide to leave the weapon out??? It’s not like it would be missed like if a knife was missing from a knife block or a vase that was always in the hallway was suddenly gone for someone to notice. It was a torch. I’d go out on a limb and say it doesn’t stay permanently on the counter top and wouldn’t be missed if it was removed.
The narrative that is to be believed to conclude it was the family is so farfetched and convoluted with so much that doesn’t make any sense that I have to rule it out (as a completely unqualified average joe who’s watched a few too many crime docs )

 

[peanutbuttercupp11]

If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)

I also don't see why they would put the exact amount of John's bonus in the letter, knowing again how suspicious this would look towards the family.

I think the idea that a NINE year old kid could fashion that garrotte and have the strength to strangle his sister so hard the cord gets fully embedded in her neck, then bring her all the way down to the basement pretty laughable.

Everyone who's convinced Burke did it seems to be conveniently forgetting the foreign male DNA at the scene which rules out the family!

 

[moldwarp]

Why stage her body whilst also writing a fake ransom????
Handwriting analysis is extremely inaccurate and very very weak evidence. The intruder wrote the ransom note using Patsy notebook which had samples of Patsy’s handwriting in. They may have even been looking at Patsy’s hand writing and (badly) mimicking it to throw police even further off the scent (before they went off plan and killed JB in the basement rather than taking her from the house). I don’t even think the writing looks like Patsy’s but this is entirely subjective.
And also IF the torch was the ‘weapon’ that Burke hit her with why oh why would they leave it laying on the kitchen counter after for all to see. They were not to know there wasn’t any forensics on it. At the very least it would be tucked away to be got rid of later. Having gone to all the trouble of doing all this staging they decide to leave the weapon out??? It’s not like it would be missed like if a knife was missing from a knife block or a vase that was always in the hallway was suddenly gone for someone to notice. It was a torch. I’d go out on a limb and say it doesn’t stay permanently on the counter top and wouldn’t be missed if it was removed.
The narrative that is to be believed to conclude it was the family is so farfetched and convoluted with so much that doesn’t make any sense that I have to rule it out (as a completely unqualified average joe who’s watched a few too many crime docs )

Why stage her body whilst also writing a fake ransom????

To make it look like an intruder considered kidnapping but then killed her. But you could apply the same logic to a putative intruder. Why write a lengthy note only to kill the target?

Handwriting analysis is extremely inaccurate and very very weak evidence.

Agreed.

And also IF the torch was the ‘weapon’ that Burke hit her with why oh why would they leave it laying on the kitchen counter after for all to see. They were not to know there wasn’t any forensics on it. At the very least it would be tucked away to be got rid of later. Having gone to all the trouble of doing all this staging they decide to leave the weapon out??? It’s not like it would be missed like if a knife was missing from a knife block or a vase that was always in the hallway was suddenly gone for someone to notice. It was a torch. I’d go out on a limb and say it doesn’t stay permanently on the counter top and wouldn’t be missed if it was removed.

You're positing the idea of an intruder who was so incompetent that they spent about 30 minutes writing a ransom note only to kill the target (as opposed to bringing a note with them). Why baulk at the idea that this imaginary intruder might also duck up with the murder weapon? Also, in your scenario, how do you know there wasn't another murder weapon?

The narrative that is to be believed to conclude it was the family is so farfetched and convoluted with so much that doesn’t make any sense that I have to rule it out (as a completely unqualified average joe who’s watched a few too many crime docs )

LOL, I'm just an average Joe too! I think the intruder theory is far more convoluted and unlikely than the statistical Occam's Razor - which is that a family member did it.
---

If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)

I also don't see why they would put the exact amount of John's bonus in the letter, knowing again how suspicious this would look towards the family.

I think the idea that a NINE year old kid could fashion that garrotte and have the strength to strangle his sister so hard the cord gets fully embedded in her neck, then bring her all the way down to the basement pretty laughable.

Everyone who's convinced Burke did it seems to be conveniently forgetting the foreign male DNA at the scene which rules out the family!

If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)

All these questions could equally be asked of a putative intruder. And you're right that a real, halfway competent kidnapper would not risk spending 30 minutes in the target's house writing a note. They'd write it beforehand. And bring it with them. Mind you, genuine ransom notes are always very, very short. Not the rambling essay Patsy produced.

I also don't see why they would put the exact amount of John's bonus in the letter, knowing again how suspicious this would look towards the family.

How would the 'foreign faction' know about the bonus amount? Actually come to that, why would the kidnappers call themselves a 'foreign faction'? They wouldn't be foreign to themselves. ISIS / IRA / Boko Haram don't describe themselves as 'foreign' do they? A faction can only be foreign to someone who isn't part of the faction. Patsy screwed up there.

I think the idea that a NINE year old kid could fashion that garrotte and have the strength to strangle his sister so hard the cord gets fully embedded in her neck, then bring her all the way down to the basement pretty laughable.

Mary Bell aged 10 was able to MANUALLY strangle two quite large, well nourished three year olds. It's not laughable, it's chilling. And eminently physically possible.

Everyone who's convinced Burke did it seems to be conveniently forgetting the foreign male DNA at the scene which rules out the family!

If you have germophobe tendencies (as I do) I suggest you stop reading now....but every single item of underwear or indeed any clothing you and I have ever bought had foreign DNA on it. From the men and women who manufactured and packed the clothes.

 

[Nelly's mum]

I know a stun gun was suggested for the small marks on JonBenet, I remember watching something years ago that disputed this - the space between the marks varied and wasn't the same as a stun gun. I also heard that the electric toy train track was suggested as the cause of the marks.

Another strange point was the bindings; the binding to JonBenet's neck was really tight, cutting into her skin, the bindings to her wrists were loose and carefully tied on top of her cuffs. Just an odd detail

 

[Hally34]

Why stage her body whilst also writing a fake ransom????

To make it look like an intruder considered kidnapping but then killed her. But you could apply the same logic to a putative intruder. Why write a lengthy note only to kill the target?

Handwriting analysis is extremely inaccurate and very very weak evidence.

Agreed.

And also IF the torch was the ‘weapon’ that Burke hit her with why oh why would they leave it laying on the kitchen counter after for all to see. They were not to know there wasn’t any forensics on it. At the very least it would be tucked away to be got rid of later. Having gone to all the trouble of doing all this staging they decide to leave the weapon out??? It’s not like it would be missed like if a knife was missing from a knife block or a vase that was always in the hallway was suddenly gone for someone to notice. It was a torch. I’d go out on a limb and say it doesn’t stay permanently on the counter top and wouldn’t be missed if it was removed.

You're positing the idea of an intruder who was so incompetent that they spent about 30 minutes writing a ransom note only to kill the target (as opposed to bringing a note with them). Why baulk at the idea that this imaginary intruder might also duck up with the murder weapon? Also, in your scenario, how do you know there wasn't another murder weapon?

The narrative that is to be believed to conclude it was the family is so farfetched and convoluted with so much that doesn’t make any sense that I have to rule it out (as a completely unqualified average joe who’s watched a few too many crime docs )

LOL, I'm just an average Joe too! I think the intruder theory is far more convoluted and unlikely than the statistical Occam's Razor - which is that a family member did it.
---


If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)

All these questions could equally be asked of a putative intruder. And you're right that a real, halfway competent kidnapper would not risk spending 30 minutes in the target's house writing a note. They'd write it beforehand. And bring it with them. Mind you, genuine ransom notes are always very, very short. Not the rambling essay Patsy produced.

I also don't see why they would put the exact amount of John's bonus in the letter, knowing again how suspicious this would look towards the family.

How would the 'foreign faction' know about the bonus amount? Actually come to that, why would the kidnappers call themselves a 'foreign faction'? They wouldn't be foreign to themselves. ISIS / IRA / Boko Haram don't describe themselves as 'foreign' do they? A faction can only be foreign to someone who isn't part of the faction. Patsy screwed up there.

I think the idea that a NINE year old kid could fashion that garrotte and have the strength to strangle his sister so hard the cord gets fully embedded in her neck, then bring her all the way down to the basement pretty laughable.

Mary Bell aged 10 was able to MANUALLY strangle two quite large, well nourished three year olds. It's not laughable, it's chilling. And eminently physically possible.

Everyone who's convinced Burke did it seems to be conveniently forgetting the foreign male DNA at the scene which rules out the family!

If you have germophobe tendencies (as I do) I suggest you stop reading now....but every single item of underwear or indeed any clothing you and I have ever bought had foreign DNA on it. From the men and women who manufactured and packed the clothes.

I find the family did it theory far far far more convoluted.

The intruder was in the house for many hours waiting for the family to go to bed. The family were out from 5:30pm to 9:15pm. They planned to take JB. They had a lot of time to write the ransom note.
Once they took JB and went to make their escape through the basement. Once in the basement they decided to attack her. Perhaps they couldn’t resist. Perhaps JB was becoming agitated so they subdued her. Perhaps they were suddenly nervous to be spotted outside carrying the child and ‘chickened’ out of leaving holding her.
I categorically don’t think the torch on the kitchen counter was used to hit JB. It’s ludicrous that it would be left on the side. It has no forensic evidence suggesting it was used and was left on the side very confidently. It would be idiotic.
The narrative for the parents and Burke to have carried out this crime is wild. You have to overlook so many illogical actions.
1. Why didn’t they call for help. They still could have ‘protected’ Burke claiming an accident.
2. Why do the ransom note AND stage the assault on JB. An intruder changing their plan is far more logical then the parents staging both of these and raising even more suspicion
3. Why is the father continually campaigning for new DNA analysis??? Have you watched the new Netflix doc??
4. The unknown DNA on the new underwear could be contact DNA from the factory yes this is possible, but what about under JB’s fingernails??

If the mother hadn’t had JB doing child beauty pagents I do wonder if the family would have been treated very differently. I think it was awful dressing her up like that and leaving her exposed to those of ill intent but I think they were being naive.

 

[moldwarp]

I know a stun gun was suggested for the small marks on JonBenet, I remember watching something years ago that disputed this - the space between the marks varied and wasn't the same as a stun gun. I also heard that the electric toy train track was suggested as the cause of the marks.

Another strange point was the bindings; the binding to JonBenet's neck was really tight, cutting into her skin, the bindings to her wrists were loose and carefully tied on top of her cuffs. Just an odd detail

Yeah James Kolar posits that those marks were made by the toy train track and includes a diagram of the make and model of train set Burke had, which matches the marks on JB's neck.


@Hally34

The intruder was in the house for many hours waiting for the family to go to bed. The family were out from 5:30pm to 9:15pm. They planned to take JB. They had a lot of time to write the ransom note.

There's no evidence of a break in. The broken window in the basement was stated by John to have been done by himself. No footprints outside, no disturbed foliage, no damage to the external casement. How did these putative kidnappers (how many are you thinking?) know what time the family were due home? Or whether all the family had gone? How did they know they would have plenty of time to write this essay of a ransom note? Why did they include in the ransom note details that only the family would know? Why were they so concerned that John should get a good night's sleep? Whydid they specify the size of attache case?

Once they took JB and went to make their escape through the basement. Once in the basement they decided to attack her. Perhaps they couldn’t resist. Perhaps JB was becoming agitated so they subdued her. Perhaps they were suddenly nervous to be spotted outside carrying the child and ‘chickened’ out of leaving holding her.
I categorically don’t think the torch on the kitchen counter was used to hit JB. It’s ludicrous that it would be left on the side. It has no forensic evidence suggesting it was used and was left on the side very confidently. It would be idiotic.

Equally idiotic then in your account for them to leave the ransom essay, having changed their plans.

The narrative for the parents and Burke to have carried out this crime is wild. You have to overlook so many illogical actions.
1. Why didn’t they call for help. They still could have ‘protected’ Burke claiming an accident.

And lose their other child to the prison system / care system? John had already lost his eldest daughter, and now JB. Why would either of them want to give up Burke too?

2. Why do the ransom note AND stage the assault on JB. An intruder changing their plan is far more logical then the parents staging both of these and raising even more suspicion

On whose logic? There have been enough kidnappings in the US for the FBI to be able to profile these types of crimes quite well and that profile does not include hanging around casually in the house, writing lengthy essays on headed notepaper, then changing the entire MO on a whim.

3. Why is the father continually campaigning for new DNA analysis??? I dunno - why do the McCanns keep pretending they believe Maddie is still alive? Have you watched the new Netflix doc?? Not yet, as I stated upthread.

4. The unknown DNA on the new underwear could be contact DNA from the factory yes this is possible, but what about under JB’s fingernails??

A kid from the party.

If the mother hadn’t had JB doing child beauty pagents I do wonder if the family would have been treated very differently. Actually I think they were treated incredibly well, as befits their extreme wealth and white privilege. The Boulder PD allowed them to foul up the crime scene by bringing a bunch of their friends over. They would not have been treated with anywhere near the same amount of latitude had they been Black and working class.[/QUOTE]

 

[grannypants]

If they were staging her kidnapping, why would they leave her body in their house knowing how incriminating that would be? It is a very short drive from their house to the mountains/wilderness of Colorado, in the time it's taking to write that long note and stage the scene one of them could easily have driven out to somewhere remote and buried her not to be found for a long time if ever (which is IMO what the McCanns did!)

How would they get her body out of the house undetected? There would be evidence of their car leaving the scene - road tracks, footprints outside the house, mileage, possibility of a neighbour seeing or hearing them leave. How would they explain to the police that they left at 3am?

Actually I think they were treated incredibly well, as befits their extreme wealth and white privilege. The Boulder PD allowed them to foul up the crime scene by bringing a bunch of their friends over. They would not have been treated with anywhere near the same amount of latitude had they been Black and working class.

This. I still find it shocking how well the Ramseys were treated by the police. They refused to do police interviews until they were absolutely forced to and then were given a copy of their transcript from their original interview so they could ensure their story was the same (!!!!!) and they didn’t allow Burke to be interviewed properly.
The investigators were even told to treat them with ‘kid gloves’. It’s insane what having money can do.

 

[Hally34]

Yeah James Kolar posits that those marks were made by the toy train track and includes a diagram of the make and model of train set Burke had, which matches the marks on JB's neck.


@Hally34

The intruder was in the house for many hours waiting for the family to go to bed. The family were out from 5:30pm to 9:15pm. They planned to take JB. They had a lot of time to write the ransom note.

There's no evidence of a break in. The broken window in the basement was stated by John to have been done by himself. No footprints outside, no disturbed foliage, no damage to the external casement. How did these putative kidnappers (how many are you thinking?) know what time the family were due home? Or whether all the family had gone? How did they know they would have plenty of time to write this essay of a ransom note? Why did they include in the ransom note details that only the family would know? Why were they so concerned that John should get a good night's sleep? Whydid they specify the size of attache case?

Once they took JB and went to make their escape through the basement. Once in the basement they decided to attack her. Perhaps they couldn’t resist. Perhaps JB was becoming agitated so they subdued her. Perhaps they were suddenly nervous to be spotted outside carrying the child and ‘chickened’ out of leaving holding her.
I categorically don’t think the torch on the kitchen counter was used to hit JB. It’s ludicrous that it would be left on the side. It has no forensic evidence suggesting it was used and was left on the side very confidently. It would be idiotic.

Equally idiotic then in your account for them to leave the ransom essay, having changed their plans.

The narrative for the parents and Burke to have carried out this crime is wild. You have to overlook so many illogical actions.
1. Why didn’t they call for help. They still could have ‘protected’ Burke claiming an accident.

And lose their other child to the prison system / care system? John had already lost his eldest daughter, and now JB. Why would either of them want to give up Burke too?

2. Why do the ransom note AND stage the assault on JB. An intruder changing their plan is far more logical then the parents staging both of these and raising even more suspicion

On whose logic? There have been enough kidnappings in the US for the FBI to be able to profile these types of crimes quite well and that profile does not include hanging around casually in the house, writing lengthy essays on headed notepaper, then changing the entire MO on a whim.

3. Why is the father continually campaigning for new DNA analysis??? I dunno - why do the McCanns keep pretending they believe Maddie is still alive? Have you watched the new Netflix doc?? Not yet, as I stated upthread.

4. The unknown DNA on the new underwear could be contact DNA from the factory yes this is possible, but what about under JB’s fingernails??

A kid from the party.

If the mother hadn’t had JB doing child beauty pagents I do wonder if the family would have been treated very differently. Actually I think they were treated incredibly well, as befits their extreme wealth and white privilege. The Boulder PD allowed them to foul up the crime scene by bringing a bunch of their friends over. They would not have been treated with anywhere near the same amount of latitude had they been Black and working class.

[/QUOTE]

There is evidence of a break in. Rope was found in the spare room. A window was unsecured in the basement. The perpetrator may have come and gone via this entrance multiple times as they watched JB and the movements of the family. I think he was watching the family for some time and was obsessed with JB. A suitcase was under the window in order to use this window as a way to come and go.

I see nothing to suggest it wasn’t a lone intruder.. In fact it being multiple people seems unlikely especially given the crime is unsolved. The more people involved usually the more evidence and the more likely someone lets something slip or they turn on one another.

The perps actions suggest he was aware of them having gone to the party and therefore felt comfortable that he had some time before they returned. He was confident moving his way around the house.

He had been in the home and seen paperwork (in John’s office) or heard about John’s bonus. The family talking about it etc when stalking them and leaned on this nugget of intel. Or he may have known the family, known JB. He used these details in order to show how close his was to them. He didn’t want it to be known he had sexual motives so he used a kidnapping and ransom to appear less of a horrendous person.
The note is strange and has a lot of odd details written by a disturbed and strange mind. He felt close to the family.

There was no footprints because there was no snow on this side of the house. Do look at the photos for yourself and it’s well shown and explained in the latest doc.

They left the ransom note because they had already placed it there before taking her down to the basement, before they changed their plan. They never intended to kill her there but the plan changed. Once she was dead he left her there and escaped through the basement window.

It is fascinating how we can interpret the same evidence so differently. There has just been no evidence of the family being to blame that I find convincing and the way it would have panned out if it was them is so bizarre.

It would be fascinating to see a reenactment of both narratives - intruder vs family using all the same evidence and see how them both play out and which feels the most likely.

If JB was hit by Burke by him lashing out and seemingly dead (as a parent you usually would still desperately cling to her being saveable and call for help even if they are already dead), that isn’t a cold blooded murder. Their lives were already ruined by her being dead. Why stage a crazy scene vs call and claim an accident. Calling for help seems the least risky course of action.
John’s (I believe genuine) reaction to finding her body was to try to save her still. This is the natural reaction of a parent who’s found their child gagged and wounded even if cold to touch.
There is no explanation for why John is pushing to retest evidence and items that hadn’t been tested, if he knows his family are to blame as he has no way of knowing if the DNA would they lead them back to them.

Would love to hear your thoughts after watching the new Netflix. I’m sure we’d still be debating though!

 

[peanutbuttercupp11]

Mary Bell aged 10 was able to MANUALLY strangle two quite large, well nourished three year olds. It's not laughable, it's chilling. And eminently physically possible

As large as those 3 year olds may have been, they're still half Jonbenets age, a 7 year age gap between murderer and victim as opposed to 3 years between Burke and Jonbenet. And he didn't just strangle her he did it so hard that cord was fully embedded in her neck. Let's say he was strong enough to do that, his DNA would have been all over that cord from struggling with it. Or did a 9 year old had the foresight to put on gloves to avoid DNA detection


If you have germophobe tendencies (as I do) I suggest you stop reading now....but every single item of underwear or indeed any clothing you and I have ever bought had foreign DNA on it. From the men and women who manufactured and packed the clothes.

I never wear new underwear without washing it first as I'm sure most people do, even so in order for them to get a DNA profile from it it must have been a decent sized sample, more so than just a brush of the hand in a shop or factory. In the Netflix documentary they said they ruled out the factory where the underwear was made as there were no white males working there which is what the sample was from.

A kid from the party.

They DNA tested everyone connected to the Ramseys, if the DNA under her nails was someone they knew's child they would have got a familial match


The ransom note makes no sense for either the Ramseys or an intruder to write, it's just too bizarre and you can cherry pick bits from it to support either theory. I don't think a weird ransom note proves the family guilt nor innocence.

 

[SweetPerdita]

The idea that two loving parents sexually assaulted their beloved child's corpse to prevent a little kid from going to prison defies all logic. They're rich and white, and powerfully connected. No kid from that background is going to get sent to prison or foster care for an accident. It also just doesn't make any sense that they'd be so cavalier about Burke the next morning (not paying attention to where he was, letting him go away with friends without any concern about him saying anything) if the whole thing was a cover up to protect him. He was so young, would you really trust a kid that young who'd just been through an unimaginably violent experience to keep their mouth shut?



The autopsy (the full non-redacted autopsy results that were released much later on, not the original, redacted autopsy results that the Ramseys' own experts commented on to the press) showed conclusively that she'd been routinely sexually abused over the course of a long period of time. Statistically that points to an adult male relative.

It seems unlikely that the person who'd been molesting her, wasn't the same person as the one who killed her.

 

[Hally34]

The idea that two loving parents sexually assaulted their beloved child's corpse to prevent a little kid from going to prison defies all logic. They're rich and white, and powerfully connected. No kid from that background is going to get sent to prison or foster care for an accident. It also just doesn't make any sense that they'd be so cavalier about Burke the next morning (not paying attention to where he was, letting him go away with friends without any concern about him saying anything) if the whole thing was a cover up to protect him. He was so young, would you really trust a kid that young who'd just been through an unimaginably violent experience to keep their mouth shut?



The autopsy (the full non-redacted autopsy results that were released much later on, not the original, redacted autopsy results that the Ramseys' own experts commented on to the press) showed conclusively that she'd been routinely sexually abused over the course of a long period of time. Statistically that points to an adult male relative.

It seems unlikely that the person who'd been molesting her, wasn't the same person as the one who killed her.

There is evidence that JB had been sexually abused before the night of the crime. However, I don’t see it being a sure thing that it was her father. Being on the pageant circuit she would have been around male photographers (one of the photographers has since been convicted I recall). She had older brothers. Christ it could have been her doctor or dentist for all we know or a teacher or another male relative / friend of the family. Her father is one of many people that may have abused her. It could have been the intruder on previous occasions if they had access to JB if they did know the family.

His surviving daughter categorically denies he ever did anything to her and was anything other than a great father.

Sadly JB may have been abused in the past by someone she knew as well as then being murdered by a stalker and these not be the same person. Being on the pageant circuit opened her up to a wider community of people some of who had bad motives.

It’s abhorrent which ever way it was.

 

[Nelly's mum]

There is evidence that JB had been sexually abused before the night of the crime. However, I don’t see it being a sure thing that it was her father. Being on the pageant circuit she would have been around male photographers (one of the photographers has since been convicted I recall). She had older brothers. Christ it could have been her doctor or dentist for all we know or a teacher or another male relative / friend of the family. Her father is one of many people that may have abused her. It could have been the intruder on previous occasions if they had access to JB if they did know the family.

His surviving daughter categorically denies he ever did anything to her and was anything other than a great father.

Sadly JB may have been abused in the past by someone she knew as well as then being murdered by a stalker and these not be the same person. Being on the pageant circuit opened her up to a wider community of people some of who had bad motives.

It’s abhorrent which ever way it was.

I have read that an article saying it is not confirmed JonBenet had previously been victim of CSA. She had history of UTI's (yes, this can be a symptom of abuse but can just be a UTI) so she had some changes that are linked to repeated UTIs.

It is not clear that she was abused. Her parents seemed to adore her and put a lot of time and love into raising her, I know the pageant thing looks a bit off but so do regular beauty contests like Miss World when you look back on it - pageants were a regular thing at the time. Times change and hindsight is definitely a factor, it happened nearly 30 years ago.

 

[Hally34]

I have read that an article saying it is not confirmed JonBenet had previously been victim of CSA. She had history of UTI's (yes, this can be a symptom of abuse but can just be a UTI) so she had some changes that are linked to repeated UTIs.

It is not clear that she was abused. Her parents seemed to adore her and put a lot of time and love into raising her, I know the pageant thing looks a bit off but so do regular beauty contests like Miss World when you look back on it - pageants were a regular thing at the time. Times change and hindsight is definitely a factor, it happened nearly 30 years ago.

It was in her medical autopsy though that her hymen was broken amongst other historical changes to the tina that is seen in child sexual abuse victims. I don’t want to go into the details but from the autopsy they weren’t new one off injuries but signs of historic abuse

 

[Nelly's mum]

It was in her medical autopsy though that her hymen was broken amongst other historical changes to the tina that is seen in child sexual abuse victims. I don’t want to go into the details but from the autopsy they weren’t new one off injuries but signs of historic abuse

Again, JonBenet had some changes, these are common in girls who have a history of UTIs, her family doctor said there was nothing to indicate a history of CSA.
A broken hymen is not indicative of abuse, some girls do not have a hymen and it can break at any time.

 

[ChubClubThug]

I watched the new Netflix documentary and I do think it was the guy who they arrested in Thailand. His convo on the phone where he was reliving the murder, and the way he had made it out to be this sick, beautiful (in his twisted head) moment between them sealed it for me. Quite often killers will refuse to talk about the sexual element involved in their abhorrent actions, because they refuse to see their behaviour for what it is. A lot of these weirdos who get off on choking, are deluded and think the partner "enjoys" it. Fred West said exactly the same, that "pleasure turned to disaster" when he choked the life out of young women after torturing them. He also believed it was a beautiful thing. I think the only reason it wasn't confirmed was because the DNA wasn't reliable due to contamination and poor sampling.

The police knew they screwed up from the beginning, that's why they're being unhelpful now. I think he killed her and fled to Thailand on the run. Then he took pleasure watching the story in the media for years, all smug because he knew it was him. He then years later felt the need to boast about it to someone. He didn't have the courage to speak to the mother in the end. It was very clever how he was tracked down by the police, a part of me thinks he wanted to be caught. If they had had the advances back then as they did now he'd have been caught straight away. They 100% screwed up the DNA. I also think there's truth in the stun gun theory. That man meant to kidnap her as his play thing and got over excited and killed her.

I do think that little girl was sexually abused sadly. These pageants should be banned! The amount of paedophiles the investigation unearthed that had direct access to these girls is terrible.

Her toilet behaviours could indicate sexual abuse, and her paediatrician looked shifty to me. Money can cover up a lot. Not sure if her own father was abusing her, it's hard to say. Sex offenders are incredibly devious. She was probably abused by many. The home movies of Jonbenet are odd. For a little girl who was used of performing constantly, she looked very rabbit in headlights when she was being asked to speak to her own father directly.

The family would have been pretty high profile locally so it would have been easy for a weirdo to latch on and become obsessed with them. If that guy had spent 5 hrs alone in their house, he would have had time to walk around poking into things, looking at the art sets, writing the note possibly. Did they ever analyse his writing i wonder? Quite amazing that they didn't have an alarm system in place even back then?? Him being a tech guy too. The housekeeper was spooked and said that he was poking around in their garage one day. I bet he watched that house for years.

It would have been easy for someone to break into that huge house undetected, especially if they were being watched. People keep the same habits. You'd be amazed by just how much someone knows about you, and you haven't got a clue.

 

[moldwarp]

There is evidence of a break in. Rope was found in the spare room. A window was unsecured in the basement. The perpetrator may have come and gone via this entrance multiple times as they watched JB and the movements of the family. I think he was watching the family for some time and was obsessed with JB. A suitcase was under the window in order to use this window as a way to come and go.

I see nothing to suggest it wasn’t a lone intruder.. In fact it being multiple people seems unlikely especially given the crime is unsolved. The more people involved usually the more evidence and the more likely someone lets something slip or they turn on one another.

The perps actions suggest he was aware of them having gone to the party and therefore felt comfortable that he had some time before they returned. He was confident moving his way around the house.

He had been in the home and seen paperwork (in John’s office) or heard about John’s bonus. The family talking about it etc when stalking them and leaned on this nugget of intel. Or he may have known the family, known JB. He used these details in order to show how close his was to them. He didn’t want it to be known he had sexual motives so he used a kidnapping and ransom to appear less of a horrendous person.
The note is strange and has a lot of odd details written by a disturbed and strange mind. He felt close to the family.

There was no footprints because there was no snow on this side of the house. Do look at the photos for yourself and it’s well shown and explained in the latest doc.

They left the ransom note because they had already placed it there before taking her down to the basement, before they changed their plan. They never intended to kill her there but the plan changed. Once she was dead he left her there and escaped through the basement window.

It is fascinating how we can interpret the same evidence so differently. There has just been no evidence of the family being to blame that I find convincing and the way it would have panned out if it was them is so bizarre.

It would be fascinating to see a reenactment of both narratives - intruder vs family using all the same evidence and see how them both play out and which feels the most likely.

If JB was hit by Burke by him lashing out and seemingly dead (as a parent you usually would still desperately cling to her being saveable and call for help even if they are already dead), that isn’t a cold blooded murder. Their lives were already ruined by her being dead. Why stage a crazy scene vs call and claim an accident. Calling for help seems the least risky course of action.
John’s (I believe genuine) reaction to finding her body was to try to save her still. This is the natural reaction of a parent who’s found their child gagged and wounded even if cold to touch.
There is no explanation for why John is pushing to retest evidence and items that hadn’t been tested, if he knows his family are to blame as he has no way of knowing if the DNA would they lead them back to them.

Would love to hear your thoughts after watching the new Netflix. I’m sure we’d still be debating though!
[/QUOTE]

I shall definitely watch it and come back here! My belief that it was done by the family is based on James Kolar's book, the evidence he lays out and puts together was absolutely compelling to me plus the issues with the ransom note.

But yes it is a fascinating case

 

[Justhereforthedrama]

There is evidence of a break in. Rope was found in the spare room. A window was unsecured in the basement. The perpetrator may have come and gone via this entrance multiple times as they watched JB and the movements of the family. I think he was watching the family for some time and was obsessed with JB. A suitcase was under the window in order to use this window as a way to come and go.

I see nothing to suggest it wasn’t a lone intruder.. In fact it being multiple people seems unlikely especially given the crime is unsolved. The more people involved usually the more evidence and the more likely someone lets something slip or they turn on one another.

The perps actions suggest he was aware of them having gone to the party and therefore felt comfortable that he had some time before they returned. He was confident moving his way around the house.

He had been in the home and seen paperwork (in John’s office) or heard about John’s bonus. The family talking about it etc when stalking them and leaned on this nugget of intel. Or he may have known the family, known JB. He used these details in order to show how close his was to them. He didn’t want it to be known he had sexual motives so he used a kidnapping and ransom to appear less of a horrendous person.
The note is strange and has a lot of odd details written by a disturbed and strange mind. He felt close to the family.

There was no footprints because there was no snow on this side of the house. Do look at the photos for yourself and it’s well shown and explained in the latest doc.

They left the ransom note because they had already placed it there before taking her down to the basement, before they changed their plan. They never intended to kill her there but the plan changed. Once she was dead he left her there and escaped through the basement window.

It is fascinating how we can interpret the same evidence so differently. There has just been no evidence of the family being to blame that I find convincing and the way it would have panned out if it was them is so bizarre.

It would be fascinating to see a reenactment of both narratives - intruder vs family using all the same evidence and see how them both play out and which feels the most likely.

If JB was hit by Burke by him lashing out and seemingly dead (as a parent you usually would still desperately cling to her being saveable and call for help even if they are already dead), that isn’t a cold blooded murder. Their lives were already ruined by her being dead. Why stage a crazy scene vs call and claim an accident. Calling for help seems the least risky course of action.
John’s (I believe genuine) reaction to finding her body was to try to save her still. This is the natural reaction of a parent who’s found their child gagged and wounded even if cold to touch.
There is no explanation for why John is pushing to retest evidence and items that hadn’t been tested, if he knows his family are to blame as he has no way of knowing if the DNA would they lead them back to them.

Would love to hear your thoughts after watching the new Netflix. I’m sure we’d still be debating though!

I shall definitely watch it and come back here! My belief that it was done by the family is based on James Kolar's book, the evidence he lays out and puts together was absolutely compelling to me plus the issues with the ransom note.

But yes it is a fascinating case
[/QUOTE]
You should look at Kolar's twitter account, hes full Qanon, really crazy James Kolar (@JamesKolar4) / X