Age and Who Do You Think Bashed JonBenet on Her Head?

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It didn't occur to you and other BDIs that the bolded part could only apply to someone who was old enough to be apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. None of those could apply to Burke due to his age.

It also didn't occur to you that Count I for John was for Murder in the First Degree and Count I for Patsy was Murder in the First Degree, did it?

Can you show me the law that he could not be charged as a minor? Serious question. So if I was say 10, I could get away with first degree murder? I'm prety certain I would be charged as a minor for first degree murder.

I believe Count 1 for each adult were among the possibilities that the grand jury was presented to consider, but they were not indicted for this. Can you cite a source where they were indicted for this?

And no, I do not think Patsy got so jealous of Jonbenet that she killed her the day after Christmas. She was in bed, probably drunk and not watching her children which were known to be up later that night in the kitchen, and she wasn't watching her children when she knew Burke was a danger to JonBenet.

I'm think I'm done with this thread, I've said my opinion and you're entitled to your own, but I don't think the facts back you up.
 
Can you show me the law that he could not be charged as a minor? Serious question. So if I was say 10, I could get away with first degree murder? I'm prety certain I would be charged as a minor for first degree murder.

1. Burke was not 10 years old.
2. Burke did not receive any indictments.
3. Count VII states that the person who was assisted can be apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. None of those apply to Burke.

I believe Count 1 for each adult were among the possibilities that the grand jury was presented to consider, but they were not indicted for this. Can you cite a source where they were indicted for this?

And no, I do not think Patsy got so jealous of Jonbenet that she killed her the day after Christmas. She was in bed, probably drunk and not watching her children which were known to be up later that night in the kitchen, and she wasn't watching her children when she knew Burke was a danger to JonBenet.

I'm think I'm done with this thread, I've said my opinion and you're entitled to your own, but I don't think the facts back you up.[/QUOTE]
Can you show me the law that he could not be charged as a minor? Serious question. So if I was say 10, I could get away with first degree murder? I'm prety certain I would be charged as a minor for first degree murder.

I believe Count 1 for each adult were among the possibilities that the grand jury was presented to consider, but they were not indicted for this. Can you cite a source where they were indicted for this?

And no, I do not think Patsy got so jealous of Jonbenet that she killed her the day after Christmas. She was in bed, probably drunk and not watching her children which were known to be up later that night in the kitchen, and she wasn't watching her children when she knew Burke was a danger to JonBenet.

I'm think I'm done with this thread, I've said my opinion and you're entitled to your own, but I don't think the facts back you up.

It's truly sickening how you and other BDIs have this insatiable desire to pin JonBenet's death on her 9-yr old brother as opposed to on an adult.

Patsy's Count I

John's Count I
 
Maybe the neighbor, <modsnip>. But, mostly just hanging on the fence from now. Who here thinks it’s the mother? Also why do you think somebody would take the time to write a three page long ransom note? Complexity of this case really amazes me. But, it also struck me a bit to know that the police though that it was her brother.

Now, when I think about it it could be JonBenet's father. Think about it. Police is scattered and looking throughout the house for possible signs for what could have happened. Then, the lead detective and first responder to the house comes and tells John to look through the house and see if anything is gone. Then suddenly, he just goes to the basement and finds JonBenet's body. Thus, he went into a room that the police had been in before and found a body that police had not been able to find. Why is that? On top of that, the ransom note was three pages long. The usual note is not more than three sentences in normality. A letter this long can only be written by a person who knows the norm of the house. A person who knows that they have time in their hands could write a letter that long. What do you all think?

I doubt its mother for two reasons. First, this is a woman who has looked death in the eye. Been there, done that. When you go through something like that, glasses of naivety fall off of you. Second, bedwetting is not really a good reason for someone to just kill. That too if the killer is the victim's mother. For me, the scenario is too far fetched.
 
Then suddenly, he just goes to the basement and finds JonBenet's body. Thus, he went into a room that the police had been in before and found a body that police had not been able to find.

From what I understood, the policeman who had searched this area before had not entered the "Wine-room" because to him, it appeared that the door was locked from the outside with a makeshift lock consisting of a screw and woodblock on the top door, and he was looking for a 'way out' for the kidnappers and did not think a kidnapper could latch a door behind them, so he did not enter.

The neighbour, Fleet white, later on had opened the door and looked inside, but the body was placed in the back end of the room, so unless he looked around and went inside, he may not have seen her.

When John Ramsey was searching the home 'for anything out of the ordinary' on request of the police, he and Fleet White, went down stairs to look again. That is when he found her.

It is not that the police was not able to find her in that room, it is simply that the police did not look in that room.
 
From what I understood, the policeman who had searched this area before had not entered the "Wine-room" because to him, it appeared that the door was locked from the outside with a makeshift lock consisting of a screw and woodblock on the top door, and he was looking for a 'way out' for the kidnappers and did not think a kidnapper could latch a door behind them, so he did not enter.

The neighbour, Fleet white, later on had opened the door and looked inside, but the body was placed in the back end of the room, so unless he looked around and went inside, he may not have seen her.

When John Ramsey was searching the home 'for anything out of the ordinary' on request of the police, he and Fleet White, went down stairs to look again. That is when he found her.

It is not that the police was not able to find her in that room, it is simply that the police did not look in that room.

Mireille,
It is not that the police was not able to find her in that room, it is simply that the police did not look in that room.
If Fleet White never saw anything unusual when he looked into the wine-cellar that morning, e.g. White blanket, Pink barbie-nightgown, JonBenet's lifeless body, etc; why should the police fare any better?

Fleet White, who had previously searched for his own daughter when she went missing, knew the things to look for, so it's not as if this was his first ever attempt.

Also it's alleged John Ramsey visited the basement after Fleet White looked into the Wine-Cellar. John Ramsey made this claim in a call to JAR later that day!

So Fleet White may have observed nothing out of the ordinary in the wine-cellar precisely because this was the case.

With John Ramsey possibly moving JonBenet into the wine-cellar anticpating his discovery of JonBenet later the same day?

So it's possible the policeman, was it Officer French, even if he had looked into the wine-cellar may simply observed what Fleet White did: nothing unusual?

.
 
Mireille,

If Fleet White never saw anything unusual when he looked into the wine-cellar that morning, e.g. White blanket, Pink barbie-nightgown, JonBenet's lifeless body, etc; why should the police fare any better.

Fleet White, who had previously searched for his own daughter when she went missing, knew the things to look for, so it's not as if this was his first ever attempt.

Also it's alleged John Ramsey visited the basement after Fleet White looked into the Wine-Cellar. John Ramsey made this claim in a call to JAR later that day!

So Fleet White may have observed nothing out of the ordinary in the wine-cellar precisely because this was the case.

With John Ramsey possibly moving JonBenet into the wine-cellar anticpating his discovery of JonBenet later the same day?

So it's possible the policeman, was it Officer French, even if he had looked into the wine-cellar may simply observed what Fleet White did: nothing unusual?

.

Hello UkGuy.
I am replying to a post speaking to what an officer did. Which was to not search a seemingly locked room. Because he did not think kidnappers would lock the door behind them. That is what all sources I found, points towards. French never entered that room. He saw it, noticed it, but did not open the door nor enter the room. Here is one: Newsweek (their source in this article is police reports)

Since, I am not Fleet, I do not truly know what he saw or not, so this is just me theorizing. He himself obviously did not notice anything awry.
upload_2022-1-1_23-32-48.png

This here is a layout I found of the home. The dot numbered 6 is where the body allegedly was found. If you never actually went inside to look and just glanced in and forward, you may not see her.

And yes, that is what I am saying? That Ramsey went down to look much later in the day , and Fleet went with him. They went searching together. This was when he found her body.

It seems very clumsy, poorly thought through, and rather impractical to do as you suggest. When in the end, it would not really matter all that much where she was found in their house, if she was found there, they would be the suspects. If this was, a faked kidnapping (lets say it was the family) why on earth place the body in their own home and call the police? They might as well just scribble shoot me on their chests at that point.

Would it not be better to place the body, well, anywhere else?
 
Last edited:
Hello UkGuy.
I am replying to a post speaking to what an officer did. Which was to not search a seemingly locked room. Because he did not think kidnappers would lock the door behind them. That is what all sources I found, points towards. French never entered that room. He saw it, noticed it, but did not open the door nor enter the room. Here is one: Newsweek (their source in this article is police reports)

Since, I am not Fleet, I do not truly know what he saw or not, so this is just me theorizing. He himself obviously did not notice anything awry.
View attachment 328218
This here is a layout I found of the home. The dot numbered 6 is where the body allegedly was found. If you never actually went inside to look and just glanced in and forward, you may not see her.

And yes, that is what I am saying? That Ramsey went down to look much later in the day , and Fleet went with him. They went searching together. This was when he found her body.

It seems very clumsy, poorly thought through, and rather impractical to do as you suggest. When in the end, it would not really matter all that much where she was found in their house, if she was found there, they would be the suspects. If this was, a faked kidnapping (lets say it was the family) why on earth place the body in their own home and call the police? They might as well just scribble shoot me on their chests at that point.

Would it not be better to place the body, well, anywhere else?

Mireille,
I hear what you are saying, yet if Fleet White looked not long after French, how can you be confident French would see anything unusual?

i.e. French never looked, Fleet White did and saw nothing, then later John Ramsey looked and immediately saw JonBenet?

This is despite John Ramsey having very poor eyesight, so poor he has to hire a pilot, by law.

So French never looked and saw nothing, Fleet White looked and saw nothing, then magically John Ramsey looked and lo and behold, there was JonBenet !


Would it not be better to place the body, well, anywhere else?
AHA !

This is the point. JonBenet may have been too well hidden, such that nobody found her as they searched.

So it's suggested John Ramsey moved JonBenet into the wine-cellar when he went missing mid-morning, thus making his later discovery more believable.

John Ramsey finding JonBenet in a difficult to reach location, when nobody else had succeeded would look very suspicious indeed?

If this was, a faked kidnapping (lets say it was the family) why on earth place the body in their own home and call the police?
Because a fake kidnapping allows JonBenet to be moved from, say her bedroom, down to the basement, thereby breaking any links with forensic evidence upstairs.


They might as well just scribble shoot me on their chests at that point.
Yes, but the Ramsey's claim they all went to bed the night before and awoke to find JonBenet missing, later found in the basement.

With the Ransom Note stating she was gone?

When she was still in the house. Remember the Ramsey's were willing to leave Colorado by private plane that morning, leaving JonBenet's dead body behind, i.e. basically fleeing interstate.

So the Wine-Cellar is a fake crime-scene, along with some other site in the house that was cleaned up, suggesting JonBenet was staged more than once?

.
 
Mireille,
I hear what you are saying, yet if Fleet White looked not long after French, how can you be confident French would see anything unusual?

i.e. French never looked, Fleet White did and saw nothing, then later John Ramsey looked and immediately saw JonBenet?

This is despite John Ramsey having very poor eyesight, so poor he has to hire a pilot, by law.

So French never looked and saw nothing, Fleet White looked and saw nothing, then magically John Ramsey looked and lo and behold, there was JonBenet !



AHA !

This is the point. JonBenet may have been too well hidden, such that nobody found her as they searched.

So it's suggested John Ramsey moved JonBenet into the wine-cellar when he went missing mid-morning, thus making his later discovery more believable.

John Ramsey finding JonBenet in a difficult to reach location, when nobody else had succeeded would look very suspicious indeed?


Because a fake kidnapping allows JonBenet to be moved from, say her bedroom, down to the basement, thereby breaking any links with forensic evidence upstairs.



Yes, but the Ramsey's claim they all went to bed the night before and awoke to find JonBenet missing, later found in the basement.

With the Ransom Note stating she was gone?

When she was still in the house. Remember the Ramsey's were willing to leave Colorado by private plane that morning, leaving JonBenet's dead body behind, i.e. basically fleeing interstate.

So the Wine-Cellar is a fake crime-scene, along with some other site in the house that was cleaned up, suggesting JonBenet was staged more than once?

.

Are you not reading what I am writing? English is not my first language so I realize the way I structure sentences can be a little tedious sometimes.

French did not look into that room. According to police reports. He saw the door, acknowledged that it was locked, and did not open it, nor look inside room. He never entered that room or opened that door. Fleet however did. I am not sure why you are still implying french would 'see' anything in that room when he never ventured inside or even opened the door to that room.

Fleet however says he did.

Ah, there, we agree that he never saw anything (I never implied he did either, not sure why we are discussing this point).

I think you misunderstand me to some degree, when I say, anywhere else, I am trying to imply: Why did they just not take the body elsewhere? Out of their home. If it was them, they had the time, they had the opportunity. Both appear to be fairly competent adults, and many seem to think they are capable of being manipulating. It would be far better for them, their story, and alibi if that body was found somewhere outside of the home. A forest, ditch, near a river etc.

As for why John may have noticed what Fleet did not, could be rooted in a couple of things.
John Ramsey would know that a bundle of white blanket was not something that belonged in the room. They were after all looking for anything out of place, and this was out of place. It is also very likely he went into the room, rather than just standing in the doorway.

Second is the smell.
By then decomp would have begun, the police-woman who was present when he carried her up the stairs stated she noticed it. So a body has now been decomposing in a closed room for anywhere between 7-12 hours or so, whilst lying in her own urine.

I do believe part of the scene was staged, but not quite sure about the intent of it. Such as the ligatures around her wrists, that allegedly would have been easy to wriggle out of. But she could have been unconscious at that point?

Not sure if you ever seen the images of the bloomies and longjohns, but it makes it look like she died while she was face down. Since so much of the urine is on the front, and like everything else, liquid follows gravity. The bladder will empty itself when someone loses consciousness. That includes fainting and dying. This could also happen out of fear.

Ramsey said he found her wrapped up in the blanket, but I can not recall if he found her face up or face down.

The ligature marks on her neck indicates that whoever did this, was bit taller than her. More adult size, than Burke sized. When you view the ones lowest on her neck you can see that, from the side, they tilt up towards the back. Which means that's the angle it started in. Then, the final, placement of the garrotte string, is not pulled up or down really, which to me, I am not a professional. Would indicate this happened when she was on the floor.

From my impression, the damage to her head was also from above. Again, not a professional. I could see a shorter person, with the right tool and angle getting in a similar hit.

When it comes to the location, the door, and room is straight ahead from the stairs leading to the basement. It could be that the killer simply had knowledge of the home, or even dumb luck in finding a secluded spot in the home.

As for the crime-scene. The police allowed friends and family to wander around. Police allowed victim-advocates into the home, all before securing the home and allowed them to clean the kitchen........
To quote from the earlier article I linked:
"Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee. After using the kitchen, the advocates began tidying it up, a law-enforcement official told Newsweek. One friend helped clean the kitchen, wiping down the counters with a spray cleaner—and possibly wiping away important evidence."

As for trying to get that plane. I am thinking he was seeking legal-safety as well as perhaps familiar safety for his family. He knew how this looked. He knew they would blame them, and probably realized they needed lawyers. Perhaps even get Burke away so he wouldn't be traumatized by what would 100% become a media circus. He was only 9 after-all and they did have family over in Atlanta.

The ransom note says a lot of things about the person who wrote it. It is unusually long. Made with materials from within the home. Lot of movie-references. The actual ransom amount seems rather odd, and honestly, quite low considering how well John Ramsey's company was doing. To me this ransom note is more, a distraction, to buy time? I do not think there was ever going to be a 'kidnapping', I believe fully this person was going to kill her regardless. Maybe keep her, for a while, then kill her.

Not sure what stopped him from taking her out of the house though....There was several unlocked windows and surely he could manage to get out a door if he wanted to.

It all screams some form of inside job. A family member, friend, or someone with access and knowledge of the home and family activities.

Rather apologize for the ramble. I think we are coming at this from two very different angles, but with the same desire for her killer to get caught and brought to justice.
 
Are you not reading what I am writing? English is not my first language so I realize the way I structure sentences can be a little tedious sometimes.

French did not look into that room. According to police reports. He saw the door, acknowledged that it was locked, and did not open it, nor look inside room. He never entered that room or opened that door. Fleet however did. I am not sure why you are still implying french would 'see' anything in that room when he never ventured inside or even opened the door to that room.

Fleet however says he did.

Ah, there, we agree that he never saw anything (I never implied he did either, not sure why we are discussing this point).

I think you misunderstand me to some degree, when I say, anywhere else, I am trying to imply: Why did they just not take the body elsewhere? Out of their home. If it was them, they had the time, they had the opportunity. Both appear to be fairly competent adults, and many seem to think they are capable of being manipulating. It would be far better for them, their story, and alibi if that body was found somewhere outside of the home. A forest, ditch, near a river etc.

As for why John may have noticed what Fleet did not, could be rooted in a couple of things.
John Ramsey would know that a bundle of white blanket was not something that belonged in the room. They were after all looking for anything out of place, and this was out of place. It is also very likely he went into the room, rather than just standing in the doorway.

Second is the smell.
By then decomp would have begun, the police-woman who was present when he carried her up the stairs stated she noticed it. So a body has now been decomposing in a closed room for anywhere between 7-12 hours or so, whilst lying in her own urine.

I do believe part of the scene was staged, but not quite sure about the intent of it. Such as the ligatures around her wrists, that allegedly would have been easy to wriggle out of. But she could have been unconscious at that point?

Not sure if you ever seen the images of the bloomies and longjohns, but it makes it look like she died while she was face down. Since so much of the urine is on the front, and like everything else, liquid follows gravity. The bladder will empty itself when someone loses consciousness. That includes fainting and dying. This could also happen out of fear.

Ramsey said he found her wrapped up in the blanket, but I can not recall if he found her face up or face down.

The ligature marks on her neck indicates that whoever did this, was bit taller than her. More adult size, than Burke sized. When you view the ones lowest on her neck you can see that, from the side, they tilt up towards the back. Which means that's the angle it started in. Then, the final, placement of the garrotte string, is not pulled up or down really, which to me, I am not a professional. Would indicate this happened when she was on the floor.

From my impression, the damage to her head was also from above. Again, not a professional. I could see a shorter person, with the right tool and angle getting in a similar hit.

When it comes to the location, the door, and room is straight ahead from the stairs leading to the basement. It could be that the killer simply had knowledge of the home, or even dumb luck in finding a secluded spot in the home.

As for the crime-scene. The police allowed friends and family to wander around. Police allowed victim-advocates into the home, all before securing the home and allowed them to clean the kitchen........
To quote from the earlier article I linked:
"Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee. After using the kitchen, the advocates began tidying it up, a law-enforcement official told Newsweek. One friend helped clean the kitchen, wiping down the counters with a spray cleaner—and possibly wiping away important evidence."

As for trying to get that plane. I am thinking he was seeking legal-safety as well as perhaps familiar safety for his family. He knew how this looked. He knew they would blame them, and probably realized they needed lawyers. Perhaps even get Burke away so he wouldn't be traumatized by what would 100% become a media circus. He was only 9 after-all and they did have family over in Atlanta.

The ransom note says a lot of things about the person who wrote it. It is unusually long. Made with materials from within the home. Lot of movie-references. The actual ransom amount seems rather odd, and honestly, quite low considering how well John Ramsey's company was doing. To me this ransom note is more, a distraction, to buy time? I do not think there was ever going to be a 'kidnapping', I believe fully this person was going to kill her regardless. Maybe keep her, for a while, then kill her.

Not sure what stopped him from taking her out of the house though....There was several unlocked windows and surely he could manage to get out a door if he wanted to.

It all screams some form of inside job. A family member, friend, or someone with access and knowledge of the home and family activities.

Rather apologize for the ramble. I think we are coming at this from two very different angles, but with the same desire for her killer to get caught and brought to justice.

Mireille,
Your sentence structure is fine, I have no problem reading your post.

I agree with much of what you say, particularly the smell close to the wine-cellar both from urine and decomposition.

Since the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, it is possible that John Ramsey moved JonBenet there mid-morning, alternatively it was all accomplished sometime early that morning?

The ligature strangulation or sexual assault is not contentious, just who did it?

It all screams some form of inside job. A family member, friend, or someone with access and knowledge of the home and family activities.
Yes it looks that way, there is no forensic evidence that links to anyone outside the Ramsey house, it all links to the surviving family members, suggesting the case is RDI.

.
 
I am replying to a post speaking to what an officer did. Which was to not search a seemingly locked room. Because he did not think kidnappers would lock the door behind them. That is what all sources I found, points towards. French never entered that room. He saw it, noticed it, but did not open the door nor enter the room. Here is one: Newsweek (their source in this article is police reports)

Mireille,
Officer French did not open the door because it was latched and opened inward. The latch was a block of wood at the top of the door. Seeing this he states, that a kidnapper could not leave with a body via this route. Also for clarification the light switch was not on the left side of the door upon opening the door of the wc. It was located on the right hand side of the wall about 30” from the floor.
 
There was no window in that wine cellar anyway for the purposes of escape. So that gives an additional reason for French not to enter. There is no doubt he was being briefed, cajoled and misdirected by John Ramsey the whole time. John did the same thing trying to implicate Fleet and misdirect him, in order to later accuse him of murder. But, technically French should have checked that room anyway as part of a routine, full and complete check of the house. No blame should be apportioned to him for not doing so, because the police were ill equipped and unprepared, as well as being misdirected and poorly managed.
 
Clearly it was Burke. He was the only one with motive (jealously) and had been abusive to her in the past. I believe that the family was undergoing counseling about his abusive behavior toward her, and that's why a grand jury nearly (or did they actually do it) indicted the Ramsey's with child endangerment....
I agree with you. I have always believed that John and Pasty simply covered up her death with misleading evidence, because Patsy didn't want to lose her remaining child. Occam's razor.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
1,478
Total visitors
1,563

Forum statistics

Threads
605,983
Messages
18,196,367
Members
233,685
Latest member
momster0734
Back
Top