Patsy Ramsey Was INNOCENT?

There ARE a lot of vagrants and crazy psycho neighbors roving through the rich enclaves of Boulder.

I'll have what the OP is having.

We really should just disband out judicial system and let Netflix decide the guilt or innocence of those suspected of a serious crime.

John Ramsey resembles Doug Emhoff.

[QUOTE] We really should just disband out judicial system and let Netflix decide the guilt or innocence of those suspected of a serious crime.

If Netflix came out with a big new January 6th documentary right before the election, which Reed Hastings could’ve made happen, then Trump would’ve lost the election.

R5 I don't think so, because most Americans don't care about January 6th, as much as Democrats would like.

[QUOTE] There ARE a lot of vagrants and crazy psycho neighbors roving through the rich enclaves of Boulder.

R1 this was a targeted attack from some pedo who had a hard on for the girl. Stop with the straw men. No “roving vagrant” would’ve done something like this, nor is anyone saying that.

I agree with r6. I have just come to the resolution that most of this country is built up of nihilistic Christians who foolishly believe they'll live forever through Christ and fuck whatever happens on this planet.

Patsy looks vaguely trans at the OP.

Yeah that pedo just happened to know the exact dollar amount of daddy Ramsey's Christmas bonus.

That figure was available in his pay stubs, R10. The bastard was stalking the family and went through their trash at some point.

The handwriting in the ransom note is very similar to Patsy's. The "good Southern common sense of yours" comment relates to an inside joke that wouldn't make sense outside the family (John wasn't actually Southern). John and Patsy refused to be interviewed separately.

OP, are you asking us or telling us?

I read a report that claims the cops gonna solve this case...finally!

PatRam spent thousands on that childs pagentry. She wasn't going to f it up and murder her prize doll.

[QUOTE] The handwriting in the ransom note is very similar to Patsy's.

Multiple handwriting experts ruled out that it was Patsy’s handwriting, R12. Come on. Like that’s not the first thing they looked at?

Of course I’m innocent, but that husband snatching pint sized harlot certainly isn’t!

I thought it was the brother and parents covered it up. I'm not wasting my time watching the documentary

Patsy Ramsey was a very strange and mentally unbalanced woman.

The brother was 10 years old, R18. She was still aIive when she was tied up and tortured. If the parents did these things to hastily cover up her murder, they would’ve been easily busted.

You’d be wise to watch the documentary. It’s enlightening.

Will the “Ms Patsey Ramsey Boulder Colorado” troll now finally shut up?

Pasty fucking killed that kid and god zapped her with The Cancer as punishment.

After seeing the brother in interviews and hearing interviews with investigators, I've come to believe that the brother actually killed her in a fit of anger or rage and the parents covered it up and concocted the whole bizarre story.

The brother comes across as a sociopath...or it may just be Dr. Phil brings that out in everyone he talks to.

Patsy wrote the note ➡️ . ⬅️

I agree Patsy likely wrote the note -- the ransom was the exact amount of the husband's recent bonus, right?

That leads me to believe that they were trying to cover something up. We may never know what.

R7, Sure, Jan. And Christmas Day was the perfect time, for the setting was filled with the entire family and holiday cheer!

What better time to invade unnoticed;

sneak around unheard;

lure, carry, murder, and hide the now-dead JB (one must suppose she throughout put up no resistance whatsoever), then take extra time to stage the body post-mortem with "props," unseen;

practice and compose (not having written anything ahead of time) a lengthy and sarcastic "ransom" note after finding Patsy's tablet AFTER the murder, then place it on a back staircase because you really don't want the ransom any time soon, undiscovered;

and depart, to be forever unnoticed, unheard, unseen, undiscovered---

because YOU WEREN'T THERE AT ALL.

Oh, "two people were involved." Just not you, aka "X: The Unknown Pedo."

John Ramsay must be thrilled that sheeple are so easily swayed by a documentary

[quote]John Ramsay must be thrilled that sheeple are so easily swayed by a documentary

He and the Menendez brothers.

[Quote] because most Americans don't care about January 6th,

If that’s true, shouldn’t several thousand of us attack the Capitol Building in January, take Congress hostage, and threaten to lynch them unless they certify Kamala as the winner?

[quote]Patsy looks vaguely trans at the OP.

Don't I wish!

As you killed your child divine

Give me the strength to kill mine!!

She was not innocent. It was her ransom note.

Whether I am guilty or innocent is beside the point.

I am now a Datalounge meme. My life had meaning.

I love the Patsy Ramsey trolls.

There’s more than one?

Who knew!

Patsy must have been a nightmare to live with. She always seemed hysterical. Someone needed to shake her and say “PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER CUNT!”

Alas, that was Jon Benet’s job, and after she was whacked while taking a ciggy break, nobody stepped up to take on this task.

^Die in a grease fire, cunt!

Datalounge is so liberating.

The Netflix documentary gives an explanation for the $118,000 coincidence. But I don’t remember what it is.

What’s the explanation, R38?

Stop with the Jon bent threads

Those threads are all rife with the same anti-Pat propaganda as everywhere else, including Reddit. They all hate the Ramseys and have their little theories which always blame them for Jon Benet’s death.

Jealousy.

Genius comment, r41.

I remember now - I think. John said there were easily visible documents on his desk that clearly mentioned the$118,000 bonus. Any intruder who walked into his office that night would have seen them.

Because intruders just wander around a house they've broken into, poking through things as they leisurely walk around from room to room.

I can't believe the cops didn't see through such obvious bullshit and didn't drag John and Patsy into the station for separate interrogations. Crazy.

Why do you think they killed her, R45?

John was clearly molesting her.

R47 on the case

r48 it's clear that she was being molested. She was never alone with another man except John. If you believe John and Patsy were innocent you're hopeless.

R44 Yes, because it in no way seems convenient.

I know someone's gotten a bonus. I'm going to ask for that bonus, because I'm dumb and even though I can see this man's 3 story home, and I'm allegedly in it, I just can't fathom this man has more than that. No he must have exactly that amount that dispersed on his checks. The newspaper mentioned a billion dollars. I'm dumb but I'm not that dumb. I know I can't get a billion. So I'm just going for that bonus, because he didn't possibly spend it even though it was dispersed over paychecks. Nevermind he's the company president and clearly has more than that. The figure is convenient misdirection fodder of someone's imagination of what they think a bad guy would go for.

It really reads like a bunch of mashed together misdirection clues.

R4 No he does not. Someone else said Gene Hackman and they nailed it.

R21 The last cunt that took that tone with me ended up shutting up forever.

R21 must be relatively new here. It took about 18 years to get rid of Erna.

I don’t doubt that JonBenét encountered shady and possibly dangerous characters during her short career as a child beauty pageant contestant but the MO of kidnappers and child molesters is different. There’s not a lot of overlap between those two types of criminals. A pedophile typically makes efforts to groom a child and cultivate a relationship with him or her. It is not typical for them to break into a stranger’s house, bash a child’s skull in, strangle her, and then sexually abuse her body post-mortem. It’s true that some sex offenders who target children are violent but they tend to be opportunistic, impulsive, and not good at forward planning.

The intruder theory requires that a person or persons entered the Ramsey house undetected and it somehow ended up a kidnapping-gone-wrong scenario. Kidnapping for ransom has a financial motive and is usually a carefully planned operation. Had this been an actual kidnapping the perpetrators would have arrived on scene with everything they needed including a short and to-the-point ransom note, What kidnappers would [bold]not[/bold] do is browse through Patsy’s desk for pen and paper and then compose the world’s longest ransom note in situ, making several drafts of it in fact, inexplicably kill their intended victim so that their one bargaining chip is now gone, and then leave a bunch of incriminating evidence behind including that nutty novella of a ransom note. Nothing about the intruder theory makes sense given the facts in evidence.

The motive was the call to 9-1-1 Dec. 23.

OF COURSE, she was. Stevie Wonder even knew that.

R54, "nutty novella." Excellent description!

Yes, r44, because, hey, while I'm at it and the family is still awake, let's take a detour from the kidnapping to rummage around John's office! Because I'm still puzzled about the ransom! Oh, wait; first I have to blunder, slay, and set the scene, THEN I have to cover up with a now-fake "ransom note" because Lord knows I ain't carrying no dead brat outta here with me!

The murderer had most likely been in the house more than once, R58.

It was a cavernous house that was frequently empty when the family went out together. There was no alarm system, no real security, just like with most suburban homes. Nothing was stopping someone from getting in through that basement window whenever they wanted to.

Except the basement window was broken from the inside and there were undisturbed cobwebs.

The undisturbed cobwebs thing was already debunked.

[quote] Except the basement window was broken from the inside and there were undisturbed cobwebs.

There was no conclusion that the window was broken from the inside.

The intruder theory doesn't mean it wasn't somebody who knew the family well. Have you read the bio of this suspect?

Bill McReynolds, a.k.a. “Santa Bill”

A family friend of the Ramseys, Bill McReynolds was so good at playing Santa that he did it for three years in a row at the Ramseys’ annual Christmas party. According to Patsy in her book Death of Innocence, McReynolds, a retired journalism professor, asked her to throw the party in 1996 because he was filming a segment for famed CBS anchor Charles Kuralt’s news show and wanted JonBenét and her family to be part of it. McReynolds had a special friendship with JonBenét — so much so that, according to his wife, he took a vial of glitter she gave him with him into heart surgery.

This might all sound sweet and innocent, but it gains significance for several reasons. JonBenét had personally given McReynolds a tour of the Ramsey house, so he was familiar with the layout. Additionally, according to Laurence Schiller’s book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, JonBenét had told family friend Barbara Kostanick just days before her murder that “Santa” had promised to come visit her “after Christmas.” According to Kostanick, JonBenét had emphasized that the visit was after Christmas and that it was to be a secret. Chillingly, as a child, McReynolds’ own daughter and her best friend had been kidnapped exactly 22 years earlier, on December 26, 1974. Before they were located, McReynolds’ daughter’s friend had been sexually assaulted. The perpetrator was never caught. Because of these many coincidences, the Boulder police looked into McReynolds as a suspect. Ultimately, he was cleared after he claimed to have been miles away with his family during the time of the killing. He died, still a beloved community figure, in 2002. In interviews given since, his daughter has proclaimed his innocence, describing him as a kind and loving man “who just believed in magic.”

It was not an intruder, only a moron - and the Boulder police - would believe that.

R63. Wow. Very very interesting.

I understand that the film makers had to adopt a certain tone in order to get the information from Det. Smit and cooperation from the Ramsey’s but even with an obvious bias they didn’t do anything to take the heat off of John, Patsy, and Burke.

As a matter of fact, going into the documentary I didn’t have any opinion about who did it. At the end, I’m almost certain that Burke did it and Patsy initiated the cover-up that John had to go along with.

Why was Patsy wearing the same evening dress she wore the previous night when the police arrived in the morning? Cuz they were up all night thinking of ways to cover this shit up.

Someone in that house killed her.

Yes, the murderous Burke Ramsey did it in a fit of rage! And how much trouble has Killer Burke gotten in since then, R66? Oh that’s right, NONE. He bludgeoned his sister to death as a young boy, covered it up with his parents including lying to the police during interrogation, and then went on to have ZERO disciplinary problems through adolescence and ZERO legal issues as an adult? I don’t think so.

R68 😀 😃 🤭 😊 🤭

[Quote]The undisturbed cobwebs thing was already debunked.

The only place they found cobwebs was in Patsy's old pussy.

I could see Gillian Anderson portraying Patsy in a streamed dramatisation of this saga.

[quote] Why was Patsy wearing the same evening dress she wore the previous night when the police arrived in the morning? Cuz they were up all night thinking of ways to cover this shit up.

Yet it did occur to her to change before calling the police?

[QUOTE] Why was Patsy wearing the same evening dress she wore the previous night when the police arrived in the morning? Cuz they were up all night thinking of ways to cover this shit up.

Or maybe she just put it back on cause it was there? Like you never got up and threw on the same clothes from yesterday?

Patsy Ramsey looks like a fat Kari Lake.

When you read how savagely that little girl was murdered I find it very hard to believe a family member did it.

But these parents were unbelievably negligent. Sexualizing a small child and then exposing her to the public like they did in pageants and then, one week before her killing, in a parade WITH HER NAME ON THE FLOAT is unconscionable. "That was probably a mistake" said the Dad. Ya think? That was the closest either one of them got to recognizing what evil they attracted by flaunting their daughter like a tiny temptress. Maybe a lot of their weird behavior afterwards was because they recognized how culpable they were even though they weren't the actual killers.

r75 they were the actual killers you stupid ass.

I thought Burke Ramsey was the killer, R76? Were they all taking turns torturing JonBenet together? Was it like a sacrificial ritual? Did they gather around her wearing cloaks?

R76 is trolling. He's over on the CEO murder thread telling people he's a whore and got crabs from tricks at the Hilton but is also employed in a "health-adjacent" field. His post history is.....a tragedy.

R20 I can't tell if you're joking...do you work for Netflix or John Ramsey? This shit is nearly 30 years old, there is nothing new or enlightening in this doc. It's the usual "totally guilty person didn't do it" show on netflix, with the obligatory 3 episodes but could have been done in 1, format.

r78 you're such a bore. And John and Patsy are guilty AF.

r78 are you a female? Gay men call hookups "tricks." It's not referring to prostitution.

R49, Look very closely at John's left hand AND how he "hid" himself from Patsy's view.

Note JonBenet's non-smiling, concerned, downward expression.

Sorry. The linked photo for r82:

R82 has the most active imagination on the DL.

[QUOTE] Note JonBenet's non-smiling, concerned, downward expression.

Or maybe she was just a fucking CHILD who couldn’t hold her gaze at the camera at that particular moment and was distracted! Jesus, you people are something else.

There is absolutely NO REASON to suspect John Ramsey of being a child molester, and certainly NO REASON to suspect that he murdered his own daughter.

I wonder about people who see molestation everywhere. I wonder.

I don't see molestation everywhere but unfortunately it is not uncommon, and in JonBenet's case more than one pathologist expressed the opinion that she showed signs of chronic sexual abuse at autopsy. After the passage of so much time there is no way to know who did it. People are speculating about the father's involvement due to the fact that in child sexual abuse cases the perpetrator is typically a person whom the child knows, and in the absence of any evidence that JonBenet was abused by a family friend, a teacher, or other person outside the family the most likely suspect is someone within the family.

That giant bling bling cross is all I see.

"Don't try to grow a brain." Weren't there several movies and films in the house that the ransom note pulled various lines from? Like Speed?

[quote] more than one pathologist expressed the opinion that she showed signs of chronic sexual abuse at autopsy.

Actually, the pathologist who performed the autopsy said ON VIDEO that he did not see any signs of historic sexual abuse on JonBenet. It's in the latest docu.

They’re just making up shit at this point.

Who R90? Cyril Wecht, the 80 year old m.e for hire? Yeah I would trust him.

The Netflix documentary is basically a Ramsey infomercial.

R92, Cyril Wecht's opinion was that JonBenet had been sexually abused. Wecht died earlier this year, fyi.

Thanks R93. Maybe it's Michael Baden I'm thinking of who basically says what the money tells him to.

John always had that Uncle Bottom look about him. Patsy looked mentally unwell. Burke grew up to be a good looking guy.

[quote] The Netflix documentary is basically a Ramsey infomercial.

If I was the Ramseys and had been unjustly accused for 30 years of having raped and murdered my own daughter by people who are only speculating, I too would welcome an infomercial on my behalf to clear my name.

[quote]Will the “Ms Patsey Ramsey Boulder Colorado” troll now finally shut up?

That’s *MRS.* Patsy Ramsey of Boulder, Colorado to YOU, R21!

Burke has a Barron Trump Lurch-like quality about him.

Watching the documentary now. It's interesting to see how much time Mummy and Daddy to get their lies straight and help cover up their murdering their daughter.

OP. You have a tone...

Why didn’t anyone stop her from giving that little harlot a horrifically piss elegant name like Jon Benet?

She kneecapped the kid at birth with a name like that. Jon Benet would have ended up on Intervention as a teenager with a mother like Patsy, selling pussy at truckstops to score Oxycontin or huffing computer cleaner or something.

I wish I had a father!

[QUOTE] OP. You have a tone...

Really, R100. And what tone WOULD THAT BE?

I really do believe it was an intruder. Turned out so much of what we heard was just not true.

^^Except nothing about the crime would be conducive to a home invasion by an intruder.

[quote]That’s *MRS.* Patsy Ramsey of Boulder, Colorado to YOU, [R21]!

FORMERLY of Boulder

I thought the original autopsy was pretty clear that there was ongoing sexual abuse. The fact that the parents were so into sexualizing her with these beauty pageants highly suggests they were involved somehow.

[quote]I thought the original autopsy was pretty clear that there was ongoing sexual abuse.

And John Ramsey was the only adult male who JonBenet was ever completely alone with.

[Quote] ^^Except nothing about the crime would be conducive to a home invasion by an intruder.

Not a single piece of evidence points to someone in the home. All of it is just conjecture

r109 it all points to John and Patsy. The ransom note, for starters. The window with undisturbed cobwebs, the fact that no intruder would ever leisurely walk around an occupied house. It goes on and on.

If someone breaks into a house to assault a child, the child is immediately abducted and taken to another location. Think Polly Klaas.

I don't believe there has ever been a case in the history of law enforcement where an intruder molested a child in the home and murdered the child while the parents were right there in the house.

We won't ever know.

[QUOTE] I thought the original autopsy was pretty clear that there was ongoing sexual abuse.

Wrong, R107.

R113, JB was seen by her doctor an unusual number of times for UTIs.

Also, near the end of the autopsy report, the vaginal area is said to show "chronic inflammation."

R112, We can certainly know about reported cases.

Not even the Lindbergh Baby case with its similar post-mortem "ransom" demands was considered an in-house murder.

R115, he wasn’t killed in the house

[Quote] I don't believe there has ever been a case in the history of law enforcement where an intruder molested a child in the home and murdered the child while the parents were right there in the house.

A very similar case happened just two miles down from the Ramseys where a girl, who was in JonBenet’s dance class was raped in the house while her mother was in the house. The child could have easily been killed had the rapist not been disturbed by the mother. I believe the rapist escaped and was never found.

This is just too big of a coincidence.

Great, the netflix/intruder shill is here at R117.

Did John Ramsey rape that girl too, R118?

The autopsy showed that JonBenet had been sexually abused. John Ramsey was the only male who she was ever completely alone with. The end.

The whole thing is so sick and twisted.

[QUOTE] John Ramsey was the only male who she was ever completely alone with.

How do you know that, R120?

R119 No, he probably didn't, but maybe her dad did. He's not saying John Ramsey is the rapist of all little girls, just his own. Other dads are the rapists of their own kids.

Before this the best-known Colorado child sex abuser was Mr. Van Derbur, father of Miss America 1958 (Miss Colorado, and Miss UC-BOULDER!), who raped his actual beauty quien daughter up until she was 18.

r121 it's known that no other adult males were ever alone with her.

Most child sex abuse victims are abused by someone they know and not a stranger. The younger the child the smaller their social circle is, which restricts the number of potential suspects. JonBenét might have met more strangers than an average six year-old due to her participating in beauty pageants but basically the only people who have regular access to children in that age group are family members, family friends, babysitters, possibly a few neighbors, teachers, and other young children.

[quote]the only people who have regular access to children in that age group are family members, family friends, babysitters, possibly a few neighbors, teachers, and other young children.

You forgot priests.

Yes, clergy should be on that list as well. I read that the Ramseys joined an Episcopal church when they moved to Boulder but I don’t know if they were regular churchgoers.

actually r19 she was dying of cancer during the whole “who killed Jonbenet”...more sick than mental

My God the Queens on this thread. The Ramseys were innocent. DNA. Some weirdo was obsessed with JB. Surprised the pageant circuit weirdoes weren't investigated more.

r129 that's bullshit.

R59, A facile comment but hardly likely fact, never mind "most likely." Do you think such friends, Romans, countrymen, and plumbers weren't considered?

Same here. Weirdos came out of the wood work for JB. ‘’Leave Patsy Alone’’

The pageant thing is why people thought it was an intruder but there's nothing about that in the note.

I know there was nothing about the pageant 'thing' in the note, but that doesn't mean some freak - photographer, rabid fan, judge didn't take to JonBenet in a sadistic way. What normal adult male would be drawn to that world?

Why would Patsy write a ransom note to cover for an intruder though??

John wrote it

You sure Killer Burke didn’t write it?

I could plausibly buy the intruder theory, if there hadn't been a note. The note is the smoking gun that convinces me it was John and Patsy who killed JonBenet.

Exactly R138. I think everyone feels that way, but they had to write the note to let people know that an intruder, not them, killed her.

One of them killed her, maybe it was even accidental, but then they made up a story to cover it up.

accidental with a garrote?

Accidentally crushed her skull R141, the garrote was just to look like she was strangled.

Again you STUPID hypocritical Queens - so willing to believe DNA when it applied to OJ, ignoring that it cleared all family members of JB. How to explain how it got in her panties?? The tales of 'lengthy' sexual abuse with John Ramsey having molested her? There is zero proof he ever molested any other child, he just got the 'urge' because Jon Benet brought it out in him?? That's pretty drastic. Was there proof John Ramsey went online to even look up porn???

I feel rotten even typing this, but that kid did have a very knowing look in her eye. She reminds me of Claudia in Interview With The Vampire.

I think there is a lot of class warfare behind these strong emotions against the Ramseys.

The 6 year old “beauty pageant circuit” is weird as fuck. People like Patsy Ramsey who involve their kids in that scene certainly have a few screws loose.

Whatca mean R146? BURP....

It’s all so sordid. All their sickass creepyness caught up with them and overtook them.

Jon Benet wrote the note and killed herself to frame her hysterical cunt mother. She was tired of posing like a child prostitute in those ridiculous, whorish getups and wanted revenge.

Take it down a notch R143, why do you fucking care if people think that? Are you a Ramsey? There's no fucking proff their neighbors molested any kids, but you all want to blame them, or anyone else.

R154 Class warfare? You're adorable. Yes, people feel very strongly about the nouveau riche Ramseys and their tacky trinkets.

I've heard that Patsy was not really accepted into the upper class world in and around Boulder because they thought she was a hayseed with horrible tacky taste who just married well.

…’cause Boulder is so high class. It’s Berkeley without any Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur Geniuses, Olympic gold medalists, Oscar winners, etc. Just the weed, mushroomz and booze.

[quote]actually [R19] she was dying of cancer during the whole “who killed Jonbenet”...more sick than mental

She didn’t die until 2006, ten years after the murder. Her cancer was in remission and she was well during the aftermath of the murder.

"20/20" tonight, ABC, 9:00 p.m. Includes interview with John.

I'm recording it, but I'm not so sure I'll watch it.

R153, Get real. Patsy died from her ovarian cancer and likely worried every day prior that it would, as it did, return, during those years you think she was "well."

Her cancer---and can there be one more closely connected to having a girl-child?---was "a small foreign faction" always hovering unseen, "watching.

During all her cancer treatments, Patsy had to "follow...instructions to the letter." Detail after detail. The process "will be exhausting." She will be "monitor[ed]," and if there is any "deviation," retribution will come "earlier" and "earlier."

Patsy "will be scanned for [by?] electronic devices."

Odds. Percentages. "99%." "100%." "[C]onstant scrutiny."

And lastly, her cryptic message "SBTC!" Saved By The Cross. Nothing to do with any ransom, everything to do with her hope for God's forgiveness.

No

r152 there's a garrote with your name on it.

R152, There are Olympic Gold Medalists in diverse places, not only in big or celebrated cities.

To add to R51's excellent post, Patsy 100% "wrote what she knew" in that ransom note. Here's the smoking gun in regards to that:

The DNA probably belonged to crime scene techs. Boulder is that kind of town.

R152, you left out "the meritless pride."

Everyone wanted this pint sized harlot dead.

Foreign factions; department store Santas; cross dressing, globe trotting kiddie diddlers; her autistic brother; her hysterical cunt mother; Nancy Grace; Larry King; her creepy father; the list goes on and on.

None of the Ramsey family members wanted her dead, period. There is absolutely nothing in their backgrounds that suggests they were capable of murdering her, then and now. No legal trouble. John Ramsey has raised multiple children into adults, he has stepchildren, he has had access to kids for decades and NOBODY raised an accusation against him. The Ramseys haven’t so much as missed a credit card payment. Yet they’re being accused of not only molesting and murdering that child but successfully covering it all up and getting away with it? It’s preposterous.

R3 Still better than our Supreme Court.

R162 when this story first came out, I thought there was an actual molesting intruder, obsessed with her pageants or something. It seems so heinous.

Nonsense R162. John Ramsey was involved in covering up shit in Vietnam, his leadership of Access Graphics was itself a payoff of some kind.

R162, I guess you missed the unusual number of JB visits to her pediatrician for urinary/genital issues.

But in general it is your defense /argument that is "preposterous."

For example, HTH would YOU know if anyone wanted JB dead or not?! Moreover, the major theory is not one of malice aforethought. It is that one parent basically flipped out for some reason(s), such as a combination of Patsy's exhaustion and JB's bed-wetting, or Patsy's discovery of John's molesting JB.

Maybe you'll see that if I phrase it this way:

How about if I offered you a quarter for every convicted murderer who had up to the crime led a blameless life? I'd bet you wouldn't turn that down.

The DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails didn't match anyone in her family. They were all cleared. That's what episode 1 of the documentary reported from the investigative reports. Haven't gotten to episode 2 yet.

In episode 2: a document analyst for the Secret Service examined her handwriting and the ransom note and said Patsy Ramsey didn't write it.

No one was cleared. Let’s not continue that fiction, OK?

And no one said cleared, dear R169.

I haven’t watched the doc yet, but learned the details in real time and read the Lawrence Schiller book years ago.

I’d never considered the brother, because he was so young, but kids do get mighty wound up around Christmas.

And long live our DL Patsy/s.

R170, but R167 said “they were all cleared.” Now we have in-thread gaslighting, which is on-form for this murder.

The murderer “oh I hope they have some stationary available as I have to sit down and write a rather detailed note”

“Oh fuck me, just like fresh baked cookies for Santa 🎅🏻 they’ve left out a writing pad and pen and a chair at the counter”

“You might be naturally thinking I’d be in a hurry (having just committed a brutal heinous murder) but actually this place is rather cozy and I’ll just be sitting down composing 🤔”

Haven't seen the Netflix documentary but 20/20 aired a very compelling episode on the case last week. The Ramsey's were cleared after Patsy's death and I had no idea John had remarried. The police did their best to frame the Ramsey's but failed miserably.

“Maybe I’ll making some Folgers Coffee and bait another victim down to the kitchen?”

I've never believed the intruder theory, but it's amazing how many people do now because of the recent Netflix documentary.

I wonder if the alleged intruder/s partook of the pineapple as they sat and composed their ransom letter.

What nonsense r174. dna never cleared the Ramseys because evidence custody chain was never kept.

R176 Oh didn't you hear? R174 Said 20/20 reported the Ramseys were cleared after Patsy's death! Bull fucking shit, if that were true, John would have shouted it from the rooftops, it wouldn't have been some blurb on 20/20. 20/20 thinks Adnan is innocent, and Steven Avery, I'm sure.

Netflix: Casey Anthony was framed! Ted Budy's confessions were false!

True or false?

What a bunch of clowns you DL conspiracy queens. No DNA match from the DNA found on her body.

[quote] evidence custody chain was never kept

Like this MARY at R178! You stupid whores keep trying to making hay of this 30-YEAR-OLD MURDER!

You know what, bitches? They ARE cleared! She's dead and he'll never be suddenly convicted of anything, because there's no evidence ever found to suggest otherwise!

SO SUCK IT!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

R30 Burke, dat you?

R182 Burke, dat you?

An accessory after the fact of murder is not innocent, for fuck's sake.

She and her husband covered it up, no matter how the little tyke got that way.

And how she got that way didn't require a fucking crazy hobo in a Santa suit squeezing through a broken window without leaving traces in the snow.

If it weren’t for the note, I could buy an intruder theory.

But they were unbelievably stupid to write that note.

John is so smarmy and pleased with himself in the Netflix doc. He’s full of elaborate explanations.

Maybe he did write the note.

[quote] She and her husband covered it up, no matter how the little tyke got that way.

Proof, Mary R185? Where's your proof--other than what you hear in your head?

[quote] without leaving traces in the snow.

Because there was no snow on the ground, Mary R185. That was mentioned specifically in the documentary as part of the investigative report.

Since we know that there was little evidence of ongoing sexual abuse, no parent would stick something up their daughter's hoo hoo just so police would think there was sexual abuse

The note makes no sense to anyone--but it also doesn't make sense for the parents to write it either. For what reason, particularly if they already knew she was dead

[quote] Said 20/20 reported the Ramseys were cleared after Patsy's death! Bull fucking shit, if that were true, John would have shouted it from the rooftops

He basically did by suing everyone who claimed he was guilty

[quote] I've never believed the intruder theory, but it's amazing how many people do now because of the recent Netflix documentary.

Nor do I believe the family did it--why? and why so much detail like the garotte and inserting things into her vagina? There is no reason for any of it. Even if the brother hit the girl and cracked open her head, NO ONE would think, "Let's make up a scene where an intruder came and killed her."

[quote] No one was cleared. Let’s not continue that fiction, OK?

See R181

[quote] John Ramsey was involved in covering up shit in Vietnam, his leadership of Access Graphics was itself a payoff of some kind.

So?

More misinformation from R191.

There were approximately two lawsuits: one brought by Patsy Ramsey after a retired detective on the case wrote a book saying she was guilty of murdering the kid because she supposedly wet the bed. She hadn't even wet the bed, so this was a totally baseless assertion. The mother sued and the suit was settled out of court

The only other lawsuit was brought by the son, Berke, after he was accused with no evidence of murdering his sister. That was also settled--even the Boulder Police Department said he was totally not guilty of anything.

So, no, R191, John Ramsey didn't sue everyone--or even anyone. You just make shit up--kind of like Trump.

John Ramsey did in fact sue CBS for its docuseries in 2016.

And please, even though the names on the other suits were Patsy and Berke, it's stupid to believe John had nothing to do with them

You call one lawsuit "suing everyone who claimed he was guilty," R196? You'd sue too if there was absolutely no evidence for the slander you were being accused of--like that detective's made-up story, as well as that made-uo story the son did it--hmmmmm?

the tell-tale cobwebs

[quote] You call one lawsuit "suing everyone who claimed he was guilty," [R196]? You'd sue too if there was absolutely no evidence for the slander you were being accused of--like that detective's made-up story, as well as that made-uo story the son did it--hmmmmm?

I agree with you. I count all the lawsuits to be coming from the family. They were officially cleared so he sued whenever there was some high profile person saying they were guilty

Really, R199? Other than the two, what were they? And no, the lawsuits specifically were brought by Patsy and Berke because they specifically were the ones who were accused.

You might want to watch the docuseries on them as you're embarrassingly full of misinforemation.

*misinformation

[quote] Other than the two, what were they? And no, the lawsuits specifically were brought by Patsy and Berke because they specifically were the ones who were accused.

There were at least 3.

They can only sue if they had been harmed. They can only make that case if the accuser did it on a nationally televised program or such. Of course, he didn't literally sue everyone.

If people would actually like to clear up the misconceptions they've been married to all these years, the Netflix series was full of actual information. Now might be the time to educate yourselves.

I liked the Netflix series because it set the record straight on all the lies that swirled around this story, many of which keep being repeated on this thread

Exactly, R204. It's really distasteful that people borrow from the Trump playbook of doubling down on lies and misinformation to suit their own ludicrous narratives, as if facts don't matter.

R203, agree totally. There’s no way the family did this, they were exonerated by DNA, the DNA chain of evidence isn’t in question, the profile was complete—good enough for FBI who have strict requirements to add a profile to their CODIS database.

The majority of people think the Ramseys did it because the Boulder Police Dept. practiced selective leaking to put pressure on the perpetrator, which they believed was someone in the family.

Anyone who takes a closer look at the case can see this was done by an intruder. All of the primary source materials—DNA reports, investigation notes, court filings, photographs, video of depositions—are available online.

So the maniacs here who are still screeching that the Ramseys did it are lost souls, beyond hope, dumb dumbs.

John has filed defamations suits against St. Martin's Press, Time, Inc., The Fox News Channel, American Media, Inc., Star, The Globe, Court TV, and The New York Post.

The filed a $750 million defamation suits against CBS on Burke’s behalf and CBS didn’t even try to defend themselves. They settled immediately because the evidence of their innocence is so definitive.

Link to the text of the CBS suit. ^

Publishing books and putting up "news" stories on major networks that were full of the most blatant, libelous untruths were so outrageous that they defied any justification. The entire Boulder police department should have been sued. The sleazy police detective actually wrote a book that said the mother killed her daughter over "toileting" issues. Complete lie. I wonder if he also lurks here on DL with the other liars here.

And in the defamation suit brought against the Ramseys by the journalist Chris Wolfe, the judge ruled definitively that there was no evidence that the family was guilty and that the sum of evidence clearly indicated that an intruder murdered JB.

This is a good summary actually of the evidence—clear and accurate.

R195 is now in tears...

R210, Steve Thomas is a total piece of shit. He’s so handsome that he was able to project his authority his entire life and he’s never been challenged. He is such a coward he couldn’t even look Patsy in the face. He acted affronted that she was challenging him directly.

Not at all, Mary R195.

Sorry, I meant Mary R212! HA!

Just watch the Ram$ay endorsed documentary to see how innocent the Ram$ays are

R188 Ha, are you serious? No shit that "documentary" on netflix said it wasn't snowing, it said lots of shit that isn't true. What's your point?

[quote]R211 And in the defamation suit brought against the Ramseys by the journalist Chris Wolfe, the judge ruled definitively that there was no evidence that the family was guilty and that the sum of evidence clearly indicated that an intruder murdered JB.

I haven't seen the Netflix documentary yet, but I found R211's link interesting, then wondered who Chris Wolfe is and googled his name. And wow. I'm late to reading about this case (after having read the threads here over the past couple of weeks) so maybe everyone has already discussed this exhaustively, but this guy seems like a serious suspect. Obviously he was cleared, but the attached page from the Ramsey's and Lawrence Schiller's books is very interesting; here are some excerpts:

[quote]On January 28, Jacqueline Dilson, who worked at the Dakota Ranch, a small New Age retreat and conference centre near Lyons, Colorado, sat in the office of her attorney, Larry Mertex. She was telling Detectives Wickman, Gosage and Thomas and Pete Hofstrom that her boyfriend, Chris Wolf, might be involved in the death of JonBenet. Her description of Wolf's behavior seemed to fit the profile of someone who had recently committed a crime.

[quote]Wolf had moved in with Dilson in her trailer in July 1995. He had a master's degree in journalism and worked as a reporter for the Colorado Daily and Boulder County Business Reports. He'd interviewed Cheryl McGraw, an administrative assistant at Access Graphics, for a business travel story. In December 1995, Dilson said, Wolf had moved out of the trailer, but they continued to see each other. On Christmas Day 1996, Wolf was back living with Dilson. They went to a party together, Dilson said, but later Wolf refused to have dinner with her and her family. At about 10:00 PM, Dilson said, she went to bed alone. She woke the next morning, about 5:30 AM, just as Wolf was getting out of the shower. She noticed that his jeans and sweater, which were lying on the floor, were very dirty.

[quote]That evening, December 26, Dilson and Wolf were watching the late news. When JonBenet's death was reported, Wolf said hoped "the fucker dies. He was sexually abusing her." Dilson said he was referring to the girl's father. The next day, Dilson said, Wolf was extremely agitated. He paced the house all day long.

[quote]It was Dilson who had suggested to the police and the DA in January that her ex-boyfriend, part-time reporter Chris Wolf, had behaved oddly after JonBenét’s death. Ainsworth had read the police reports about both Dilson and Wolf and felt that further follow-up was needed. Now, Dilson told Ainsworth that on February 13, the day Koby and Hunter had first appeared on TV for a press conference, Chris Wolf “freaked out.” She and her daughter, Mara, had both seen Wolf biting his nails when Hunter, looking into the camera, said, “We will get you.” After the broadcast, Wolf left, Dilson said. She added that Wolf had threatened to kill her in April. “I should just strangle you” were his words.

(con't)

[quote]Apparently Dilson had spent Christmas Day with Wolf, but he would not stay to have supper with her and her family. He told Jackie that he might go out that night. If you wake up and I’m not here, he said, I’m just driving around. Somewhere around 10:00 P.M. Jacqueline went to bed alone, thinking Wolf had gone off on a spree of some kind or another. At around 5:30 A.M., sounds from the bathroom woke Jackie up, and she realized that Wolf was getting out of the shower. His navy blue sweater and jeans were lying on the floor dirty. Later the next day, Dilson and Wolf watched the television news reports of JonBenet's death. To her surprise, she observed him becoming quite agitated. Wolf cursed and said that he believed JonBenet had been sexually abused by her father. For the rest of the evening, Wolf brooded over the case. According to Dilson, Wolf hated big business and had a fascination with world political disputes and political violence. He told her that John Ramsey’s company designed parts for guns, which were then sold to third world countries to kill people. Wolf was extremely upset every time the Ramsey case was discussed on television, Dilson said. We considered this a very significant lead and gave all the information to the police.

[quote]By this time Chris Wolf captured our renewed interest. Jacqueline Dilson said that Wolf had some photographs of JonBenet out of newspaper articles, some military magazines - the soldier of fortune kind of stuff - and some pornographic photos of himself. Public records showed that he had once been arrested for public indecency.

Yeah R219, if only Patsy hadn't written that goddamn note, maybe he'd be someone I'd suspect. What's with these fucking loser chicks that date people who they even suspect might be serial killers/pedos/etc.? I'm sure she was pissed at him for something and that's why she called the cops on him, and I bet she continued to date him too.

Really, Mary, R217--like what? The investigators were lying about no snow on the ground? Proof of that?

R216--Ramsay-endorsed documentary series? Proof of that?

R216/R217 would make great additions to Trump's cabinet! They think if they keep lying enough and slandering, those even stupider than they are will believe them!

Way to bring Trump into everything, dipshit. Yes, the investigators hired by Ramsey would absolutely lie. Are you also hired by Ramsey?

Because you ACT like him, cunt R222. Proof the investigators lied? If you don't have proof you're a liar. Like Trump. If you make up shit and then double-down, then you're like him, asshole. Show your PROOF or shut the fuck up.

Stupid conspiracy theory fuckheads.

I'm like him R223? I'm not the asshole reeing at everyone for being against a nouveau riche fuck and his fat pageant princess wife. Show me fucking proof of anything that wasn't "discovered" by the "investigators" from the "documentary". Who do the "investigators" think wrote the letter?

[quote] I'm not the asshole reeing at everyone for being against a nouveau riche fuck and his fat pageant princess wife.

Oh, dear--Miss R225 is ranting. Clearly she has emotions about all this after all these years. How pathetic. And yes, you sound just like Trump--no proof of anything, just accusations.

[quote] from the "documentary"

Miss R225 doesn't even believe the documentary is real! How Trump can you get!

[quote] being against a nouveau riche fuck and his fat pageant princess wife

Sounds like your hatred of these people is all-consuming, R225. And after nearly 30 years.

R228, Is there a Statute of Limitations for "hatred" of child-killers? Asking for a friend.

Patshe Ramshe

Actual child killers, R229, or the innocent parents?

R227 Documentary? Nothing on netflix is a documentary, dipshit.

Okay, cunt Trump R232.

That poor woman!

[quote] Nothing on netflix is a documentary

Why would anyone believe a word you say when you spout nonsense like that? Oh, wait--no one does believe a word you say, crazy conspiracy theorist. Do you not believe in vaccines, either?

It's not a conspiracy that shit on netflix is heavily biased and not true. Why are you so mad? Are you John Ramsey? You're seething about this and saying dumb shit like "cunt trump" like it personally affects you that netflix is garbage and the Ramseys are killers.

[quote] It's not a conspiracy that shit on netflix is heavily biased and not true. It's not a conspiracy that shit on netflix is heavily biased and not true.

That, in and of itself, is a generically false statement, R236.

[quote] netflix is garbage and the Ramseys are killers

You discredit yourself right there, Trump R236. Clearly you choose to believe what you want. What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

R236 what's the actual proof the parents are killers?

I'll ask again, R236: what's the actual proof the parents are killers? As in indisputable proof, not theories?

The silence from R236 is deafening. And yet she crows on this thread that the parents were cold-blooded killers, with no evidence of that. Yep, that sounds just like something Trump would say--just like those pet-eating Muslims in Ohio, right, R236?

Take your meds, John

Where's the proof, R241? Stop deflecting.

Your guy got away with it. Why are you here?

Because you have zero proof, R241. And yet you bang on with a disproven lie from 30 years ago.

[quote] Why are you here?

Why shouldn't I be here, R243? What are you, the hall monitor? And still deflecting, I see.

[Quote] and the Ramseys are killers.

Mental illness on full display

R246, I see it as doubling down, Trump style. They can't provide ANY proof that the parents were the killers, yet for some reason, they keep digging in with this disproven lie--30 years later. I suppose that could be a form of mental illness.

It's quite obvious there was no intruder, from the mountain of evidence and suspicious behavior. Anyone who believes the intruder theory is an idiot.

Nowhere in the history of criminal cases has a kidnapper composed a ransom note in the home, leisurely walked around an occupied home to snoop through papers (which John claims is how the "intruder" found the amount of his bonus), replaces the notepad and the pen in the drawer, etc. Not to mention ransom notes are extremely rare. Also, a child would've been immediately removed from the house. Think the Lindbergh kidnapping and Polly Klass. There was snow on the ground but no footprints. Undisturbed cobwebs on the broken basement window. The Ramseys claimed they searched the whole house before the cops arrived but didn't check the wine cellar? The ransom note had language that Patsy used.

The parents were guilty but because they were rich and prominent and the Boulder cops were utter incometent morons, they got away with it.

We have a group of sycophants who have now spent a generation of time blaming the Ramseys for that girl’s death, R247. Don’t think for a second that they will just suddenly let it go. They can’t. They’ll take this shit to their grave.

[quote] It's quite obvious there was no intruder, from the mountain of evidence and suspicious behavior.

You're just saying that, you're not proving it, R248. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Where is the mountain of evidence? And "suspicious behavior" is also not evidence.

[quote] There was snow on the ground but no footprints.

No, there wasn't, and that has been proven.

Jon Benet faked her own death to get away from her hysterical cunt mother, autistic brother and creepy father.

She’s living under an assumed name in Vegas as a blackjack dealer.

r250 I don't know what your agenda is but you seem insane.

[Quote] No shit that "documentary" on netflix said it wasn't snowing, it said lots of shit that isn't true.

Interesting that all you do is rant. You can’t even name ONE thing the documentary says that’s untrue.

I assume you’ll just post another vague rant about it now

No she was most certainly not innocent.

R255, thanks for your unsupported pining

[Quote] [R250] I don't know what your agenda is but you seem insane.

Vague rant

[Quote] [R250] I don't know what your agenda is but you seem insane.

Vague rant

[Quote] It's quite obvious there was no intruder, from the mountain of evidence and suspicious behavior.

Vague rant

[Quote] Nowhere in the history of criminal cases has a kidnapper composed a ransom note in the home, leisurely walked around an occupied home to snoop through papers

Seems like the intruder was in the house long before the family returned that night. He may have composed the note, assuming that he would kidnap JB. For some reason, she ended up dead and he fled

[quote] I don't know what your agenda is but you seem insane.

What's YOUR agenda, R253? It's "insane" to say where is your proof the parents are the murderers? Again with the deflecting.

The similar intrusion down the block and near death of the girl of a same age in JenBenet’s dance class is a smoking gun for me

R255--another one who espouses a lie.

Not only that, R260, the entire family was out of the house for several hours that day, making it very easy for an intruder--including the sex offender who said he did it--to hide and wait in the basement.

Never in the history of criminal cases has that ever happened r264. A child abduction from the home is rare enough, and when it is done, it's done as quickly as possible. You are clearly mentally unhinged with your constant shitposts one after another.

[Quote] Never in the history of criminal cases has that ever happened [R264].

No has ever hid in the house before a family arrived? Ever?

[quote]including the sex offender who said he did it--to hide and wait in the basement.

Without knowing when the residents would return to the house. Without knowing if 20 other people would be returning to the house with them. Without knowing if the residents or other guests might be armed or at the very least physically powerful enough to overpower the intruder. OK.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

[Quote] . You are clearly mentally unhinged with your constant shitposts one after another.

Vague rant

[quote]No has ever hid in the house before a family arrived? Ever?

Yes. And the entire family was gunned down immediately in an ambush.

[Quote] Logic isn't your strong suit.

Vague rant

You've ruined a nice thread, troll. Do you think OJ was innocent?

[Quote] Never in the history of criminal cases has that ever happened [R264]. A child abduction from the home is rare enough, and when it is done, it's done as quickly as possible

The very fact that it doesn’t follow your “pattern” is why the police seemed so incompetent. They couldn’t believe that this could have possibly happened any other way.

There isn’t one iota of proof that anyone in the family did it, but the police doubled down because they couldn’t think out of the box

[Quote] You've ruined a nice thread, troll. Do you think OJ was innocent?

Vague rant

[Quote] Yes. And the entire family was gunned down immediately in an ambush.

Every single time? In the history of mankind?

[quote] Logic isn't your strong suit.

And yet you've provided no p;roof the parents did it, so where is your logic, R267?

Where is the proof the family did it?

All you read here are theories--an intruder couldn't have hidden in the basement... [with no explanation why not]

There were no footprints found in the snow. [because it was proven by the investigators there was no snow]

Every request for proof the parents (or was it just the mother? or was it the son?) killed the girl is met with deflection. Because there is no proof the family had anything to do with it.

Yet deflect, deflect, deflect.

[quote] Without knowing when the residents would return to the house. Without knowing if 20 other people would be returning to the house with them. Without knowing if the residents or other guests might be armed or at the very least physically powerful enough to overpower the intruder. OK.

Yet it's far more likely the mother killed her--with no motive whatsoever? And you have the nerve to talk about logic, R267? Yet all of those things you describe are completely possible, especially if we're talking about a child-obsessed pedophile.

Jon Benet was a cutthroat competitor on the Colorado kiddie pageant circuit.

She would do ANYTHING to win-short circuiting fire batons, destroying evening gowns with cuticle scissors, “accidentally “ tripping her fellow contestants so they fell in a pile of dirty snow, even throwing cat piss on her fellow contestants-she was going to win at all costs.

A group of pageant mothers, fed up with the pint size harlot and her hysterical cunt mother, took matters into their own hands when the judges wouldn’t. They whacked Jon Benet, and framed Patsy with the ransom note-Patsy stupidly was bragging about her creepy husband’s bonus to her fellow pageant mothers.

It has been pointed out to you several times that the ransom note provides a lot of evidence that a family member committed the murder.

- Used weird language Patsy was know to use (“and hence,” movie quotes).

- Cited a “ransom amount” John would have been able to easily produce. It’s possible John originally planned to remove the body then go through the motions of complying with a kidnapper’s demands.

- Note goes out of the way to mention John’s business. This along with mentioning bonus amount possibly intended to imply a disgruntled employee had a hand in the “kidnapping.” I’d be very interested to know if John volunteered a “disgruntled employee” theory in early police interviews.

- Length of ransom note, composed in the house, practice note, pen replaced in drawer, etc

None of that is evidence, R279, it's conjecture, and they never were able to use a ransom note to prove it was the parents.

[quote] provides a lot of evidence that a family member committed the murder.

Again, no it doesn't.

[quote] Used weird language Patsy was know to use

Conjecture.

[quote] Cited a “ransom amount” John would have been able to easily produce. It’s possible John originally planned to remove the body then go through the motions of complying with a kidnapper’s demands.

All conjecture, none of it evidence.

[quote] Note goes out of the way to mention John’s business. This along with mentioning bonus amount possibly intended to imply

"possibly intended to imply"? Conjecture, not evidence.

[quote] Length of ransom note, composed in the house, practice note

Meaningless. And if someone was hiding in the basement for hours, they'd have plenty of time.

In short, all your assertions are conjecture, lacking in evidence.

It’s almost unthinkable for most of us that a parent could sexually abuse or kill a child.

But look at John’s behavior in relationships outside of Jonbebet’s death. He has a history of chaos in personal relationships and treating people as disposable. He started “new families” at least three times.

If I were Burke’s surviving parent, the LAST thing I would do after JonBebet and Patsy’s deaths is prioritize high-profile dating (Holloway) and remarriage. More trauma for Burke.

John shows no ability to bond with or prioritize his surviving child Burke. Just discard and on to the next “new” family.

This is the kind of psychopath who could abuse and kill a child. I tend to think John was abusing JonBenet and the murder was accidental. At that point, John would have decided discarding JonBenet (so he could survive) was the best option.

R280, what is your evidence for an intruder?

R280, what is your evidence as to why an intruder wrote those sections of the random note?

Please be sure to provide “evidence” and not conjecture.

The fact is someone wrote the note. That is fact. The only people who would “benefit” from writing such a note are the family.

[quote]And if someone was hiding in the basement for hours, they'd have plenty of time.

Conjecture. Not evidence.

[quote]Yet all of those things you describe are completely possible, especially if we're talking about a child-obsessed pedophile.

Conjecture. Not evidence.

[quote]There isn’t one iota of proof that anyone in the family did it,

Well, there’s the matter of the dead body found in the family home.

Someone killed her.

It was either a family member or an intruder.

Because you are certain it was not a family member, you must think it was an intruder.

What’s your evidence that an intruder did it?

[quote] But look at John’s behavior in relationships outside of Jonbebet’s death. He has a history of chaos in personal relationships and treating people as disposable. He started “new families” at least three times.

That's really conjecture, R281. His first marriage in divorce, the second ended after many years with his wife's death, and he's been happily married to his third wife for years. Where's the history of chaos or treating people like they're disposable. That's not backed up with facts. Andhe married his third wife 5 years after his second wife died--hardly rushing into it.

You've decided he's a psychopath based on no evidence--that magic word.

R282/R283/R284, when someone is charged with a crime, it's not the job of the defense to prove the innocence of the accused, but the prosecution to prove they're guilty, something you have failed to do.

[quote] What’s your evidence that an intruder did it?

R286, where is your evidence an intruder didn't do it?

And what, pray, would have been the motive for either of her parents to viciously kill her?

Has anyone here who thinks the family or one of the family members was involved watched the Netflix documentary series?

Motive is not an element of a crime, r288. You claim to be focused on “proof,” yet prosecutors are never required to prove “motive.”

It is also illogical in the extreme to ask people to prove something didn’t happen. (“Where’s your evidence an intruder didn’t do it?”)

The extent of your “debate” skills seems to be chanting over and over “you can’t prove it” like a five-year-old.

In fact, circumstantial evidence almost always requires drawing inferences, but stupid people find this really difficult to do.

R290, where is the actual physical evidence that links any of the family members to the crime, not hearsay, which is all you've provided.

I mean actual evidence.

[quote] Motive is not an element of a crime

Since when, R288?

R288 would have us believe that Patsy Ramsey or her husband or son or all of them (she can't be bothered to be specific which family member killed the kid) did so without any motivation whatsoever.

Sorry, those were both for R290.

The "Ramseys are innocent" troll is a loon. They clearly did it. I don't know why he's so invested in the intruder theory, which is totally nonsensical. Maybe he's on John's PR team.

If she was innocent she wouldn't be burning in hell right now.

[QUOTE] What’s your evidence that an intruder did it?

Because there is nothing that impeaches the credibility of the family, R286. Nothing they did before JonBenet’s death or since JonBenet’s death would suggest they’re capable of torturing and murdering a child and then covering it up. You have nothing against John, nothing against Pat, and nothing against Burke. Yet you believe they just murdered her for no reason?

R295, where is the irrefutable evidence they did? And yet I'm a loon for demanding something than crackpot conjecture.

So: in sum, no evidence anyone in the family murdered this kid, no motive (and yes, motive is absolutely a factor here), and nothing other than character assassination of people no one here knows.

And none of the naysayers has watched the Netflix series, in case that ran up against their already decided opinion (yes, opinion) of what happened.

No wonder Trump is such a hero to so many in this country. His behavior is emulated by a few on this thread.

There's no evidence that somebody from outside of the house killed her. None at all.

And there's no evidence anyone in the house killed her, R301. Not at all.

Those Ramsey's certainly seem suspicious, defensive and nuttier than a fruitcake but who's to say how to act after your child is lost.

The FBI dismissed the intruder theory. Crime statistics show that children are far more likely to be murdered by members of their own family and other people close to them than at the hands of strangers. The majority of cases in which children under the age of 13 are murdered involve parental perpetrators (statistics range from 75 percent to over 80 percent).

JonBenet’s dead body is excellent evidence that someone murdered her.

It was found in the home, so there are only two possibilities.

(1) A family member murdered her OR

(2) An intruder murdered her.

You state that the family members did not murder her.

So, what is your evidence that an intruder murdered her?

What is your evidence that a family member did not murder her?

Motive is not an element of a criminal offense that prosecutors need to prove at trial.

There’s not enough evidence to connect anyone to the murder. Hence, no charges were ever filed.

[quote]What’s your evidence that an intruder did it?

[quote]Because there is nothing that impeaches the credibility of the family, [R286]. Nothing they did before JonBenet’s death or since JonBenet’s death would suggest they’re capable of torturing and murdering a child and then covering it up. You have nothing against John, nothing against Pat, and nothing against Burke. Yet you believe they just murdered her for no reason?

(1) impeaching credibility is a defined legal term / concept. It does not mean what you think it means.

(2) Nothing in your statement provides evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet. That’s the question you claim to be responding to.

I'm saying there's almost always a motive behind a murder, R306, I didn't say a motive was required legally.

[quote] You state that the family members did not murder her.

No, I didn't, R305. I said there was no evidence.

[quote] What is your evidence that a family member did not murder her?

By law, people don't have to prove their innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt. There is no evidence of guilt of anyone in the house.

[quote] The FBI dismissed the intruder theory.

Did it, R304. Funny, I don't recall hearing that in the documentary. Proof the FBI dismissed the intruder "theory"? At any rate, the FBI--nor anyone else--proved the anyone in the family killed her.

*At any rate, neither the FBI--nor anyone else--proved that anyone in the family killed her.

One more time: did any of you who believe the murderer was a family member watch the Netflix series? There were only 3 episodes.

Yes. Most people on this thread watched the Netflix doc. Furthermore, the doc spends a lot of time regurgitating Lou Smit’s book, and most of us read that too.

What’s your point?

[quote] Yes. Most people on this thread watched the Netflix doc.

So, R312, you're speaking for most people here on this thread? You can on ly speak for yourself, and I for one don't believe most people here did watch it, but regardless, my point is that a lot of the theories put forth here as fact were addressed in the series and dismissed. You seem to pooh-pooh, by your tone, Smit's book. Is it because he thought the family was innocent? And what about the British reporter who actually had several years' worth of communication with the pedophile who said he killed the girl?

Circling back to you, R312, since you're the only person who claims they watched the series, why do you say "regurgitate" Smit's research? He was an investigative journalist who studied and reported on this case for years--why shouldn't he be a focus in the series? And, since you claim you saw the show, what about that British reporter and his emails and phone conversations with the pedophile who was tracked to Thailand and was working in a school, who said he'd been in the house while the family was out and then killed her, before leaving the country?

I guess that's my answer--no answer. The naysayers have nothing to say except to regurgitate their opinions on what happened, with no interest in a series that addresses the issues they bring up, because the naysayers have already decided for themselves who's guilty.

I used to be amused at the moniker "Mrs. Patsy Ramsey, formerly of Boulder, Colorado" as a bitchy little DL joke, but the attitude toward this woman really borders on misogynist, and the hatred for her husband and the made-up theories about him, based on nothing, show depths of ignorance that I suppose I should just accept as unsurprising here. Even the son was theorized to be the killer, with zero evidence. This family was hounded by the Boulder police, who used the media to bolster the belief that the family did this, and when they couldn't make anything stick, they stopped trying to find out what actually happened. It's very much like what happens on social media today, when people are demonized and hounded in the court of public opinion.

Meanwhile, how many people here are in love with, or at least admire, the good-looking CEO killer, who absolutely murdered the guy? Conversely, he's already been exonerated in the court of public opinion, or at least thre court of DL opinion, which only goes to show the court of public opinion is worthless and dangerous.

FFS Luigi Mangione's crime is completely different than the Ramsey murder. You're just a troll. And there is no evidence for an intruder. On the contrary, circumstantial evidence points to the Ramseys.

R316 again regurgitates with no evidence, other than they did it. So, so Trumpy--sticking your head in the sand. And of course Mangione's crime is different--so what? Is he guilty or not? I guess a troll in my case is someone who flusters others in an argument those others can't support.

And no, R316, you didn't see the series.

r317 you're wacko.

Why, R319--because I've proven you have no evidence? I'm not wacko. You're just a sore loser.

Excerpt from [italic]JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation[/italic] by Steve Thomas in which Thomas recounts case analysis from the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU):

CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as "We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you." From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on. Based on their studies of the evidence we provided, they believed the note was written in the home, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship.

The FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the disingenuous $118,000 demand in relation to the net worth of the family, the description of the accomplices as "gentlemen," and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not a face-to-face meeting.

There was also an absence of strong language and anger, and the victim was never referred to by name, thus depersonalizing her to the offender. The intelligent wording suggested an educated writer who had some exposure to the South, as shown by the reference to "southern common sense."

The crime was an incredibly risky one for an outsider to undertake, the profilers said, and was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere and was a cathartic act that allowed the offender to "undo" the murder in one's own mind.

Their bottom line was that there had never been a kidnapping attempt.

CASKU further said that placing JonBenét in the basement was consistent with a parent not wanting to put the body outside in the winter elements. The familiarity with and relocking of the peg on the white cellar door were noted. The ligatures, they said, indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim. They had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill this child."

A handwriting analyst for the Secret Service examined the ransom note and a sample of both parents' writing, and said neither of them wrote it. This was mentioned in the Netflix show none of the naysayers saw.

R322, that particular analyst was one of three hired by the Ramseys. He was the one willing to exclude both parents. The other two couldn’t conclusively rule out Patsy.

Really, R323? Where's the proof they were hired by the Ramseys?

R323, didn't the Boulder police hire anyone to examine the handwriting? Funny if they didn't.

R324, many, many handwriting analysts ultimately were involved in the case; the Ramseys hired a number of them, and I may be mistaken about that particular expert having been hired by the Ramseys. However, if you look at various efforts to grapple with the handwriting problems—specifically, fn. 14 of this opinion—you will see that even experts specifically retained by the Ramseys could not definitely rule out Patsy.

From the link at R326:

During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF ¶ 191; PSMF ¶ 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF ¶ 205; PSMF ¶ 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF ¶ 191; PSMF ¶ 191.) All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 194; PSMF ¶ 194.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 195; PSMF ¶ 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 196; PSMF ¶ 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF ¶ 203; PSMF ¶ 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF ¶ 204; PSMF ¶ 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF ¶ 254.)

And here's the footnote 14:

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF ¶ 197; PSMF ¶ 197.) Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF ¶ 198; PSMF ¶ 198.) Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF ¶ 197; PSMF ¶ 197.) Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the [R]ansom [N]ote." (SMF ¶ 200; PSMF ¶ 200.) Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF ¶ 201; PSMF ¶ 201.) Finally, Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note.

So much for those here who say there was no question she wrote the ransom note.

I still think the description of the guy in my posts at R218 and R219 sounds like a suspect. If someone like that did this, it would be a very angry person capable of murder who also hated John Ramsey or what Ramsey stood for. Which would explain the ransom note being written on the family's tablet and the staging of a sex crime (he accused John of molesting his daughter right when he heard the story on the news). His words and actions sound very suspicious the more I think about it.

Also, Chris Wolf's handwriting couldn't be eliminated by one of the forensic document examiners, and Wolf's girlfriend had remarked on how similar the handwriting on the ransom note was to his.

I should have added the word sadistic to the description of the possible perp at R330.

Shut the fuck up with your stupid naysayer shit, dickhead. No one wants to watch your dumb netflix show because we know it's bullshit, as all netflix docs are, they're totally fucking biased garbage. And the fact that your claims come from this stupid fucking show is hilarious. "The netflix show said that the investigators ruled the Ramseys out" yeah, no shit, the investigators were hired by the Ramseys, so using the netflix show as proof is hilarious.

Oh, my--Mary R333 is triggered! The typical reaction of the uneducable--just like a Trumper in mind and spirit.

You're the one who is triggered. You seem to really take this shit personally. You must work for netflix because you never miss a chance to shill for them too.

R335, I'm not the one screaming and yelling. I've pointed out that a lot of the dyed-in-the-wool opinions of people here are either wrong or dubious. I'm not emotional nor do I take it personally, but R333 sure does. And no, honey, I don't work for Netflix. But I will say it amazes me how intractable people can be with their absolutist view of a crime from 30 years ago they think they know all about. They don't. Okay?

Evidence of an intruder:

DNA from the same unidentified male was found under the victim’s fingernails, mixed with the victim’s blood in two drops on her underwear, and on the waistband of her long johns.

The first DNA report the Boulder Police Department received in 1997 pointed away from the Ramseys because the DNA under her fingernails and mixed with the blood in her underwear were from an unknown male. That’s why the BPD waited 6 months to inform the district attorney. In the meantime, they sent samples to another lab who confirmed the first result.

This early DNA evidence wasn’t definitive though. They only had like 4 or 5 loci to compare, which isn’t enough to say these are the same people.

A lab scientist from one of the first two labs contacted the director of the Denver Crime Lab to inform him that the second blood drop should be tested because it was sufficient to get a full DNA profile. The director did get a full DNA profile from the underwear and it was uploaded to CODIS.

The FBI has strict requirements for DNA to be entered into CODIS—the DNA profile is complete. It has never returned a match to UM1.

In 2008, the district attorney learned about touch DNA—a new development—at a conference and sent in samples to see if anything could be found. The DA and lab choose a few items including fabric cut from the waistband on both sides of JonBenet’s long johns because they figured the perpetrator would have touched them to pull them down.

This DNA testing is what definitely exonerated the Ramseys because there was touch DNA on the waistband and it was from the same unidentified male whose DNA was mixed with JonBenet’s blood in her underwear.

This was a surprise to everyone and makes it clear (to anyone with a brain) that this unidentified male killed JonBenet.

All of the DNA evidence is detailed exhaustively in a report made to the Boulder D.A written by chief investigator Andy Horita. This is another good read by a detective who writes clearly and accurately.

Thanks, R340. Yet more information to show that most of the claims here blaming a family member go up in smoke.

Sorry, not most of the claims here--all of them.

Aside from the DNA evidence, there are a few other things that are evidence of an intruder.

1. The black duct tape over JonBenet’s mouth was torn from a used roll. That roll of tape was not found at the house.

2. The white cord used to create the garrote/ligatures wasn’t sourced to the Ramseys.

3. Patsy’s paintbrush was broken into three pieces. One piece was used to make the garrote. One piece was found by the brush. The third piece was never found. This is the piece that is believed to have been used to sexually assault JonBenet.

4. A bag with a rope was found in the spare room adjacent to JonBenet’s. They didn’t belong to the Ramseys.

5. A metal baseball bat was found in the yard. It had fibers from the basement carpet. It didn’t belong to the Ramseys.

6. A HiTec bootprint was found in the mold on the cellar room floor and throughout the basement. It doesn’t belong to any officer on scene or the Ramseys.

Case closed, R344. The Ramseys didn’t do it.

8. Stun gun marks on JonBenet’s body. The stun gun was not found at the home and the Ramseys have never owned one.

9. The areas of disturbance—in the debris under the basement window and window well. Styrofoam packing peanuts, leaves, and debris from under the window were found inside by the body. The window well grate had been moved as evidenced by bent greenery caught underneath it.

10. Unsourced fibers and hair. A pubic hair and head hair from a white male. Animal fibers found on her hands and body. Brown cotton fiber on the garrote possibly from perpetrator’s gloves. Source of hairs and fibers never found.

11. There were 19 cigarette butts in the alley behind the house. They were Camel Blues. The same brand as the butts found at the ‘Amy’ assault two miles away and a few months later.

So why hasn't genetic geneaology been done on the DNA sample? John has more than enough money to pay for that. You would think he would've done that immediately.

There’s more, but any reasonable person knows the Ramseys weren’t involved.

They had a lot of close friends, none of who ever reported antisocial behavior from either of them. John runs a company with huge customers and hundreds of employees, but has never been accused of unethical or antisocial behavior in that context. He has adult children who he is close to and love him.

He continues to bring high profile lawsuits against major corporations who defame them. He participates in this documentary, organizes petitions, attends CrimeCon, and asks legislators to intervene and force the BPD to turn over evidence to the FBI. Why would a guilty person do that?

Ted Bundy was charming and personable, too. Nobody ever suspected him of being a serial killer.

The unhinged Aspie troll who is on here 24/7 proclaiming the Ramseys are innocent and advocating for that bullshit intruder theory is a loon.

R347, that’s exactly why he started this petition: to force the Boulder Police Department to submit samples for genetic genealogy testing. You should sign!

The DNA, IIRC, was touch DNA. Which is very unreliable.

Genetic genealogy requires more DNA in a different format than they already have on file. John Ramsey is trying to get the CO governor to force the Boulder Police Department to test the remaining evidence to see if they can get enough DNA to do genetic investigation.

If they can do genetic genealogy, they will find the perpetrator within a few months.

The BPD says they don’t want to do the testing because it will waste the remaining evidence. Othram Lab though say that isn’t a concern and that they have done more difficult testing. The science has advanced but the same detective is still on the case for 30 years. Doesn’t it make sense to bring in fresh eyes?

R351, I’m sorry you never learned to read because I summarized this above and linked to all the docs. The DNA came from skin cells (under her fingernails), saliva (mixed with her blood in two drops on her panties), and touch (long johns).

I didn’t watch the Netflix documentary, but I read “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town” by Lawrence Schiller years ago when I was on a true crime reading kick.

I don’t believe the family were involved.

R321, no commercial flights had ever been hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center before 9/11. I still believe it happened.

What a relevant analogy r355!

The parents were guilty AF.

Mic drop, R327 and R328.

Yes, R356, that something hasn’t happened isn’t evidence that it can’t happen.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary, R356 continues to believe what she wants to believe, as a Trumper with their head in the sand does.

Actually R349, Ted Bundy’s girlfriend suspected him and reported her suspicions to the police.

R355, you can believe 9-11 because you saw it happen. You and R356 are really a couple of brain trusts.

Handwriting analysis is not a science.

[quote]as a Trumper with their head in the sand does

Sorry, I meant with their heads up their asses. That's a more relevant analogy.

Behavioral analysis is the psychological study of criminal behavior. It is used to help law enforcement identify possible suspects. It isn’t proof in and of itself.

So you could say, most crimes of this nature are committed by white men under 35. That may help think through suspects but it isn’t proof that the crime was committed by a 1) white, 2) male, 3) under the age of 35.

Sorry, R349. It's just not working for you.

“He acted weird” isn’t evidence.

Lol r349.

Just because something wouldn’t stand up as evidence in court doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it. We’re lunatics on the internet not prosecutors in a court of law.

R366, it’s evidence of why the ‘Ramseys did it’ troll believes what she does. I think that’s why she brings it up in this discussion of why she believes the family committed the crime.

Re: none of Ted Bundy’s friends, colleagues, family reporting antisocial behavior: “ She also recounted a terrifying experience on Yakima River when Bundy had suddenly shoved her into the water and tried to hold her under.

“His face had gone blank, as though he was not there at all,” she wrote in the book. Bundy later dismissed the incident as a joke.

Kloepfer eventually became so concerned she called law enforcement officers, more than once, to report her suspicions.”

Also, Ted Bundy kidnapped Carol DaRonch before he was even a suspect in the murders. There’s one known antisocial act that we know Ted Bundy committed aside from the murders. There are many other examples from people who knew him in the recorded interviews by Dr. Carlisle.

He’s a terrible example of someone who committed a single sadistic crime with no corresponding reports of antisocial behavior from friends, family, coworkers, etc.

R351’s response is a perfect encapsulation of these dumb cunts. Responding to details about the DNA, “duh…. If I recall correctly, the only DNA was touch DNA. Duh…..”

It must burn the asses of these idiot "The Ramseys are guilty AF" trolls that there is actual EVIDENCE of an intruder being provided here. That's a major "theory" of theirs shot to shit.

R351 strikes me as a knowledgeable source on the reliability of DNA evidence. I’d like to hear more from her.

R347, John couldn’t pay to have genetic genealogy done immediately because 1) genetic genealogy is a new method first used in 2018 and 2) he has no access to the evidence, which is collected, held, and controlled by law enforcement.

Also, do you really think it is appropriate for the victim’s father to pay privately for the state’s criminal investigation?

R347 believes John Ramsey should be given the evidence so he can pay for DNA tests that make him and his family seem innocent.

As others stated upthread, people could buy an intruder theory if it weren’t for the note.

The foreign DNA is evidence someone came in contact with JB and / or with her clothing. It isn’t evidence an intruder killed her.

The other so-called evidence of an intruder is interesting (rope, bag, tape, bat, etc). But, given the police “never found” the bag of underwear (from which JB ‘s underwear was taken) until it was sent to them years later by the Ramseys, one wonders how much work was put into tracking those items. Or did the cops just ask John “hey, does this belong to you? No? Fair enough.”

We knew it all along, but we were too small for anyone to listen.

Evidence: - The notepad that the ransom note was written on came from the house. - The paintbrush used in the garrote handle came from the house. - The ransom note was written by a reasonably educated person who knew the Ramseys were from the South. - The ransom note asked for a $118,000 ransom, which was the amount of a bonus John received at the beginning of the year. - Patsy brought JonBenet to the pediatrician multiple times for UTI. - John was making arrangements to fly the entire family out of Colorado shortly after he found his daughter’s body.

Behavioral analysis: - Not a sophisticated criminal. - Lack of anger or strong emotion. - Committed by someone comfortable in the home. - Kidnapping was never a real plan; the ransom note is fake. - Killed by garotte from behind so perpetrator didn’t have to see her face while killing her, body covered with blanket, and not tossing body outside indicates care for victim.

Statistics: - Most child murder victims are killed by their parents. Between 70-80% of child victims are killed by a caretaker rather than at the hand of a stranger.

Handwriting analysis: - John Ramsey eliminated as the author. - Patsy Ramsey not eliminated as the author.

No, R377, the white male whose DNA was found had to have been there when JonBenet was killed. The only place his DNA was found on the panties was where it was mixed with JonBenet’s blood.

Think of it this way: what are the chances that his saliva dropped onto her panties in the exact same spots she’d later bleed onto but nowhere else?

The person who raped ‘Amy’ also orally assaulted her. Quite a few coincidences: victims lived within 2 miles of one another, attacks were within 6 months, both victims attended Dance West, both victims performed in public, both victims were attacked while their parents were home, both perpetrators entered the home and hid until the family arrived home, both perpetrators smoked Camel Blue cigarettes.

R379 chooses to ignore R326 and R327, which goes into great detail that Patsy Ramsey was not the author of the ransom note, because she's wedded to her idiot opinion the mother was the killer.

[quote] The ransom note was written by a reasonably educated person who knew the Ramseys were from the South.

The note said John should use his good Southern common sense, but he wasn’t from the south. Patsy was from the south and John was from Michigan.

[quote] - The ransom note asked for a $118,000 ransom, which was the amount of a bonus John received at the beginning of the year.

John’s paystubs were on his desk. The bonus was paid in February, so it was on every paycheck he received the rest of the year.

[quote]- Patsy brought JonBenet to the pediatrician multiple times for UTI

JonBenet and Burke wet the bed, which John and his other children also did when young. (Bedwetting has a strong genetic predisposition.) The UTIs were from the wet bed and panties.

Patsy brought JonBenet to the doctor all the time—too much. (Maybe because of her own cancer and resulting fears.) The pediatrician said there was no evidence at all that JonBenet had been molested. He said there was much more evidence that she hadn’t been molested.

I think JonBenet’s killer was a sadist. The ransom note was written after the murder to extend his enjoyment of the crime. He probably has a rich fantasy life about binding and control and the ransom note was part of the fantasy—a villain in total control.

[Quote] The notepad that the ransom note was written on came from the house.

Do you think an intruder would come to the house with his own little notepad?

The derangement over this case defies description.

[quote] The derangement over this case defies description.

Doesn't it, R385? It's pathetic how these sad cases here cling to their moth-eaten theories that no one else believes anymore. And no amount of evidence, expert analysis, or investigative reporting will change their minds. Trumper mentality.

So if you believe in the handwriting analysis, then Patsy killed JonBenet.

JonBenet was alive and struggling while she was garroted to death. So we are to believe that Patsy stuck a broken paintbrush into her 6 year old daughter’s vagina and then garroted her to death.

Then Patsy wrote a ransom note to pretend that the killing was a kidnapping gone wrong. She included the exact amount of John’s bonus to throw suspicion on someone from his company. She pretended to think he was a southerner to misdirect—she knows her husband isn’t southern so why would SHE write that?

She got rid of the roll of duct tape, white cord, and one piece of the broken paintbrush handle where they’ve never been found. She put the notepad and pen back with her things. She left the rest of the broken paintbrush where she’d first broken it apart to fashion a garotte. She kept her same clothes on that she wore during the murder.

Then she pretended to find the ransom note and called the police.

Evidence against the Ramseys = the police said so.

[Quote] JonBenet was alive and struggling while she was garroted to death.

I hadn’t thought that was conclusively proven. I’ve heard some people say it, but others say she could have been freshly dead when it happened.

And why would a pedo use a paintbrush. Wouldn’t he use … himself? Isn’t that the point of being a pedo? (Pardon the expression.)

This case will never be solved. The evidence is all a jumble.

And all because the little girl wet the bed? I agree, R387, how ludicrous it all is.

Well, I'm glad intelligent Dataloungers here have broken through the nonsense of 1996-era conspiracy theories and proven how ridiculous they really were. One can only pity the poor slobs here who obstinately cling to their theories. Sure, right--and Trump really won the election in 2016.

A lot of this evidence against the Ramseys ignores that they were the ones to notice and bring these things to the police. For instance, John Ramsey is the reason we know about the ransom amount. He found the number strange and told the police it was the exact amount of a bonus he’d received. That we know about this is because he talked about it in an interview where he was asked about potential suspects.

Patsy found the notepad and practice note and gave them to the police.

R389, that’s what I always wondered—why a paintbrush and not himself? An FBI behavioral analyst (not involved with the case) said he thought it was evidence that this was a sadistic rather than (or more than only) a sexual crime.

Sadistic with anger toward the father? The bonus amount, the note addressed only to him, the threatening language….

Sadists have rich fantasy lives like porn addicts do. Maybe the broken wood in the vagina was a detail that he’d relive and enjoy? That piece of wood wasn’t left in her vagina so he presumably didn’t do it to hurt her parents.

R391, many of us believe John and Mrs Pats were involved in a coverup of her accidental death by Burke, so they wanted the “ransom note” to be found, because they wrote it.

Burke striking JBR over the head in a snit is to me the least absurd hypo. But there’s also some evidence against that. A fascinating, frustrating case.

[quote]Do you think an intruder would come to the house with his own little notepad?

An intruder would likely not have written a ransom note. And if he did, it would've been pre-written and short and to the point. The ransom note at the house was drafted two or three times and was a long rambling one. Totally ridiculous that an intruder would've don that.

R394, are you still clinging to the idea she wrote the ransom note? That's been almost universally disproved.

No it hasn't

R393, there's no evidence the brother had nothing to do with it. Even the Boulder Police cleared--yes, cleared--him.

I don’t think the parents staged it to cover up Burke killing her. The head wound wasn’t evident by looking at her, or at least there was no blood. The coroner found it during autopsy. She was, unfortunately, alive while she was being garotted. That’s evident by burst blood vessels in her eyes.

So to believe the above scenario, you’d have to believe that the parents knew about the head injury, assumed it killed her (never bothering to check for a pulse), and sexually assaulted and garotted her to death to cover it up.

Is that the idea?

The evidence found at the scene, including the ransom note, lead one to believe that Patsy and John Ramsey were involved with their daughters murder. The ransom note Patsy found on the staircase was not only handwritten and unusually lengthy, but it was also written on Patsy’s notepad with her sharpie (The Forensic Outreach Team). This means the writer most likely wrote the lengthy note in the Ramsey house. According to retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent/Profile, Jim Clemente and other experts, the note would have taken the writer 21 and a half minutes to write (CBS Real Crime). This points to Patsy and John, because it is unlikely that an intruder would have 21 minutes to spend inside the Ramsey house without raising suspicion or getting caught.

The spelling in the ransom note was also unusual. The words “business” and “possession” were misspelled. According to forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald, “misspelling serves as an element for disguise” (CBS Real Crime). The writer may have purposely misspelled words to conceal things about themselves such as his or her level of education. Both John and Patsy Ramsey “went to big state schools. . . Michigan State University and West Virginia University” (Lee). It is likely that the Ramsey parents misspelled these words to hide their college educations. Forensic linguistics expert James Fitzgerald also recognized a similarity between the writing in the note and Patsy Ramsey’s own handwriting. He specifically stated, “the font-style printing is a feminine trait . . . Patsy Ramsey used this letter-form in her handwriting” (CBS Real Crime). It is unusual for both handwriting’s to come from the same household and to be so close.

Another unusual aspect of the ransom note was the tone. According to Forensic Document Examiner Brenda Anderson, “this fake ransom note has less emotion than a typical anonymous threat” (CBS Real Crime). When a writer is trying to threaten or scare someone, he or she will emphasize certain words, however, the ransom note writer did not. This lack of emotion leads to John and Patsy as the writers because there was no real threat. If John and Patsy already knew their daughter wasn’t kidnapped, there would be no reason for them to make an extreme effort to add threats. The length, spelling, handwriting, and lack of emotion in the note point to John and Patsy’s involvement in staging their daughters kidnapping. The note pad and sharpie used also tie to that conclusion as well.

Yes, R396, it has:

None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 195; PSMF ¶ 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF ¶ 196; PSMF ¶ 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF ¶ 203; PSMF ¶ 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF ¶ 204; PSMF ¶ 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF ¶ 254.)

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF ¶ 197; PSMF ¶ 197.) Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF ¶ 198; PSMF ¶ 198.) Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF ¶ 197; PSMF ¶ 197.) Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the [R]ansom [N]ote." (SMF ¶ 200; PSMF ¶ 200.) Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF ¶ 201; PSMF ¶ 201.) Finally, Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note.

For those who think the ransom note is proof of Ramsey involvement, why do you think they wrote it?

I mean, not why do you think it was Patsy or John who physically wrote the note, but what was the purpose of it?

It is ridiculous to believe that an intruder got into the house and just hung out for hours.

It was Christmas Day so they must not celebrate it or have a family who cares about them so no one noticed they weren’t around. I say this because of all the regular folks, former Access Graphics employees and Ramsey acquaintances they questioned.

Even if an intruder got in the house, prepared nothing beforehand, they’d have no way of knowing whether the Ramsey’s went out for 2 hours or 10. Or when they came back to the house they might not have guests arrive with them. This is an explanation totally created by Ramsey family defenders.

And the intruder didn't shimmy his way out that stupid window on a flimsy suitcase filled with blankets and Dr, Seuss books.

Why did they write it?

R403, keep fucking that chicken. There's been plenty of information about intruders. You just see what you want to see.

1. To give them a reason for not calling the police right away. Give them time to get rid of the body.

2. To misdirect police and place suspicion on other suspects.

R403, are you unaware they were out for hours that day? You think no one could have been watching?

Take a look at Patsy’s handwriting comparison with the ransom note and note the similarities. The CBS documentary suggested the writer to be a female/motherly based on some phrasing (for example (“we advise you to be well rested”). The word attaché stands out as it relates to JonBenét (though not a direct link to Patsy, but a link nonetheless). The fact that the ransom note never mentions JonBenét by name and, curiously, neither did Patsy in her 911 call. Though, the most damning of all, the fact that the note was written in the house with their own stationery which was put back in place after use strongly suggests someone within that household wrote it. With all of those combined, the most likely author of the note was Patsy Ramsey herself.

No one got rid of any body, R406.

[quote]are you unaware they were out for hours that day? You think no one could have been watching?

You mean to suggest someone was following them around all day and half the night? Um, ok.

[quote] 1. To give them a reason for not calling the police right away. Give them time to get rid of the body.

Patsy called the police immediately, so this can be ruled out as the reason she wrote the note.

R408, why are you ignoring the posts At R326/R327?

Why would a foreign faction actually call themselves foreign?

Why not, R410?

So we can assume that Patsy wrote it to point the finger at someone else. Maybe she was trying to point the finger at a specific person John worked with or just generally?

No, they weren't following them around all day and night, R410. I never said that.

People always want to go back and re-argue the ransom note. We're way past that. Beyond the ransom note, there are Patsy's clumsy and obvious attempts to change her handwriting during the investigation.

We don't have to prove Patsy penned the note. We can prove Patsy lied, faked, disassembled, distracted -- and took every opportunity to throw police off and undermine the investigation. It establishes consciousness of guilt.

She misspells burial as buriel in all of her five exemplars. And alternates between advise and advize in her first session as if she's not sure how to spell it. Once she's provided a photocopy of the ransom note she decides that it's spelled advize even though it's spelled correctly in the ransom note. And, of course, she also decides that etcetera is more natural for her. Isn't that how everybody writes it?

That woman had brass balls.

See how the conspiracy theorists are now trying to double-down, and ignore posts that explain all kinds of things they insist on hammering away at.

People who are giving details about why the ransom note is fake don’t need to bother. No one thinks the ransom note is real. JonBenet wasn’t kidnapped. She was tortured to death and left in the basement.

[quote] We can prove Patsy lied, faked, disassembled, distracted -- and took every opportunity to throw police off and undermine the investigation.

But you. haven't proved that, R417. No one has.

To me, it reads as if it were written by two people. More than likely a man and a woman. It goes back and forth between being super aggressive and talking about beheading their daughter and then switching to super motherly and telling them to get enough sleep and bring a large enough bag to the bank.

No kidnapper/murderer before or after has ever left such a long and nonsensical note. Nor has there ever been a case of a person being murdered and their body left in their house, but a ransom note present as well. It all reeks of staging.

The idea that the intruder would sit for god knows how long writing that note has never made sense to me. He would have no idea if/when they’d be getting back home, no idea if Jonbenet was going to be coming home with them, no idea if she’d wind up sleeping in her parents’ room or Burke’s room like she did the night before. It just doesn’t make any sense. Add that to the fact that the handwriting and linguistics are very similar to Patsy’s and not only was it written with her pad and pen, but the pad and pen were out perfectly back in their places when they were done. To me there’s just no way Patsy didn’t write that note.

So, R421, you didn't read the posts at R326/R327?

R417, handwriting analysis relies on historic samples of a person’s writing. Patsy trying to disguise her handwriting to fool the analysts doesn’t make sense. Do you think the handwriting samples they analyze are written at their request? If that were the case, anyone could disguise their writing.

None of the conspiracy theory nuts here have bothered to explain why the mother would have killed the daughter--the one thing they don't trouble themselves to address.

Any discussion of the ransom note is moot. The Ramseys have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

Only the family “benefitted” from the note. At the time it was written, it was intended to buy the Ramseys time to get rid of the body and to shift suspicion.

But, something caused that plan to change.

Patsy called the police immediately.

Once the police arrived, John disappeared for a good chunk of time. Was he changing his plan on the fly?

Maybe moving the body? If the body had been well hidden (John buying time to get rid of the body), it would be very incriminating if the body were found during a police search. Why would an intruder hide the body?

So John changed plans and improvised his discovery of the body.

I guess R421 is busily reading the posts at R326/R327--hence the lack of reply.

And I'm still waiting to hear from the conspiracy theory brain trust why the mother would have killed her daughter.

Proof of any of that, R426?

That's all in your head, R426. What you'd really like to be is a TV procedural writer.

The Ramseys have been 100% exonerated by incontrovertible DNA evidence.

The Boulder DA wrote a public letter of apology to them.

in a civil case filed against them, the judge found that the undisputed evidence was of an intruder and Ramsey innocence.

The detective in charge of the investigation for 30 years was recently demoted to night desk duty in lieu of being fired. He was found to have not done any investigative work on any cases in his control for more than 2 years. It was bad enough behavior that a 5 person panel of law enforcement recommended termination.

DNA. Look into it fools.

🎤💧

They have not been exonerated

The petition created by the Ramseys for Justice for JonBenet. Search and sign on change.org. 250 people have signed this week.

“In 1996, six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey was killed in her Boulder, Colorado home.

The ensuing years have brought false investigative starts, wild conspiracy theories, and a seemingly infinite number of accusations against nearly everyone involved with the case.

The one thing the years have not brought is an arrest.

JonBenét Ramsey deserves justice and new advances in DNA technology finally make that possible. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, you are the only person with enough power and independence in the state to put Ramsey DNA testing decisions in the hands of a new agency that’s free from Boulder’s significant history with the case.

Since her death in 1996, advances in DNA have allowed for testing of even trace amounts of severely degraded samples. Combined with innovation in forensic genetic genealogy (which led to the arrest of the Golden State Killer), new arrests and identifications in cold cases are happening across the country at an unprecedented rate. Private labs like Othram use best-in-class technology to work directly with law enforcement and state crime labs to support the processing of samples. In fact, earlier this year, police in Denver (less than 30 miles away) used genetic genealogy and familial DNA to solve four homicides from the early 1980s.

So why is new DNA testing technology and forensic genetic genealogy searching not being used in the JonBenét case? Here’s what the Boulder Police (BPD) posted on the 25-year anniversary of the case:

“As the Department continues to use new technology to enhance the investigation, it is actively reviewing genetic DNA testing processes to see if those can be applied to this case moving forward.”

They can. Right now. Everyone who understands this technology knows that.

Boulder Police are working hard to placate the public by telling the media that they hope DNA will solve this case while, at the same time, doing very little to make that happen. And it makes sense: the same two key investigators from 1996 still have control of the case. Isn’t it time for new perspectives and ideas?

In short, justice for JonBenét has seemingly given way to politics and the massaging of egos. She deserves better. Everyone, from the police to the family, should have a vested interest in finding the truth. The fact that those with the ability to do that are not doing it should tell us everything we need to know.

Governor Polis, you were born in Boulder 15 years before JonBenét. You have a connection to the city. Your intervention in the Colorado truck driver case shows you have compassion. You have the power. Given the lack of progress by the Boulder Police, we the undersigned petitioners ask you to move DNA decisions in this case away from the BPD to an independent agency so that JonBenét has a last chance at the justice she deserves.”

Yes, R432, they have. The letter of apology in full at link. And here is the exoneration, from the letter:

"We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. Otherwise, we will continue to refrain from publicly discussing the evidence in this case."

R432, here you go.

Wait, let me guess, this too is wrong? Because… reasons.

And THERE'S the mic drop on R432's claim they have not been exonerated--and to anyone else who thinks the same.

Boom, bitches.

Foreign DNA can demonstrate the presence of other people, but can’t prove a second person did not participate in a crime. The absence of his DNA does not exonerate a suspect.

Also, the loon upthread alternates between harping on “motive” (which isn’t an element of proving a crime) and demanding “proof” and “evidence.”

He rejects all circumstantial evidence, apparently believing only physical evidence and direct evidence are really “evidence.”

Yet, most crimes are solved using circumstantial evidence. Loon also tries to use physical evidence for invalid purposes (eg, attempting to exonerate suspects based on absence of DNA.)

You’re a mess, loon.

Honey, R437, you've been made irrelevant.

[quote] Also, the loon upthread alternates between harping on “motive” (which isn’t an element of proving a crime) and demanding “proof” and “evidence.”

Untrue, R437. I said a motive wasn't about any element of proving a crime in a law. I said motives have to do with WHY someone kills someone. Proof and evidence are very different things--neither of which are on your side.

*crime in a court of law.

Correction: Proof and evidence are not different--and neither are on your side.

I'd say this puts a nail in the coffin of the conspiracy theory loons. But, being vampires, they keep forgetting they're dead and slink back as vampires, preying over this sad story and always blaming Mother.

You are again incorrect, Loon.

“Evidence” is data, neutral and fact-based.

“Proof” is a compilation of or marshaling of neutral evidence to substantiate a particular theory.

You use the terms interchangeably throughout the thread, but I was going to let that go.

You’re a mess, Loon.

[quote] Foreign DNA can demonstrate the presence of other people, but can’t prove a second person did not participate in a crime. The absence of his DNA does not exonerate a suspect.

Well Boris, here in America, evidence is used to prove guilt rather than innocence. We don’t have to prove that a person didn’t commit a crime.

[quote] Foreign DNA can demonstrate the presence of other people, but can’t prove a second person did not participate in a crime. The absence of his DNA does not exonerate a suspect.

Well Boris, here in America, we use evidence to prove guilt rather than innocence. We don’t need to prove that someone didn’t commit a crime.

Oh r443, you’re such a disaster! Lol. Poor thing.

[quote] but I was going to let that go.

As well I think you should, R443, since you have nothing else. Quit while you're behind, conspiracy theory loon.

You are the party arguing that absence of DNA “exonerates” a suspect.

THAT IS YOUR OWN CLAIM.

Now that it’s been pointed out your claim is invalid, your response is “Well, I don’t need to make that claim.”

You’re a mess, loon.

Don’t be mean to our RAMSEY DID IT troll. She was molested by her father and it skews her outlook. She’d never be chosen to serve on a jury because of her sad background.

R448, you're ranting--is there someone we can call for you?

Well R448, the claim isn’t invalid because the district attorney—guided by years of education and experience in the law—have exonerated them. 😀

Loon is clearly retarded.

It’s not nice to use facts to bully little retarded trolls.

Bye bye loon! The unidentified male will be identified soon thanks to John’s demands and work for justice. You should start drafting your note of apology!

“The murder of my daughter can never be undone,” Ramsey wrote in a letter to Polis. “There will never be peace or closure. But there can and should be justice.”

John Ramsey

R451, Miss R448, aka the conspiracy theory loon--the REAL loon here--seems to have missed ALL of our links that reported the family--now all of them--have been, in fact, exonerated.

Read the DA’s letter more carefully, Loon.

It clearly says any prosecution will not rely exclusively on DNA evidence. Why even include that sentence, one wonders?

The letter does say the DA’s office does not in 2008 consider the Ramseys suspects. But, suspect lists change all the time in a murder investigation.

Not considering someone a suspect and “exonerating” them (that is, proving they did not commit a crime) are two different things.

Girls, girls! You’re both dumb cunts.

R456, here ya go. EXONERATED.

"In 2008, after more DNA tests again excluded the Ramsey family, the Boulder District Attorney at that time, Mary Lacy, publicly exonerated the Ramseys and sent them a letter of apology."

RAMSEYS = EXONERATED, R456. How many different officials have to tell you that they didn’t kill her before you finally get the message?

R459, it's because r456 believes they're guilty--right, r456?

Mary Lacy is the only official to state that the Ramseys were no longer suspects. While reported by the press as an “exoneration,” it wasn’t. Lacy’s letter states the Ramseys were not believed to have committed the crime. That can change any time more evidence becomes available.

Her Ramsey letter was roundly criticized by law enforcement, legal experts, and DNA experts.

DNA experts reviewed the raw DNA data and concluded Lacy misrepresented the DNA results in her letter.

Lacy gave interviews talking about butt prints, motive, and “lack of psychopathy” as guiding her conclusion that the Ramseys did not commit the crime. None of this is relevant to the elements of the crime and she frankly sounds like a complete ninny.

She was part of the investigatory team from the very beginning (see link) and was a protege of Alex Hunter’s. She had a strong incentive to say “we didn’t screw it up.”

Finally, the Carr fiasco in 2006 was all her. She was crucified for it. The 2008 “unidentified male” DNA lets her save face. “See, I told you it was an unidentified male. We just had the wrong one.”

[Quote] It is ridiculous to believe that an intruder got into the house and just hung out for hours.

Same thing happened to the other girl from JB’s dance class.

The family writing such a ransom note makes absolutely no sense because JB’s body wasn’t hidden or anything. It was plainly viewable in the basement.

The police wouldn’t stop searching the house the second it saw the note.

It looks like an intruder wrote the note fully expecting to kidnap her but mistakenly killed her instead

The first officers on the scene searched the house and did not find the body.

Afterwards, John disappeared for over an hour.

Shortly after he returned, he “discovered” the body relatively out in the open.

R462, the other case involved an older girl, a teenager, who was sexually assaulted by a man who broke into her house. He didn’t murder her. As far as I am aware that case remains unsolved but at the time investigators concluded that it was not connected to JonBenét’s murder.

Maybe the suitcase under the window wasn’t for the intruder to use as a step up and out of the basement but to transport JonBenet out of the house? Maybe that’s what the rope left behind was for—to lift the suitcase up and out?

This is in response to r463.

Tons of people have stalked victims, broken into their homes, and waited hours to attack them. What are you talking about?

R465, he didn’t kill her because her mother woke up and interrupted the attack.

How do you know she’s an older girl? She’s known by a pseudonym ‘Amy’ to protect her identity. Did you make that up to make it seem less related? How weird.

R465, how would the Boulder Police know it wasn’t related? They never investigated. Amy’s father castigates the BPD and started to give interviews because of his outrage about the BPD’s incompetence.

[quote]It looks like an intruder wrote the note fully expecting to kidnap her but mistakenly killed her instead

Why would a kidnapper kill her, thereby losing the only thing he has to use as leverage? The ‘intruder’ scenario is built on a number of similar illogicalities. This scenario requires a criminal cold-blooded and audacious enough to break into a house on Christmas Day when most people are likely to be at home, yet at the same time leaves a wealth of incriminating evidence behind. What sort of kidnapper arrives on scene without any of the tools he needs, instead helping himself to the household duct tape? How did he know where to find anything he would need in a large rambling house with which he was unfamiliar? Why leave the ransom note if his hostage is actually dead? For that matter, why leave JonBenét’s body in the house? If it had been an attempted kidnapping that went wrong, he could still have tried to get ransom money from the Ramseys while disposing of her corpse elsewhere.

“They were completely uninterested," Amy's dad said. "They didn't care about this at all ... they would just lie, telling us they'd look into this or that - but they hadn't. They were total bozos."

"Boulder PD just weren't interested in this evidence. They were completely uninterested ... they didn't care about my daughter's case and they didn't even really care about the Ramsey case either."

[Quote] The first officers on the scene searched the house and did not find the body.

The person who wrote the ransom note could never have predicted that. There was no evidence the body was moved.

[Quote] Afterwards, John disappeared for over an hour.

No way he disappeared for over an hour in the house while the police were still there

[Quote] Why would a kidnapper kill her, thereby losing the only thing he has to use as leverage?

He didn’t mean to kill her

The Boulder Police said it wasn’t related? The BPD whose detective Thomas Trujillo (in charge of the jonbenet case for 30 years) who was found not to have done any investigative work at all for more than 3 years?

“While upgrading data and transitioning to a new open data portal, department officials became aware of cases assigned to a particular detective that had not been investigated or investigated fully between 2019 and the present,” the department release stated.

“Upon the discovery of this issue, in July 2022, the police chief immediately brought it to the attention of the Professional Standards Unit and the Independent Police Monitor, with allegations of several different rule/policy violations made against five officers: the detective and four others within his chain of command.

[Quote] Why leave the ransom note if his hostage is actually dead? For that matter, why leave JonBenét’s body in the house? If it had been an attempted kidnapping that went wrong, he could still have tried to get ransom money from the Ramseys while disposing of her corpse elsewhere.

He meant to kidnap here but when she died, he panicked and left. That answers all your questions

The fact that the same thing happened to the other girl is evidence enough that an intruder could have done it.

That girl was of similar age and in the same dance class as JB. The intruder waited in the house and sexually assaulted her while the mom slept. He likely didn’t mean to kill that girl either —and the mom interrupted him.

The parallels are extraordinary and can’t be dismissed

The Boulder cops were so convinced that John Ramsey killed JenBenet that they obviously similarities of the other case were willfully ignored. Horrendous policing

R474, the kidnapper inadvertently kills her, yet leaves the ransom note behind? Why? Investigators estimated that it took the author of the ransom note approximately 21 minutes to write it by hand. Evidence indicates that the note was composed at the scene, meaning that the person who wrote it spent at least 21 minutes inside a house where the residents could have discovered him at any time. Then after his victim was dead, instead of panicking and leaving, the perp decided to spend even more time sexually abusing her with a paintbrush. All I can say is that if this alleged intruder was this deranged and incompetent he would have been caught years ago.

John Ramsey left the home from 10:30-noon to “pick up his mail.”

I don’t think the ransom note was ever real. I think the murderer wrote it after the killing to extend his enjoyment of the crime. Kind of like how the Long Island serial killer or Golden State Killer would call family members of their victims and taunt them.

Yeah r477 and that guy smoked the same somewhat unusual kind of cigarettes found outside of jb’s house: camel blues. How weird.

Sure. No Alpha Xi would muder!

If we are relying on crime statistics, we can exclude the Ramseys.

Child homicide stats show that the majority of victims are black, followed by Hispanic, and then white. Most child murder victims are infants followed by children 16 and above. Most child murder victims are boys.

Most child homicide takes place in low income communities, with the remainder happening on roadways. Child murder victims most often killed by fists/feet and the rest by guns.

Perpetrators are most often an unrelated male in the home because of the mother (boyfriend, dealer, etc). Mothers who kill their children are almost always single parents. Child murder victims almost always suffer chronic abuse prior to the homicide.

So, according to the logic of some on this thread, a white, 6 year old, girl, who was lovingly cared, for by two married parents, could not have been killed by garrote, in her wealthy enclave.

[quote] All I can say is that if this alleged intruder was this deranged and incompetent he would have been caught years ago.

Yes, if only it wasn’t the Boulder Police Bozos looking for him, he surely would have been caught years ago.

Well, actually, we know the BPD were never really looking for him ;)

[Quote] the kidnapper inadvertently kills her, yet leaves the ransom note behind? Why? Investigators estimated that it took the author of the ransom note approximately 21 minutes to write it by hand. Evidence indicates that the note was composed at the scene, meaning that the person who wrote it spent at least 21 minutes inside a house where the residents could have discovered him at any time. Then after his victim was dead, instead of panicking and leaving, the perp decided to spend even more time sexually abusing her with a paintbrush. All I can say is that if this alleged intruder was this deranged and incompetent he would have been caught years ago.

The intruder likely wrote the note BEFORE he killed JB. He wrote it while the family was out of the house because he fantasized that he was there to kidnap her. He then inadvertently killed her and he ran.

The sexual abuse with the paintbrush likely happened before he killed her too.

[Quote] John Ramsey left the home from 10:30-noon to “pick up his mail.”

So if he left the home while police were there, how exactly did he move the body. He crept into the basement and then crept back out through the window?

That’s ridiculous

That article at r480 is atrocious. The poor Ramseys. They really have been abused so heinously by the Boulder Police Department. Vanity Fair is publishing an article in October 1997 with quotes from named officers accusing the Ramseys in minute detail. This article is the source of so much you see repeated as evidence of their guilt (patsy crying and staring through her fingers, John running right to the body, etc).

I see Vanity Fair (in the Greydon Carter days at least) as a reputable source with excellent journalism. And how could you blame them for this article really, they did have multiple sources from the investigation. Who could guess how incompetent and yet arrogant these cops were?

The fault lies entirely with the police. There should be mechanisms in place to prevent a few bad apples from being able to wreak such havoc.

Is anyone else creeped out by this loon? Why are you so invested in “proving” the Ramsay’s innocence?

[quote] the Ramsay’s innocence

Double oh dear, R489.

No, I’m not creeped out by the people who counter the popular narrative and insist on Ramsey innocence. The Ramseys’ 6 year old daughter was tortured and killed painfully. They never got justice. The police instead blamed them (with no evidence) on national television and every high profile publication in the country. And even now with incontrovertible proof of their innocence, the same corrupt police continue to withhold evidence and deny them justice. Terribly sad lives.

r/jonbenet has good information.

It is amazing how much mileage we manage to get out of this little dead girl.

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police."

This is from Lawrence Schiller’s book Perfect Muder, Perfect Town.

Steve Thomas’s deposition.

I don't know nothing!

The face he makes at 25:00.

[quote]R480 John Ramsey left the home from 10:30-noon to “pick up his mail.”

John explained in an interview that their mail arrives inside their door, and he noticed the stack of mail on the floor (they hadn't opened their mail in a few days) and took it to the kitchen to read through it to see if the murderer had possibly sent anything to them in the days leading up to the crime. So, he didn't leave his home to get the mail.

See the link, r498. It refers the Linda Arndt’s report.

Here's John explaining that they have no outside mailbox, their mail slot is in the door, and that he picked up the mail from the foot of the door inside the house. It begins at the 9:14 mark.

(The rest of the interview is interesting and John and Patsy sound credible to me. They're clearing up rumors and errors from the police report. They did this interview the same way they said they did two other interviews on national networks - without attorneys and with no restrictions, that the journalist can ask them anything.)

Maybe we could give Patsy the holiday off and just let her be-pick it up after New Years.

I wonder if the people convinced that these parents killed their daughter have ever considered the possibility that they didn't? I've mentioned a couple of times now that I've only recently read details about this case because of the threads on here, and it's interesting and hard to figure out who has the correct theory. But I've noticed a rabid insistence by the people who think the Ramsey's did it that seems to block any possibility of their innocence.

If they were innocent, Patsy Ramsey lived her last ten years with the horrible loss of her daughter, and the public and many journalists accusing her and her husband of committing the murder and covering for each other. Some even blamed their son. They tried to defend themselves but weren't believed. Then she got sick again and died a probably horrible death. It's a sad story to think of for those who think (there's a high possibility) that they're innocent. And the evil creep who did this allowed them to be tormented and, who knows, maybe he revels in reading all of the accusers' posts on social media. (Again, I'm fairly new to it all but after deep diving I don't understand not giving the parents the benefit of the doubt at least.)

Edit: Ramseys, not Ramsey's

[quote](Again, I'm fairly new to it all but after deep diving I don't understand not giving the parents the benefit of the doubt at least.)

Why should we give them that benefit? Do you believe that parents are incapable of harming or killing their kids? Anyone investigating the murder of a young child is going to take a close look at the child's parents as they are statistically the most likely perpetrators.

Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note ➡️ . ⬅️

I can’t bear thinking about my dogs deaths when they were gently euthanized. I can’t imagine how painful it would be to know your child was terrified and in pain when she died.

[quote] “If the Ramseys had been some poor Mexican couple, we would have been in their face for a week, got a confession out of them, and filed first degree murder charges against them within days.”

Steve Thomas, angry and offended that the Ramseys didn’t bend to his will and were educated and wealthy enough to have lawyers.

[quote] “It is rare for a woman to go eye-to-eye with a detective, but Patsy Ramsey was a savvy sophisticate who knew how to work a man, even one with a badge. When I had a question, she would lean so close across the narrow pine table that we were within kissing distance, invading my personal space before answering.”

This is the mind of Steve Thomas, insulted that the victim in a horrific child murder looks him in the eye and leans too close to him when answering questions. He’s such a handsome arrogant dipshit that he sees Patsy only as another woman trying to get within kissing distance.

Steve Thomas was the first BPD officer involved in a shooting in over a decade. He shot two people in his first two years with the department. He felt slighted when he didn’t receive an award for his behavior and mocked the department for being “too hesitant to be confrontational.”

This is the person who has influenced all public discourse about this case for 30 years.

[quote] “It is rare for a woman to go eye-to-eye with a detective, but Patsy Ramsey was a savvy sophisticate who knew how to work a man, even one with a badge.”

That’s our gal.

He’s no Elliot Stabler, that’s for sure.

I thought all detectives were like Lennie Briscoe? Wise, tough, and dignified?

People on here keep acting like the FBI was involved in this investigation. They weren’t. They were on the scene when it was still considered a kidnapping and then Eller took over jurisdiction and closed them out when it was a murder.

The FBI’s advice to investigators were based on their data and best practices and not as detectives with specific insight working the case. That’s where the BPD got lost—taking their universal advice about typical child homicides and techniques for applying pressure on suspects (leaking, public pressure) as the final word.

yeah John Ramsey is pushing for legislation that makes child murder a federal crime so that the FBI would have jurisdiction and couldn’t be pushed out by a small-town force too proud to accept help from experts.

BPD is just one more instance of antagonism to experts and education.

A lot of how people see patsy is probably due to r506. She was deranged - by grief.

I don't need to see any documentary or read any of these posts to tell you once and for all, someone in the family killed her. Everyone knows that. So obvious.

🗣️psst - check out the word “rested” in the ransom note vs Patsy sample

This thread got lined out lol. Muriel is not one of Patsy Ramsey's fans.

No way both parents would suddenly decide that this is the story they should tell to the cops and make it look like she was strangled and sexually abused.

WTF —who would come up with such an elaborate tale on the spur of the moment? Why would you write a long ransom note yet have the body visible for all to see?

The parents did not do this

What is most believable? Seriously which one?

A crazy intruder did it, targeting millionaire John or saw JB from a pageant show. (The latter is what was portrayed in the press in the 90s)

John did it all. He's a nasty man and did awful crimes and covered it up.

Patsy did it accidentally in a rage. She couldn't accept she did it and made up a story, yes, that's it. That's what happened.

She did it all alone. Or she confided in John and had his help.

Little boy Burke did it. With his 60lb little body he angrily killed his sis over taking his fruit even though he had a million other presents to play with. Even though he looks so dopey and happy in all his other photos. He did it all or he told his parents and they both covered it up or only one covered it up, the loopy one, and didn't tell the father until it was too late. ______

To do such a heinous crime, even covering it up for another child, is unthinkable. I don't think a 9 year old is capable, it was an adult.