Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

If she had died as she was eating the pineapple, her digestion would have stopped at that point and the pineapple would not have been found where it was in her digestive system. It was estimated that there was around a two hour period between the time she ate the pineapple and the time she actually died. So my question still stands. She loved pineapple and is given a bowl of pineapple. According to JR, she eats it by the bowl ful. But in this case she clearly didn't but apparently only took a little bit. Why?

Anyhoo,
Maybe she was not so hungry, maybe she was tired, maybe she fancied some chocolate upstairs? Anyway the bowl was nearly empty, check the picture.

Also digestion would have continued until she was asphyxiated, and not stopped when she was whacked on the head.

Sexual molestation, eating pineapple, then being whacked on the head seem pretty incongruous to me.


.

 

[UKGuy]

It makes sense to me, because IMO, the head bash ended the snack

dodie20,
So when was she sexually assaulted?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Your question is thought provoking. From the forensics, it's been estimated there was only 30 minutes at most between the time JB ate the fruit and the head bash. So, either there was something that excited her enough to make her leave the pineapple bowl, or she was forced away from the snack by someone for some reason. :sleuth:

midwest mama,
Patently she left to be sexually molested. Be that in a bed, or down in the basement.

The pineapple snack might have been a treat for compliance, when it was not fully delivered, rage ensued with anger erupting into a premeditated head bash?

In the whole case the head bash is completely unexplained, we can explain away the molestation or the asphyxiation, but not the head bash, it remains a mystery.

No R needs to whack JonBenet because they are all physically stronger. The parents can just pick her up to immobilize her, Burke can just place a hand over her mouth to shut her up.

I think there is a time gap between the sexual assault and the head bash, i.e. either the person who molested JonBenet returned either to deliberately whack JonBenet, and not understanding his own strength, made her comatose, or another person whacked JonBenet for an independent reason?


.

 

[Anyhoo]

midwest mama,
Patently she left to be sexually molested. Be that in a bed, or down in the basement.

The pineapple snack might have been a treat for compliance, when it was not fully delivered, rage ensued with anger erupting into a premeditated head bash?

In the whole case the head bash is completely unexplained, we can explain away the molestation or the asphyxiation, but not the head bash, it remains a mystery.

No R needs to whack JonBenet because they are all physically stronger. The parents can just pick her up to immobilize her, Burke can just place a hand over her mouth to shut her up.

I think there is a time gap between the sexual assault and the head bash, i.e. either the person who molested JonBenet returned either to deliberately whack JonBenet, and not understanding his own strength, made her comatose, or another person whacked JonBenet for an independent reason?


.

It just does not make sense to me that the R's did it directly.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

midwest mama,
Patently she left to be sexually molested. Be that in a bed, or down in the basement.

The pineapple snack might have been a treat for compliance, when it was not fully delivered, rage ensued with anger erupting into a premeditated head bash?

In the whole case the head bash is completely unexplained, we can explain away the molestation or the asphyxiation, but not the head bash, it remains a mystery.

No R needs to whack JonBenet because they are all physically stronger. The parents can just pick her up to immobilize her, Burke can just place a hand over her mouth to shut her up.

I think there is a time gap between the sexual assault and the head bash, i.e. either the person who molested JonBenet returned either to deliberately whack JonBenet, and not understanding his own strength, made her comatose, or another person whacked JonBenet for an independent reason?


.

UKGuy

For me it's the other way around. The head bash makes more sense to me than the garotte. Whoever did this, imo, was ANGRY. It was a vicious way of going about murdering a child. How do you explain that away?

The hit on the head is more typical of a spur of the moment outburst of anger, which is much easier to understand. The garotte is something more, a lot more personal. There were other ways they could have gone about it - suffocation with a pillow would have done it; but the killer chose such a sadistic method. It's hard to fathom the parents being that sadistic when neither one of them had any kind of violent history. But their deceptiveness and evasiveness tells a different story. If they were using the strangulation to cover up for the blow to the head, why choose such a violent way to do it? It makes no sense to me, and that's why I think both acts were done in the same violent episode.

A sexual act against this child is really the only way to explain the violence around her murder. The question is....by whom? And I firmly believe that whoever sexually assaulted her killed her MOO.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

For me it's the other way around. The head bash makes more sense to me than the garotte. Whoever did this, imo, was ANGRY. It was a vicious way of going about murdering a child. How do you explain that away?

The hit on the head is more typical of a spur of the moment outburst of anger, which is much easier to understand. The garotte is something more, a lot more personal. There were other ways they could have gone about it - suffocation with a pillow would have done it; but the killer chose such a sadistic method. It's hard to fathom the parents being that sadistic when neither one of them had any kind of violent history. But their deceptiveness and evasiveness tells a different story. If they were using the strangulation to cover up for the blow to the head, why choose such a violent way to do it? It makes no sense to me, and that's why I think both acts were done in the same violent episode.

A sexual act against this child is really the only way to explain the violence around her murder. The question is....by whom? And I firmly believe that whoever sexually assaulted her killed her MOO.

PrincessSezMe,
Maybe, how do you know they are linked? One person may have abused JonBenet, ten-minutes later, unknown to another R who then whacks her on the head with a flaslight for wetting the bed, which was a nervous reaction to being molested?

There is no need for any R to whack JonBenet on the head, for any reason. She is a six-year old girl, bashing her on the head is not in any offender handbook.

The sequence:

1. sexual assault

2. head bash

3. ligature asphyxiation

Appear to be three separate events, but staged to look as if they are part of an intruder homicide?

.

 

[dodie20]

PrincessSezMe,
Maybe, how do you know they are linked? One person may have abused JonBenet, ten-minutes later, unknown to another R who then whacks her on the head with a flaslight for wetting the bed, which was a nervous reaction to being molested?

There is no need for any R to whack JonBenet on the head, for any reason. She is a six-year old girl, bashing her on the head is not in any offender handbook.

The sequence:

1. sexual assault

2. head bash

3. ligature asphyxiation

Appear to be three separate events, but staged to look as if they are part of an intruder homicide?

.

you say there was no need for any R to bash JB on the head? there was no need for Anybody to bash her on the head, so IMO, the bash probably resulted from an unexpected explosion in anger. And why do you think the sexual assault came 1st? At some point, JB was eating pineapple, and I seriously doubt this happened after a sexual assault. What makes the most sense to me is 1, the previous sexual contact. 2, the eating of the pineapple. 3, the head bash. 4, the ransom note. 5, the sexual assault, followed quickly by 6, the strangulation. IMO, the head bash wasn't done as part of any staging. Also, IMO, the killer probably heard the bash crack JB's skull, so he/she thought she was either dead, or had no chance. She was then hidden in the basement, while the ransom note was written. After the note was written, IMO, the killer went back to the basement to stage, sexually assault and strangle. IMO, the strangulation was done either because the killer saw JB clinging to life, or because the killer wanted it to appear that a pervert had committed a sex crime. So, as far as injuries to JB go, I see 3 separate criminal intents. 1, the previous sexual abuse. 2, the head bash, and 3, everything that followed. 1, the previous sexual assault happened for whatever reason it happened. 2, the head bash resulted from an explosion in anger. 3, everything else was done in order to cover for the perp behind the head bash. IMO, the head bash started the whole chain of events, because the perp didn't want to be held accountable. All MOO.

 

[UKGuy]

you say there was no need for any R to bash JB on the head? there was no need for Anybody to bash her on the head, so IMO, the bash probably resulted from an unexpected explosion in anger. And why do you think the sexual assault came 1st? At some point, JB was eating pineapple, and I seriously doubt this happened after a sexual assault. What makes the most sense to me is 1, the previous sexual contact. 2, the eating of the pineapple. 3, the head bash. 4, the ransom note. 5, the sexual assault, followed quickly by 6, the strangulation. IMO, the head bash wasn't done as part of any staging. Also, IMO, the killer probably heard the bash crack JB's skull, so he/she thought she was either dead, or had no chance. She was then hidden in the basement, while the ransom note was written. After the note was written, IMO, the killer went back to the basement to stage, sexually assault and strangle. IMO, the strangulation was done either because the killer saw JB clinging to life, or because the killer wanted it to appear that a pervert had committed a sex crime. So, as far as injuries to JB go, I see 3 separate criminal intents. 1, the previous sexual abuse. 2, the head bash, and 3, everything that followed. 1, the previous sexual assault happened for whatever reason it happened. 2, the head bash resulted from an explosion in anger. 3, everything else was done in order to cover for the perp behind the head bash. IMO, the head bash started the whole chain of events, because the perp didn't want to be held accountable. All MOO.

dodie20,
You could be 100% correct. But I doubt it, because why bother rederessing JonBenet if an intruder staging is to be fabricated, why hide your acute sexual assault/staging?

so IMO, the bash probably resulted from an unexpected explosion in anger.

I would place this at the top of any list, violence fuelled by anger is particularly irrational.

It still seems we might have three separate events conflated in staging as one?


.
.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The apparent contradictions in the staging indicate one thing to me -

Two different personalities.

One flaky, panicky, near hysteria; the other cool, calm, calculating but as always, pretty much unaware of the actions and thoughts of perp one.

 

[dodie20]

I've wondered about something, and a show on the ID channel recently covered a case that addressed the same subject. This show was about a woman who killed a female coworker, and after the murder was complete, she went about staging a scene in order to make it look like a male had committed the crime. This is what I think may have happened in the JB case, and this is why I think some of the staging was done.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

PrincessSezMe,
Maybe, how do you know they are linked? One person may have abused JonBenet, ten-minutes later, unknown to another R who then whacks her on the head with a flaslight for wetting the bed, which was a nervous reaction to being molested?

There is no need for any R to whack JonBenet on the head, for any reason. She is a six-year old girl, bashing her on the head is not in any offender handbook.

The sequence:

1. sexual assault

2. head bash

3. ligature asphyxiation

Appear to be three separate events, but staged to look as if they are part of an intruder homicide?

.

I don't know. Just as nobody else, other than the people in that house, know. It's strictly MOO, but the viciousness of the attack does not scream "accident" at me. I've read theories that JB accidently bashed her head on a surface such as the edge of the bathtub as a result of her mother's anger at, and rough handling of, JB over wetting the bed. I can't subsribe to such theories, and then rationalize these parents doing to JB what followed that. This same logic follows in any scenerio where the parents are covering up for Burke somehow hitting his sister over the head for whatever reason.

The garotte was particularly cruel, and other methods of death, or "staged" death if they were simply covering up an accident, were available to them. This is also true even if it was an intentional head bash. There are lots of ways to kill a person, but this seems personal to me. And why on earth would they proceed to make it look like a sexual attack/vicious murder after writing a ransom note to make it look like a kidnapping? The note came after the strangulation IMO. And the body was not intended to be found in the home. PR called the cops and blew the whistle before the staging was complete. Why do you think that was?

Other than a sexual attack that likely preceeded it, what explanation would you provide for the vicious strangulation? The brutal marks on her neck clearly show it wasn't a "staging". Whoever did that meant to kill her. My theory, and it's only that, is that the bash on the head was to silence her. The strangulation was done in anger because she forced the killer to do that.

The only suspect that makes sense to me is John Ramsey for the following reasons:

1. John made a beeline for the body as soon as LE Arndt gave him an alibi for doing so.

2. I do not believe PR was in any way sexually abusing her daughter, and if she killed her in anger, would not stage such a brutal crime scene.

3. Burke Ramsey was not capable, at his age, of staging a cover up on this scale (see my earlier comments on why I don't think the parents staged it after Burke smashed her over the head).

4. John Ramsey has never shown any true remorse regarding the death of his daughter. In fact he's shown very little emotion at all. Patsy Ramsey appears stoic, and comes across as clearly deceptive, but her 911 call sounds like she's pretty hysterical. Plus I have found some instances in media interviews where she does seem to be genuinely distraught.

5. NO evidence clearly points to an intruder.

As Sherlock Holmes put it "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

:websleuther:

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know. Just as nobody else, other than the people in that house, know. It's strictly MOO, but the viciousness of the attack does not scream "accident" at me. I've read theories that JB accidently bashed her head on a surface such as the edge of the bathtub as a result of her mother's anger at, and rough handling of, JB over wetting the bed. I can't subsribe to such theories, and then rationalize these parents doing to JB what followed that. This same logic follows in any scenerio where the parents are covering up for Burke somehow hitting his sister over the head for whatever reason.

The garotte was particularly cruel, and other methods of death, or "staged" death if they were simply covering up an accident, were available to them. This is also true even if it was an intentional head bash. There are lots of ways to kill a person, but this seems personal to me. And why on earth would they proceed to make it look like a sexual attack/vicious murder after writing a ransom note to make it look like a kidnapping? The note came after the strangulation IMO. And the body was not intended to be found in the home. PR called the cops and blew the whistle before the staging was complete. Why do you think that was?

Other than a sexual attack that likely preceeded it, what explanation would you provide for the vicious strangulation? The brutal marks on her neck clearly show it wasn't a "staging". Whoever did that meant to kill her. My theory, and it's only that, is that the bash on the head was to silence her. The strangulation was done in anger because she forced the killer to do that.

The only suspect that makes sense to me is John Ramsey for the following reasons:

1. John made a beeline for the body as soon as LE Arndt gave him an alibi for doing so.

2. I do not believe PR was in any way sexually abusing her daughter, and if she killed her in anger, would not stage such a brutal crime scene.

3. Burke Ramsey was not capable, at his age, of staging a cover up on this scale (see my earlier comments on why I don't think the parents staged it after Burke smashed her over the head).

4. John Ramsey has never shown any true remorse regarding the death of his daughter. In fact he's shown very little emotion at all. Patsy Ramsey appears stoic, and comes across as clearly deceptive, but her 911 call sounds like she's pretty hysterical. Plus I have found some instances in media interviews where she does seem to be genuinely distraught.

5. NO evidence clearly points to an intruder.

As Sherlock Holmes put it "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

:websleuther:

PrincessSezMe,

I don't know.

So if you admit to an absence why bother quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous conclusion?

What you must realize is that the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene the ligature strangulation is staging, an attempt to predujice your perception in one form or another.

.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

PrincessSezMe,

So if you admit to an absence why bother quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous conclusion?

What you must realize is that the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene the ligature strangulation is staging, an attempt to predujice your perception in one form or another.

.

Process of elimination my dear Watson. You yourself admit there was no evidence backing up the intruder theory I've seen your posts to that effect. So, who is left in the home that could have done this?

I've given my many reasons for believing it was JR, so would be interested in hearing your theory. Who do you think killed her? And what do you base your opinion on?

 

[Anyhoo]

I don't know. Just as nobody else, other than the people in that house, know. It's strictly MOO, but the viciousness of the attack does not scream "accident" at me. I've read theories that JB accidently bashed her head on a surface such as the edge of the bathtub as a result of her mother's anger at, and rough handling of, JB over wetting the bed. I can't subsribe to such theories, and then rationalize these parents doing to JB what followed that. This same logic follows in any scenerio where the parents are covering up for Burke somehow hitting his sister over the head for whatever reason.

The garotte was particularly cruel, and other methods of death, or "staged" death if they were simply covering up an accident, were available to them. This is also true even if it was an intentional head bash. There are lots of ways to kill a person, but this seems personal to me. And why on earth would they proceed to make it look like a sexual attack/vicious murder after writing a ransom note to make it look like a kidnapping? The note came after the strangulation IMO. And the body was not intended to be found in the home. PR called the cops and blew the whistle before the staging was complete. Why do you think that was?

Other than a sexual attack that likely preceeded it, what explanation would you provide for the vicious strangulation? The brutal marks on her neck clearly show it wasn't a "staging". Whoever did that meant to kill her. My theory, and it's only that, is that the bash on the head was to silence her. The strangulation was done in anger because she forced the killer to do that.

The only suspect that makes sense to me is John Ramsey for the following reasons:

1. John made a beeline for the body as soon as LE Arndt gave him an alibi for doing so.

2. I do not believe PR was in any way sexually abusing her daughter, and if she killed her in anger, would not stage such a brutal crime scene.

3. Burke Ramsey was not capable, at his age, of staging a cover up on this scale (see my earlier comments on why I don't think the parents staged it after Burke smashed her over the head).

4. John Ramsey has never shown any true remorse regarding the death of his daughter. In fact he's shown very little emotion at all. Patsy Ramsey appears stoic, and comes across as clearly deceptive, but her 911 call sounds like she's pretty hysterical. Plus I have found some instances in media interviews where she does seem to be genuinely distraught.

5. NO evidence clearly points to an intruder.

As Sherlock Holmes put it "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

:websleuther:

The viciousness of the attack does not on its face scream accident unless it was purposefully staged that way to support the intruder theory.

But something you said strikes true to me, which is that if the R's wanted to make JB's death seem believable and not point to them, there was a lot of different ways they could have done that. The garrot in particular is cruel, vicious, and over the top. I just don't see the R's coming up with that on their own to cover up an accidental killing of their daughter when they could have used other staged methods.

Also the R. note. If the R's had written the ransome note themselves, then why on earth would they leave a practice note where it could be found by LE? I mean, if you were going around staging things and wiping down things for fingerprints, isn't that a pretty obvious thing that you would destroy the practice note?

I disagree the body was not supposed to be found in the home. I think just the opposite is true. I think the R's expected the police to find the body on the morning of 12-26 when they were searching the house. I think they wanted that body to be found as soon as possible. In fact, it was JR himself that "found" the body and brought it upstairs to Linda Arndt. But the R's had no way of knowing that the Police would fail to find the body the first time they searched the house. They expected they would find it then and I think it surprised them when the body was not found.

As to your five points:

1. I agree, proving that JR knew where his daughter was all along even though he pretended he didn't.
2. I do not know PR well enough to say this.
3. I agree. I have never thought BDI.
4. I agree what you say about JR not showing true sadness or remorse, but to me when I listened to that 911 call, it sounded like PR was faking panic. I could be wrong, but the words she used and the way she said it sounded fake to me, almost practiced.
5. I agree there is no conclusive evidence of an intruder. What evidence there is appears to be staged.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree that the Rs wanted police to find her body. They probably knew (just as we do) that when a "missing" child (who in reality is not missing but dead) is found by a parent, that is highly suspicious. When police failed to find her, JR had to. I think by that time he was aware of the fact that police were not just going to leave the house and they weren't going to be allowed to stay on by themselves. And I believe they did not want her to be found by cadaver dogs. While they may not have been familiar with the exact process of decomposition, I am sure they knew that leaving her to rot in the basement for a few days was out of the question.
Of course, whenever a "missing" child is reported by parents and later found dead in the family home, by a parent or not, the parents become suspects automatically.
The FBI, who came early that morning and were sent away by the Boulder LE, called it right away. They looked at the parents' behavior, which they are trained to do, looked at the ridiculous note, and said "You're going to be finding her body". And ...they were right.

 

[dodie20]

I agree that the Rs wanted police to find her body. They probably knew (just as we do) that when a "missing" child (who in reality is not missing but dead) is found by a parent, that is highly suspicious. When police failed to find her, JR had to. I think by that time he was aware of the fact that police were not just going to leave the house and they weren't going to be allowed to stay on by themselves. And I believe they did not want her to be found by cadaver dogs. While they may not have been familiar with the exact process of decomposition, I am sure they knew that leaving her to rot in the basement for a few days was out of the question.
Of course, whenever a "missing" child is reported by parents and later found dead in the family home, by a parent or not, the parents become suspects automatically.
The FBI, who came early that morning and were sent away by the Boulder LE, called it right away. They looked at the parents' behavior, which they are trained to do, looked at the ridiculous note, and said "You're going to be finding her body". And ...they were right.

yes, they were right. Did we ever hear an inkling of who they suspected?

 

[SunVenus]

yes, they were right. Did we ever hear an inkling of who they suspected?

I think the best (and first) inkling (chronological to events unfolding the day the 9-11 call came in to BPD and started the ball rolling) is found in Linda Arndt's statement (paraphrasing here) that after JBR's body had been brought up from the basement by JR & FW, Arndt looked at JR and felt frightened and felt that he had killed JBR.

I'll try to find the exact quote and I'll post the link in here when I do. Edited to add: the quote is here and to quote the relevent excerpt:

"Arndt: I heard a noise, then I heard, I heard (him?) softly run to the phone in the den and he was crouched and I saw him dial 3 numbers, hang up the phone, yell 'we need an ambulance,' and then he ran back towards the front of the house. And I see John Ramsey carrying JonBenét up the last three steps from the basement. And, um, and my mind exploded. I mean it literally, I saw black with thousands of lights. And everything that I had noted that morning that stuck out, instantly made sense. (pause, sigh) And JonBenét was clearly dead. And she's been dead for a while. I knelt next to her and I leaned down to her face. And John leaned down opposite me, and um, his face was just inches from mine...(pause, breath) and we had, um, a nonverbal exchange that I will never forget. And he asked if she was dead. And I said yes, she's dead. And I told him to go back to the room and to dial 911. And as we looked at each other, I remember, and I wore a shoulder holster; tucking my gun right next to me and consciously counting I've got 18 bullets."

She goes on to say that she felt afraid which seems indicative to me that her "hinkey meter" pinged due to JR's incongrous actions, statements and demeanour.

It looks as if the Boulder PD detectives suspected the family, or at least JR & PR from the get-go, according to PMPT and Steve Thomas' story. Too bad they weren't allowed to do their jobs and bring the perps to justice.

 

[otg]

If she had died as she was eating the pineapple, her digestion would have stopped at that point and the pineapple would not have been found where it was in her digestive system. It was estimated that there was around a two hour period between the time she ate the pineapple and the time she actually died. So my question still stands. She loved pineapple and is given a bowl of pineapple. According to JR, she eats it by the bowl ful. But in this case she clearly didn't but apparently only took a little bit. Why?

You're right about the digestive process (as our DD has so many times explained) being proof that she was alive for some time after consuming the pineapple.

Just because JR said she could eat an entire bowl of pineapple by herself doesn't mean she would do so every time it was placed in front of her. Maybe she just wasn't that hungry, having just eaten cracked crab -- another of her favorite foods. Maybe she got distracted and just forgot about it -- kids do.

I don't think it's a case maker/breaker simply because it was unfinished even though she loved fresh pineapple (MOO). Groucho Marx once said, "I love my cigar, but I take it out every now and then."
.

 

[UKGuy]

Process of elimination my dear Watson. You yourself admit there was no evidence backing up the intruder theory I've seen your posts to that effect. So, who is left in the home that could have done this?

I've given my many reasons for believing it was JR, so would be interested in hearing your theory. Who do you think killed her? And what do you base your opinion on?

PrincessSezMe,
BDI is the most consistent theory. It even helps explain all the crazy behaviour of the police and DA, including the postmortem silence that continues today. No investigators are offering their accounts of one of America's most famous unsolved crimes.

Other than that you can make a case for any other RDI, but they are less consistent than a BDI. If its JDI why should Patsy collaborate with John, similarly in reverse?

It might even be that the sexual assault and head bash are separate events caused by different people?

The person responsible for JonBenet's chronic abuse might be different from the person who inflicted the acute abuse?

All of this simply comes together in the staging to present an apparent sexually motivated homicide?


.

 

[rashomon]

PrincessSezMe,
BDI is the most consistent theory. It even helps explain all the crazy behaviour of the police and DA, including the postmortem silence that continues today. No investigators are offering their accounts of one of America's most famous unsolved crimes.

Other than that you can make a case for any other RDI, but they are less consistent than a BDI. If its JDI why should Patsy collaborate with John, similarly in reverse?

It might even be that the sexual assault and head bash are separate events caused by different people?

The person responsible for JonBenet's chronic abuse might be different from the person who inflicted the acute abuse?

All of this simply comes together in the staging to present an apparent sexually motivated homicide?

Assuming it was Burke who delivered the head blow a short time after JonBenet ate the pineapple (pineapple passes the stomach very fast if eaten without other food and on an empty stomach) - why did the stager of the scene later feel it necessary to put the too large size 12 underwear on her?