Killing of JonBenet: Her Father Speaks

Fuck off.

Well???? We all know he did it, so?

Ok, so I'm watching this show now. I've never taken a deep dive into this case. I honestly don't know what to believe. Young Burke being interviewed by a police detective is behaving very strangely. Yet the female detective - Arndt or something - is shown being interviewed by Mark Cohn's wife, and being a super drama queen: "I checked my ammo, I KNEW the killer was still in the house." Mary! The parents seem - I dunno? Somewhat believable? I hate how in these circumstances you're judged by your demeanor in the throes of a tragedy. God forbid you don't show the right emotions. Randomly, didn't the Jonbenet dad date the Natalie Holloway mom? Imagine their conversations.....

I want to watch that. So, who do you think did it?

Regardless of the advice and commentary I dole out on this site on a regular basis, would everybody please stop looking at me?

R3, because of this site, I was told about a forum that maps it out in an unbelievably compelling way. The key to it is that you have to use the web version (not mobile) and read in chronological order only, hopefully my link brings you to first post in 2012. Read the comments too!!!

If you read that blog long enough (and read every comment!!) you will see that by using true logic, the killer HAD to be John, could only be John. He completely gaslighted Patsy, she also suffered from chemo-brain, he used his arsenal of lawyers and forensic investigators to bury the truth. I mean, the man got John Douglas of FBI game to testify on his behalf!!! This case is right up there with OJ, a murderer walks free, it’s very twisted and very true.

About four years ago I was laid up for months after a bad surgery. I devoured that site and then I read the most important books on the case too. Each book is highly convincing in its own way, but the most accurate was I believe the first one written called “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.” There are several others I would recommend and another sure too.

LOTS of fascinating characters, LOTS of corruption in the DA’s office, a Detective who was so obsessed with Patsy Did It he almost killed himself trying to get her arrested, the police department built its own legal team of top shelf attorneys and experts to try and get an indictment including heavy weights like Barry Scheck.

But at the end of the day here is what we know:

Someone killed JonBenet by a blunt force strike to the skull that was so hard it could have felled a 300 lb man.

She died sometimes between around 11 and maybe 1:30, proven by her stomach contents and rigor mortis.

She died in a room of the house that an intruder could not possibly know about.

Her autopsy report showed she had a partially broken hymen and that there was indication of earlier abrasions in the vaginal canal (within at least two week prior to murder) that had healed over.

Body was completely wiped clean of any DNA with a blue washcloth.

There was a ransom note written with a pen and pad of paper owned by the Ramseys. The writer clearly tried to disguise their identity and motives. Oddly, the amount the ransomers wanted almost perfectly matched John’s bonus pay.

In original interviews, Patsy said they argued about calling police, then changed her story in later interviews saying they didn’t argue. JOHN did not want her calling the police.

John disappeared for at least an hour while Detective Arendt was there. John did not follow her directions, she ordered him to search the house top to bottom — he ran immediately to the basement into that weird room and “found” her.

John tried to stage a breakin in the basement, then unstage the staging after the police arrived (he thought he could stop Patsy from calling cops).

His best friend Fleet White was taking contemporaneous notes right behind John in the basement and said that John screamed before he even turned the light on in the room where the body was found. Fleet had checked that room before, you could see NOTHING (pitch black wine cellar) without the light on.

Detective Arendt said that when JonBenet’s body was laid on the ground, she and John were eye to eye, and she could tell that he knew that she knew he did it, and it was terrifying because she had no backup there. She had her hand on her weapon ready to draw as she thought John might go nuts and kill all of them.

The biggest thing that shifted the ENTIRE case is that within a week of her murder, John had HIS team give a lie detector and clear him as 100% innocent. The police didn’t challenge that.

As you can tell, I let myself get way too lost in this case lololol. But once you start going, it’s easy to get dragged it because it is SO fascinating. Start with that blog, enjoy!

Poor innocent child killed by some sicko (s). The truth of this case will never be known.

Those child beauty pageants are trashy and if anything this case shows they should be fucking banned.

Only consenting adults (i.e. 18 and over) should be allowed to take part in these ridiculous demeaning activities - at least they have some degree of self.

Wow, that was super interesting r6

You mean the link r6?

Try again, you mean the link r8?

Was this a recent documentary or something old?

Keep in mind, every single interview and appearance John has made has been a master class in media manipulation. And his story has changed DRAMATICALLY. Can’t remember which of the books, this book didn’t accuse John of it, but even so had a whole chapter titled The Evolution of John Ramsey because his story changed so fucking much. Patsy only changed two smal things in her story over all those years.

And don’t forget, within minutes of the body being found, John charted a plane to get the fuck out of Dodge — literally in minutes!!! Patsy was a heaping mess of sobbing humanity praying and crying and hysterical — John was booming a plane. I believe that morning when it all happened, Patsy became afraid of him and that’s why she also called the police. Many witnesses commented on John’s behavior being three shades of bizarre that day.

If you want to be creeped out, here is the interview of the Detective. Many don’t know this, but this Detective continued to remain friends with Patsy and would visit her, even shortly before Patsy died. The Detective was fired too.....This Det clearly knows John did it, and she tried to maintain a line with Patsy in the hopes that Patsy would come out of denial, that the gaslighting stopped working etc. But any secrets Patsy had still went to the grave.

I think that the father was pimping the kid to high powered pedophiles. Remember some years before Jon Benet's death, an older daughter of his also conveniently died in a car crash.

[quote]But any secrets Patsy had still went to the grave.

To the grave, and the pages of DL.

R14, I researched the car accident in my obsession years ago — it was a legit real car accident, and none of his other kids claimed abuse. And that’s part of solving this case: can a sexual predator be an opportunistic predator only? John may not have had opportunities to abuse his other children and/or he may not have wanted to fit various reasons. The other kids weren’t painted up like little hussies at age three, so maybe that’s when he could no longer resist? Disgusting I know.

Anyway, YES, I believe there are situational offenders who will act only under certain circumstances.

I thought the dad did it for years, but then all that info about burke came out and it seemed like he could have done it too. I think both kids may have been abused, weren't they both wetting the bed? didn't jon benet go to the doctor a few times for a yeast infection? wasn't burke smearing his poo all over jon benet's things? Something was not right that house.

But r17, did you see the pictures of Burke at that age? Remember, the blow to her head was strong enough to fell a 300 on man. I can’t see Burke having the strength.

Yes, Burke was messed up, but I think his behavior was developmental, her behavior was abuse. Yes she had repeated yeast infections.

The biggest thing for me is that statistically speaking, in a family with more than one male, the oldest male will be the offender the vast vast majority of the time. One expert in this case said 13 to 1 it was the father based on his experience with sexual murders committed by family members.

And if you rule out the intruder, then it’s down to three people. The most likely by far is John. If Burke did it and one or both covered it up, why did they ship him off to other people that first morning? Wouldn’t they have been terrified he would say something and kept him close? Not Burke imo.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r5 Mrs. Patsy Ramsey, formerly of Boulder, CO... so where are you living now?

Just because he looks dorky doesn't mean he couldn't do it. Didn't some 12 year old just stab his sister to death? I wonder if he looked like he was capable of it ?

Read 'Foreign Faction' by A James Kolar. He says that the brother whacked her on the head with a heavy flashlight and the parents manipulated the scene to make it look like a kidnapping. She was hit very hard and would have died anyway. The parents probably couldn't take losing both their children so they made an unbelieveably horrendous decision to cover for him.

If someone had been having sexual contact with her the evidence could not have been washed away that night. The DNA on the underwear was bullshit. It was just a tiny bit of a cell from the manufacture or packaging of the underwear.

A lot of what has been said about her health and the condition of her genitals is bullshit, too. She had urinary infections, but there is nothing odd about that. And just because an adult male is usually the perpetrator in sexual abuse cases, it means USUALLY, not ALWAYS.

Seriously, read the Kolar book. I never thought the brother was the perp until I read it, mostly because the parents let him go to the neighbors the next AM, but once I read the book I realized I was wrong.

I read the Kolar book r22. It’s GREAT and is a must-read on this case too. I just come back to the purpose of the note. If Burke did it, why would they stage a ransom note but call the police while the body was still in the house? That makes zero sense.

Didn't Burke hit Jonbenet with a golf club to the head a year before her death? He had a habit of abusing her. I think he had a lot of anger towards his sister. Her stealing his pineapple was the last straw...

Yes he did hit her, that story is true. My brother and I used to beat the shit out if eat other as kids, but no, no murdering lol. I think young children using violence against siblings is very common. Much less common is a sibling murdercwhere the killer is 9 years old.

What I can’t understand about the Burke Did It Theory.....why is that scenario more likely to you than the father??? If it’s a contest between the two, the odds are infinitely higher against dad. And when you add in all of dads suspicious behavior, it is even more clear.

I always thought it was the father, he wrote the note to make it look like Patsy wrote it. Everyone of course then suspected Patsy, or Burke. John got off scot-free, I think he is one of those who can lie without emotion. Patsy knew, but never wanted to admit the truth to herself since she dressed her daughter up and paraded her all around, then was sick with cancer so John blamed her for turning to Jon Benet for affection.

I went back and forth on Burke, but John really makes the most sense. It was someone in that house. I feel if it had been Patsy. that John would have left her in disgust. Usually a child dying breaks families up, but John stuck around to keep Patsy in check, just in case she had a change of heart and wanted to clear her conscience.

Sadly, many fathers abuse their children sexually, but most who do so don't kill their children. If John did kill her, the big question still remains--why did he kill her? Does anyone have any theories on that?

What's the best documentary on this case, please?

I think I drove past the cemetary she is buried in a couple of weeks ago. It seemed full of the Civil War, dead.

I saw a Netflix documentary recently called Casting JonBenet and in it they had actors auditioning to play Burke and they tested every one of them hitting a watermelon (to simulate a human head) as hard as he could with a big, heavy flashlight. Some of them could not break the watermelon open but some of them smashed it wide open and beat it to a pulp, proving that a 9 year old boy could kill JonBenet by hitting her in the head with a flashlight. I do believe that Burke, in a fit of rage, did hit JonBenet in the head with a flashlight and cracked her skull which led to brain damage but then someone else, either John or Patsy, killed her by strangulation. I used to think Patsy did that but now I believe it is far more likely it was John. In any case I feel (just my opinion) that Burke is a sociopath with little to no empathy, based on the series of interviews he gave on the Dr. Phil show. Burke is one very weird, messed up guy.

It's obvious the neighbor did it. He killed himself two months later and had all the tool and the boot to match the mystery boot print.

I don't even know why this is still open.

DON'T TOUCH MY PINEAPPLE, BITCH!

[quote]wasn't burke smearing his poo all over jon benet's things?

He was sticking the heads of her Barbie dolls up his ass and poo was getting in their hair and crevices.

Doesn't Burke now have a girlfriend who looks very much like JonBenet, if she had lived?

ev one knows son did it

But does Burke know Burke did it?

Why the police focus was on the mother?

Thanks, R13, but that detective is such a crazy-eyed drama queen it's hard to take her impressions at face value. It's hard even to imagine she passed the exams to be a cop.

Doesn't mean she's necessarily wrong, but I'd put more faith in a witness who chewed less scenery.

The weirdest part is when Burke was being interviewed by the handsome cop.

Burke was writhing around in his chair really inappropriately. At one point it even appears as though he is presenting hole to the strapping stud.

R6 I'm confused. Barry Scheck is a defense attorney isn't he? Why would the police/DA be putting him in their prosecutorial arsenal?

The note is always the sticking point for me. I think that Patsy wrote it. And I think that Patsy would cover up for her son but not her husband.

We all project onto these kinds of things, though. Who knows?

Thanks R6 OP and others - great info here. I stupidly have never really dug into reading much about this - now I am motivated, creepily!

The former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner did an AMA on Reddit on which he pretty openly pointed the finger at Burke (and then claimed he didn't know a lot of people use the site). By pure coincidence, a documentary came out a few months later alleging Burke was responsible. A lot of people have taken it as proven that he did it. The thing is, there is no direct evidence for this. It is someone's pet theory, and because the killer left very little evidence, or the crime scene was contaminated, several theories can be made to fit.

[quote]It is someone's pet theory

What I mean by this is that it was never mentioned as a possibility, and there is no reason to think that Boulder police considered it likely, before James Kolar's book. I'm by no means an expert on this case, but it's interesting to see the true crime mania (Websleuths, Reddit, etc) being used by people involved in the case.

I remember that AMA R43. I had the whole thread c/p and was glad I did because a LOT was scrubbed shortly after. But OF COURSE I lost the fucking file. There was some delicious dirt on there, and I was shocked how open he was about many things.

R45 anything specific you remember that you hadn't seen/heard elsewhere?

This is an archived copy, R45. I don't think it has all the comments, though.

Sorry r46 my feeble brain is at a loss. The upshot was that he was quite certain it was Burke. But I remember the shock of how forthcoming he was more than the dirt particles themselves. I think I posted the thread on the Findadeath forum but got in trouble there too. Perhaps it is still there. That place is really dead now, no pun intended.

When my brother and I were young, he used to beat the shit out of me, he was a year older but once he smashed my head into a door and gave me a concussion, another time he mowed into me with his bike and broke my wrist. We were only 5/6 at the time and he was a little psycho. Jon Benet was more delicate, I could easily believe Burke accidentally killed her, but the problem I have with it is how the parents let him stay with friends right after. It seems even if he were a sociopath, he wasn't old enough to filter what he should and shouldn't say to people. Maybe he lived in a house of terror and knew instinctively to keep his mouth shut.

Kids don't just act out violently for no reason, we had emotional abuse in our family so my brother would take it out on me. Burke was smearing feces which makes me think something much more fucked up was going on in that house. I remember there was smeared feces in some chocolates of Jon Benet.

If Burke did it, why didn't the parents just admit it? He was only 9, from a white, wealthy family, what's the worst that could happen, he'd have to get therapy? I know the Ramsey's cared about image but wouldn't they be able to keep it quiet?

I just watch THE KILLING OF JONBENET, a recent A&E documentary which basically outlines the major flaws in the police investigation and how they ignored the mountain of evidence proving there was an intruder that night. It's a good film and quite convincing...

R50, I'm not from the south, as Patsy was, but I'm under the impression that the whole 'what will the neighbors think ' was working here. Also their daughter was suddenly dead/dying in a horrible way. They wouldn't have been thinking logically about consequences.

r31

I agree, I never understood why when so much points to him, he is never discussed. He even knew about the bonus so was totally capable of writing the ransom note.

Did the father abuse her in the past? Because abuse isn't a one-off. To kill her with such obvious intention would indicate things were ratcheting up, and if that's the case then the only one who had a clear motivation to kill her was Burke. I don't think Patsy would've tolerated John abusing her ego substitute, but she could have willingly looked the other way at what Burke was doing since he was also her child.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I'm on Team Burke. It's the best explanation why the cops seemed to screw up. What do you do with a killer who's below the age of accountability? Nothing - a big fat nothing. And since he's not expected to really know right from wrong, he's not really guilty - like a toddler picking up a hand grenade and throwing it at someone, killing them. He's young enough to be in that category. So you fuck around, protecting his future, which would be shit if the truth came out. It's the only scenario where the police would be in on the cover-up. A whole bunch of police. If it was dad or mom, somebody wouldn't put up with that shit - there would be another child they could kill next week... who could live with themselves covering that up?

There was a 911 call the night BEFORE she was murdered. Explanation sleuths?

the real reason she was killed. She learned how to call 911.

Whenever you see the son interviewed there is something clearly wrong with him....

Well, since there was a murder the next day, I'd say any of the three of them could have also been acting violently the night before, thus the 911 call - and no real furtherance of our understanding. Now if we knew which family member (or someone else in the house) called 911 and what they said, it might help. It does suggest that the killing was part of a pattern of behavior. But doesn't prove anything.

The 911 call was made but when the operator answered the caller hung up. This was the night before the murder. Maybe that was Jon Benet.

[quote]It's the best explanation why the cops seemed to screw up.

They believed the ransom story implicitly and took no steps to secure the crime scene. Afterwards the parents weren't questioned as potential suspects quickly enough and had ample time to get their stories straight, remove items from the house and consult a lawyer. I'm not saying that makes them guilty, but sheer incompetence muddied the waters in the case. Nowadays, people automatically point the finger at near relations when missing persons cases go public, but I think this case was crucial in creating awareness that strangers aren't always responsible.

But if they immediately found out it was Burke, there would be no need to secure the crime scene - in fact, there would be good reason not to (to protect Burke, who legally was innocent because he was too young to be accountable.) And there would be no reason to question the parents quickly - eventually you'd have to to make it look like you were "investigating" when in fact, you're just covering up a tragic but fault-less killing.

And why would finding a ransom note = not securing the crime scene? It would be all the more reason TO look for clues in the house - since the ransom note "proves" that someone got in there to kidnap her. A 3rd grader would know to look for fingerprints, footprints, etc.

I think it's more evidence that they immediately knew that ransom note was fake. It was pretty absurd if you have half a brain - and I can't believe the Colorado police were THAT stupid.

I think we have to go back to the status issue and Patsy's "what would people think" as to why they couldn't just finger their male child for killing her prized pig. Talk about messy. Mary!

Well, I think a number of crucial errors in the investigation to be more likely than the conspiracy you detail, R63, but that's just me. It's quite evident the Ramsays were acting in opposition to the police, not in conjunction with them. If a coverup had occurred, it would make sense to keep the whole thing quiet, but the Ramsays made a televised appeal.

The Ramseys were apparently told do publicity by their lawyer as a way to counter the leaks the police were making to the press to implicate them in the murder. Leaks based on falsehoods, like the assertion there were no footprints in the snow outside, therefore no intruder. Yet photos of the house that day show quite clearly the snow was very patchy and non-existent on large parts of the grounds outside.

No one involved in the situation was ever truly concerned over a kidnappers next steps and their potential to harm Burke. Not even Burke himself. Even a small child knew that there was never really a chance he could be harmed over the made-up threat.

The “Burke did it” theory is most plausible to me.

The one thing that sticks out in my mind is the account by a police officer, that Patsy was weeping into her hands (with no tears) and then peering through her fingers to see if she was being observed. I don’t think she killed her daughter, but that’s a creepy tidbit that goes to show she was concerned about appearances.

To be sure, that household was truly fucked up, a pit of dysfunction.

Oh, and way back when the story first broke, a coworker of mine thought it was Patsy. She said that since she was going through chemo, she “offered up” JonBenet as a surrogate sex partner to John because she wasn’t able to be sexual with her husband. And then she was jealous because he took her up on it.

That's some dark shit there r68. But yeah, creepy fucking family.

[quote] If John did kill her, the bi'sg question still remains--why did he kill her? Does anyone have any theories on that?

Regardless of who the actual killer is -- I go back and forth between John and Burke and even an intruder -- I've often thought JB's last words were "I'm gonna tell."

most cops on the case think burke did it. he is ….a bit off...

The intruder theory has been utterly debunked. The morning cops arrived, there WAS still fresh snow — officers confirmed no footprints. Photographs weren’t taken immediately, the photographer didn’t arrive for a few hours so the snow had changed. John walked with cops when they FIRST arrived through the house and verified all windows and doors were locked — no forced entry. On DailyBeast a few years ago, they released video taken I think that night of the basement window (Lou Schmitt used this window to build the intruder theory). The silt on it is completely undisturbed, but what I really remember are the cobwebs in that window. All huge, undisturbed. No intruder.

I appreciate the watermelon story up thread, but a human skull is harder than that. The wound was seven inches long — a massive blow with huge velocity. I’m not saying it’s impossible Burke could do that, I’m saying out it all together it’s just not as likely.

When Patsy had cancer, she had to fly out to DC every month for treatments. John never went once. I think she was dying, he thought she would die, and he saw his opportunity to abuse JonBenet. Then Patsy lived.

After all my reading here was my theory. As I stated upthread, her vaginal canal showed “scars” from previous wounds that had healed in last two weeks prior to murder. Her vaginal opening was large enough that a pathologist saidif he saw that in real time, he would have had John arrested immediately just because of the size of her vaginal opening — that takes repeated entries. Sorry to be graphic.

Anyway, in my reading it also came out how precocious JonBenet was, she was spoiled and very bossy. I actually believe she could have told her abuser she didn’t like it anymore and “I’m going to tell mommy.” That could possibly explain the first 911 call too.

If you truly dig into John, you will see that throughout the years, HE is the person who has thrown all these other people under the bus as her killer, including his best friend Fleet White. Not Patsy, John does this. Research Fleet, he CLEARLY believes John did because he watched John’s resistance to the police in real time. Right around the CNN interview they did, Fleet and John has a huge blow-out about John not cooperating, they never talked again. Shortly thereafter, John drops his name to the police.

Fleet forced the police to clear him multiple times in the hopes it would flush out info on the real killer.

Barry Scheck was indeed brought in, pro bono I believe. Other huge hitters too, can’t remember names. The police and AG had such bad blood between them the police lost faith in AG and wanted expertise to try and build their case and force indictment outside and away from influence of AG as they knew he was leaking to John’s team. Remember, the grand jury DID vote to indict, but AG chose to not indict anyway, so police despised AG. AG had many many ties to John’s business associates.

Most cops do not think that r71. Some do, after that book came out. Even cops are desperate for this case to be solved.

Indeed Burke did do it, for reasons known only too well by him.

I can’t find the fulll basement window video, here’s a small clip of it but I remember more footage.

Sorry I posted too fast. In that video you don’t get to see all the cobwebs, but you do indeed see the layer of silt completely undisturbed on the sill.

John was in the computer business, he was a tech geek. Read this.....

R16 I'm one of 5 kids, 3 boys and 2 girls. My father only molested my youngest sister. He never touched the rest of us.

Another oooooooooold forum which though it looks ridiculous, maintains links to a ton of original source materials including reports, interviews, etc. It’s ancient so I don’t know how tight the links are, but it’s the Grand Canyon of rabbit holes......

Here is a fun breakdown of the garotte (sp?) used to strangle JonBenet. It also gives you a little more insight into John.

I had never seen this letter from John's former friend, Fleet White

Yes r80. I mistakenly kept calling Alec Hunter the AG (Trump threads), but yes, he’s the DA I referred to above to would not indict.

Fleet went balls to the wall several times to try and get justice for JonBenet. They shared her last supper with her, they adored her, and they are fucking PISSED that John wasn’t held accountable. They most certainly do not think Burke did it, Fleet watched John feign surprise when he found the body, and John purposely got his DNA all over her body in front of witnesses. Fleet was there, he knows.

*who would not indict JFC

Obviously God just need another harlot who couldn't conquer a simple two-step routine. So move it along, Toots!

Wow, Barry Scheck did indeed swap sides. I think (hope) he was gunning for John.

You know how OJ made himself very available to interviews about the crime after he got off? I wonder if this is why John Ramsey is never too far from yet another interview or documentary about this. I wonder if this is his way of confessing?

And if not confessing, keeping control of the narrative.

I also think Patsy wrote that ransom note. The handwriting is just like hers (no, I'm not a handwriting expert) and who else would have known the exact dollar amount of John's annual pay bonus? John's body language (no, I'm not a body language expert) towards Patsy was really awful. Whenever they were shown sitting side by side, you could see that he simply did not have care and affection for her.

The police really did mess up that crime scene from the very start. The police allowed that family to mess up the crime scene. The police were inexperienced and deferential to the Ramseys.

More about those shitty chocolates, please?

Were they Godiva or Lindt? You know Patsy would never allow such cheap confections from Palmer or Russel Stover in HER home.

DL keeps crashing when I try to link separateimages of John’s handwriting against the ransom note, this is the best I can do. This is the only known sample of his out there — he’s gone to great lengths to not have samples of his handwriting out in public. Ask his lawyer, Lin Wood, how aggressively they’ve managed John’s privacy.

When this case was fresher, Lin went to far as to subpoena anonymous posters from a Wiki so they could sue them for saying John did it, which Lin won I believe. Lin Wood has sued the shit out of anyone who goes after John in anyway.

He did it!

So many of these comments contain the phrase "I believe." Well, if you can get 12 jurors to believe the same thing, then case closed. Otherwise, it's all utter BS.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

This case reminds me of the Lindbergh baby, which was likely also a fake kidnapping to cover an accidental murder of a cherished child from a wealthy family who cared so much about public opinion.

Well, well, well. How timely.

R66, that's interesting about their attorney telling them to do interviews and publicity to counteract whatever the police came out with. I would think that if I had somehow killed someone and yet gotten away without being charged, I'd slink off into the woodwork, never to be seen again. Now I'm thinking of the parents of that kid, Madeline McSomething. When I see them still doing TV, all I can think is that they have icewater flowing in their veins, but maybe it's a well thought out plan.

Don't click on R6 link. It will grab your IP address and jump, stalk, troll from a inner city housing project.

Old black shut-in obsessed with whites and asians.

R85 😂 see people? Comparing motives of a crazy black man with a white male executive covering for his wife's meltdown. They feverishly obsess over attractive white and asian crimes. Such a sad sickness of the least desired demographic...and Amanda Knox IS guilty!🙈

Now if ya'll would stay on your own sites, R78, you'd be doing DL a fine favor.

Oh piss off r99, I’ve been here forever. If you don’t want to discuss the topic, there’s the door >>>>>>>>>.

R96, I had no trouble with said link.

Ladies, ladies....you're BOTH cunts :(

Fun Fact: John dates Beth Holloway after Patsey died (mother of missing girl Natalie Holloway, killed in Aruba).

He finally married his third wife who is/was a Vegas showgirl costume designer.

But the question is: Is Burke gay?

Oh god this quote from that creepy fucker John from the article r103 posted:

In 2011, he tied the knot with Jan Rousseaux, a twice-divorced Las Vegas designer, on July 21 in Charlevoix, MI. “I have no doubt she will be smiling,” John told the National Enquirer of JonBenét, who would have turned 27 on Aug. 6.

So an intruder sneaked in, got JonBenet out of her bedroom, fed her pineapple, then bashed her head in and garroted her, leaving her tied up body in the basement, all without anybody noticing? And left that long, nutty ransom note? And then sneaked out, again with nobody noticing a thing? I have NEVER believed that.

I never bought the intruder thing for a second r106.

I wonder how much brainwashing went on in the family and who was in charge of that task. The person who did it may have been made to believe it was an intruder. There are murderers who can brainwash themselves. OJ comes to mind.

I don’t believe the Burke theory. If he had killed her and the parents wanted to cover that up, why not leave JonBenet at the bottom of the stairs and say that she’d fallen? Writing the War & Peace ransom note, raping her with the paint brush handle and then garroting her would be completely absurd and needlessly cruel from otherwise loving parents.

In cases where children die in the home, it’s nearly always at the hands of a parent. If there’s any kind of sexual element, it’s nearly always the father. I think John had been sexually abusing JonBenet and did so that night. He killed her & was planning on stuffing her into a suitcase and removing her from the house. He wrote the ransom note but was thwarted from his plan - maybe Patsy walked in. I think she knew what happened.

I do think Burke showed signs of being disturbed - and that probably meant he was being abused too.

If the Father killed her; he was TOO smart to leave her body in the house. He could have easily moved her body like Chris Watts did: minus the neighbors camera! He would have had all the time in the world to clean up. I agree both parents and the Brother exhibited the Creep Factor; but I think a stalker hid in the house during the party. We have seen MANY cases where the parents were accused , later found out an intruder was the real killer. A perverted friend who attended the party could have found that basement room. A perfect place to lie in wait for the family to retire . What about Fleet White? Daddy did pass a lie detector test and Mommy too! We still don’t know whose DNA 🧬 they found inside her panties ! Time will solve this case .

Oh FFS. Anyone with a whit of intelligence who has paid attention to the coverage and read the books knows that the mentally ill Burke was the killer. It could not be more apparent. The Dr. Phil interview merely placed the cherry on top of the sundae.

That "molestation is everywhere" freak D A V I D A is the main proponent of the "John did it" contingent at DL. She is the one who posted the link to the site which she clams to have read during her lengthy convalescence upthread. Every time someone starts a JBR thread(which seems about once per year) she posts the same tired shit about her theory that John was having sex with JB with Patsy's complicity due to her having cancer. Which in itself is ludicrous. Patsy was able to host a gala party and decorate her home for the Boulder Christmas tour just that season. You think she didn't have the strength to lie back and think of England?

At least D A V I D A has dropped the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" part of her John Did it theory. She was claiming that John was a member of the Elite and therefore connected to Hollywood which of course led him to massive pedophilia and assorted perversions. I suppose she got tired of people here laughing at her for that and decided to cool it on the conspiracy theory stuff she loves so much. Why she is so completely obsessed with pedophiles and child abuse is likely an even more sordid and byzantine tale than the JBR saga...perhaps one day she will favor us with her story.

Burke did it. Burke most certainly did not write the note as some low info poster questioned upthread. Patsy wrote the note as everyone involved in the case was well aware of. If John had murdered her daughter, she would not have protected him. But the idea of the community learning about her weirdo son and his embarrassing hatred for his sister was just too much for her. Plus, she lost one child. and I imagine she felt that the stress and pressure he would go through if he were revealed to be the killer was just too much for her. Of course he would not have gone to prison, but it would have been very, very messy and protracted.

Anyone who is interested in the real story, it is well worth your time to read Kolar's book which has been mentioned several times. It tells you all you need to know,

Thank you r111

John, Patsy and Burke did it together.

r103 John looks so much like Bill Oreilly.

I wonder why no one ever entertains the idea that JonBenet might have committed suicide?

FACT: WE know she was precocious and demanding child.

FACT: She was a little attention whore who lived for limelight.

I could totally see her taking the "I'm going out while I am on top" and "in my physical prime" route for eternal fame and reverance.

She is our little James Dean and Marilyn all rolled into one.

R110, if there was an intruder, it's possible it could have been a robbery gone wrong, and the perpetrator covered their tracks with the elaborate kidnap scenario.

R111, there is no evidence that Burke did it except inference and psychobabble. None.

R111 = The Official Poo Shoes Troll

So Burke was a prepubescent scat queen?

R117 D A V I D A : I think you should know that I have thus far received 15 W&Ws for my post at R111.

I am not the PS troll. I am a woman who thinks you are seriously ill and in desperate need of help. I know you will never seek such, so the best I can hope for is that you will simply go away.

Don't the fingernail marks on JonBenet's throat prove she was garroted before her skull was bashed in?

r109, after Burke accidentally killed his sister; calling the police and saying that she fell down that already dangerous circular metal staircase would have been the most sensible thing to do. As we've all seen, the Ramsey's never did the most sensible thing.

" If there was an intruder, it's possible it could have been a robbery gone wrong, and the perpetrator covered their tracks with the elaborate kidnap scenario."

There was no intruder. Nothing about the intruder theory makes any sense. The murder was an inside job, no doubt done by one of the family members.

R122, none of the theories make much sense. That's the problem (along with the lack of evidence pointing to anything in particular).

I read a book about the case. I think the book was "JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" by Steve Thomas (a detective who worked on the case). It was available at my library.

R119 — here is a news flash for you: I am ***not*** She Who Shall Not Be Named. So while your speech sounded great, and I happen to feel the same way about her needing help, I AM NOT HER. Don’t you feel just a little silly now?

We *always* do this topic every December and usually it’s fascinating, but this thread sucks now. Threads are only fun when people stay on topic. And r119, if you’re going to try and insist I am D@vadia, many here will block you and call you a troll, quite a few people are fed up with the fucking derailing FYI.

Yes a "robbery" gone wrong, just like in my case! R122

Oh sad D A V I D A...you just don't get it do you? The problem is, you reveal too much of your personal life here, and then you seem surprised that anyone would remember the things which you have said. I could not possibly feel less silly if I tried.

If anyone wishes to block me for calling you out, they have my blessing, however if the others are so irritated by my "fucking derailing the thread," I wonder why I received so many W&Ws for my posts??

How do you count your FFs? r127, Cause you have those too.

Are you new here R128? One is not notified as to their F&Fs, so they cannot be counted.

Please do not hesitate to F&F me into oblivion. I imagine that will give Muriel a nice chuckle.

Great topic . Such a horrid American tragedy/ mystery . Burke had a settlement today after suing CBS. Defamation suit for 750 million I think. I have gone back and forth on this over the years and have never been fully attached to any single suspect . I really don’t think that it was Burke who committed the murder. I believe the neighbor, Fleet. He was there when John discovered her body , and was a long time friend of the family . Why would he lie ? He said John is guilty. If your kid killed his sister you wouldn’t push him off to the neighbors the morning the body is discovered, would you? It could blow the cover . Plus the sophisticated nature of the garrotte and other sexual elements of the crime and odd behavior . Me thinks the parents (mainly John) did it and had been sexually abusing the girl for a while .

Unfortunately, this case will never be solved.

R129 = blocked, bye bitch.

I’m not r128, but Fuck Off? You Cunt?

R131, I do agree with you. As r130 shows, the Ramsey’s have had highly formidable attorneys since day one. And the DNA will never give us answers because of all the contamination in the crime scene, which I believe was done purposefully by John.

Oh! I feel so very special today! I have been blocked by the Las Vegas Charmer D A V I D A the R O A C H!

I realize that she will not see this since she has blocked me(snort.)

Here is a sample post by r129 from the Rashida thread, this poster accuses me of being D@vida, but he is *so* not a troll:

I am always amazed when a poster here uses the phrase, "voting against their best interests" when describing a working class white Republican.

Kind of presumptuous, yes? How could anyone know what an individual's "best interests" are? I can tell you this: Evangelical xtians put god before themselves, their families and their work. Always and without fail. The bible demands that,

Truly it comes across as arrogant and school-marmish to me and I am an atheist. I think one of the most unattractive characteristics of Progressive Dems is that they seem to think that they have all the correct answers and know what is best for everyone else. If you disagree you are deemed to be a mouth breathing dolt who is worthless. Think about that the nest time you are questioning how in the hell can 40% of the country support that boob. It's not always a case of supporting who you think is doing a great job, It is often, and I genuinely believe in the case of Trump, it's supporting whoever is keeping the opposition out of the White House.

Another post from same thread/same poster, defending Trump pussy-grabbing comments:

Elijah Cummings and Nancy Pelosi were not amused.

R3 Can you not discern the difference between something said in a private bus and something said before a microphone to an audience?

Context??

As expected, Burke dropped his frivolous lawsuit and took CBS' generous settlement of "drop your fucking lawsuit or we'll haul your autistic ass to the stand and make you answer tough questions in a court of law"

I am surprised that he ever filed the suit to begin with. I have yet to speak with anyone who saw the interview and did not feel that he came across as seriously disturbed. I can't imagine why Lin allowed him to do it in the first place.

Since I haven't followed this case to the extent demonstrated here, I presumed that CBS paid off Burke to drop the suit. Why would he have brought the suit in the first place if his testimony would be incriminating? And no, R130, this is a terrible topic. Keyboard sleuths "solving" the murder of a 6-year-old child, resorting to name calling and blocking.

R136 who has me blocked: If that is your idea of a defense, you might not be the best judge of other people's actions.

I imagine you see John and Patsy quite differently from the majority of us.

Oh my god with the trolling and infighting. Really the best way to deal with these crazies is to ignore them. I’ve had them attack me, seen them come into a thread and derail it by attacking other commenters. It’s nice when people simply step around them.

Trolls are always accusing. They want you to defend yourself. Don’t fall for it.

CBS didn't pay Burke a dime to walk away from this. His "settlement" was his getting the chance to say that this was settled.

Every day of this lawsuit was another day that CBS had the chance to force more evidence and information from the police on the murder case. It was a potential journalistic goldmine for them. Seems the Boulder Police stalled CBS long enough to not make it worthwhile anymore.

If Burke did do it and his parents were trying to protect him, why did they send him off to the neighbors instead of keeping him close by?

Probably because they were afraid he would say something stupid in front of the police or his bizarre behavior would raise suspicions. Remember the 911 call? you can hear a kids voice in background asking "what did you find ?". Sending him off to be with their friends must have seemed safer, even if he said something at least it wouldn't be in front of the police.

Has he ever commented on why he smeared his shit or tried to present hole to the cops?

But not really r144, you can't really hear him saying that, it's been debated what was actually said. I don't think his parents would have sent him off if he had been the killer.

If you grow up in a fucked up home, you know to keep your mouth shut about it to outsiders. Either Burke did it, or John did it (maybe even Patsy), but Burke was old enough to know not share the fucked up shit that went on in that house, whether it was the feces smearing or murder of his sister.

The D-vida Accuser Troll in the past WAS D-vida, for what it's worth. And she loves threads like this, so...

WEBMASTER, please delete all these people arguing about this crap. They are derailing a great thread with their stupid bullshit.

Burke does seem "disturbed", but then you would be, wouldn't you? Even if he and his family are innocent, he's lived with the fact his sister was brutally murdered and he and his parents have been held responsible for the last 20 years. That he doesn't act quite normal isn't really enough to pin any theories on...

Burke didn't act normal before the murder though, he hit JB with a golf club and smeared his feces on her chocolates.

[quote]he hit JB with a golf club and smeared his feces on her chocolates.

That is odd, if true. Who's the source for those claims, though?

She should have been clubbed for this outfit alone.

OMG you guys, I just figured it out! Santa killed her!

R152 it's in several books and reports. Are you new? Dense? Do they have google where you live?

[quote]it's in several books and reports

But who is the source?

I think Burke did it. I saw part of an interview he did as a child. He talks about his family as his mom his dad and him. No mention of jonbenet at all. Like she never existed.

I thought Jon Benet also had a smearing feces problem.

Hillary Clinton had JBR wiped out to protect Bill.

Burke reeked of gay face as a child. I wonder if he is a gay?

The amount of you who think a 6 years old can easily crash a skull is hilarious

R152, I understand that the golf club incident was a minor accident which didn't even leave a scratch. That it is used as proof of his supposed violent tendencies shows you the integrity of those who are pushing the story in the media. Again, I question why Boulder's police chief publicly pointed the finger at Burke Ramsey, especially when this "theory", which has no basis in evidence, only emerged a few years ago.

I love you, R137.

I’ve read several books in the case. The most compelling argument (backed up by the evidence presented) was the Kolar book that argued it was Burke who set off the chain of events. It makes the most sense—if John or Patsy had murdered JonBenet, it’s unlikley the other parent would go to such lengths to cover for the other person. But when it’s a child....well, everyone wants to protect the evil little shit lest this little incident ruin his “future.” And remember, the grand jury that wanted to indict John and Patsy didn’t accuse them of the murder. It said:

“the jury felt that both the Ramseys permitted a child to be "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey" and rendered assistance to a person "knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

As we’ve seen in many instances in the news, the “protect the child at all costs” philosophy is a staple of wealthy white society.

Again, I have to ask...if Burke murdered her & the parents wanted to cover for him, why not put her at the bottom of the stairs and say she fell? You have to be monumentally fucked up to find your dying child, garrotte her and abuse her with a paintbrush. And the ransom note for a child lying dead in the basement? And all to cover up a head injury? It’s absurd.

There’s evidence that JonBenet had suffered previous sexual abuse - this is significantly more likely to be at the hands of an adult than an 8/9 year old boy. And in those rare circumstances where children abuse others it is nearly always the case that they are acting out abuse they themselves have suffered. So if Burke abused JonBenet, who abused Burke? And if Burke was being abused, then why not JonBenet?

The whole “Burke theory” actually makes little sense and seems to be based on nothing more than that he seems weird and smeared shit around the place. Yeah..smearing shit is often indicative of abuse. So that “weirdness” that some people are so invested in is actually most likely to be the result of trauma.

Those parents were fucked up. The mother allowed her little daughter to parade around like a showgirl in skimpy clothes and make up, frequently striking sexualised poses. I am NOT saying that all parents who enter their children for these pageants are irresponsible, but when a little girl’s abused body is found in a basement the parents previous behaviour has to be taken into account.

I think John Ramsey abused his daughter and murdered her. I think he went to Patsy in a panic and between them they tried to cover it up. I think they were intending to remove her from the house in a suitcase & the only excuse they could come up with for why she would be missing was kidnap. Something went wrong and they couldn’t move her (maybe they saw neighbours outside or something) so they had to go with the attempted kidnapping went wrong scenario.

Just my opinion but this is the only explanation that makes any sense, as awful as it is.

Again, I have to say...Burke didn't murder his little sister. He struck her in the back of the head in a fit of childish rage when he was incapable of knowing his full strength. The parents tried to cover this up. The Ramsey's are/were the very definition of "monumentally fucked up".

Evidence for any of that?

R139, then why did you come to this thread? Ridiculous. Any case that gets major coverage is always dissected on DL. No doubt these types of threads may become Frau-infested, but DL keeps the Fraus inline, so I enjoy them.

I’ve read all the books on this case (I’m not a crime-reader, I just got into this particular case). The Kolar book IS great. In fact, all the well-known books are great, each one adds new/different information. I have total respect for Kolar, but I happen to disagree with his theory.

Remember when the new DA made the announcement that the DNA rules out the Ramsey family? It was INSANE. I think smart detectives like Kolar were fighting for a way to make pieces fit while eliminating those who had been “ruled out.” By process of elimination that points to Burke. This is also why Steve Thomas went after Patsey so hard early on — he operated under the assumption that John had been “ruled out.” I think many in LEO got stuck on trying to solve a case where John wasn’t the murderer, hence the Patsey and Burke and “they all did it” theories.

If you read through the Solving JonBenet blog, that writer does an *excellent* job of explaining exactly how John would have gaslighted Patsy. He explains that one huge piece of John’s story is that the window had been first broken earlier in the summer (to explain away the unstaging of the window). The author says all John has to do was tell Patsy, “I didn’t write the note. And I know you didn’t write the note. If you tell the cops you can’t remember the window breaking, I’m going to prison, you were really sick and recovering so you’re just forgetting that this happened. But it definitely did and if our stories don’t match, we’re done.”

There was only one other lie Patsy told, which is that in an early A&E interview, she said it was her idea to call police. In all remaining stories, this changes that it was “John’s idea” or they “both” wanted to call police. Again, wouldn’t have been hard for John to play the same mind game with her “you have chemo-brain, I can’t gelieve you don’t remember that! Remember that we were BOTH yelling about calling the police?!?” Those were her only lies. John has dozens of lies. When you start looking at all his lies, and realize how easily he could have gaslighted her on these two small points, you realize the theory that John did it becomes *highly* plausible. Carry on.

Nobody's asking the right questions, like how did a feeble-brained moron like John Ramsey get to be CEO?

I forgot to mention, Kolar’s book has an entire chapter named “The Evolution of John’s Story” or something. That chapter points to many/most of John’s lies in a way that other books had not. Obviously, Kolar uses those lies to build his theory on Burke, but why oh why does he not use the lies to build a theory that John did it? I keep waiting for one of these investigators to explain why it *cannot* be John. I have yet to hear a single person provide a shred of evidence that eliminates John. If you can’t eliminate him with evidence, then he must remain a suspect. And if John is still a suspect, then the statistically most likely scenario is that the father did it. Occam’s Razor and all.

R169, John just got lucky getting into the tech industry early in the game, and he aligned his company with Lockheed so he was set. Another area of John’s life that needs to be examined were his frequent trips to Amsterdam. A few reporters tried to account for his whereabouts when he was there but he seemed to disappear on those trips, they tried to get info on his possible kinks/double-life to no avail.

Is Kolar in this thread? Who keeps shilling his book? The Schiller book had it right, it was not Burke, it was not an intruder. Occam's razor, etc. John did it. Patsy helped cover.

No R171 that's not how it happened. He was imposed on them. By who and why.

What did John do career wise after the murder?

R174, my understanding is he basically “lost everything.” I believe his company went under shortly thereafter. A group of close friends bought the house after they moved to Atlanta, sat on it, and eventually sold it. On one of our annual discussions, it came up that he was selling their cottage in Charlevoix too. I remember seeing that house in MI, it was gorgeous, so I don’t think John’s definition of being broke would match ours, but comparatively speaking, his lifestyle dramatically changed after the murders. I also have a hazy memory of him being employed by a friend, maybe serving on a Board for something? In terms of his career, he was almost unemployable. I suspect he may have funded their lifestyle by the aggressive lawsuits he had Lin Wood handle.

R65, And in that televised plea, Patsy declared that there were two murderers.

The family psychology was very sick, from Patsy's obsession with beauty pageants (she had been Miss W. Va.) foisted upon her little girl; to John's need to become wealthy; to his having lost a daughter from his first marriage to a fatal car accident; to both children's bed-wetting and feces-smearing; to John's not accompanying a scared Patsy when she had to travel for her cancer treatments; to Burke's also-ran position.

There are a couple very good books on the crime and its investigation, looked at in a Holmesian manner.

But only one book, an excellent one, seeks the solution with the little gray cells, by considering as would Poirot---through the very words and actions, both past and contemporaneous, of primarily Patsy---the psychology of it all. The revelations of the irrepressible subconscious through the unwitting conscious.

"A Mother Gone Bad." Author Andrew G. Hodges.

Named for Patsy's softball team, Mothers Gone Bad.

That’s one of the few I never read r176, because the reviews were poor, but I’ll check it out anyway, it’s interesting how many layers there are in this case.

[quote]Nobody's asking the right questions, Spot on, the right question is "Is Burke a homosexual?"

That is the first step to solving this.

i am not averse to the JDI (john did it) theory - mostly because i find it really strange that he had cultivated such a dysfunctional household and because he had another daughter die AND because yes, when kids die, parents are the usual suspects moreso than their siblings... and obviously there were no intruders. i have so far been in the BDI camp what with burke's favourite snack in jonbenet's stomach...

however, there is no doubt in my mind that the note was written by patsy. it was verbose and the use of 'hence', one of patsy's reportedly favourite words and the hand writing analysis ruled that it was inconclusive if it could be patsy's handwriting (it did rule out john as the writer though). so here's my question: why on earth would patsy cover for john, the murderer of her child? why would she write that stupid note to help him and pretend to be crying in front of the police officer who said she was peeking from between her fingers, fake-sobbing? that last bit confirms patsy was in on it... and i can see a woman being 'in on it' to protect her kid. but someone that killed her kid? idk.... also her last painting before she died showed burke and jonbenet together - it's like she was trying to redeem the kid she knew was guilty, telling herself or her 'angel daughter' that burke really didn't hate his sister or something.

i also have another question - someone mentioned upthread that the day before the murder a 911 call was made from the house and when the operator picked up, whoever called hung up. i'm thinking an adult would know that if they were to call 911 their call would a) be answered b) there would be an operator asking gthem questions. hardly any mystery to the mechanics of this whole process. so who could call 911 just to hang up? i'm thnking a kid who has found out that if they are in trouble or there's something bad happening, one is to call 911. but was it jonbenet or burke who called? since they were calling from home, the 'trouble' must have happened there. was it john abusing them? or was there a call at all?

hand writing analysis ruled that it was inconclusive whether it was or wasn't patsy's handwriting***

sorry for that monstrosity of a sentence

An adult calling 911 could have the phone taken out of their hand by another adult. Or they could hear someone about to enter the room where they were - someone they were afraid of - and they'd be afraid to continue the call.

r181

you are right.... i didn't think of these possibilities. who do you think called, then?

and why?

was it the first time or was there, in fact, a history of 911 calls?

or maybe the whole 911 call thing is a myth...

R179, great post. I agree with you on the 911 call, it seems obvious it must have been a child, then again, r181 has a valid theory too!

On the handwriting analysis. The “hence” thing has been shown to come up in John’s actual INTERVIEWS, though I’m too lazy to get links on that. He actually said it more than once.

I’ve read reports that build a very solid case that John was the author....for example, there are numerous references/lines from male-action movies. Like “don’t try and grow a brain John!” Dirty Harry I believe. The movies were all cited and he owned a huge VCR collection. Even the use of “foreign faction” points to him as he dealt with global security. Also, wouldn’t John know his own bonus, even before Patsy? He was the CEO/CFO. Another way to interpret the “tone” of the note is the constant threats of beheading — John trying to terrify Patsy into NOT calling the police. In addition, the note makes references to (pardon me if this phrase isn’t perfect) “a proper burial” which was another phrase John has been documented using. I could keep going, but the clues are all there. If you JUST read that note with the perspective that John didn’t want her to call the cops, it makes sense. Also, that acronym at the signature SBTC! was akin to a plaque John had for his naval service. And, did you see the post upthread that shows how a sleuth matched up the tracing of the first page to a Word document? They set the Word margins at a specific setting and font at Courier 11, and the spacing perfectly matches up unt page 2 thereabouts. So it DEFINITELY appears that the author typed it first, then traced it in the beginning, in an attempt to disguise their writing. That cannot be a coincidence, I’m talking each letter AND the space between the words matched the Word template. And who was the tech nerd? John. There is more, but I know I’m not following protocol without links....google the Italian handwriting expert who smashed the Patsey “match” as false....there is literally a small ton of evidence that at a minimum, does NOT rule out John, and at best, points squarely at John.

Reddit thread about the 911 hang up call.

Here’s one of the links I referenced in my post at r183. The author is *not* claiming that he proves John wrote it, only that it is bullshit to claim John is *not* the author. His last paragraph:

The point I'm making in putting these comparisons together is not that this is proof John wrote the note, but strong evidence telling us it was a huge mistake to rule him out. While the striking similarities documented here can't prove he wrote it, there is no way they can be dismissed as irrelevant, which is what the so-call "experts" (some of them appointed by John himself) decided to do.

You have convinced me D A V I D A. John absolutely, positively did it. He is a Satanic Elite pedophile who is just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and Woody Allen,

Happy now?

Enough of this David a shit.

Start your own thread so the rest of us can focus on JonBenet and the case.

The famous Vanity Fair article in which it was later proven that lead investigator Detective Steve Thomas was the main source. A quote:

“On a ratio of 12 to 1, child murders are committed by parents or a family member,” says F.B.I. veteran Gregg McCrary.

r183

thank you for your compliment. you are too kind.

i remember the film references and the SBTC thing in the letters, however, that could have just as easily been john telling patsy what to write... and why wouldn't patsy quote a movie character? we can't just assume that john was they only person in the house that had watched the films/remembered them... i'm also quite sure patsy would know his bonus amount. why wouldn't she?

and i wasn't convinced by this bit:

If you JUST read that note with the perspective that John didn’t want her to call the cops, it makes sense.

in general i find it a bit difficult to believe that a man writing a note wouldn't be at least a bit more concise/brief, managing with a 1-page note or so (and even that if their were particularly prone to verbosity and very flowery language).

but ok. let's say john wrote it (i don't believe he did but for the sake of the argument). if he wrote the note to cover burke's ass, i can see patsy helping him. if he wrote the note to cover his own ass, why wouldn't patsy out him and expose him as the murderer of her child? i mean... she clearly knew there was no intruder and was faking tears in front of the police. she was acting and trying to fool the people that had come to their house to investigate. she was, essentially, deliberately sabotaging the investigation, creating a fake narrative meant to mislead the police. why would she do that for the sake of the murderer of her precious little mini-me daughter?

Law and Order did a double episode based on this case where the mother was the killer.

THEY were particularly prone

grrr

Patsy went along with it for the money, duh.

r184

that was an interesting read. i find it strange that a family friend would open the door to the poliece only to tell them she's not going to let them in. i mean.... can she even prove to them she has any right to be there herself? i don't think so. what was she doing there? why did she blow them off? what WAS the woman doing in that house? what was happening there that warranted a 911 call? why's she acting like a boss who gets to say which calls in the house are placed in error and which aren't?

didn't she feel a bit too comfortable at their home? was either patsy or john her squeeze she wanted to keep the cops away from?

if teh call was a mistake, why wouldn't you pick up the phone when 911 calls you back? you could then explain that it was a 'mistake' and everything is okay. maybe it's because you were doing something that prevented you from answering the phone?

r192

i know patsy must have been at least somewhat disturbed (the whole almost-prostitution-like pageant thing, caking jonbenet in makeup and dressing here in those awful things, completely neglecting burke etc) but was she really that money hungry? did she come from a poor family to be so obsessed with getting her hands on some dosh and 'prestige'? i had the impression she came from a well-off family, i think it's weird to be so money-obsessed to sacrifice your own kid in such a case. well, maybe you are right.... very sad if true, though.

R189, you ask great questions which is why this case will always be discussed! I most certainly don’t have all the answers, so many of the questions we all want answered are subjective and therefore open to interpretation.

For example, some say Patsy calling the cops meant she must be involved. If you logically play that out though, it actually doesn’t make sense though. Those who believe John did it believe she either called out of a) sheer hysteria or b) fear of John, or c) a combination of both. Remember how strangely they both acted that morning? One perspective is that in that moment, she DID fear him and her instincts were telling her that something was wrong. But she wasn’t going to out him, after all, how could she be 100% certain? So she waited. And then after he got her alone and worked on her, her denial commenced. Also, remember, another incredible mistake made by the police was their failure to get statements SEPARATELY from John and Patsy in the first 12 hours. Statements weren’t taken until five months later (if memory serves). The police could have indicted as I have zero doubt their stories would NOT have matched if only those damn statements were taken!

Another idea — Patsy could have been peering at the police officer through splayed fingers because she was so overwhelmed with dread, terrified that her instincts were right, that she covered her eyes in fear/horror, trying to read the cops face while “hiding” that she was terrified her gut was telling her something was wrong with her husband.

Remember too — John disappears that morning for over an hour while Det. Arndt was there to “get the mail”. WTF?!!!?! Who gets the mail while their daughter is kidnapped? Patsy never disappeared When Det Arndt told John to search the house, she told him to take Fleet and search “top to bottom.” John RAN into the basement and charged toward the wine cellar. Huh? John, Mr. Calm who gets the mail, never points out that the kidnappers didn’t call them. John, books a private plane 45 minutes after her body is found. John, hires his lawyer on the spot when her body is found. John, John, John. All witnesses said Patsy was hysterical and sobbing uncontrollably the entire time.

And yes, one could say Patsy wanted to maintain her status quo lifestyle. But it’s certainly easy to imagine that she simply didn’t WANT to believe. So when John gaslighted her, she was already a willing victim of her own need for denial.

the womam @ r3 has crazy eyes

The 911 call happened during a Christmas party at the Ramseys. The police only spoke to Susan Stine and never entered the house. IIRC this was the same party where Jonbenet was sitting on the stairs crying and told someone she didn't feel pretty.

r194

ok am i getting it right that in your version, john told patsy there was an accident but if they didn't stage it as this failed intruder kidnap thing, he'd be in danger of going to prison - and that's how he got her to cooperate with him? so she knew her kid was dead but didn't really know how the girl died and just took john's word on it, having her own doubts from time to time?

hmm... i don't know. i still think jonbenet stole that pineapple from burke's bowl and he whacked her over the head with the flashlight in what he thought was divine retribuition.

i'm also 100% convinced both kids were abused, hence the bed-wetting and feces stuff. and if the 911 call happened with a crying jonbenet in the house, it looks very bad for the adults who were there that evening.

Patsy claimed they'd had between one and two THOUSAND people come through their house in the two days prior to JB's murder. Suuuuuuure they did.

oh she was a humanities kinda girl, don't you know. she just wasn't very good with numbers, give her some slack

R198 Meh, it's possible. Five times that number take the Atlanta Homes Christmas tour every year. I realize Boulder is smaller, but never underestimate the public's desire to peek inside the homes of those who live a life to which they aspire.

R187 Who the fuck are you to play thread monitor? I shall say whatever I want to say. Have you not heard of the block function? The issue with D A V I D A has been going on for 6 years. She fabricates like no one else in order to further her "all rich men are pedophiles" dogma and I am sick of it. I have every right to challenge her as you do me.

Why would anyone allow 1000-2000 strangers to parade through their house? Wouldn't that destroy your floors? Not to mention the potential for theft, etc? Where do that many people park? Don't the neighbors get PISSED?

R197, no. I can’t speak for other people, but in my version John did it, and he staged it. He wrote the note, gaslighted Patsy, etc. The stories the Ramseys gave about the events after they arrived home have changed (again, with John only). In one version he says the kids are awake in the car. In another version, JonBenet is asleep and he carries her to bed. It wasn’t really that late, they had just left a boisterous party, and it was fucking Christmas, no way we’re those kids asleep. The Ramseys had to catch a VERY early flight. Patsy had to be *fried* between all the Christmas shopping, hosting the home tours, multiple parties, AND packing for a trip first thing in the morning! So imagine this.

They’re driving home, car filled with new toys. It’s Christmas Eve, kids are playing with new toys, excited Santa is coming. Patsy wants to kill herself because she has to be up in six hours with two exhausted kids and get on a plane and spend time with step kids. John tells her to go to bed, he will get kids to sleep. Patsy gratefully agrees.

Patsy goes to bed. Maybe John even tells her to pop a sleeping pill so she’ll feel rested for the next day? He needs Patsy away. Kids are still hyper, John gets them a snack. He gets Burke occupied with his brand new Game Boy. He takes JB into basement, abuses her, hits her head, gets Burke to bed, the staging commences. His goal is to move the body out of the house, but there is other prep work first. So he writes a note trying to convince PATSY and no one else that she’s been kidnapped. He took many steps to disguise the handwriting including tracing a typed letter on his laptop screen so his wife wouldn’t recognize his writing. He never intended for another solitary soul to see that letter. He was going to say kidnappers told him to return it with the drop off of money.

He had already started staging a break-in too by breaking the basement window and putting the suitcase there (multiple witnesses said the window wasn’t like that earlier).

Patsy freaks the fuck out and calls the cops. He had counted on her not doing this. So now, after friends and cops fill the house, and John showed cops how every window and door was locked and there were no snowy footprints, John sits there and thinks. He thinks and he thinks and he thinks. He’s pretty smart. He knows they can’t just sit there forever with the body in the house. He decides that if he is the one who “discovers” her body, that can explain away any trace evidence he left on the body.

So he’s like a boiling tea kettle, he finally explodes and races to get this over with. He was probably filled with adrenaline. His daughter was in full rigor mortis, he had been in the military, her arms were stuck out from her body like a doll, but he asks the Det., “is she dead?” The Det. could feel his energy, that’s why they had this “moment” where they both understood what the other knew.

And then blahblahblah you know the rest. In Patsy’s first interview, she is clearly heavily sedated. John did quite the number on her head.

[quote] It’s Christmas Eve, kids are playing with new toys, excited Santa is coming.

It was Christmas night. Santa had already come that morning.

I loved "that child"

I forgot r203, I hadn’t thought about this story in a year. However, it actually doesn’t change my scenario. It wasn’t super late, kids had new toys, were just at a party, Patsy was fried.

(R:194) Yes. I agree about John’s odd actions and behavior. I also heard many many years back that he had a secretary he would go to hard core S & M clubs with while out of town on travels . No idea if these rumours were true but they’re now all mysteriously gone from the internet. Someone spoke out , if I remember. He seemed too “planned” to me . Too “calculating” as well as how quickly he found the body , making almost a bee-line to her , in front of his neighbor , Fleet. I doubt that close pal Fleet would have completely thrown him under the bus if he didn’t smell a major rat and have his own compelling evidence to do so . They had been very good friends before this day . John disappearing for a bit that morning ..being on a plane soon after , and lawyering up so quickly with such high profile defense attorneys makes me think that he had a few hours prior to the police and Fleet arriving to mentally and logically prepare himself and come up with a plan . The crime scene was corrupted and we will most likely never know . It’s so very sad . However , by the disturbing actions of both young children I’d say there was a very high probability of parent to child abuse in that household .

"Burke does seem "disturbed", but then you would be, wouldn't you?"

His was "disturbed" before his sister's murder. In fact, that whole family was fucked up. And what liars they are! After all the videos came out of JonBenet all painted up and wearing elaborate sexy costumes and making suggestive dance moves Patsy Ramsey was asked about the whole pageant business. It would seem that they spent a lot of time and money and effort in their quest to make a full-fledged beauty queen out of their little darling. But Patsy Ramsey said oh no, it was no big deal, just “a few Sunday afternoons." She also denied dyeing JonBenet's hair (it was an unnatural Barbie doll blonde), saying it would get streaked in the sun and a little coloring was used to "even it out." What bullshit.

[quote]His was "disturbed" before his sister's murder. In fact, that whole family was fucked up.

How so?

Wasn't the claim that JonBenet was previously sexually assaulted denied by the doctor who examined and treated her for chronic vaginitis?

R208, his feces-smearing began long before the murder.

r210 Who is the source for that claim, though?

When Patsy was sick with cancer the first time, Burke reverted to feces smearing. It is not unusual for children under stress to revert to infant like behavior.

r201

there are a few things i think you should work on so that they'd fit your theory better...

a) patsy going to sleep. the next morning patsy was seen wearing the saem clothes she wore the previous night. so i believe she never went to sleep. also a resident nearby woke up in the middle of the night hearing a scream of agony/great pain - they thought it was a kid screaming but i'm betting it was patsy who discovered jonbenet. even if you dismiss the second point, explaining patsy's clothes is a bit difficult.

b) john preparing burke's pineapple snack. it was a small bowl with a huge spoon. i find it unlikely an adult wouldn't give the kid a teaspoon for eating this food from that small bowl. that's why i believe burke was the person to take the small bowl, the huge spoon normally meant for soups (not a dessert) and hoped to enjoy it without being disturbed.

c) john taking jonbenet downstairs without burke. you see, jonbenet had those burnt marks on her that were determined to come from being poked with a toy train play set. a part of that set was basically used on her like you'd use a taser. i don't think john would do that. i do think, though, that a child would try to poke his sibling with this thing when said sibling is lying on floor unconscious, not reacting to words, slaps or anything really. i think burke tried to 'revive' her.

sorry, i meant to address r202

Patsy Ramsey played softball?!

That is the most astonishing thing I’ve heard about this case.

[quote]you see, jonbenet had those burnt marks on her that were determined to come from being poked with a toy train play set

There was convincing testimony from a British government forensic scientist who said the idea those burn marks were made by Burke's train set was "frankly ludicrous". They were much more likely to have from a real taser, especially when seen alongside similar marks made by tasers.

R213, I’ll respond, though not with aggression so please don’t take it that way (this topic brings out the crazies).

Here is my breakdown to your points:

A) Great point and valid. However, here is another outlook. Patsy would buy her special Christmas clothes on fall shopping sprees in NYC at Bergdorf’s, NM, etc. She only wore that outfit a few hours at a dinner party. Furthermore, they were a notoriously dirty family. So she wanted mileage out of her $600 sweater and put it on again. MANY women do this, especially with dry-cleaned special event clothing, no time for dry-cleaning with back to back events. The neighbor scream thing was debunked, too long to go into. What was NOT debunked is the neighbor seeing a flashlight moving in the Ramsey kitchen that night, which makes the magnum flashlight found on the kitchen counter the likely murder weapon. No one in the family admitted to taking it out, and it (and its batteries) were wiped clean of prints. And again, this points to *one* parent sneaking around in the middle of the might, not two.

B) Excellent point on the spoon. I know about that. But imagine an adult who was hurrying to get to the sex. “I’ll cut up the fruit, you grab me the bowls and spoons.” Parents do this all the time, Burke grabbed that sooon, I agree, but Patsey claimed she never cut up the pineapple, so an adult HAD to do that, no way did a kid slice that fruit up.

C) Those marks on her we’re not burns, but bruises, and yes they matched the train track pieces. Which supports the theory that the murder occurred in the basement train room, and the body was moved around on the floor in that room,

If only this was as simple as Soft Butch Sous Chef.....sigh.

R216, that British Team was funded by John, he literally helped produce that documentary.

"How so?"

Well, here are some reasons why:

John Ramsey was overheard by detective Bill Palmer asking his pilot, Mike Archuleta, to ready his plane for a flight to Atlanta at 1:40 PM on 12/26/96 - approximately 30 minutes after carrying his daughter's body up the stairs. Mr. Ramsey was asked about it by a second detective, Larry Mason, and Mr. Ramsey said that he had a meeting to get to in Atlanta that "he couldn't miss." He was told by both detectives that he could not leave town and would be asked to stay and assist in the investigation of JonBenet's death. He wants to high tail it out of town immediately after finding his baby girl's dead body in the basement? That is supremely fucked up.

Patsy Ramsey determinedly trying to make her baby girl into a beauty pageant winner was pretty fucked up. When asked if she liked doing the pageants JonBenet reportedly replied "I don't really care about it." Painting her little girl up like a bimbo, dyeing her hair bright blonde, decking her out in expensive costumes more suitable for an adult and having her shake her little bootie in front of crowds of gawkers... that seems pretty fucked up to me.

Of course Burke has already been discussed. A sullen, wordless child, he bashed his sister in the head with a golf club and smeared poo on her chocolates. How fucked up is THAT?

Poor little JonBenet was a chronic bed wetter. She would on occasion wet her self during the day, requiring a change of panties. She would ask any nearby adult to change her and wipe her.

Like I said, that is one fucked up family.

[quote][R216], that British Team was funded by John, he literally helped produce that documentary.

Can you link me to a source for that, please? I can't find any site that says John was a producer of the documentary. Even if he was, it seems irrelevant to the point, which is that the marks match those made by tasers on other people. Right down to the fact that one side is larger than the other because pressure is applied unequally as the charge is created.

[quote]he bashed his sister in the head with a golf club and smeared poo on her chocolates. How fucked up is THAT?

I keep asking, but no one can provide the primary source for that claim. Do you know? Sullen and wordless children aren't that uncommon, obviously.

And a comment on the vaginal infections. Patsey brought her to the GP I believe 36 times in 2 1/2 years. Patsey wasn’t stupid, but she also didn’t want her little bubble blown up. I could imagine little things about John’s relationship with JB being small red flags to her. And then the constant infections too.

But I could also imagine her thinking, “if the the doctor says she’s fine, then she’s fine!!!!!!” Almost a CYA, like if a professional pediatrician couldn’t find anything wrong, then NOTHING was wrong, goddammit. Having said that, I have read that a GP will never do an actual vaginal exam on a child that young — so if he wasn’t examining her genitalia for the actual abuse, he wouldn’t have noticed signs of abuse. I don’t know if that’s true, just what I read.

R219, I can’t remember where I read that, let me think and find a link. It’s not a well known story, and John’s money went through two or three shells I believe, another reason it isn’t widely known. Furthermore, when I read about that years ago, it was never shown in the US. I believe John was trying to counteract maybe the A&E documentary, and then for some reason the British one he was behind never aired here. I’ll try to recall the source.

r221 It wasn't a GP, it was her pediatrician and he said he saw absolutely no evidence of sexual abuse and went on to say that he's always conscious of the possibility of abuse whenever he examines his patients and he's always looking for potential signs of it. He claims he saw none with JonBenet.

[quote]I believe John was trying to counteract maybe the A&E documentary, and then for some reason the British one he was behind never aired here.

The British one is the one I'm talking about and it appears to have been made by a British production company called Mills Productions. It isn't a shell company. It's run by David Mills who has produced over 100 documentaries for the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 in the UK.

"I keep asking, but no one can provide the primary source for that claim."

He SAID he hit in the head with a golf club, so there's no confusion about that. Anyway, this information comes from "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey", which Burke sued over, saying it "defamed" him:

In their investigation, Jim Clemente (retired FBI profiler) and Laura Richards (former Scotland Yard criminal behavior expert) took a look at a video of Burke, not long after the murder, being interviewed by a child psychologist on camera about his sister’s death. The two appear disturbed at Burke’s playful and untroubled demeanor as he brushes off the idea of his sister’s killer coming back. “I’m basically just going on with my life, you know?” he says. Burke also gives a physical demonstration of how JonBenét might have died, waving an imaginary weapon.

Later, we find out via an interview with Ramsey family friend and photographer Judith Miller that Patsy told her Burke had actually struck JonBenét in the face with a golf club a year and a half prior to her murder. Clemente and Richards also note how Burke had committed some prior “scatological” infractions in the past, spreading feces around the Ramseys’ bathroom and in even JonBenét’s bedroom, lending credence to the theory that his relationship with his sister was less than perfect.

R219, I can’t find the “dish” on how connected John was to that 1998 film yet, but here are some links that help.

This link you will see clearly explains that the doc was built off of Lou Smit’s notes — Lou worked for John.

R222, that company’s produced a film that was based completely off of the investigator hired by John. I might not be remembering the money flow correctly. I just remember it was highly fishy.

And here is just a little more context. This film had John’s direct involvement, I clearly remember that, just can’t remember exactly how or where I read it.

[quote]This link you will see clearly explains that the doc was built off of Lou Smit’s notes — Lou worked for John.

Lou worked for the district attorney's office, not John.

"...then why did you come to this thread? Ridiculous."

Yes, R168, this thread IS ridiculous.You are all using the same evidence to arrive at wildly different conclusions: John did it! Burke did it! Patsy did it! John AND Patsy did it! An intruder did it! A neighbor did it! OJ did it!!! If they ever find the killer, some of you will look pretty foolish.

R221, I went to a seminar on crime investigation (for legal professionals) and I remember an MD talking about this and he said something to the effect of "A lot of of non-signs of child abuse don't equal a sign of child abuse". He said that rashes and urinary infections are normal in little kids.

R204, yeah, Patsy saying that really creeped me out.

[quote]Clemente and Richards also note how Burke had committed some prior “scatological” infractions in the past, spreading feces around the Ramseys’ bathroom and in even JonBenét’s bedroom, lending credence to the theory that his relationship with his sister was less than perfect.

Yes, but who was the source for the claim? Clemente and Richards may have "noted" it, but who told them about it?

R226, Lou was a minion of the Ramseys. He fucked prayed with them upon his first meeting. He absolutely worked at John’s direction.

In fact, John is actually like all the GOP. He played on Lou’s gullible Christian beliefs to get him working on the intruder theory, and that’s exactly what he did! Everything Lou did was for John AND to negate the cops. Read Steve Thomas’s opinion of Smit, he despised him as a traitor for helping John.

R228, she didn’t just have UTI’s — she had YEAST infections, that is *not* normal in a pre-pubescent, unopened vaginal canal.

r231

[quote]When a type of yeast called Candida grows out of control, a yeast infection can result. Yeast infections are common and may be painful and itchy. A yeast infection can affect adults and children, but babies and toddlers are especially susceptible.

R228, I should also add, read her autopsy. The examiner described her hymen as being partially broken. It was broken in the area that if a right handed individual inserted a digit, that’s where it was damaged. Sorry, I know that’s graphic, but it’s in the report.

A quote:

Yeast infections in the diaper area usually stop once your child is out of diapers.

Chronic vaginal yeast infections in a little girl who also had a partially broken hymen is not normal, sorry. Her pediatrician clearly didn’t do a full examination on her, it was missed.

r216

so where was the taser? where did the ramseys put it after using it? did they have one at home? if so, how did they explain it. i'm still on the toy train set bandwagon

A hymen is not a safety seal on a bottle of Tylenol. A hymen is very rarely fully covering the opening of the vagina, and it becomes a problem of it is.

I realize that r237. From the autopsy:

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1×1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.

So much doesn't make sense. I guess Burke and John the only people that really know. But what has always seemed very weird to me is JonBenet was hit in the head. Big gash and I guess lots of blood. But someone decided her injury was fatal or JonBenet was brain dead or something and they finished her off by strangulation. She died from asphyxiation.

Getting hit on the head is not a death sentence unless there was lots of brain matter splattered around. And I don't think this was the case. How could you strangle a still breathing child unless you wanted to make sure they stayed dead? The first instincts of a normal parent with a child with a big gash on their head would be to get medical help.

r217

ok. patsy's clothing i can sort of agree on. it wouldn't be impossible for her to put the same clothes on in the morning.

i don't think the flashlight use proves only one parent was sneaking around. it takes one person to hold the flashlight but everyone in their vicinity can see whichever spot it lights up...

thanks for making that connection between john an the tasr-not-train-experts. unless the ramseys had a taser in their house it's a bit hard to believe it was anything but that train set...

i can also agree that a pedophile who's waiting for a 'secret santa' meeting with their victim can be sort of careless when it comes to dessert spoons for the other kid.... however, wasn't the pinapple of the canned variety? i know those can have a) round slices in the can that youd' need to cut into smaller pieces and b) the already tiny pieces (at least where i live. maybe it's different in the US). do we know which one it was that the ramseys had? if they had the former, patsy may have lied about 'not fixing' burke his pineapple snack... needn't have been john. was john known to do this 'womanly' stuff like serving children snacks etc?

R240, in the US I would say it’s more common to consume fresh pineapple which you buy whole and then slice. John was famous for doing *nothing* to help with the kids, that’s true. But again, in my scenario, a sicko perv who is awaiting some sexual action might suddenly become “helpful” to the mother. And, remember my belief that Patsy was afraid that morning, that’s why she called the cops? She was scared of John?

If she knew John made the kids a snack so she could go to bed, that *would* be unusual and could have helped add to her terror. I think there were many little signs and she was terrified of him that morning. But over the following weeks and months, she was drugged, she had chemo-brain, he gaslighted her, she didn’t want to believe it, and in that regard, she helped John get away with murder, through the sheer force of her denial.

[quote]Getting hit on the head is not a death sentence unless there was lots of brain matter splattered around. And I don't think this was the case. How could you strangle a still breathing child unless you wanted to make sure they stayed dead? The first instincts of a normal parent with a child with a big gash on their head would be to get medical help.

So this is why I never thought Burke did it. If Burke hit JonBenet her parents first instinct would be to get her medical help. They would have made up some story on the spot so cover Burke - but they wouldn't have strangled her WHILE SHE WAS STILL ALIVE,

r239

your point about the strangulation being about the perp wanting the kid to stay dead is worth consideration. i'm in the burke did it camp and it's, like, the only major thing that i feel doesn't fit the narrative i've come to accept. if a children's fight got out of hand then whether the head trauma was bloody or not (it doesn't have to be... ) you'd want to help them as a parent, not conclude that 'oh well they are breathing but can't be helped, i better garrote them to save my poor neglected burkie-boy'.

that's what's making me reconsider the burke theory...

r241

yes, fresh pineapple is great and all but no one ain't got time for washing, peeling and slicing one at practically midnight just because a spoiled kid who had just eaten at a party (probably) got in the mood for some snack-entitlement. making a fresh pineapple edible is a whole lot of work... i could never be bothered to do so. and i'm not a man who never cooks or whatever.

r239

but do you agree that burke must have known there was no intruder? when the shrink asked him what he thought happened to her, he did this whacking a person with an item kind of a potion. and he wasn't afraid aperp would come for him or anything.... and the parents didn't keep him close the morning after, sending him to their friends instead... and on the 911 tape recording, he was arguably asking his parents questions before being snapped at (not talking to you or something like that). do you agree he must know more than he has let people to believe even if he wasn't to be blamed for her head injury or death in general?

a MOTION, not a potion. grrr

R243, so if you can make the leap (congratulations!!!) that Burke did not do it, it shows you have logic skills — it just makes no sense, right? Right. But then why is it hard for you to consider that the one motive, the ONLY motive, the motive that is big and bad and fits, is the need to cover up incest? What other *logical* motive is there? Of *course* he was molesting her, and he killed her to hide his tracks. Some even believe he tried to frame that bitch of a wife! After all, he did use her pen, her paper, her Southern references, etc etc etc.

I’m not trying to be an asshole, I’m saying if you’re smart enough to understand that Burke theory is off, then you are also smart enough to see that the covering up of incest trumps all the other silly fairy tales.

r244 - That's all interesting stuff. So many pieces to this crime just don't make sense. It's impossible to tie everything up. I'm hoping when John dies Burke will leak what really happened. He surely knows.

I agree r264 - I think this was all about John covering his tracks. I agree with the person who said the ransom note was only for Patsy - and the crime got of hand.

^246

And you know what else is ducking fascinating? John was always more than happy to throw Patsey to the wolves, while acting like he was defending her. He happily brought up Patsey over and over and over “defending” her, which was really a “look over here at this shiny object folks!!” And now that she’s dead, he’s replaced her with fucking Burke! He’s kept Burke in the headlines by throwing him on Dr. Phil, having Burke sue CBS etc. It’s quite diabolical once you see it — he feeds the media on whomever else is the flavor of the month, he’s done it from fucking day one.

FUCKING not ducking,

r246

but i didn't even ask what the motive could have been. it's not hard for me to consider that hiding incest would have been the motive. i'm the person who said i believe both kids had been abused upthread, after all. i mean, what with the inappropriate, caked-on make-up and trollop clothes on a 5-year old i'd be surprised if either of the parents WASN'T molesting jonbenet....

however, an angry and envious burke smashing his sister with a flashlight after having hit her with a golf club in the past also makes sense to me. it's the parents garroting her afterwards that i find difficult to explain... or maybe both were true. maybe she was abused by, say, john. and burke did eat the pineapple and did get angrey when she helped herself to what he thought was his and maybe he did hit her.... and maybe john who wasn't asleep realized that if this body of an unconscious child were to be carefully examined, the signs of his rape-y abuse would come to light so he garroted her after shooing burke away... idk.

The details are unclear but John killed JonBenet

When Burke was asked on the Dr. Phil show who he thinks murdered his sister, he replied, "“I kinda always thought it was a paedophile who saw her in one of the pageants and snuck in [to our house], who knows.” Dr. Phil then asked him if it was possible someone entered the house under the guise of one of the Christmas tours in the area at the time. “It’s possible,” he replied. “I never really thought about that” [wtf?]. And then he again repeated his original theory: “It probably was some paedophile in the pageant audience.”

r246 and r243 and everyone else suspicious of john, i've got another question for you

i have always thought that IT WAS A LEGIT CAR ACCIDENT NOW DROP IT WILL YA explanation about his other daughter's death was a little bit off. what do you think? could she have been a victim of abuse? do we know why john divorced his first wife?

R253 Here's the link:

Patsy found John molesting JonBenet, swung at John's head with the flashlight but hit her daughter instead. Seems like that scenario would give them a reason to cover for each other. John had showered and Patsy had on the same clothes from the night before. Maybe she fell asleep in them as she was probably exhausted from the holidays. Woke up at some point. Where's John? Where's JonBenet? Maybe she saw or sensed something in the past that made her go looking for them? That's my theory.

I hear you r251, there will always be bizarre pieces. I *do* agree that Burke was certainly immature and broken enough that he was mentally capable of whacking his sister — siblings get violent all the time. But to have such a perfect and powerful blow, precisely on top of her little noggin’, well, I think that took more coordination and strength than that weird boy had. Just look at his pictures back then lol! No fucking way. At the end of the day for me, it’s Occam’s Razor. A strong, experienced person hit her precisely where needed to “fell” her. It was a 7 inch wound.

R253, Burke is massively on the spectrum, he heard his daddy tell that story, repeatedly.

R254, when I went down the insane rabbit hole on this case years ago, I looked into that car wreck, I lived right near it — it was a legit accident. I thought about that too, and after digging I felt comfortable that it was not a set up or cover up. It was on a huge highway, there would have been cops and investigators from multiple jurisdictions at the crash site. It was the equivalent of a car wreck in Manhattan — a million witnesses.

r253

with all due respect, i think an adult burke would only say what his parents had repeated to him over and over again for 20 years... i wouldn't be so sure he believes what he told dr phil. and even if he does it may very well differ from what he thought or knew as a child.

i menat the video of a kid burke and a shrink, he does this hitting-like motion, describing how jonbenet died. he was also really chill in that video and showcased no remorse or regret or sadness...

i don't doubt beth had a legit car accident. however, abuse victims can have legit car accidents. being an abuse victim doesn't make you immune to one. even though beth apparently didn't die in a 'dodgy' accident, do you think she had been abused, too? i think she might have been...

"He said that rashes and urinary infections are normal in little kids."

But chronic bedwetting isn't. At the time of her death JonBenet's toileting habits had so "regressed" that she wore diapers at age six. She'd pee in her pants. That is NOT normal. And she wanted an adult to change her and wipe her after having having one of her little accidents in her pants? That is SO not normal.

i agree that while a yeast infection (normal in virgins and unabused as well as everyone else... mostly to do with the PH level of the body and acid and the diet) is not suspicious, the bed wetting absolutely is. and the feces thing. reportedly it was so bad that patsy sometimes got irritated at jonbenet because yet AGAIN she had to deal with the pee mess... i think the maid/housekeeper/babysitter lady also testified that there was a regular bed-wetting/feces problem the kids had? and calling/visiting a doctor 260 times over a couple of years is definitely abnormal as well. in two years that would be, on average every 4th day. christ?!

The blow nearly cracked Jonbenet's skull in half. She would have died without being garroted. However the wound wasn't visible, it was discovered at autopsy.

r262

that's how i remembered it, too. so since it wasn't visible, the parent(s) had no way of knowing she would die anyway. they wouldn't know her skull had been smashed in half - they could have guessed, had they done smashing, but even so, without lots of skull-smashing experience, i doubt they could have been sure... so to make her stay dead, she was garroted. she should have APPEARED as if she could be saved. just uncnscious. no blood, no visible wounds. just call the ambulance and they'll fix her appearance, i'm thinking...

R259, I misinterpreted your post, thought you were asking if John was involved in her death.

I also recall researching any evidence of molestation. I don’t remember why, lol, but I was somewhat satisfied that John did *not* abuse her. Wish I could articulate more, but it was years ago. I just remember feeling satisfied that he likely did not abuse his first daughter, and that his incest of JB was based more on opportunity. Oh! I think his first wife stated that he was an amazing father and that she had the daughter much more anyway, they had a happy relationship. Of course, she could have been in denial too, but I just felt like she was being honest in her intuition on their relationship. We will obviously never know for sure. But once I decided he hadn’t touched the first daughter, I researched how common it is for abusers who ONLY abuse in certain settings, and my research led me to believe that some abusers can control their urges and will only molest given the right opportunity.

With Patsy so ill for several years, they even wrote in their book that they had no sex life for a long time. Furthermore, I think John thought Patsy wouldn’t make it — her diagnosis was serious shit, and this also made him more willing to act on his sick impulses with JB. He likely didn’t molest his first daughter because he didn’t have the chance. When Patsy was sick, half her life was spent away from the kids at the NIH. He has lots of alone time with the kids.

Someone didn't want to take the chance that Jonbenet would wake up and start talking.

From 2016 psychic stares sweet brother, Burke, is guilty??

i agree we will never know about beth...

and i don't know about them statistics but i have heard abuse victims and siblings of abuse victims say that only one of them were the abusive parent's target. and then in other families all/several siblings were abused. i think it depends on the family. all i've seen is anecdotal evidence posted by forum-dwellers about their personal experiences, but still. i can believe a pedo parent would only target one kid. but i think their treatment of the other kids would also be abnormal.... because they must be abnormal. because even if you just molest one of your many kids you are an abnormal person...

r265 someone upthread said jonbenet's last words, regardless the details/all the circumnstances of her death and the identity of her killer, were probably 'i'm gonna tell!'. yeah, maybe. i can believe that...

anyway it's 2 in the morning where i am so good night. hope to see lots of interesting posts in this thread when i wake up.

Again, why has no one looked into the possibility that JonBenet committed suicide?

Re: The pineapple - I am sure I read somewhere that there were packs of pre-cut pineapple in the fridge & that’s how they generally bought it. Also, maybe JonBenet fetched the bowl and spoon herself - little children like to try and be helpful in the kitchen sometimes.

And Patsy wearing the same clothes from the night before makes more sense to me than her finding a fresh outfit. If she was exhausted the night before she could have fallen into bed without getting undressed - or, if she did, when she had to dress in a hurry the next morning, I could see her grabbing the closest clothes which were maybe lying on the floor or on a chair. So the clothes issue isn’t incriminating to me.

And I can see how a 9 year okd boy might bash his sister with a torch - but it’s what supposedly happened following that that makes precisely no sense: “Oh no, Burke...what have you done to your sister? Don’t worry...Patsy, you make a garrotte & finish her off while I stick this paintbrush handle up her. Hmm...how to explain her death to the authorities? A kidnapping fiend who takes the trouble to write out a very long ransom note but kills her before they even leave the house? Yep...they’ll go for that. Who wouldn’t?”

Nah. Sorry. Unless these parents were on meth or something, I cannot buy that for one second. That ransom note and the strangulation was to cover up something considerably more serious than a fight between two single-digit aged children.

One odd thing I read - in the library (or sitting room) a dictionary was open with a marker pointing to the word “incest”. Is this true, or has it been debunked? Seems a bit Perry Mason-ish to me.

I will never forget the Burke interview. He was asked about his sister’s horrible death and had a goofy grin on his face. Something ain’t right about that boy

If JonBenet wasn’t killed because they felt she was going to die anyway she must have been killed because of deep hatred or because of someone’s fear she was going to talk.

Here's the quote from the Thomas book:

"When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members"

JonBenet Ramsey’s brother settles $750M defamation suit with CBS

Thanks, 271. That is so peculiar. Any theories as to who? Burke? I imagine Patsy and John didn’t need to look that up.

Thank you for posting that R272.

Several days later and no one has yet to post that CBS settled that $750M suit with Burke here at DL.

Here is Patsy drugged out of her gourd by John:

I hate child molesters, and I think they are the scum of the earth. I feel very sorry for their victims.

That said, I wish D A V I D I A had been molested, tortured, sold, and brutally murdered over a two week period when (s)he was 6 years old.

WEBMASTER, please. Delete this crap ruining this thread.

I can't see it, I have already blocked r276.

Here's a fun fact: When John was interviewed early in the process the interviewer threw in a random question to throw him off and to gauge his honesty:

Interviewer: John, so how big is your penis?

John: I'm no King Kong but it's a good size.

This is a true story. Do with it what you will...

Yes, this is a single poster switching devices. Hit block, just keep blocking and don’t respond. She’s off her meds.

R276 is Burke trying to derail this thread.

R281, don’t feed it!

R220, Maybe you should try reading the various tomes that many of have done. We are not your personal research assistants.

The points you ask about are contained in said books.

"But the question is: Is Burke gay?"

According to Dr. Phil, does have a girlfriend and she's "a nice girl." I can't conceive of anyone in their right mind who would want to be his girlfriend (or boyfriend) , unless they thought they would be able to get their hands on whatever money he has.

I forgot about John running for office too. Truly, a craven Republican in the league of Denny Hastert.

Patsy looked like hell there, maybe the cancer had come back and she was already in a wig.

Wow, here’s one of the old threads!!! As I read, I’m reminded of how strong the Blame the Mother posse was lololol.

"Several days later and no one has yet to post that CBS settled that $750M suit with Burke here at DL."

You (and R272) must have missed R94. And I don't think Burke Ramsey got a dime from his "settlement." He sued because he thought that CBS made him out to be a murderer but people have been saying that he's a suspect for years. I don't think he had much of a "defamation" case. Just looking at him makes a lot of people think he's a weirdo creep. He looked bad long before CBS did that special on the case.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[quote]John Ramsey was overheard by detective Bill Palmer asking his pilot, Mike Archuleta, to ready his plane for a flight to Atlanta at 1:40 PM on 12/26/96 - approximately 30 minutes after carrying his daughter's body up the stairs. Mr. Ramsey was asked about it by a second detective, Larry Mason, and Mr. Ramsey said that he had a meeting to get to in Atlanta that "he couldn't miss."

But...I thought the family was already scheduled to fly to Michigan that morning? Now suddenly John had a meeting in Atlanta he couldn't miss? Did he ever explain in more detail this sudden urgent meeting?

I think Burke got fed up. She ate his snack. He said come downstairs, Santa left more presents. She goes downstairs. He wants to scare her with the flashlight. He wackes her on the head, by accident. Is she faking? He doesn't know. He goes to his mom's art supplies. Gets the string and a paintbrush. Garrotes her. His father comes looking for the kids. He finds Burke twisting the string.

He freaks. Sends Burke upstairs. Burke goes, not quietly. Patsy wants to know what the matter is. She finds John with jonbenet.

John had sexually abused both kids, She sees John with jonbenet. She thinks he did it, he knows Burke did.

What Patsy said was, "I loved that child with the whole of my heart."

Of course, that is the written version. But "whole" is a homonym of "hole." So besides the impersonal "that child, " was Patsy's subconscious compelling her to confess to having an emptiness in her heart when it came to truly loving her daughter?

Maybe this is like Murder on the Orient Express. They all did it

I think calling your daughter “that child” can also be a term of endearment. Patsy could be wry, and biting, it’s just her speaking style. Uber-bitch.

Reading the old thread reminds me of another huge clue. The ransom note references percentages and odds over and over. That is how men talk, not women (typically). I’m too lazy to post the note, but it’s all in there.

I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman.

Bill Clinton killed JonBenet?

R294, "AMGB" addresses your point. The author notes that many cancer patients (Patsy was advanced) ALSO think in terms of, are indeed consumed by, percentages and odds---of their own life and death.

And Patsy of course knew that John's bonus was $180,000.

r249 Yes! I always noticed that too and I noticed that he seems to be the one advancing the Burke theory just like he did with the Patsy theory. And if John had nothing to do with it, why talk about it and want Burke to? Yeah, classic deflection.

Thank you r298. I think he is a bullshitting manipulator of the *highest* order, which is why I fully believe he gaslighted Patsy.

I have no love for Patsy, I could list her countless flaws. I want to say she wasn’t a “good” person, but I can’t. A better way to say it is Patsy was a very, very broken person. Think about the self worth issues a woman has to have by getting fulfillment on solely her *finite* looks. And now, take that same woman, whose looks were dramatically fading due to age and serious illness, and give her a little girl to transfer aaaaaaaaalll of that messed up self-worth onto. A little child who is forming her own view of her own self-worth. It is just super fucked up.

But when you add in a narcissistic sociopath, I can easily see that Patsy’s self-worth had probably become more and more fragile with the passage of time. And then to tragically lose her daughter and see her dead body under the Christmas tree — how macabre, how traumatizing can it get? Patsy was so destroyed, I would imagine a sociopath like John easily bent her to his will. It wouldn’t have been hard. It was SO easy for him!

So while I completely dislike Patsy, her beliefs and her values, I have some compassion and empathy for her as a tragic figure. She made her own choices, she’s accountable for her own life, but she also in her own demented way loved JB. John? There’s nothing there to feel sorry for. He’s a black hole wearing a human mask. He’s like a Great White shark, he just keeps swimming, biting through whatever or whomever gets in his way, and as he destroys people around him, he doesn’t miss a beat — he has no remorse, no regrets, no wistful feelings. Ask Fleet. Ask the countless close friends and professional colleagues whose names he gave to the police. He fed names of people to the police like an old man giving peanuts to the squirrels, one by one he gave away every single friendship to save his own ass. He’s just a bottomless pit of nothingness. Watching him cast the spotlight onto Patsy all those years, and now watching him do it to Burke, it’s just sealed my opinion that *only* he committed this crime. And sadly, we will never see him brought to justice.

I know, MARY!!!!!!

I don't see how Burke could have hit Jonbenet on the top of her head with enough force to crack it in two. Maybe John was molesting her and she bit him so he struck her in a rage.

According to the housekeeper Patsy asked her advice on how to give a better blowjob. Patsy said she hated sucking John's penis and wanted to know if there was any way to make it more pleasant.

R301 thinks he's clever. But he's not. Not by a long shot.

I'm not trying to be clever. That's according to the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh.

Linda also said that Patsy and the kids were total pigs. They were always leaving clothes on the floor and dirty dishes in the sink. There was no affection between the family members and John had no interest in the kids.

My gut feeling is that Patsy did it.

My gut instinct is the father and brother attacked her.

"I'm not trying to be clever. That's according to the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh."

I seriously doubt that. Enough with the stupid bullshit.

Here you go. It was in the first chapter of a book written by Linda Hoffman-Pugh. Now fuck off.

R111 and assorted other comments here.

I wish to state categorically that I did not post the comment@R276 and I most certainly have never changed devices as accused. I do not ever use my phone on DL, so my only device is this laptop on which I am now typing. The comment @R276 is simply not my style. Even if you disagree with me vehemently, you will note that I never made any sort of threat against D A V I D A nor did I indulge in drastic name calling. I merely said what I know from so many years of dealing with her on a myriad of stories in which her take is always that a male predator is a pedophile and a part of a syndicate of the "Elite" who trade children and perform rituals using them. As I stated earlier, she seems to have pulled back on the ritual angle this time due to negative reactions previously. But trust me, that is what she truly believes(which you will find if you read other threads on this subject.)

In the past I have become so exasperated by her refusal to consider any possibility other than a grown man/father diddling his child that I end up taking the thread out of my thread watcher and avoiding it from that point on. As you may notice, I made my last post a good 12 hours ago and decided to resort to my usual tact of exiting in frustration. But when I saw that I was being accused of something which would be 180 degrees away from my nature I felt the need to respond. I have never wished death upon any human being or animal in my life.

Secondly, as Data Lounge's resident anti- Pedo Accusing Frau foil, why in the hell would I begin a statement with the words of someone who seems to have a similar feeling about child molestation as D A VI D A does? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I have not always felt this way, but during the Satanic Panic period of the late 80s-early 90s I came to understand what most intelligent and non paranoid people have learned by now. Yes, child sexual assault is truly horrible, but it almost never occurs in a "dastardly organized and ritualist manner" such as was demonstrated in the hot takes of the McMartin days. It is far more likely to be one's uncle or neighbor who molests him or her rather than a cabal of Masonic Satanic groups like D A V I D A believes.

Frankly, had she approached the "John did it" as she has in this thread in her past accusations, I might well have agreed or at least felt she had some salient points. However I cannot get on board with her many conspiracy//occult/wicked Satanic plots agenda which she is well known to proffer at the drop of a hat here at DL.

I will again retreat because I can add nothing else to the conversation. It does appear that she has pretty much taken over the thread as is her wont, so it's going to be her theory or no theory from here on out. I regret nothing I have said to her or about her. I feel that I did so in relatively measured tones. I wish that the ugly post directed at her had not happened, but it did and I wanted to make it clear that I have never engaged in that sort of cruelty.

Will you fuck off with this D A V I D shit!

No one fucking cares! This thread is about JonBenet and her case not your petty bullshit with some poster you think slighted you years ago.

R309 please expand. I’m not following you.

[quote]so where was the taser? where did the ramseys put it after using it? did they have one at home? if so, how did they explain it. i'm still on the toy train set bandwagon

You're trying to fit the evidence to the story rather than the other way around. Despite the fact the burn marks are consistent with a taser, you're still set on the train set because you're already convinced the Ramseys did it.

[quote]It was in the first chapter of a book written by Linda Hoffman-Pugh

Yeah, I think it's safe to discount claims made by ex "friends", housekeepers and police officers who are trying to make a quick buck by publishing lurid books on the tragic death of a six year old girl. People tend to add sensational crap to stand out from the herd.

The taser could easily have be amongst the boxes of belongings that the Ramsays/their friends were allowed to take from the house. The crime will never be solved because of Boulder PD's gross incompetence in securing the scene.

R137 describes the "settlement" perfectly

r312

why bother quoting me if you aren't going to answer any of my questions? i asked where the taser was and what the ramseys did with it.

and yes i believe the ramseys killed her because no outsider can walk into a house without the snow surrounding the house betraying them. unless they could levitate.

r313

i can't claim that housekeeper was lying but i have to say it is a bit hard to believe that patsy would share anything of any importance with someone that was essentially her help. why would she discuss her sex life with someone who was, well, in her mind probably beneath her?

and if such a confession ever took place i don't think a decent person would share it with anyone... so the housekeeper doesn't look particularly benevolent here.

[quote] it is a bit hard to believe that patsy would share anything of any importance with someone that was essentially her help

That is not true. Patsy would have spilled to "her help" because it suited her at the time. She was not a well-bred person who knew when to shut her mouth.

r318

hmm... did she have a history of over-sharing? i'm willing to believe she wasn't a well-bred person but what makes you say this? what about her behaviour indicated this sort of 'spilling' would be normal for her?

i can also see a housekeeper/other outsider looking at the seemingly sad, distant, stressed out couple and thinking 'bet they don't have sex and THAT's what's ruined their marriage!!!11'... it's the sort of primitive and base thinking where everything boils down to sex and is very simple/easy to explain away. though i understand i'm possibly projecting character flaws on the housekeeper that they may not have... mostly because of the way the housekeeper decided to share that patsy had confessed to having marital problems AND make money in the process. doesn't sit well with me

i didn't mean to defent patsy, btw. i do think she could have been all sorts of awful

[quote]why bother quoting me if you aren't going to answer any of my questions? i asked where the taser was and what the ramseys did with it.

Because your question is predicated on a presumption rather than a consideration of the evidence. The evidence suggests that a taser was used. The question is who used the taser and what happened to it afterwards. The probability of a taser being the source of those marks and the fact that no taser was found suggests the killer was an intruder rather than someone in the house. To then say that, in that case, it couldn't have been a taser because the Ramseys didn't have one in their possession is false reasoning. Can you not understand that? If the murderer was an intruder, then false reasoning and biased assessment of the crime which implicated the Ramseys against the evidence is tantamount to helping the killer get away with it. It's wrong. Stick to the evidence and go wherever it leads you. It's quite simple, really.

r320

except i never said it couldn't have been a taser because the ramseys didn't have one in their possession.

i don't know if they had one. or if it was the murderer who inflicted those marks on jonbenet. but if you really think the intruder theory has any credibility we have nothing to talk about.

Amen R314 The cops fucked this case beyond belief.

[quote] but if you really think the intruder theory has any credibility we have nothing to talk about.

Given there's no evidence to prove the Ramseys did it, I think we should consider all possibilities. And not doing so is potentially allowing the killer to get away with it. Why do you think the DA ordered Lou Smit to destroy all his notes with all the evidence he collected suggesting the killer was an intruder? That's a bit odd, isn't it?

She hated her parents so she committed suicide and staged the scene to look like a murder and ruin their lives.

R323, I’m not the poster you’re responding to, could you please provide a link on Lou Smit destroying his notes? That’s just new info to me and interesting.

Alex Hunter and Lou Smit were working in concert with John’s lawyers. I wouldn’t be shocked if Alex had him destroy the notes because they could indeed *incriminate* the Ramsey’s. I’m sure Lou’s notes revealed changes in John’s story — did you read the books? John went from “no one came in the house” to “we were being stalked” to “I saw vans parked in front of the house that day.” He’s so full of fucking bullshit!!! And I’m sure Lou’s notes revealed these inconsistencies. Either way, they should not have been destroyed, so add it to the list of fuck ups.

I don’t think saying “there is no evidence to prove the Ramsey’s did it” is the most descriptive way to present this case. What I think is more accurate is that “the case against the Ramsey’s is circumstantial.” Furthermore:

**there is no forensic evidence that shows an intruder killed JB.

**there was no sign of any entry of the house, confirmed by both John and the police.

**the broken window has been determined as a staged/fresh break and no one climbed through that window. Dust/silt was completely undisturbed as were several cobwebs.

**John’s handwriting experts “ruled out” John mere days after the murder. Never should have happened, it’s asisine.

**The vast majority do not abide by the stun-gun theory. That is something cooked up by Lou Smit. Her flesh was not burned — it was bruised.

I’m sorry, but in the early days I thought Lou Smit might have something, but as I began reading books on this case a few years ago, I learned about how “close” Lou was to the Ramsey’s and that he just knew because of their “faith” that they were innnocent; then I lost all respect for him as an investigator. A competent, truly professional investigator would *never* allow their judgement to be clouded by “faith” and/or their own personal biases. Lou refused to separate his biases from the evidence and therefore tried to build a case for an intruder because he couldn’t fathom that John committed the crime — he liked John.

So I’m sorry, not sorry, I don’t abide by anything on intruders, and usually once these threads go in that direction, they become stale. Obviously, it’s your right to continue on that topic, I’m just not interested in it because there is literally not ONE thing that proves an intruder came in that house. But there are *dozens* of things that build a compelling and circumstantial case against the father. He was a pedo, he killed her, he’s rich, he got away with it. End of.

The father NEVER should have been ruled out, the cops took that as gospel from John’s experts because they just didn’t have the experience to go up against John’s team. And once they accepted that John was ruled out, along with their failure to secure the crime scene and lock each parent into a statement immediately, it was over before it even started. John is cunning. Boulder was outwitted and outgunned. And so far, outlasted.

Let’s just say everyone in the Ramsey household is guilty. Thread closed.

"Here you go. It was in the first chapter of a book written by Linda Hoffman-Pugh. Now fuck off."

I still think it's bullshit. Patsy Ramsey asked her maid for cocksucking tips? Bullshit. Now go fuck yourself, you idiot who will believe anything.

I’m not making fun of the poster who linked that book, I may eventually check it out. But I will say, it reads like a DL thread, I cannot believe she didn’t have a DL queeny ghostwriter lmao!!!

“Was there anything Patsy could do to keep her from thinking about his penis in her mouth and gagging on it? Well, was there? Patsy appeared desperate. Was there anything she could do about the salty sour taste of John's penis, and the pubic hair that would stick in her teeth? I was astonished. As a mother of six children, I had never run into that problem. Quite the contrary.....”

Oh my Lord in heaven!

Wasn't pasty sexually abused by her grandfather? If this story of the housekeeper's is true, I wonder if pasty's past had anything to do with her dislike of sex. Or perhaps John just didn't clean himself well, I've never tasted a sour penis.

PATSY!

Caption:

2 things occur to me about Burke:

If not having enough strength for the blow with the torch is a problem, it would be solved if he was hiding in an elevated position and jumped out and down as the blow was struck. Lying in wait for sneaky revenge on his pineapple thief perhaps? He'd hit her on the head before (even if it was accidentally) and she was fine, so maybe this time was purposefully harder.

The horrible details from the autopsy suggesting a finger insertion, and the paint brush handle especially, could be an 'exploration' of some kind from a young boy that saw his dad doing something he didn't understand. When he found himself alone with an unconscious sister maybe he decided to find out what was so interesting to his father, and got caught by him. A poster upthread mentioned this scenario, that John knew his abuse would be discovered if he got help for JonBenet, who at that point was still alive.

Perhaps John also told Patsy (and Burke as well?) that she was already dead when he found them, so she thought at first it WAS her son she was protecting.

R332 their group picture of Patricia Ramsey and her kids is depressing. Look at their body language.

With Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh.

R335 yikes, didn’t think the picture could get any worse. Is Jon Benet saluting?

Did we know that this freak is now a "woman"?

R330, I don’t know if that story is true. I tried to research that a bit a long time ago, but as you can imagine, the family is not talking, so whether or not Patsy was sexually abused will never come out

R335 Damn that's weird

A good reddit on the poop story.

Well said Re: 299 I also believe that John is an extreme sociopath.

I would expect Burke to come across as "off" in some way, even if he's as innocent as I think he is. This is a guy who not only had to deal with his sister being murdered and his mother dying of cancer when he was quite young, he's someone who's had his whole life overshadowed by a horrific unsolved murder. Plus, since childhood, he's been publically suspected of murdering his sister, and he has to have known that from the time he was little. All that has to have a devastating psychological effect, at best he's going to have a very difficult time opening up to strangers, because he knows damn well they're thinking "So, did he murder his little sister?".

I don't think he did, I don't think a boy of nine or ten has the physical strength to break a human skull "in half". Which means that in addition to all his other woes in life, the only surviving member of Burke's immediate family is a murderous sociopath who's happy to have his son suspected instead of himself.

Bingo! And now we’ll never truly know what happened.

Lots of derailing here from Burke "Ain't nobody got time to read that long ass ransom note from the night I taught that little bitch not to eat my pineapple" Ramsey

Why the fuck would anyone use a taser on a small child, you bunch of lunatics?

Websleuths is clearly missing a few of it's nutters. They must have become confused and thought the Datalounge wanted their crazy bullshit here.

Spare us "poor Patsy" whose "chemo brain" was "gaslighted" by John. That evil fucking cunt protected the person who sexually assaulted and murdered her child.

I don't participate in Satanic rituals, but if I did, I would pray to my lord Satan that D A V I D A were in a terrible car accident where (s)he were in much pain for several minutes, and a Satan worshiping serial killer happened upon the scene and fucked his/her dying skull, with him/her gurgling blood all over his serial killer cock. Then, he cuts D A V I D A'S dumb conspiracy-theory-believing-in head off, and his/her head lives for about 15 seconds so that (s)he know exactly what has happened.

R347 preach

R347, this thread is for discussion on what went down, no need to be a cunt. No one here is loving on Patsy, calm the fuck down.

You too r349, JFC, some of you bitches are absolutely threatened by *any* talk that Patsy is *not* the killer.

Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts regarding the ransom notes. Four of them were hired directly by the police, the other two by the Ramseys. Not one of them identified Patsy or John as the person behind the ransom note.

r325 Lou Smit wanted to go before a Grand Jury to present his evidence but his attempt was blocked by the Boulder Police, who in turn tried to have ALL Smit's evidence seized and destroyed. Lou Smit had to turn to his own D.A.s/attorneys back in Denver who banded together to stop such an outrage. NO police department or legal institution should ever be party to the seizure and destruction of evidence in an open murder investigation.

It's mentioned in the British documentary made by the BBC filmmaker who did a couple of films on the case in the 90s. And in that film, Smit's claim is corroborated by two separate sources from Denver's DA's office, including the DA himself and the chief prosecutor.

Thank you r352 We've never gotten the credit we deserve for all the time it took to write that ransom note.

R325 you need to ask someone to explain to you what the term circumstantial means within the context of a criminal investigation.

Because it does not mean what you think it means.

Furthermore, you are doing the same thing that you are accusing Lou Smit of doing: letting your bias against John Ramsey cloud your point of view.

Stop being the same asshole you are complaining about.

I’m working r355 so I’m rushing, from Wiki:

“Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. ... Reasonable doubt is described as the highest standard of proof used in court and means that there must be clear and convincing evidence of what the person has done.”

So please articulate to me which of my points is not circumstantial evidence? One draws an inference from each point, and no, I don’t have toke to type out each one for you, but I’ll use one example. I wrote:

The broken window was determined as a staged/fresh break in and no one climbed in that window. Dust/silt were completely undisturbed as were several cobwebs.

Another detail I didn’t add is that ALL the edges of the glass had NO dust or dirt or silt, showing it had just happened.

So what’s the inference? The window has been broken in the 24 hours or less prior to the murder because of the physical evidence. But if the physical evidence demonstrates that no one actually climbed in, that infers that the window breaking is staged. And if the window is staged, AND there is no evidence of an intruder, the next inference is that someone in the house staged it. And obviously, whomever staged it is the killer or at least has knowledge of who the killer is. What the fuck about this involves my personal bias? This is all facts-based.

So, please do teach me where I used my personal bias to build my case, I fail to see a single example of this. Every single point I brought is based in FACTS. I think that *you* are the one who doesn’t understand what circumstantial evidence is. It is evidence that requires one to make inferences. If you look at all of the known, probable FACTS in this case, they all lead to John. Deal with it.

Lou Smit did not make inferences. He based his view of John on their shared Christian Faith. That is RETARDED.

[quote]probable FACTS

erm...

***proveable, obviously, is what I meant. Those examples are fucking facts. Verifiable.

R352, that is not true. John was determined to not be the author of the ransom note. Patsy could not be eliminated.

It sounds like a mess of an investigation. Terrible tragedy. Money must have been a huge deterrent for the police to not properly investigate. Fucked up Case.

R359, do you know much about the science of handwriting identification? I learned a lot because of this case. Do you know that prior to this case, there was NO set of professional standards or best practices in this field? Literally ANYONE could hang a plaque up and call themselves an expert. And as you can imagine, because of the quacks, some were trying to expand the discipline and establish a professional certification program and a formal set of peer-reviewed protocols, best practices etc. The FBI literally formed their handwriting department because of the issues that arose from this case — those being that there were snake oil salesmen who were hired guns for John who declared he was “ruled out” based on pseudo-science.

The standard NOW is that if LEO has a ransom note, or really *any* document that is either a forgery or written to disguise the writers natural handwriting style, that may not be used as an exemplar to compare to other samples (unless it’s changed again??). Furthermore, for any type of REAL analysis, many exemplars from the suspect are required. Why can’t anyone find samples from John? There are a lot from Patsey, his have disappeared like mist. This field is not even recognized in all jurisdictions and is still evolving, and in many court cases, attempted statements by the experts (particularly prior to the maturing of the field and the establishment of some FBI standards after this case) were ruled as inadmissible. Some judges still won’t admit this as evidence. I would rank this science as somewhere between lie detectors and guessing. There’s a reason lie detectors aren’t admissible, and there’s a reason this “science” has trouble in its early stages too. From Wiki:

The American Society for Testing and Materials, International (ASTM) publishes standards for many methods and procedures used by FDEs. E30.02 was the ASTM subcomittee for Questioned Documents. These guides were under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic Sciences and the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on Questioned Documents. The ASTM Questioned Document Section has been disbanded.

All of the Standards are now available through SWGDOC (The Scientific Working Group for Document Examiners). The Standard Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Examiners indicates there are four components to the work of a forensic document examiner. It states that an examiner "makes scientific examinations, comparisons, and analyses of documents to:

establish genuineness or nongenuineness, or to expose forgery, or to reveal alterations, additions or deletions;

identify or eliminate persons as the source of handwriting;

identify or eliminate the source of typewriting or other impression, marks, or relative evidence;

and write reports or give testimony, when needed, to aid the users of the examiner's services in understanding the examiner's findings."

There is too much more to post, but if you look under history you will see this case as the handwriting analysis in it is considered to be gobledeegook. It’s really a simple concept; if someone is disguising their handwriting, you cannot make a 100% assertion as to a documents authenticity. Particularly if someone is tracing or writing with their non-dominant hand, the comparison exercise is a waste of time. I challenge you to present here proof that multiple exemplars were obtained from John, I have yet to see evidence of that. So, the case for “xxx number of ‘experts’ say it matches Patsey’s writing” is a joke. And I actually think a lot of time and energy was wasted trying to prove something (the author of the note) that can never be close to proven. At the same time, that’s why we’re here with no charges — each piece of circumstantial evidence by itself is simply not enough to solve this case. Because of the condition of this “science” when this case happened, I put little to no stock in what the so-called experts said back then. Read up on it, you’ll see what I’m telling you is the truth.

A forensic linguist examined the ransom note. This examination does not look at handwriting alone but at word usage, phrasing, etc and uses that to explore the gender, age, writing style, geographic origin and other elements of the writing. It was determined that the note was written by a middle-aged woman with a college education. Someone from the southeast United States and someone with detailed information about the family.

[quote]There is too much more to post

Please, feel free to resist the urge...

r362 Was that from that hokey "documentary" whereby a panel of [strike]grifters[/strike] "experts" went into the case and proved the one armed man did it?

Patsy said they have a taser ? Are we supposed to believe her ?

Didn’t have I mean

Oh my, you would think that unhinged poster upthread was Patsy herself from beyond the grave.

Oh please r363, then see yourself out if you aren’t here to fucking talk.

R362, yes, I know the story, but please provide your link for everyone else.

Sorry, but if you're gonna kidnap someone for ransom (and hope to get away with it), that requires A LOT of premeditation and planning. You don't just show up to the victim's house intending to find--in the dark--a notepad and a pen to write your rambling three-page instructions with. Never in a million years. We're really supposed to believe an intruder showed up to the house with this intricate kidnap-for-ransom plan yet didn't bring his own pre-written ransom note, weapon(s) or suitcase to carry her out with? He just figured he'd find all of these items in the dark house when he got there (and all the while not waking anyone)? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

r369 We're talking about a psychopath who tortured and brutally murdered a six year old girl. I'm guessing rational thinking isn't his strong suit. Maybe he was a local and, at the last minute, wrote the note to try and throw the scent off. Again, we're not dealing with a master criminal here...

Getting away with a murder for 22 years and still counting qualifies as a master criminal.

r371 Not when the incompetent and/or woefully blinkered police do all your work for you...

Similar to the Sherlock Holmes story where the key to solving the crime is the dog that did not bark. The pointer to the perpetrator in this instance is the overlooked and under assessed lack of fingerprints on the torch batteries. The torch was the murder weapon, wiped clean. Fits both a Ramsey and intruder perp. However, and crucially, no intruder would need to or even think of wiping the batteries, an intruder would never have touched them

A family member was the killer. Absent a detailed confession we are unlikely to ever know who.

BTW, the so called taser marks and the so called garrotte are constantly misinterpreted. The garrotte was pure and simple staging to make the murder look more like a kidnapping as there are no significant or sustained choking marks. The stager was working on the assumption that JB was already deceased, the garrotte was icing on the cake. The so called taser marks are more likely pressure marks from an item on which JB lay. If JB had been tasered she could have been carried out any of the doors not left lying in the basement.

[quote]The stager was working on the assumption that JB was already deceased, the garrotte was icing on the cake.

JonBenet's fingernail marks on her throat are conclusive proof the above statement is false.

[quote]The pointer to the perpetrator in this instance is the overlooked and under assessed lack of fingerprints on the torch batteries. The torch was the murder weapon, wiped clean. Fits both a Ramsey and intruder perp. However, and crucially, no intruder would need to or even think of wiping the batteries, an intruder would never have touched them

The batteries could have been pre-installed before purchase, which as I'm sure you know, is a common theory. Or, if one of the Ramseys inserted the batteries, they may well have had gloves on at the time. That's more than feasible. In no way does the absence of fingerprints on the batteries prove, or even suggest, that one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet.

They didn't have pets?

R375, different poster here. The torch was a gift from John’s older son (if memory serves) that same year for his birthday I believe. John loved it because he always wanted a flashlight akin to what police officers have. John made a big to-do when he got it, so I’m SURE John put batteries in it — or his son did before wrapping it. But batteries should hold fingerprints nicely, no prints doesn’t always mean wiped clean, but the fact that both the batteries AND the torch had zero fingerprints does therefore indicate a possible wipe-down of prints.

Last but not least, the family members and housekeeper were repeatedly asked if they remember the torch being out that day, out before the party. Everyone insists it was NOT out as the house had been kept so clean for the walk throughs and holidays. This points to the torch being taken out sometime after the Ramsey’s went to the party. Which again points to a family member, not an intruder, and dare I say, it points to JOHN????? At a minimum, it is additional circumstantial evidence.

Whatever happened to that torch, anyone recall? It’s in the crime scene photos, but did the police lose it too lolol? JFC.

[quote]John made a big to-do when he got it, so I’m SURE John put batteries in it

To convict someone of murder, we need a bit more than your own personal certainty, given the equal likelihood the batteries could have been pre-installed or installed by someone wearing gloves.

R378, I’m just talking right now, not presenting to a jury. 95% of products sold are “batteries not included”.” I’m not going out to Saturn thinking John put the batteries in the fucking flashlight he received and used. Give me a break. Did Terri Garr put the batteries in John’s flashlight?

r379 But you're not "just talking", you're trying to claim, in a public arena, that the murderer is clearly John based on these assertions you're making as facts. When your assertions are pulled apart and subjected to logic you ask to be given a break. This is serious shit, not some party game for your own personal amusement. I realize this stuff is manna in frausville, but you'll be subjected to more scrutiny here...

Bitch please. This is fucking DL, not SCOTUS. It’s a goddamn gossip whorehouse here, haven’t you noticed? My theory is logical lol!!! Who are you saying put the fucking batteries in John’s flashlight? You say you’re picking apart my point with “logic” but you don’t put forth a strong argument to displace what I said, so you aren’t even truly offering a counter-point.

[quote]It’s a goddamn gossip whorehouse here, haven’t you noticed?

This ain't gossip, dear.

Um, then*what* is it, dear?

R382 = Lin Wood

R370, Don't be daft. An intruder/kidnapper would have been succinct.

An intruder/kidnapper would have NOT spent time writing a PRACTICE NOTE, FGS.

An intruder/kidnapper would not have placed the "ransom note" on a less-used back staircase.

An intruder/kidnapper would have feared waking anyone else, so would have acted without further ado.

An intruder/kidnapper would have, oh, I don't know, KIDNAPPED the child.

"We're talking about a psychopath who tortured and brutally murdered a six year old girl. I'm guessing rational thinking isn't his strong suit. Maybe he was a local and, at the last minute, wrote the note to try and throw the scent off. Again, we're not dealing with a master criminal here..."

Oh, please! You're really grasping at straws. A "psychopath gets in easily, makes his way around that maze-like house with no trouble at all, goes straight to JonBenet's bedroom and gets her to go to the kitchen to have a snack of pineapple, then takes her down to the basement where he ties up and murders and abuses and kills her, then sits down to write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, then leaves, completely avoiding detection. Yeah, I'm really sure THAT happened. The intruder theory is totally bullshit. This murder was an INSIDE job, committed by somebody who LIVED there.

[quote] the "War and Peace" of ransom notes

I see that Poo Shoes has shitted out another John Ramsey Did It thread.

Good Times for all!

R387, it is beyond bizarre how you come to these threads every fucking year. If you have a point, please make it. If you don’t, shut the fuck up, will ya? This thread has been fun and informative regardless of one’s theory on this legendary case.

Who in the fuck do you think you are bitch? I don't "come to this thread" every year. Anyone who is a Data Lounge regular knows every one of Poo's obsessions. She is nothing if not repetitious and consistent.

Fair enough r389, if you read upthread, there was indeed a raging lunatic who rants about Poo Shoes incessantly and changes devices. I assumed you were it’s latest incarnation.

And I know many of her obsessions as I’ve been here a long time too, but I simply avoid most of the threads she posts on — they’re too aggravating, just as the Poo Shoes Trolls are annoying AF (though the original PS Thread is delightful). Nothing more annoying than a derailer.

[quote] The torch was the murder weapon, wiped clean. Fits both a Ramsey and intruder perp. However, and crucially, no intruder would need to or even think of wiping the batteries, an intruder would never have touched them

Bingo.

Brava R111.

I'm not Davida, I don't buy into any of that pizzagate or Mandela effect bullshit and I think it was John. Who is this fucking Kolar guy that is willing to claim a kid was the murderer? It's like that idiot who wrote about the McStay family missing from San Diego County, he claimed the mother in the case was behind it, wrote a book and everything. It turns out it was there business partner. Just the name of this Kolar book sends me, go shill it somewhere else.

A pedophile intruder wouldn't have sex with a child in her own house, unless he had permission from the child's parents.

No, it was an inside job, and by far the likeliest suspect is John Ramsey.

You guys realize there were no fingerprints found on the ransom note, right? I repeat, when dusted there were NO FINGERPRINTS found on the ransom note, despite both Patsy and John claiming they had both handled/read the note.

I’m reading this thread and cracking up at those who still believe an intruder killed JonBenet.

Also, the CBS documentary disproved the argument that a 9 year-old couldn’t inflict a skull cracking blow as they had a boy the same size as Burke replicate a similar injury on a prop fashioned after a cranium.

Not so fun for her:

That was meant for R388.

Please post more of these r398. I've never seen either of those before

That took some masterful skill to get a six-year-old child out of her bedroom without alerting her parents IN THE NEXT ROOM! Bravo, intruder!

She had to go downstairs to get the pineapple, right?

r400 John and patsy's room was the entire third floor of the house. They could have given the room right next to Jonbenet to her brother burke but they didn't. They gave him a room way down the other end of the hall, I wonder why?

JonBenet's body was covered by a blanket. I'm not a forensic psychologist but to me this suggests someone with a personal connection to the victim, someone capable of empathy-- would a psychopathic killer/kidnapper bother to do this? Also I seem to recall that this blanket was taken from a clothes dryer inside the Ramsey residence, which would appear to implicate one of the residents or someone else very familiar with the house.

Psychology is inexact with person you directly interview, without that it's basically no better than an educated guess,

[quote]You guys realize there were no fingerprints found on the ransom note, right? I repeat, when dusted there were NO FINGERPRINTS found on the ransom note, despite both Patsy and John claiming they had both handled/read the note.

That is not uncommon. A lot of surfaces, including writing paper, it's hard to leave fingerprints on. It depends on a lot of things, like condition of the paper, the material used to make it (recycled vs new), and what the person was doing right before they handled it.

Please don’t post those photos. It feels entirely disrespectful and voyeuristic. The mystery of this murder can still be discussed and analyzed without these pictures.

Like OP, I tumbled down the rabbit hole recently, and this case is maddening. I have read a lot about it, including the books by Steve Thomas and James Kolar. I REALLY wish the truth would reveal itself..

Someone please solve it. What the hell went down that night?

[quote]Please don’t post those photos.

It is okay. JonBenet loved have her pics splashed for the masses.

This would make her happy.

I paid a lot for that child's photos to be taken, and I'll post them as I please.

only DL could me make me laugh at something so awful.

I’m with those who think an intruder is unlikely. Burke’s casual response to who he thinks killed her is pretty alarming. Most family members obsess over this kind of thing and for him to be so blasé is astounding.

Judith Phillips - the photographer who took those creepy photos of the Ramsey’s was a long time friend of the Ramsey’s and she knew that they killed JonBenet. This is a great interview.

"The mystery of this murder can still be discussed and analyzed without these pictures."

Well, when someone called this a "fun thread," I thought it necessary to provide a reality check.

"Burke’s casual response to who he thinks killed her is pretty alarming. Most family members obsess over this kind of thing and for him to be so blasé is astounding. "

If Burke is innocent, then he's grown up in a cloud of suspicion, with half the world asking whether he did it, his mother did it, or his father did it.

A person who's grown up in an environment like that learns to hide his feelings from strangers, and the public. If he came off as oddly flat and emotionless, I would expect that.

His unusual responses convince me that he has nothing to hide. If he were lying or hiding something, one would imagine he'd be all the more inclined to fake it and show emotion in more conventional and expected ways.

R411 The reason Poo Shoes said that it was a "fun thread" is that she has controlled it from the jump with her 87 posts(yes, I counted-shoot me.) This is her idea of Data Lounge nirvana.

R413 With all due respect, if he has no empathy or even basic morals, he likely does not believe that he was acting inappropriately in the interviews.

[quote]if he has no empathy or even basic morals, he likely does not believe that he was acting inappropriately in the interviews

Empathy/morals are different to intelligence and it's the latter that would come into play if he went on TV in order to lie about the murder. His intelligence would tell him to "act normal". Again, the ability to recognize how to mimic others in expected ways comes from intelligence, not empathy/morals.

Does he come across as particularly media savvy to you? I completely agree that a normal person of even average intelligence would do what you said. But after seeing his BPD and Dr Phil interviews(as well as knowing about his violence/cruelty to JBR) there is something seriously wrong with that boy. I do not pretend to know exactly what IS wrong, but he seems as odd as anyone I've ever seen on TV.

r416 He just seems "on the spectrum", to me. And I've seen far worse than that.

Not to minimize what you say r416, because I somewhat feel the same, but as far as I know his situation is unique. There's no guideline for a "normal" range.

" I do not pretend to know exactly what IS wrong, but he seems as odd as anyone I've ever seen on TV. "

Innocent or not, there's no way someone with Burke's background would grow up as normal. Either he's grown up suspecting his own parents of murder, or he's grown up being a murderer, and either way he's grown up surrounded by public suspicion and speculation. There's no way in hell someone with a childhood like that wouldn't be different in some way.

No I don't think you can many any assumptions at all, based on his demeanor. He's spent his whole life knowing strangers suspect him of murder, he would not have a normal social façade.

Exactly 419/412

The whack-a-doodle parents were responsible for what happened to their daughter. Two fucked up parents, and some people want to blame the nine-year-old kid? Of course he's weird ... he grew up in that toxic household. I'll believe Burke did it when there is solid evidence to support it. Until then the parents are the prime suspects, with John at the top of the list and his co-dependent wife not far behind. My best guess is that John did the whole thing, and then dragged Patsy into the cover-up. The idea that she would cover for her son, but not for her husband doesn't make any sense. She needed John, how was she going to cope if he went to prison? She would have to give up the lavish lifestyle she enjoyed and raise a son on her own, with the possibility that her cancer would come back. She didn't seem particularly smart or strong, so it makes sense that she would protect her husband for her self-preservation. Not to mention that John Ramsey has been manipulating the police and media successfully for years, so it's not much of a stretch to believe that he was probably an expert at manipulating his wife. It probably wouldn't take much for her to go along with him if she was persuaded that it would save them all.

If the killer was one of the Ramseys, I wonder who the DNA on her clothes and underwear belonged to.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"The idea that she would cover for her son, but not for her husband doesn't make any sense"

A agree. Patsy was not the sort of strong, independent woman who would walk out on a rich husband, she'd have stuck to him like a limpet even if he'd killed both the women.

As for the new confession, how many fake confessions have their been to date? Prisoners get so bored.

We already have a thread. I wish they'd just stuck it here.

"No I don't think you can many any assumptions at all, based on his demeanor. "

You have GOT to be kidding. I've seen interviews with murderers and rapists who seem more normal than he does.

[quote]I've seen interviews with murderers and rapists who seem more normal than he does.

Because they've probably had relatively "normal" lives, compared to Burke. It's not rocket science, is it?

"If the killer was one of the Ramseys, I wonder who the DNA on her clothes and underwear belonged to."

About that DNA that supposedly "exonerated" the Ramseys::

Two of the three samples that led former District Attorney Mary Lacy to declare publicly that no one in the Ramsey family could be responsible for the murder actually appear to include genetic material from at least three people: JonBenet, the person whose DNA profile originally was located in JonBenet's underwear during testing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, plus at least one additional as-yet-unidentified person or persons. Consequently, its meaning is far from clear.

• The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence.

• The presence of that DNA on JonBenet's underwear and long johns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent; the profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing. If true, it would contradict the assertions that DNA will be key to finding JonBenet's killer.

R422 The "touch DNA on the panties is believed to have been placed there by a laborer in the factory where they were produced. This is not a proven fact, but several of the top forensic pathologists have said that is the most likely scenario seeing as it matches no one who lives in the house.

R423 So did John Marc Carr.

Someone confessed to the murder of Nicole Simpson two years ago. Problem was, he was in prison at the time of the murder.

False confessions are all about attention---even if it is bad attention. It is extremely common for men already in prison to make these confessions in the hopes of getting something for their "help."

I strongly disagree about Patsy staying with John if she knew he did it(I don't mean if he "finished her off after Burke had rendered her to be near dead. I mean if he was the primary killer.) I know that everyone here has their own view of the pathology of Patsy, and I am no different.

I grew up in the beauty pageant culture of the late 70s/early 80s(I was my state's "Miss" 2 years before Patsy was Miss WVa.) I am also southern. I think I understand her aspirational social climbing ways fairly well. I think she may have been driven by materialism and shallow values, but I do not believe for a minute that she was a weak woman who "needed" her husband if he was a bad man. She would have had the money to continue her lifestyle if she divorced him, and she was not too old to have future suitors. I also do not believe that she was seriously effected mentally by her cancer and its treatment. Southern women are inherently strong, and they usually are in control of the family.

Miss America state title holders are ambitious and VERY strong willed. They have to be to succeed in such a cut throat pursuit.

Patsy Ramsey may have not been a perfect mother, but she was no limp dish rag for her husband. He ego and confidence would not allow that.

[quote]could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing

Unlikely. The DNA was present on several items of her clothing, including her underwear. Which man, other than the killer and her family (whose DNA doesn't match up with this) would have touched her underwear and outer clothing on that day?

R427, Sociopaths learn to mimic normal behavior, and, as we know, many murderers and rapists are sociopaths.

Those damn Ramseys were like a school of fish -- target confusion. So many of them are likely suspects, you don't know which one to focus on.

[quote]Investigators theorize several men, including Oliva, were involved in breaking into JonBenét's house.

This is the most interesting part of the article above regarding the new confession. Is this Boulder police's current thinking on the crime, then? I wonder if any of those other confessions were from men who were actual suspects, like Oliva.

This is like the OJ trial when some would listen to the 911 calls when Nicole would say OJ is going to kill me and they would every family has its problems. Burke a year before her murder had hit JonBenet with a golf club. So when she ends up murdered shouldn’t he be the number 1 suspect ?

Which one came first the chicken or the egg ? Burke acting weird because he is the killer or Burke acting weird because he is called the killer ? Burke was acting strange in a very early interview with a policeman. Demeanor isn’t always misleading.

"Because they've probably had relatively "normal" lives, compared to Burke. It's not rocket science, is it?"

Let me tell you something. Quite a few rapists and murderers have had horrendous lives.Not all of them are sociopaths, either. And the vast majority of them sure as hell didn't live lives of wealth and privilege, like Burke Ramsey most assuredly did. No, Burke Ramsey has something REALLY wrong with him. He didn't get the way he is because of all the media attention after his sister's murder. Videos of him being interviewed after his sister's death (which seemed to affect him not at all) show a fidgeting, strange child. I'm sick of all the excuses being made for this weirdo freak.

How many for real confessions does this make ?

"Unlikely. The DNA was present on several items of her clothing, including her underwear. Which man, other than the killer and her family (whose DNA doesn't match up with this) would have touched her underwear and outer clothing on that day?"

Maybe it belonged to whoever packaged the clothing. Anyway, the DNA doesn't mean shit. It doesn't exonerate anybody.

Haven’t we proven JonBenet’murder could not be accidental.

[quote]Maybe it belonged to whoever packaged the clothing

Impossible. The underwear and clothes were from different stores and bought at different times. The DNA was placed on her clothing during the day she was murdered. By a man whose DNA does not belong to a member of the Ramsey family.

It's funny how many people, despite lack of evidence, will believe vehemently in someone's guilt based on their feelings in their heart, but will dismiss DNA evidence proving the contrary with the greatest ease.

That's an excellent question!

Why are homosexuals literally the world's leading authorities in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case?

Or are these are websleuth fraus ... at it again?

R440 Take that up with Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht

[quote]No, Burke Ramsey has something REALLY wrong with him.

He's a typical aspie. There are literally millions of people like him around the world.

R436, "Videos of him being interviewed after his sister's death (which seemed to affect him not at all) show a fidgeting, strange child." Maybe he was fidgeting and 'strange' because his sister had just been murdered. People react in different ways, and he was only nine. It's a contraction to say that it didn't seem to affect him at all, and then describe him as fidgeting and strange during interviews. That IS a reaction to what's going on in his life or what's happening around him. "I'm sick of all the excuses being made for this weirdo freak." Calm down, you sound a bit 'strange' yourself.

You have obviously decided that he's the killer, based on NO evidence whatsoever. You really want it to be him, don't you?

"Impossible. The underwear and clothes were from different stores and bought at different times. The DNA was placed on her clothing during the day she was murdered. By a man whose DNA does not belong to a member of the Ramsey family."

"A MAN?" You obviously have problems reading. Once again:

"The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence."

Do you understand now? It was NOT the DNA of "one man", who you assume was the killer, you big fat dummy.

"You have obviously decided that he's the killer, based on NO evidence whatsoever. You really want it to be him, don't you?"

You have obviously decided that he's a blameless innocent, based on your love of him. You really want him, don't you?

I smell insane frau :(

Girls Girls Girls!

Nobody is ever getting charged, shy of a bulletproof confession, so calm your tits

[quote]The DNA profile referred to as Unknown Male 1 — first identified during testing on the panties — may not be the DNA of a single person at all, but, rather, a composite of genetic material from multiple individuals. As a result, it may be worthless as evidence.

This is the opinion of one expert who has no familiarity with the case. And anyway he only says "may not be" he doesn't say 'was not".

I think this expert should be made to go have a discussion with the scientists at Denver Police Forensics, the guys who developed the profile. He might come out with a different viewpoint. It is pretty low, I think to come out and criticize some other scientists work without being fully cognizant of the methods that were used to generate the results he takes it upon himself to criticize publicly especially when those scientists are public servants who are prohibited from replying.

Your second point: " The presence of that DNA on JonBenet's underwear and long johns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent; the profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing. If true, it would contradict the assertions that DNA will be key to finding JonBenet's killer."

The kind of inconsequential contact you are talking about only ever leaves 2-3 alleles of detectable DNA on a garment, that's only 10 to 15% of the complete profile of 19 or 20 alleles that were identified on the panties. Boulder Police never let on about this information but it's true. It is a simple fact that there were far too many alleles detected on both the panties and the long johns for it to have been in any way possible for that DNA to have been deposited by any kind of inconsequential contact

I smell an insane Burke Ramsey fangurl at R448. Now that is REALLY insane.

I might not find you today. I might not find you tomorrow. Someone has to look out for the victim and I WILL find you.

"It is a simple fact that there were far too many alleles detected on both the panties and the long johns for it to have been in any way possible for that DNA to have been deposited by any kind of inconsequential contact."

The fact remains: the DNA is in no way irrefutable evidence that identifies any one person as the killer of JohBenet. Certainly not "one man."

R447, You're obviously projecting. Fucking whackjob. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that I don't see any evidence presented here or elsewhere that he did it. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with him, and refuse to even entertain the idea that he could be innocent. Most normal people would like to believe he's innocent because he was just nine years old at the time., so it's really creepy that you want to believe a child would kill his sister. Again there is no evidence pointing to his guilt. You do know that both parents also behaved strangely after the murder, don't you? I guess you're giving them a pass because they were adults.

R454, the Burke Did It contingency believe Kolar’s book and the CBS special are the end-all, be-all, instead of seeing it for what it is: a detectives desperation and a CBS money-grab.

I posted a quote waaaaaaay up thread where the FBI stated that in cases where a child is murdered, the stars show 13 to 1 it’s the oldest male of the family. Rhymes with “Bon.”

*stats

"You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with him, and refuse to even entertain the idea that he could be innocent."

Au contraire, it is YOU who seems "obsessed" with him. And you refuse to even entertain the idea that he could be guilty. You're obviously a big fan of his, which is really...weird.

*yawn*

Give it up R457. Poo(R456) has determined John to be the evil Daddy Murderer and Little Burke to be the innocent Misunderstood Child.

If Burke's diary in which he discusses murdering his sister were to be discovered hidden in the walls of the old Ramsey house in Boulder, and in that diary was not only a confession but a Polaroid photo of JBR dead on the floor as well, she will never change her mind.

She desperately WANTS it to be John.

A poster mentioned that the Ramseys were pretty filthy. How so?

R449 is correct. I remember a case where a kid spent something like 17 years in prison for the murder of a woman. The lead detective was so convinced the boy did it he ignored (and even hid, iirc) evidence that would have prevented him from being indicted in the first place. The likely suspect was the woman's ex, but he was never tried since the prosecutors did not feel they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so someone got away with murder. The wrongly convicted man got a couple million dollars for his trouble and the detective was indicted for something, I believe. Don't know the outcome of that.

I read that their house was vile r460. They only had one house keeper and I think it was 7000 sq ft? So, like just dusty, grimy, the kids left piss everywhere (peed beds every night, would take off urine soaked clothes and bedding and throw on the floor and it would sit for a couple days), Patsy would leave her dirty laundry all over. The basement looked like a tornado went through it, you could barely walk through it. My impression is the housekeeper needed help, the family had no idea how to pick up after themselves, the kids were extra dirty because of their poor toilet habits, and then general issues with nasty laundry. I mean, pee and poop were in multiple rooms. Most kids are nasty, but at their age that was a bit extreme.

I’m sure we’ve all seen worse, but Patsy just wasn’t a good housekeeper herself, and there seemed to be a lack of Basic Domestic Skills.

R460, it's my understanding that the "help " observed things like shirts worn for days on end and skid marked underpants from every member of the family.

And again, no one believes that JonBenet committed suicide in order to frame her fucked up family.

Thanks for clarifying. I've known several fairly wealthy people who were like that. They never picked up after themselves or ran the dishwasher, did a load of laundry etc. and left it for the housekeeper. Problem was, the housekeeper only came in every few days so in between those times, their houses were kind of nasty. Lots of mess. I'll never understand how people can't take two minutes to pick up after themselves or do a load of laundry or run the dishwasher themselves, but that's a topic for another thread.

No, r464, but that distraction is a bit of dark humor. The other poster seemed intent on derailing the thread for troll reasons.

I swear, Patsy’s writing never, ever sounded like that ransom note, not at all. She’s dead? Oh, then Burke could never have hurt his sister, look at that face.

Meanwhile, I’m just going to do another interview on the 700 Club. Focus on Burke, Patsy’s gone now — or I’ll sic Lin on your ass.

Were the practice notes actually found in the home? Or could they just tell the author had practiced on prior pages because the marker bled through to the final draft? If the drafts were found in the home, I wonder if they were crumpled up? I doubt an intruder would want to crumple up pieces of paper in a silent home & risk being heard.

And as far as the touch DNA on the panties possibly belonging to a factory worker, that would assume they were a brand new (never washed) pair of panties. Do we know that to be a fact?

Lastly, do kids on the spectrum know how to lie consistently? Possibly a stupid question, but I have to ask.

Forgot to add: If they practice notes WEREN'T found in the home, why the hell would the intruder have taken them with him!? He wouldn't have. Which would mean the Ramsey's hid the rough drafts.

Of course the practice notes were in the home, they were right on the pad of paper I believe.

Patsy was famous for overbuying when she shopped. She bought a bunch of shit for I believe JB’s cousins, they weren’t the right size, got shoved in a drawer in top of JB’s dresser, never opened as they were insanely enormous for JB, Patsy just held them for when she was bigger.

After the murder it was discovered the underwear package had been torn open, this package that Patsy saved for her to grow into, and was left in that drawer, with the ridiculously large pair on JB. The wrong size panties were grabbed and thrown on the child, and Patsy knew those didn’t fit her, they were like clown-big on JB. Hmmmmm.....who would be clueless about panty sizing for a six year old girl?

R470 Yep. That is one of the bits I remember distinctly from the Kolar book. The giant panties were placed on her that night.

Weren't they from Bloomingdale's?

I remember when this happened and thought "who the fuck writes ransom notes in this day and age?" It was like something out of the 1940s. And then learning that the ransom note was written in the home, on the Ramsey's pad of paper? Ridiculous. Even if someone were to write a ransom not, it would've been done before entering the house. Everything about this case stunk from the very beginning. Of course one of the family did it, but money and connections will get you out every time.

Why couldn't the Ramseys wipe their dirty asses like normal people?

r457, says the one who refuses to believe an adult (or two) could be the murderer, which is a much more likely scenario. I would entertain the idea if you could present some evidence beyond "he was fidgeting in the interviews after the murder".

" I'm sick of all the excuses being made for this weirdo freak." Yeah, you don't sound obsessed at all.

"Yeah, you don't sound obsessed at all."

Neither do you, hon. Neither do you. (rolls eyes up the heavens).

It was the maid in the pantry with the lead pipe.

Did Burke link this thread to his fellow aspie Facebook page? Cause it certainly reads like it.

Okay I just finished watching the CBS special and they did a pretty good job at selling the Burke theory IMO. I'm not convinced I heard him in the background of that 911 call, however.

R475, Eyeroll away 'hon' if you think it makes you look clever. You're only fooling yourself.

R479, shut up already. You've already established you're sweet on Burke. No need to beat people over the head with your fondness for him.

Oh fuck off and stop trying to derail the thread with your petty shit. Just because someone thinks the parents are more obvious suspects doesn't make them 'Burke worshippers'. You sound unhinged. Move along.

""No I don't think you can many any assumptions at all, based on his demeanor. " "

"You have GOT to be kidding. I've seen interviews with murderers and rapists who seem more normal than he does. "

No, R427, even if Burke is totally innocent, I would not expect him to have a "normal" façade, because his experiences growing up were radically different from the norm. If he's guilty, he's grown up wondering if he will ever be caught. If he's not guilty, he's wondering which of his parents are guilty, and has undoubtedly been mindfucked by whichever one actually did it, if not both. He has not had a normal life, and would not react to the media or strangers in way that we consider "normal", and I repeat - we can't really draw conclusions about the case based on his demeanor.

I don't know why this is a hard concept to grasp.

This happens in all the legal threads. Chris Watts they blame Shanann. Joey C no way is the murder is gay related. On JonBent Burke acting creepy is perfectly normal and haven’t we all hit our sister with golf clubs.

I suspect he flunked law school so he can pretend to be a defense attorney here. He ruins almost every thread he posts on.

"After the murder it was discovered the underwear package had been torn open, this package that Patsy saved for her to grow into, and was left in that drawer, with the ridiculously large pair on JB. The wrong size panties were grabbed and thrown on the child, and Patsy knew those didn’t fit her, they were like clown-big on JB. Hmmmmm.....who would be clueless about panty sizing for a six year old girl? "

I hadn't heard that detail before. So that would mean our unknown intruder not only grabbed a child who was perfectly capable of making noise or struggling and took her down to the basement instead of out of the house, he not only wandered through this enormous house looking for a flashlight and a notepad... he went back to Jonbenet's room to find a change of underwear for her!

Seriously, does anyone on Earth believe the "unknown intruder" theory?

"Just because someone thinks the parents are more obvious suspects doesn't make them 'Burke worshippers'. You sound unhinged. Move along."

You sound like an raving idiot. Someone on this thread will not, absolutely will NOT, consider Burke Ramsey a suspect. This strange person considers him above reproach. That is VERY weird. And I've never called anyone a "Burke worshipper", though this person seems to have a bizarre liking for him. Sounds like you have tender feelings for feces smearing Burke, too. Move along, and get some help.

This picture is from a loon Ramsey supporter, she tried to help build Lou Smit’s intruder case, not realizing her “detective work” helps to instead build a case *against* an intruder.

So these are not the real panties, but if I’m remembering correctly, she went out and bought the same lot of underwear panties from the same manufacturer so you could see the dramatic difference in size. She also posted a picture of her daughter wearing them. So these are just a sample to give you a visual. Her point is that “no way would the parents have put these on their child since they’re obviously so big!” And my thinking is, “of course the average dad is dumb enough to know nothing about their children’s clothing, and in the urgency of a murder, grab whatever is in front of his fucking face.” So the panties she was found in look like tensuzes too big, FWIW.

And here are the pictures of the loon’s daughter in the correct Bloomingdale panties, and then the big ones so you can imagine what they looked like on JB, her daughter was a different age at the time these were taken but totally similar size to JB.

R485, You're projecting again. Give me some solid evidence and I will consider him a suspect...that's how it works.

R487 That woman is incredibly fucked up to have her daughter posing in those.

So if John put them on JB wouldn't his touch DNA have been found on them?

And I always we are the court of public opinion we do not have to follow the rules of court. We are talking opinions we do not need evidence.

I know shit all about this case, other than what I've read here on DL, but here's my two cents. Both Burke and JonBenet were abused. If John kept disappearing to Amsterdam and there's no dirt on it, there's a very seedy reason why. My gut feeling is both kids were used to being photographed, and not always with their clothes on. Burke is not normal the poor bastard, and both kids were not normal before JonBenet was murdered. I think Burke withdrew and became "strange" as a way of dealing with his trauma. Through brainwashing and denial, he has pushed those memories away and just follows John's programming. I think JonBenet, being a strong willed character like her mother, was starting to rebel and she got killed for it. I believe John was diddling her, maybe taking some dirty pics down in the basement. Maybe the unexplained DNA means there was somebody else there, JonBenet was being forced to show off her sexual wares to a potential buyer etc. Got caught by Patsy, who flipped and killed the kid. Patsy wasn't a stupid woman, she likely overlooked John's side interests. But when JonBenet wouldn't play along, and after the kid had already attempted to call 911 and blow the lid off their sick household several nights before, Patsy realised JonBenet had the capacity to destroy her whole carefully constructed world. Appearances mattered to Patsy, NO way could she have that little harlot child of hers ruining everything she'd worked so hard to build. John was guilty of abusing the kids. Patsy was guilty of losing her cool and fatally wounding her daughter. Together, they're guilty of staging that crime scene. I don't know who the unknown man was, or why they let him go but I think there was someone directing them. Maybe a Boulder bigwig who could not afford to be found out. Why else did the Ramsey's get so much preferential treatment? There was somebody else involved.

Could Burke even be charged with the crime at this point? He was 9 and if he had been found responsible at the time, wouldn't the maximum confinement have been until he was 21? Moot point, since no one will ever be charged, barring a confession. I can see John's deathbed confession: "Patsy did it!" (If Burke predeceases him, it would be "Patsy and Burke did it!")

"You sound like an raving idiot. Someone on this thread will not, absolutely will NOT, consider Burke Ramsey a suspect. This strange person considers him above reproach. That is VERY weird. And I've never called anyone a "Burke worshipper", though this person seems to have a bizarre liking for him. Sounds like you have tender feelings for feces smearing Burke, too. Move along, and get some help. "

Hello, John Ramsey!

Really, who else would be so vehemently, angrily, irrationally insistent that Burke MUST be guilty and no other speculation is allowable?

Hmmm. You might be on to something. I’m more than not baffled by the taste of many Datelounger but when I last saw Burke intereviwed on TV I saw nothing attractive about him at all.

r492 that's always been my theory as well. It's a very plausible explanation of what really happened. The Ramseys were sick, sick people.

John did it.

R496, my post is not an attack here, but how can you believe such an Elaborate Scenario, but not the more common occurrence that daddy was diddling her and killed her? Why the ES? Yes the whole family was bonkers, but it doesn’t mean they were all killers. The most simple explanation is the most plausible. And we all know what that is.

R410. Thanks for the link to the Judith Phillips interview. Judith Phillips is an interesting but rarely discussed player in this case. Phillips originally me and befriended John and Patsy in Atlanta then again in Boulder. John and Patry however, completely dismissed Phillips in their book, waving her aside as a casual acquaintance.

R491, When an unhinged idiot has made up her mind about the murderer and then harasses others because they don't share her view, she better have some evidence or fuck off.

The rest of us may be speculating but she, obviously, is not.

JonBenet was stun gunned in the neck while in her bed; hence, why she didn't struggle.

Have you ever seen someone get stun gunned? They most definitely struggle!

R497 Maybe, but, because there are two other suspects, it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so the prosecutors will not bring a case. Even if Burke testified against his father, who would believe him? He's a suspect himself. I think we should all blame Patsy: she's dead and can't defend herself. Case closed!

R498, thank you for all of your contributions to this discussion.

I didn't want to, but eventually I had to FF and block a certain other poster who seemed more interested in creating hysteria.

[quote]Have you ever seen someone get stun gunned? They most definitely struggle!

She was sleeping, dumbass.

Oh okay, then she definitely didn't struggle! She just took it in complete silence without waking up, screaming or the like.

Dumbass!

R505 is a graduate of Alam Wernik's detective school.

R498, I've read this entire thread, and many of its predecessors, and I wasn't convinced until now, but I agree with you: The simplest explanation is likely true. John was molesting her, and killed her on Christmas night. Statistically speaking, a father is much more likely to be the perpetrator of such crimes than a mother or a 9-year-old brother. I can absolutely believe that he wrote the ransom note to try to convince Patsy not to phone the police. And, as emotionally damaged as that lady detective seems to now be, I think that her growing suspicion and visceral fear of John that day was spot on. Patsy's scream of anguish when John brought the body upstairs was real: she didn't know JonBenét was dead until that moment.

The part that I still can't quite understand is how someone goes from molesting his daughter ― which is, sadly, all too common ― to brutally attacking and murdering her. This was a clever man with a carefully-constructed façade to maintain. Even if JonBenét was threatening to tell, it's hard to imagine someone like that losing control and committing a crime that would land him in even greater trouble.

Thumbs up ^

Loon's daughter isnt wearing the panties, they're on some kind of badly assembled dummy.

Kisses r504.

R508, THANK YOU, I was in the same place you are now, only years ago, that’s how i began with the books on this insane case!!!! Congratulations, you have truly pushed through the propaganda promoted by John & Co., and made it out of the dark woods. Once you see it, you can never go back, it is SO fucking obvious, and it will blow your mind down the road that you didn’t see it immediately.

To answer your question, I just don’t know. There are many possibilities as to why he killed her. I will say, based on everything else that happened that night, maybe John *didn't* totally lose control? Perhaps what happened fits the theory of semi-whack-job Cyril Wecht, that it was a sex game, and John wanted to see how far he would let himself go?

Or, JB threatened him, and he was SO angry that a little child could threaten to destroy everything he had worked soooooooooooooo fucking hard to build? The insult that a little child, a little girl no less, could dare to threaten HIM?

I feel like the answer is likely somewhere between these two scenarios plus something about Patsy (I’ll elaborate below). We already know that he’s a highly sociopathic manipulative narcissist pedophile murderer. I do indeed believe he was “exploring” his kinks in Amsterdam. I do indeed believe he and Patsy were miserable and hadn't been sexually active in years. I do indeed believe he thought Patsy wouldn’t live, which helped him rationalize acting out his fantasies — Patsy would never know.

Sidebar, can ANYONE explain to me how/why that dictionary was open up to the word “incest” with the dog-warred page pointing directly at it? PATSY. Who else???? Patsy was scared, she was worried. That’s why she kept going to the doctor — as long as the doctor reassured her, then she knew it had to be her mind playing tricks on her. Seeing the doctor and hearing that JB was totally fine kept her sane.

But she could not completely hide her fear, just like John couldn’t hide from the Detective. John knew that Patsy had become suspicious, even if she remained in deep denial, John knew, he could *feel* that somewhere deep inside, Patsy knew. I *also* believe his instinct that Patsy was worried contributed to his decision to murder JonBenet. No JB = no abuse. The only was to truly cover up this abuse was for JB to die. She was in some ways a sacrificial lamb to him — he is a monster.

In the end, I believe it was a combination of all of these little “triggers” that led John to kill. He had very sick sexual fantasies that included pedophilia and violence, he felt threatened by JB, and he felt threatened by Patsy. Many, many, many killers have murdered for much less. The end. Carry on.

I agree with R508 and R511.

I've spent years reading almost all the books and threads. I've gone from believing it was Patsy in an accident, hitting her daughter's head on a tub faucet when trying to bleach her hair and staging the rest in a panic. Then, I came to believe it was Burke, and now I am realizing it was likely John, in a very specific scenario and for a very disgusting and upsetting reason related to what he had done to JonBennet sexually that night.

Here's my theory on why John did it--It has to do with the architecture of the house that made him think he could get away with sexual abuse long term. If you look at the floor plans and the size of the house, you easily see that the wine cellar is in the farthest and most distant area of the house--isolated and floors away from the bedrooms. I believe this is where he typically went to harm his daughter for pleasure at night when the rest of the house was sleeping. The paint brush seems an odd detail, until one images the floorplan and what a male pedo will do to a young female's body to "train" her and prepare her physically for intercourse.

The wine cellar (where body was found and where I believe abuse typically occurred) was right next to Patty's craft room, where her paint brushes were, so the paint brushes were an object of convenience due to being close to the isolated wine cellar and due to the shape of the brush handle. Imagine the tapered and slender and long shape of the end of a paint brush and now imagine what an adult male pedo would be using that for on a very young girl. It is an instrument. He was stretching her vagina slowly over time. This is what pedos do to young children. That's why all the doctor's visits, bed wetting, and the strange findings in the autopsy reports. Something went wrong that night and John went too far, wounding her deeply in a way that caused her so much pain that he couldn't get her to stop screaming and crying. (Remember the report from a neighbor who heard a strange scream that night?) John panicked at all the screaming and some blood and killed her to cover his guilt and also to frame someone else and to shut up her crying and her pain. After all, they were due to visit family in another state the next day and he couldn't risk her going out in that condition and state of mind.

I was just thinking the same thing about their floorplan, R512. That room her body was found in conveniently had no windows and was about as far away from the master bedroom (Patsy) as you could get. It's also behind two doors if anyone were to come down the stairs--great for soundproofing. I can totally envision John taking her down there for nefarious reasons. What I have a harder time envisioning is JB and Burke having a scuffle in the kitchen over some pineapple and her running down to that room on her own where she'd then have been cornered. I think she would have run to some different area of the house if Burke was chasing after her.

Handwriting analysts said that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

Considering how bad the police fucked up to secure the crime scene and specially the body, how reliable are the fingerprints or DNA evidences?. Another agency or department took control of the investigation early on?

Why is JonBenet Derangement Syndrome a thing?

R510, my bad. I saw those pics eons ago and likely just didn’t remember backstory correctly. The photographer used her daughter to gauge sizing, didn’t remember that switcheroo on the pics. The main point of it all is to show the ridiculous difference in sizing. It’s not a mistake most moms would make in my opinion.

R512, I always discount the scream story, but I can’t remember why lolol. I came across sources that made me think it didn’t happen. But regardless, your scenario still absolutely fits too, and it could be even added into my post at r511. I’ve always felt the paintbrush was part of his staging. Why? Because of the autopsy report. I strongly believe the coroner included the info on where there was irritated tissue in the vaginal canal near her hymen to make a scientific case that digital insertion by a right index finger would be right in that spot, and that is was caused tissue damage, not the paintbrush handle. Also, there wasn’t a great deal of blood and the paint brush fibers found inside her were minimal. But again, it doesn’t matter which one of us is right or wrong. The bottom line is that both of our scenarios work, and of course you are right regarding the floor plan and that he used the basement for sexual activity/grooming/training with her, and there are many others out there who believe the same. I completely agree with you that he may have hurt her during the activity and she may have become upset, crying and yelling, and he couldn’t stop her. Who knows?

After Mary Lacy left, I was very hopeful that the new DA would take a shot at this case. He even had a link on their website making a statement about this case blahblahblah and he was a pitbull. But still, crickets.

This is a strong circumstantial case that should still be brought against John. There are *so^ many things that point to him, a good DA could still paint the case while acknowledging all the mistakes made by police. John took a shower that morning, Patsy didn’t. John didn’t call the police, Patsy did. John disappeared, Patsy didn’t. Patsy found the note, John didn’t. John found the body, Patsy didn’t. John found the broken window, Patsy didn’t. John changed his story dozens of times, Patsy didn’t. John lawyered up, Patsy was a mess and didn’t. John wanted to leave for a business meeting 45 minutes after the body was found, again, Patsy was a hysterical mess. Did you know that when John lawyered up, he not only hired separate lawyers for himself, Patsy, and Burke, but even his ex-wife? So for the posters wondering if he abused his other dead daughter, who knows? None of that is the behavior of an innocent person.

This is why I’ve asked on these threads if the DL Legal Dept could explain if a prosecutor is bound to bring charges if a case isn’t winnable. This is definitely a case a prosecutor might very well lose — and it should still be brought. I can’t imagine that there is much evidence left that the general public does not know about, but trials bring forth witnesses, and hearing testimony from the Whites would be huge. I also believe hearing testimony from police officers would be huge, as would other friends of the Ramsey family.

One other point I vaguely remember, this is an old one too. John’s lawyers made him take a lie detector test. The man who administered the test is a kook. But I remember someone trying very hard to get their hands on the results from that test from his office on the east coast. There might have been a breakin? I can’t remember all of it. I know it wouldn’t be admissible, but it’s still a piece of information that might be useful for the Big Picture.

I forgot to add. All the DA would have to do to justify bringing charges now is have a new expert come in who supports this theory, WHAM, charges. Hold a press conference and go. Some one with the stature of Barry Scheck again......wouldn’t be hard to do I’m sure.

More than one paint brush fiber inside of her vagina was one too many. I don't get the "minimal" assessment.

Sorry, meant to say ONE paint brush fiber is one too many.

I totally agree that even if they were going to lose, John should go to trial. It would totally ruin him, and that is good enough for me. It's not a double jeopardy thing, right? They can say they have enough evidence to bring it to trial. John doesn't have the same money or connections any longer to stonewall. I really wish this would happen.

R521, of course, it is disgusting and disturbing. My point is that the physical evidence doesn’t necessarily support that that paint brush handle was used extensively or there likely would have been more of it found inside her — though this is also somewhat speculative. We never got to hear an expert testify on this. Either way, it is horrific and shows a very depraved person did it,

Those portraits of Patsy and the kids remind me of the cutouts on those VC Andrews books.

Paintbrushes in the Basement

LMAO

[quote]AND because yes, when kids die, parents are the usual suspects

Well SOME parents

Article on the lie detector tests

A read on the shyster Edward Gelb. This is who John’s lawyer hired lolololol.

Here, the name of the first lie detector expert is mentioned, Jerry Toriello, who said the first round was “inconclusive” and that the Ramsey’s should be retested. Many of those close to the case believe that it was specifically John’s results that were inconclusive, but I don’t know that for a fact. I mentioned upthread that I have a hazy recollection of someone breaking into an office for these test results, maybe it was Jerry’s office? Not sure.

More on Jerry, this book suggests both parents failed the first tests.

And here we witness Steve Thomas interrogating John, who says he’d be “insulted” to take a lie detector test. But no, John had *nothing* to do with her murder.

And be sure you read Patsy’s reaction to being asked if she’d be tested. She basically says she doesn’t give a fuck, she’ll take ten of them. John? Not so much. He’s insulted.

To answer a question above, children under 10 were not charged for any crimes in Colorado back then. Burke was a few days from his 10th birthday. The Ramseys may not have been aware of that.

Interesting factoid I just became aware of a couple of weeks ago. Their vacation home in Wisconsin, where they were to go that morning and where John now lives, is just 20 miles from where the Oakland County Child Killings happened and the associated pedophile ring operated.

and here is the thread derailer at r534. Bohemian Grove, no doubt.

Sorry, I meant Charlevoix, Michigan vacation home above, not Wisconsin.

And you're an idiot, r535. That was only my first or second post in this thread.

You want to block it with me r535? We can hold hands as we block?

R536, but you need understand, once you bring up pedophile rings, we all shut down. If you read full thread you will see that’s how the loonies post.

Wait... he had another dead daughter?

Yes r539, from his first marriage. It’s not as ominous as it sounds, she was killed in a brutal car accident in Chicago right outside the city. Tons of witnesses, it was just an accident.

So how much time, money and effort has John put in to finding the REAL killer?

Exactly.

Still can't seem to get a convincing answer/suggestion as to who the foreign DNA on JonBenet's underwear and clothes belonged to, if not an intruder.

R542, here you go.

More on the genius known as Mary Lacy who totally sought justice in this case and is NOT on the side of the Ramsey’s you besmirchers!!!

r543 Those points were already addressed in r450. Again, no one seems to be able to give a convincing answer/suggestion as to who the DNA belongs to, if not an intruder....

Unidentifiable DNA does *not* equal an intruder.

r546 Even if we accept the premise at your link, however dubious, the claim is that the DNA on her panties may have come from three different people, one of whom is JonBenet, and the other two are not members of the Ramsey family. Again, if we accept the premise at your link, however dubious, how do you explain that?

What makes that source “dubious” r547? That’s silly,

r548 see r450

I've been reading this thread and while I've only had a casual interest in this case over the years, some things really stuck with me. I tend to be a conspiracy theory follower, so feel free to call me a looney and block.

John Ramsey was in the Navy and stationed in the Philippines for 3 years, during the 1960s (his father was a decorated Navy pilot). I don't profess to know anything about the Philippines in the '60s but from what I've read, SE Asia at that time was pretty much anything goes as far as purchased sex (still is in some countries). He could have been "turned out" on freaky sex there. And it's obvious he had some kind of military connections because his company became a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, which is about as MIC as you can get. My point is that this guy was hooked up really tight with some very powerful entities and having him being put on trial for killing his daughter would possibly open these entities to investigation themselves. It's not surprising that following the murder he was immediately put on leave and replaced at his job and the company itself was sold the very next year. He was protected not because of who he was but who he was connected to.

I believe Patsy played dumb because she really felt she had no choice. She'd have lost everything if John were found out to be molesting her daughter (including her other child). Plus, she'd had stage 4 cancer but was able to participate in an experimental chemotherapy program at the National Institutes of Health. Not everybody gets that kind of cancer treatment and you can't tell me that her husbands connections didn't have anything to do with her being selected. I also think she was manipulated in other ways by her husband -- I think he low key encouraged Patsy to sexualize JonBenet.

That's all I got.

R545, I rereadthe link I posted. I have no idea where you’re going with this, other than I am now clear that your position will annoy the fuck out of me. That piece is high-quality journalism from a writer who has been on the front lines of this case since day one, and who has relationships with all the key players, and your comments that it’s “dubious” reek of bias. There are at least ten different sources quoted (maybe more? I didn’t bother to count them). Every single assertion made is supported with either quotes, facts, or data. All of the sources used in the article are respected experts in their fields as well as leaders of their peers. The link could be used as a case study in Journalistic Writing 101 on how to write. The fact that a source used a phrase like “may not” only supports the integrity of the claims — there is no way at this point, with the technology we currently have, to verify that the alleles came from a single source or multiple sources, but the fact that there is SO very little of it does indeed point to touch/transfer DNA. One scientist doesn’t say this — SEVERAL make this argument. Furthermore, no scientists “attack” scientists as you say. The only person anyone questions is Mary Lacy. Multiple people question her judgment and behavior.

Furthermore, the only thing “dubious” in the article are the numerous examples of Mary Lacy’s biased agenda. She was an arm of Alex Hunter who refused to indict the Ramsey’s. She made comments before she was put in the DA position that showed she believed only in an intruder theory and would not consider the family suspects. She made a statement exonerating the Ramsey's which is not the job of a prosecutor and in the context of this case is unprecedented! She purposely misled the public on what the labs told her about the test results — and she knows it. She attended the fucking funeral of Patsy Ramsey — an unindicted suspect in a criminal murder case whom the Grand Jury found guilty of several charges. Shall I keep going? Mary Lacy likely broke several laws in her corrupt protection of the Ramsey’s. You clearly have an agenda when you try to frame good journalism as “dubious” and I didn’t realize until several posts in that I had blocked you earlier. That tells me everything I need to know about your position on this case.

R551 I wish I could write like you... amazing.

Shucks r552, thank you. If it makes you feel any better, I am famous for writing texts and emails that are ridiculously long, it’s a joke amongst coworkers and family/friends. I struggle to be concise, so while I do acknowledge I’ve been blessed with decent writing chops (sometimes), the cursed side of it is that I have to obsessively reread myself and ruthlessly trim the fat. It drains me. Xxooxxoo, you are a kind person.

R539 To lose one daughter may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

[quote]Shall I keep going?

I'd prefer it if you quit the verbosity and simply answer the question: even the link you're clinging to suggests the DNA found on JonBenet's underwear and outer clothing is either from one person unrelated to the Ramseys or "may be" from multiple people unrelated to the Ramseys. Either way the question remains the same: How do you explain that, if you don't believe an intruder committed the crime?

r553 That is literally the frauiest post ever committed to DL.

Explain WHAT r555? Watch me give you a terse response. Be clear about what it is you want explaining on.

R556 lol, I know, I couldn’t help myself.

I thought it was determined to be factory workers where the underwear was made or packaged ? Doesn’t the Ramseys have allies working in the police department ?

R558 yes and yes. But we have a troll on here who is conflating the number of alleles to distract. The report I read made a compelling case that the DNA just could not be from anyone actually on the scene, but because they’ll never be able to find the people who match the DNA, this gets cloudy and murky (in s good way) for the Ramsey defenders. Their stupid argument is that it MUST be intruder DNA, what else could it be? It’s stupid. I’m sure it makes John happy, and it’s made Lin a ton of money.

Do Burke and John still have a relationship? Do they live in the same town or far away from each other?

I’ve long believed John did it. I haven’t seen the recent special on the case and I’ve forgotten many specific details, but remember this:

Years ago John Ramsey was interviewed on the Anderson Cooper talk show. I watched it in segments on YouTube. I recall finding his responses very telling and odd. Scripted. Atypical. Inconstant. Watch this interview closely. Look at his facial expressions. Key into his emotional responses. Consider what he remembers and forgotten over the years. I did not find him credible nor trustworthy. Kiev he was promoting a Christian book he wrote about having faith. I never read the book.

Patty - I don’t think she was involved and if she knew anything she either repressed it so deeply that it was no longer her truth OR she was so heavily medicated that the evening events were soon a complete blur.

If she did know John was responsible (which I don’t believe she did), then it would be in her best interest to protect him. And I think he could convince her to do so in a very manipulative protective way. He could have claimed it an accident, but knew it could devestate them financially and socially if the police believed otherwise. He also could have added the possibility of Burke being taken away from them. She’d lose money, her home, the business, her friends, her husband, Burke, her social standing, her reputation. If JBR’s death was considered a homicide, her loss would be limited to losing her daughter. She never could have predicted the attention the case would receive. I’m sure John would have convinced her that it would all be over in a matter of days. Again, this is just one scenario and my gut tells me Patsy didn’t know but the possibility remains she could have been in denial, repressed what she may have known, or drugs clouded her memory.

I have two theories regarding the strange DNA in the underwear: It's either from the factory workers who assembled it, or Patsy had some male acquaintance from the kiddie pageant circuit over and he slipped away for a moment and pawed through the little girl's underwear drawer. Because only two kinds of men take an interest in kiddie beauty pageants - gay men who like to dress up little kids like dolls, or straight men with pedophilic tendencies. Which IMHO is why the pageant thing got so much attention, because what better way to introduce your kid to a pedo than to sign her up for kiddie pageants?

Anyway, I've ruled out the intruder theory to my own satisfaction. No intruder would go from the bedroom to the basement to wandering looking around looking for all the things that were supposedly used, not in the dark and with the innocent parents just a few feet away. It was a family member, almost certainly John.

If an intruder had been that stupid he would have been caught.

Case closed

There was no intruder. The crazy who keeps insisting there must have been one, is, well, crazy.

A recent piece on the DNA evidence"

After just short of 20 years, the murder of JonBenet Ramsey is as much of a mystery as ever—especially in light of a new examination of DNA evidence. A joint investigation by the Boulder Daily Camera and 9News calls into question former District Attorney Mary Lacy's decision to exonerate the Ramsey family. At the time, Lacy concluded that DNA evidence found on JonBenet's underwear and long johns belonged to a male intruder who was not part of the Ramsey family. But now three forensic experts who examined the DNA test results and lab reports used by Lacy say they do not support her conclusion. For one thing, a sample on her underwear identified as coming from "Unknown Male 1" may in fact be a composite from multiple people and thus "worthless as evidence," says the news report.

Another revelation that further muddles the picture: DNA samples on her long johns appear to come from JonBenet and at least two other people, not one, a fact that has never been revealed before. What's more, the independent experts say all of the unknown DNA may be the result of "inconsequential contact with other people," reports the Camera. With the exoneration, "I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice," Lacy tells ABC. (The interview was done before these latest revelations.) "I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy, and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track." Comparison to the DNA profile now in doubt was used to exonerate dozens of other potential suspects. (JonBenet's older brother is suing a pathologist who accused him of the killing.)

If John and Patsy had been just a regular middle-class couple, they probably would've been arrested right then and there.

I could see John having a partner in pedophilia who left the touch DNA, but could they have avoided getting their DNA on any other object?

Assuming JB's undies were made in a foreign sweatshop, can't they determine from the DNA whether the unknown male was of Asian/Indian descent? My 23andme test told me where I'm from. If the DNA is Asian or Indian I'd pretty well assume it was left by a sweatshop worker in the manufacturing process. If it's from someone of, say, Northern European descent, well then I'd say it's safe to assume the DNA was not left by someone working on the garment line.

Another problem with the touch DNA is that they didn't have the kind of technology we have now when the case was first opened. So, all this new "touch DNA" is suspicious and could have be placed there due to contamination after evidence was gathered. This type of DNA wasn't even considered or possible to test for years ago when the first tests were done. This means that the testing facility not only wouldn't have looked for it but wouldn't have taken full measures to guard against it, since it wasn't understood back then. Unfortunately, DNA evidence (especially touch DNA) is easily contaminated or compromised. When testing first happened, someone in the lab might have brushed the samples against any other object touched by any persons, and this would be enough to create touch DNA from another object others had touched. Also, composite touch DNA (from many combined people) creates a different DNA profile from any one person's DNA, and there is likely too little material to test it any further since the sample of touch DNA was already so small. It's basically meaningless, in other words, and very likely due to past errors in the handling of evidence and changes in testing technology and methods.

The DNA on JB's underwear couldn't have come from a factory worker, as the same DNA was found on her outer clothing. If we're picking and choosing between "experts" on the DNA evidence, I think it's safe to be least trustful of those, unnamed, working for tabloid news organizations looking for a scoop.

So, now that the sleuths of DL have "solved" this case, what happens now? Has anyone been indicted? Arrested? Tried? Convicted? Jailed? Yes, no, no, no and no. I guess it makes you feel better to "know" who did it, but that's about all. There is hope for a solution, however: the disappearance of the Lyon sisters in Maryland was solved after 42 years, albeit with a confession from the culprit. Don't know if we can expect a deathbed confession from John (or Burke or the intruder--definitely not from Patsy).

Maybe the police are holding on to info that will come out someday and name the killer (if they know and hushed it up for whatever reason). Other than that or a confession, I guess we'll never know. Well, a few crackpots will "confess" to JonBenet's murder just to get attention.

But many murders go unsolved - just usually not as famous as this. Jack the Ripper was never identified, for certain, I don't think, but back then, probably the vast majority of murders were unsolved.

I wonder if O J is back to searching for the real killer, now he's out of jail on that robbery charge.

I knew John was guilty when he ran for office on the GOP ticket.

That party is nothing but pedos, rapists, murderers, etc...

Does Beth Holloway ever speak of the time she dated him?

Funny how Ramsey never remarried. Assuming he’s still a millionaire he shouldn’t have any trouble finding another Patsy.

Um....

Was JonBenet sexually violated?

Autopsy report up thread, R577.

The end all and be all of the DNA evidence is this: it does not exonerate anyone and it does not conclusively prove that "an intruder" sneaked in and did it and then sneaked out again.

I keep thinking of the Danielle van Dam case. Westerfield abducted the child from her bedroom and none of his DNA was found in the house.

John Ramsey screamed before he turned the light on and saw JB's body in the basement room. The room was pitch black and it was impossible to see anything with the light off. He should've been arrested on that little fact alone, and of course the ransom note idiocy which has already been mentioned.

No intruder hides in a house, waits for everyone to be asleep, then sneaks up to a child's room, carries them down numerous flights of stairs to a room few knew about, tortures them for hours with items FOUND IN THE HOUSE, and then sneaks back up the stairs, finds a notepad in the home, a pen, scribbles a bunch of shit and leaves the pages on the stairs for the family to find... then sneaking back down and escaping with no one hearing a thing. It's supposed to be a ransom situation... so the person tortures the child in the home and also doesn't take the body with them. lol. You would take the child (the ransom) and then torture the kid outside the home. You don't do it on the premises. There was also no sign of a break-in. This tells you what sociopaths make up this family. I'm sure they also convinced themselves of their ridiculous theory. Typical rich white people. Had they been brown they would be on death row.

This is as ridiculous as OJ going out to find Nicole Brown's killer.

Oh, and BTW, when the family was cleared years later, John Ramsey had a close personal friendship with the DA. They met every day for years.

^ this. The ties between John/Team John and the DA are inexplicable. Has the State if Colorado no shame?????? WTF?!?!?!?

Is law enforcement or the media expecting new information to be revealed after John Ramsey dies? I wonder if former friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. will share antecotal stories. I’m sure people are afraid to talk at the risk of being sued by him.

Exactly r582. If it had been an intruder, Jonbenet would've been immediately taken from the home to another location. It was so obviously one of the family members. The whole thing is so sick, and the way the Boulder police and DA's office handled this case was beyond incompetent. They all should've been fired they were so fucking useless.

"Had they been brown they would be on death row. This is as ridiculous as OJ going out to find Nicole Brown's killer. "

OJ was brown and was found not guilty, IIRC.

R587

What is this about the entire family having issues with skid marks in their drawers?

Did they never learn proper hygiene or how to wipe themselves properly?

You would think Patsy would have invested in a bidet.

The family was dirty and slovenly, according to reports. Another poster here who is more knowledgeable can explain.

It's never about brown or white.

It's always about green. Unless there is soo much direct evidence which cannot be controverted by a brilliant attorney(as in the Cosby case.)

R591

Let's end this:

And...

And...

And...

Another...

And another...

And another...

One more...

Interesting

r593 r594 r595 r596 r597 r598 r599

The end (I hope)

603?