Members' Theories

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please forgive me for a small rule-break and please don't respond.

I want to say that I love the idea of the thread, a place for everyone to post their theories. After reading the tread, I wish everyone would have stuck with that. It's best to keep discussion on discussion threads. I also want to thank everyone for their theories. Popular or not, it's great to read everyone's different ideas. It helps to understand different angles. I have a couple of theories that I'll post soon. I'm sure someone will accuse me of 'reinventing the wheel'. I bet I'll even hear the words 'achems razor' too, but I hope we can leave that to the discussion threads.
 
I'm not as experienced with this case as many of you, but here's my theory after a few weeks of obsessive reading:

John was responsible for the ongoing sexual abuse of Jonbenet. Patsy's sex drive was gone due to the cancer treatments and their relationship was said to have "cooled" by this time. While it's possible for mothers or young boys to commit sexual assault, it's statistically far more likely that an adult male would engage in these behaviors...and it certainly wasn't an "intruder."

I think Patsy knew or suspected it for a while and her rage was simmering. After a few drinks at the Xmas party, she saw something she didn't want to see and flew into a rage, inflicting the head wound on her daughter. Or maybe something else (bedwetting, bad behavior) triggered it. She panicked and began to stage the scene, possibly with John's help. The threat of being charged with sexual abuse was probably enough to ensure his cooperation in the coverup. The sexual assault that night was done in an attempt to cover previous abuse.

I lean towards Patsy inflicting the head wound because she seems like a loose cannon. Her glory days of pageantry were over and she'd lost her sex drive (and her looks, temporarily) due to chemotherapy. Several close friends/family members said Jonbenet was not allowed to say "no" to the pageants, but it seems she was growing tired of them. She was a possession to Patsy; an extension of her own ego. To find that her husband was sexually abusing Jonbenet would've triggered a mixture of jealousy, rage, hurt and denial. (It's not uncommon for moms to allow sexual abuse by boyfriends or husbands because they'd rather keep the relationship than protect their child). John was the breadwinner, and a damned good one at that. Patsy would probably never achieve that level of wealth again if she left him. What if she required more top-of-the-line cancer treatments?

Everything Patsy said sounded like a lie or dramatization. Even the 911 call sounded like bad acting. And of course the ransom note was beyond dramatic. If she was being truthful in those TV interviews, she should've kept her mouth shut because she's the most guilty-sounding innocent person on the planet. I would peg her as having some sort of personality disorder, possibly Histrionic or Narcissistic. Her "emotional range" is very shallow. She was also somewhat of a religious nut who used tranquilizers at times.

This picture really creeps me out for some reason:

PATSYCROSS.jpg

TL;DR - John was molesting Jonbenet, Patsy killed her and they both covered it up.
 
Yesterday would have been JonBenet's 17th birthday. May you rest in peace, embraced in God's eternal love, JonBenet. :rose:

Before posting my theory, some general remarks:
A theory should include and explain the forensic evidence found at the crime scene. It should also exclude impossible scenarios. For example, it makes no sense to place a John Doe at the crime scene if this John Doe had an ironclad alibi which shows he was hundreds of miles away from Boulder at the time of the crime.
The most complicated issue in the JBR case for me is whether she had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse or not. For if yes, many questions will arise:
Who was her chronic sexual abuser?
Was the abuser also the killer? (not necessarily)
Was JonBenet's death connected to the chronic abuse? (not necessarily)
One gets many variables in such a scenario, and another big problem is that that even the experts seem to disagree with each other whether there was chronic sexual abuse or not. I've been wavering back and forth on this issue ever since I've been studying this case (and in a way probably always will), and although I do have a second theory where sexual abuse is taken into account, unless this has been definitely cleared up (I don't think it ever will), the most plausible theory imo is Patsy snapping and losing it in a short moment of rage because JonBenet, by whatever she did, made her mother fly off the handle.


My time line of events:


On the way home from the Whites' party, JonBenet falls asleep for a short time in the car but when the family arrives home, she wakes up again. The short sleep has recharged her "energy" batteries, and therefore she is in no mood go to bed on that night. In addition, it is Christmas, which provides additonal excitement for JonBenet.
When they get home, there is some milling around by all. Patsy goes upstairs to do some packing, but JonBenet,after going to the toilet to pee, goes downstairs again, looks at her presents in the living room and also goes into the kitchen where she sees a bowl of pineapple on the table. She grabs some with her fingers and eats it.
Some time passes, John and Burke are already in bed, but Patsy is still busy preparing for tomorrow's trip. JonBenet finally goes into her room, and although Patsy tells her quite a few times to get ready for bed, JonBenet doesn't really listen to her mother. Athough she has started undressing herself and slipped out of her back velvet pants, she runs arond in her size 4-6 underwear without putting on her pajamas.
Patsy is not in a good mood today. She feels tired, exhausted and stressed-out from always juggling too many balls at once. She has had some glasses of wine at the Whites' party, not much, but her tolerance to alcohol has decreased since the heavy chemo which she said did a number on her liver. Two trips to prepare and a pageant immediately afterward, her approaching 40th birthday, the alcohol, all are stress-factors.


Pineapple stimulates digestion, and when Patsy, increasingly exasperated because JonBenet is still not in bed, enters her room, she sees that the child has soiled her underwear. And this triggers Patsy's rage. It is the last straw which pushes her over the edge. The blood alcohol level in her body is just high enough to unleash her aggression. She furiously drags JonBenet into the bathroom, and her rough handling leaves marks on the child's body. She vigorously cleans Jon Benet, and when the child protests vehemently, maybe also hitting and kicking back at her mother, Patsy loses it completely: she either hits JonBenet with an object (I don't believe it was the flashlight), or slams her head against the bathroom sink. One brief moment where Patsy lost control, and irreparable damage was done. Patsy, in total shock over what happened, feels JonBent's head and realizes there is an indentation in the skull. JonBenet has fallen into a deep coma instantly and Patsy is convinced that she is dead.

She runs to John, and on the verge of a nervous breakdown, tells him what happened. She is absolutely hysterical about not wanting to turn herself in to the police, and John, in a mixture of pity and own self-interest, promises to cover up for her. The damage is already done, nothing will bring their daughter back to life they think, and they decide to stage a scene to save what is left from the rest of the family. After all, there is Burke to think of, and they want to spare him the horrific experience of having his mother exposed in public and go to jail because she killed his little sister in a rage.
But John doesn't want to get too involved in the staging. For he is not at all sure Patsy will get away with it, and so the less he gets involved, the better for himself should the police arrest Patsy after all.
He agrees to carry JonBenet down into the basement though. JonBenet is to be removed as far as possible from Burke who might wake up. When going downstairs, John sees a chair standing in front of the train room/hobby room door, so he goes through the adjacent door into the boiler room. He later used the chair as an element in his concocted story, suggesting an intruder put it there. Patsy tries to stage a bizarre sexual predator scenario intended to point away from the parents. She takes a paintbrush from the tote, leaving some of her jacket fibers there.
But as soon as she has inflicted a jab in JB's vagina with the pointed end, she breaks off immediately. She can't go on. She just can't do it. She also panicks because the wound bleeds, but I don't think at that moment she realizes that the child can't yet have been dead.
She frantically gets some cloth and wipes her down, and, as if to undo her deed in her own mind, decides to redress JonBenet. She runs upstairs and begs John, who has remained upstairs in case Burke wakes up, to help her. She can't put JonBenet's soiled size 4-6 Wednesday Bloomies on her again, but gets an idea: she will replace this pair with a Wednesday pair of the set which she bought for JonBenet's cousin Jenny, and hide the rest of the set somewhere. At that moment she is not aware that those other panties are far too large, she takes the Wednesday pair and the longjohns and begs her husband to put it on JonBenet because at that stage she is on the verge of dissolving into a total mess. While John is putting on the size 12-14 Bloomies on JonBenet, fibers from his shirt get transferred to the underwear.


No doubt John with his knowledge of knots would have been able to stage a better scene with the ligatures than Pasty, but John does not want to get involved in this. Part of his refusal to get more involved may also have been aggressive feelings toward Patsy - after all, it was she who killed his daughter. Imo this was also the reason why he later didn't go over to Patsy to comfort her. He was unable to fake the grieving husband convincingly, and his true feelings shone through.
Once JonBenet's body is redressed, Patsy pulls herself together a little. She realizes John won't help her further, so she has to finish this. Her eye catches the paintbrush which is still on the floor. She breaks off both the pointed and the bristled end. The pointed end was never found - I believe she crushed it with her foot and later flushed the shards down the toilet.
She ties a clumsy slip knot around the neck, tying an additional loop into the knot which serves no purpose at all. The ligature fabric is soft flat nylon, therefore the double-loop slip knot locks quite easily. With a knot already locked, one doesn't need a handle with cord around a stick. The remaining cord wrapped around the stick is done for mere staging purposes to suggest a scenario as bizarre as possible.
While she is fumbling with the cord, more fibers from her jacket end up in the wrappigs of the garrote handle.
The cord around the neck cuts off JonBenet's last oyxygen supply, and while she is lying face-down in front of the wine cellar, she finally dies, shedding post-mortem urine afterward. But Patsy is not aware of this. She thinks JonBenet died right after the head blow.
She then fashions wrist ligatures which are so loosely done that later one had already come off JonBenet's wrists when John "found" her in the basement. She also leaves a far too big space of cord between the ligatures. Maybe it was because she wanted to create a scenario suggesting sexual bondage, but maybe it was just because she had no idea how restraining ligatures are effectively tied (with the hands close together).
She puts a piece duct tape on JonBenets mouth - another element of staging.
She gets a blanket from the dryer, wraps it around the body and carries it into the wine cellar. As she carries JonBenet's body, again fibers from her jacket get transferred to the blanket. One of JonBenet's nightgowns was adhering to the blanket through static cling, but Patsy does not see this.
She goes upstairs and tells John where she put JonBenet's body.


A faked ransom note is concocted intended to later 'explain' the dead body in the basement to investigators. It should look like a 'kidnapping gone wrong'. Patsy also writes the note as a cathartic act to undo the crime in her own mind (like the CASKU experts said) - to remove herself from her deed so to speak. The ransom note is written in the kitchen which they illuminate only with the flashlight. Patsy writes the note without any help from John. Maybe he thinks she with her journalistic training would do a better job than he, but maybe he also conveys to her "you have made your bed, you must lie in it. I won't turn you in to the police but you can't expect me to do too much for you either."
Patsy's mind does not function in an analytical manner as she is writing the note. She throws everything into the mix in the frantic hope that at least something will be swallowed.
It is also Patsy who calls the police. John thinks she will make a good drama queen performance on the phone so he lets her make the call.
Patsy calls her friends over to use them as a shield between herself and the police. The more confusion there is in that house, the better. The more friends will attend to her, throwing up, breaking down, the fewer questions the police will be able to ask. Patsy knows she has nothing to fear from the threats in the note because she wrote it herself.
But Patsy has forgotten one important thing: to stage a point of entry. Hence John'a later attempt at damage control, claiming he had see the basement window open. He also tried to suggest an 'inside job' by someone who had a key to the Ramsey home (LHP for example).
John claiming that JonBenet's wrists were 'tightly bound' was damage control too. He, when 'finding' JonBent's body at 1 p.m. on Dec 26th, probably got a shock when he saw what a lousy job Patsy had done, so he claimed having tried to undo the 'tight' ligatures.


Imo nothing in this crime was premeditated. It was a rage attack followed by obstruction of justice.


JMO

It's April, 2015, and I've wandered into this discussion. I haven't read all 44 pages of theories yet but I just want to say that, in general, yours seems plausible to me. I am female, despite my Username.

Many years ago, as a "regular" (non-abusive) mom, I did, at times, slighly cross the line into unintentional abuse - grabbing, yanking, etc. - when I was singularly stressed, which kids, alone, can create. Add 1000 other things in there and and I'm a powder keg. I knew when I had handled my son too roughly - maybe almost savagely for 60 seconds, that I had crossed the line, and it scared me. I never did it again.

My best friend, also a "regular" mom was so stressed out by her toddler ( and other pressures) that she picked her daughter up, stomped to the daughter's room, and slammed her down over the child gate between the hallway where she was standing and the girl's room that it was, in that moment, abusive. She called me crying because she was so scared she had just treated her daughter that way, and she said, "What if I had broken her leg? I would have had to take her to the hospital, they would have suspected or known I had done something bad to her, or I would have had to lie."

You have to be very close friends with other women for us to confess to each other that we have on at least one occasion, crossed the line. In every case, there but for the grace of god "went we". But for the wrong roll of the dice, any of us could have been Pasty Ramsey and actually killed our child, by accident, but at the time we were all mad enough that, for a split second we really did want to kill them ( let's be honest).

I think Pasy had rubbed her too fast and too hard with a cloth/baby wipe to get all the pee off he body and especially the vaginal area 1. because it would have need the most cleaning 2. Because subconsiously, I would have "hate" for it as it "caused" my problem, here.

-----

One thing, in general, that has always bothered me is that no one found JB before the police or anyone else arrived. The other day, I couldn't find my house cat and I literally turned my entire house upside looking for her, my panic rising every minute until I had throughy checked everywhere, including places I "knew" she couldn't have gotten into, twice. I have no idea where she was as later I found her sitting in the middle of the living room floor ( where she had NOT been earlier.)

My point is, if I got that panicked over my cat and searched every conceivable place twice, I can't IMAGINE someone missing even 1 square centimeter of their house, their yard, their garage - EVERYWHERE, before assuming she was gone, even WITH a ransom note. If JR could find her relatively quickly in the basement she could not have been missed if they has really, really looking for her.

As for the garrot, I think it might have have been something staged to look like a perverted sex maniac got her. POSSIBLY, Patsy had just been reading Bonfire of the Vanities, a book in which the main character is killed by a garrot, which turned out later to have been a staged as a sexual crime after a murder. Until then, I never knew what a garrot was and how it was used. The book described it in minute detail. I read that book well over a decade ago, and I have never ever forgotten that.

There could be other factors playing into this - JR's abuse - see Occam's Razor's comment, just above, but I do think Patsy was the main perpetrator.

I also think that denial is a VERY powerful sub-conscious psychological coping mechanism, and that it wouldn't have taken Pasty and John to HONESTLY and 100% believe that something else had happened. Only tht usually accounts foe the guilty to deny it convincingly.
 
I have read several books discussing the JBR case, the most recent of which was Law and Disorder, by John Douglas. I strongly believe that an intruder killed JonBenet, and the extent of her injuries and the depravity of the crime is beyond the capabilities of the Ramseys and are the work of an unsophisticated sexual predator. Here is my theory, based on what I've learned about the case:
The Ramseys are a very wealthy, prominent, and high-profile family in the community. They regularly go to parties, host parties, etc. Many people have access to their home or have spent substantial time in it, whether it be as party guests, as employees (housekeepers, contractors, repairmen, etc.) friends, neighbors, or business acquaintances. The killer knows them in one or more of these capacities, and lives in the area. He resents their wealthy, leisurely, and luxurious lifestyle, outgoing personalities, and, perhaps, what he perceives to be the arrogance and entitlement associated with it. Resentment and jealousy. That, and he is a pedophile . . .
I agree with your theory to some extent, but I'm not convinced the killer was a sexual predator. I believe it was someone with a grudge against John, either because of some perceived wrong or because of jealousy over John's success. For instance, someone that John fired (or failed to hire, or simply passed over for a promotion) might fit the bill, but the perceived slight may well have been extremely minor. For instance, if a low-level employee like a janitor or an intern said hello to John, and John failed to return the greeting, an encounter like that might instill deep rage in a sociopathic person. Because of the tone of the note, I believe John was the real target; JonBenet was just the means to hurt him. I do believe the note was written by the perpetrator, but I don't believe there was ever any real intent to collect a ransom: it was just more psychological torture. If I'm correct that this was a grudge crime and not a compulsive sexual crime, it's likely that the perpetrator will never commit another offense similar enough to link him with this crime. (I don't recall the exact source, but I believe some of John Douglas's comments on this case lined up well with my own interpretation.)
 
Most likely - one of the 3 people in home did it. Parents both involved with staging cover- up. Patsy wrote the note - that gives her away. It was too long for an intruder to take time write & re-write, and asked for a unique ransom - the same bonus salary her husband had received. A stranger would not know this exact $. I agree with it being odd that family had not found her by time police arrived - most parents would have searched the entire home, closet, yard, etc.


-Patsy accidentally killed JBR. Probably related to the child not wanting to go to bed since excited about Santa or bedwetting accident (or on purpose due to anger over incest). Then, she had her husband help with cover up. It was an accident, so he agreed.
-JBR was being sexually abused by her father. Patsy walked in on something, and accidentally did it (or did it out of anger/revenge). John agreed to staging, otherwise Patsy would expose him. It is suspect that BOTH the fathers daughters died - maybe there was a reason for their deaths.
-Son did it out of sibling jealousy or incest. Or Patsy walked in on something regarding the latter, and accidentally did it.
 
hi im also new here. well been lurking unregistered for a while :p I agree this is my favourite theory too. I do think PR just snapped that night due to all the pressure mentioned already by rashomon.
I just have one other theory as to the actual murder: PR highly stressed running around still dressed, hubby is in bed and not helping. The kids are somewhere in the house (kitchen?pineapple?) At a later point PR yells at them to go to bed and goes into JBs room to get her a pullon for the night because she is in no mood for a mess. Not that day. But as she tries to dress the child for bed what does she find? Faeces everywhere AGAIN. she snaps. First she takes her to the bathroom bu5 we know from the maid it usually results in screaming....cant wake the whole neighbourhood so patsy drags her to the basement to clean her. But JB puts up a Fight. How do u restrain someone? especially a kicking slapping child....same as u do with out of control animals...catching pole. Well ok she doesnt have one so she makes one out of handy equipment. That should make her keep still.... only it doesnt. The little girl just goes even wilder. Already in a rage as it is PR grabs the flash light and hits her. Her little body goes limp and sinks into the twine around her neck Pulling it tighter untill she dies. PR is still not herself at this point. It takes a while for rage to subside. at some point she mustve burst into tears and sat on the floor...by the time she is "llucid" and looks up from where she sits...she knows its too late to call 911. What do u tell them? So u cover up.
by the way has anyone ever looked at rings PR wore during that time? Wasnt those awefull claw type ring in fashion where your diamond stood out so high it was like a knuckle buster? Couldn't that have left the dotted marks on JB? Whether by accident coz those rings really were clumsy or on purpose?
 


It is my amateur opinion that the minor child in the home, BR, caused the head injury in a temporary moment of rage toward his sister. While their parents slept and after snacking in the kitchen, the children took a flashlight in the basement, perhaps to snoop for more presents. Sexual behavior toward JB may have also occurred, and may have been the ultimate reason in BR's mind to go to the basement, as it was a "game" they played before. At some point, for an unknown reason, I believe BR impulsively hit his sister with the flashlight, and she suffered the skull fracture. I would guess that she was lying on the floor at the time, thus the force of the blow was increased by the hardness of the concrete under the carpet.

We read that BR was a very bright boy. Maybe a brilliant boy. A child who, according to his mother, made complex model planes and watched pilot training videos -made for adult pilots- over and over for his entertainment. These were hobbies linked to his father. So were crime novels and films, and we can imagine that BR had an interest in those as well.

So as his sister lay unconscious (and after poking her hard with a piece of train track), this smart kid deduced that JonBenet was dead. He was a child whose step-sister Beth had died and whose mother suffered from a serious, typically fatal illness, so he knew what death was. He was also a child whose sister had recently surpassed him in the family pecking order: she was sunny, pretty, and suddenly winning lots of trophies and parental attention. When they were younger and he hit her with a golf club, his mother called a plastic surgeon to fix her baby's face. We can assume that he had a consequence, if only a severe scolding, for hurting her. This, killing her, this is much much worse than that, he knows. What will happen to him if they find out? In his mind, they cannot find out.

And so, with the horrible logic only a child can have, he decides to fake a murder to cover what he thinks is his death blow to her head.


I would guess as JonBenet got more involved with the pageant scene, BR would have heard about "bad guys" and strangers who do terrible things to little girls, and so he decides to imitate a very bad guy. In the 60-120 minutes that the medical examiner supposes it took for her brain to swell and the pineapple to partially digest, he carefully constructs the garrote, using the paintbrush for a stick. (It is the broken paintbrush that convinced me of a child's involvement: it is a very literal, textbook construction of this method of strangulation and a very concrete way to make a stick. In other words, so childlike to look around for a stick, not see one or be able to run outside for one, and make one from a paintbrush. An adult would smother her with a pillow or strangle her with his or her hands before he or she would think to look around and turn a little paintbrush into a fancy garrote, imo. But who uses garrotes? VERY bad guys. Mafia guys).


To better imitate the bad guy, he briefly sexually assaults her. Not just fingering her in the way he has before, but in a more brutal, painful "bad guy" way, using the sharp paintbrush. Then he applies the garrote. He spends more time constructing his scouting/sailing knots and loops the cord around her wrists, as if she was tied up by the bad guy. He takes the flashlight upstairs and wipes it down, knowing it has his fingerprints on it, and he wipes the batteries as well, to be extra careful. (Perhaps at some point in the past he was the one who put fresh batteries in it). Again, the literalism of a child.


In their interviews the parent(s) did not seem to know about the pineapple or the flashlight, and they were not concealed by a parent that night, so I assume only BR knew about these things. That said, at some point that night, probably after BR has been dealing with this for several hours, I believe that he was discovered by his mother. It is my opinion that Patsy would have wakened John and called 911 if she discovered her daughter unconscious or dead from a blow to the head, even if it was caused by her son. But this was not that. She discovers that her daughter is dead by strangulation, by garrote, and she sees that JonBenet is clearly dead. Her mouth is open, perhaps her face frozen in a grimace: she is dead. And then her son tells her what he was trying to do and why.


A former housekeeper said: "Patsy's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed John."


There are a lot of reasons why I think Patsy did not wake John, and some of it might have been fear of angering him. In the main I think that she was as guilty of magical thinking as her son. After her first horror and shock, she apparently thought she could protect her son and conceal the horror from her husband (and the police) by constructing a credible story for the garrote. I believe that the function of the ransom note was to hide the garrote, which was so terrible that Patsy did what she could to explain it's origin: terrorists. A foreign faction, intent on BEHEADING her daughter. So dangerous that they threatened death several times in the ransom note. So dangerous, in fact, that their little target did not survive their attempt to kidnap her.


So she sent BR to bed and told him to stay in bed and never speak of it again. She wrote the ransom note and put tape on her daughter's mouth. She may have cleaned her daughter off and then put the Wednesday panties on her out of a confused sense of what a kidnapper would do, or else BR did that. I lean toward the former since it was so random. One of them, probably PR, wrapped her in a blanket and put her in the wine cellar. Maybe PR set up the suitcase under the window, if BR did not. PR hid or disposed of all the evidence she could.

Had John been awakened that night, I believe that the lawyers would have been called and logic applied. The Ramseys would learn that their son was not criminally liable for their daughter's death. Everything else could be done through psychiatric hospitals and doctors and lawyers - after some brief and possibly terrible police involvement and publicity. But Patsy, in a Hail Mary move, wrote a note, went "to bed," "woke up" and "read" it, and then yelled for John and called 911, in the manner that all innocent people would. But because she was Patsy, and hysterical and probably unable to conceal anything as soon as she saw John, I believe that John became aware that all was not as it seemed very early on - perhaps even before the police arrived. Perhaps he ran to the basement while Patsy was on the phone. Perhaps he permanently disposed of things she hid. We will probably never know.


I think this theory explains almost everything - the crime is so convoluted and strange because it is not the actions of one person, or of two people colluding in a cover-up, but the actions of two separate people (BR and PR) creating two separate elaborate cover-ups and not communicating, and then a third person (JR) joining them in a sort of passive cover-up involving guess-work, and none of them knowing the entirety of what the others know. This theory also tells me that all the people involved were still good people. I think BR was a little boy who lost his temper and did not trust that his parents would still love him if they found out what he did. His sexual behavior toward his sister increased both his shame and his silence. I think Patsy was a mom who had a histrionic side and had just survived a usually terminal illness, and she acted on impulse to save her son, not caring what happened to her. I think John was a guy who, step by step, kept trying to figure out what strategies would protect his family and himself from ruin. On the 26th of December, 1996, when he called his pilot to go to Atlanta, I am fairly certain that he did not think they would escape undiscovered. For all he knew, his son had already confessed to the Whites. John probably figured he needed to get his family to his Atlanta lawyers if he could because all his phone lines were tapped to trace "kidnappers." But as the days and weeks and months and years went by, and more red herrings were either discovered or created (thanks Lou Smit!), it became apparent that they just might escape.


And if they did not, what was the worst thing they faced? If everything came out in court, after the age of their son was factored in they would face charges for not calling for help and for obstructing justice. They could not be accessories to murder if no murder occurred, and nine-year-olds cannot commit murder in Colorado. These were serious charges, if they ever faced them, but they were not capital murder. Their lawyers surely prepared them for how to avoid further prosecution and protect themselves in case they ever faced charges. When you read their interviews, they are masterful creations of nothing. They share almost zero information, and what they do say is couched in language of hesitation and doubt and lack of memory. They remind me of the Watergate hearings.

I would assume that John and Patsy were telling the truth when they said they never discussed JonBenet's death with BR - if they did, he might share information with them that could put them in jeopardy. He was safe by virtue of his age, and they were safe as long as they hired good lawyers, pretended the real story never happened, and sent BR to a good psychiatrist. Which they did. My hope is that he is a healed man, living a healthy, happy life. Because the things we do as children should not be held against us for the rest of our lives, they just should not. That is, if any of this actually happened. It is, of course, just my opinion.

 
I am more or less on the same track as you, Fides.
BDI with Patsy doing some staging later. I think her motivation had more to do with what people would think of her family. If she alerted John, he would insist his money and lawyers could take care of everything.
 
I suspect - on that Christmas night an intruder entered the Ramsey's home from the alley and through the basement window. I suspect that this person had likely entered their home previously in the same way. I would suggest that this prior occasion was when the promise was made to Jonbenet Ramsey of a future visit from Santa,- maybe this person had explained his presence there by telling her that he was Santa.
I believe that the person who committed this crime was - around 40 years old and about 5'5'' tall. He had sandy blonde hair, wore a large red parka and carried a backpack. This is not just a guess, nor a joke, but a description of an oddly behaving man that I personally saw at around 3AM on that same night.
I recalled seeing this person, in the days following, because of his behavior and also because he had just come from the area that included the Ramsey home. I chose, at that time and for many years, to dismiss anything that I saw as being only a coincidence and did not tell anyone of it.
I have, subsequently, attempted to tell investigators of this, however, I doubt it was given any particular attention. I'll leave it to anyone who may read this to consider.
 
My theory to what happened to JonBenet Ramsey is that the family came home from the Christmas party and all were very tired. Patsy or John carried JB to her room because she had fallen asleep. Shortly thereafter JB gets up because she had wet the bed and goes to tell her mom. Patsy kind of irritated goes to the bedroom to change the sheets but gets interrupted by JB who says she is hungry. So mom goes downstairs with JB and feeds her some pineapple. After eating Mom tells JB that she needs to wear a pull-up to bed. Mom uses a flashlight to walk down the hallway to get the pull-ups in the hall cabinet because she doesn't what to wake up the rest of the family by turning on the hall light. JB is really upset and throwing a fit because she doesn't want to wear the pull-ups. While mom is trying to get the diapers out of the cabinet, JB is grabbing and yelling at her mom. Patsy is totally upset because she is tired and she doesn't want to wake the rest of the family and hits JB with the flashlight. Truly not meaning to hurt JB, mom is totally devastated when JB collapses to the floor. Since JB is already dead and Patsy is not thinking straight, she doesn't call 911 or get John but instead tries to cover-up the incident. She takes JB and puts the noose around her neck and was planning to take her out of the house and dump her, however she ran out of time for the complete cover-up. She could hear the rest of the family getting up so she took JB down to the basement and left her there for John to find. I don't know how much or when she told John but I believe he knew what happened.
 
I suspect - on that Christmas night an intruder entered the Ramsey's home from the alley and through the basement window. I suspect that this person had likely entered their home previously in the same way. I would suggest that this prior occasion was when the promise was made to Jonbenet Ramsey of a future visit from Santa,- maybe this person had explained his presence there by telling her that he was Santa.
I believe that the person who committed this crime was - around 40 years old and about 5'5'' tall. He had sandy blonde hair, wore a large red parka and carried a backpack. This is not just a guess, nor a joke, but a description of an oddly behaving man that I personally saw at around 3AM on that same night.
I recalled seeing this person, in the days following, because of his behavior and also because he had just come from the area that included the Ramsey home. I chose, at that time and for many years, to dismiss anything that I saw as being only a coincidence and did not tell anyone of it.
I have, subsequently, attempted to tell investigators of this, however, I doubt it was given any particular attention. I'll leave it to anyone who may read this to consider.

Did you live in her neighborhood??
 
I too want to thank everyone for your deeply thought out theories. I am not quite sure what I believe - I would like to read a bit more. I am from NJ and I remember thinking the parents "never" could have done it. However, since that time, I am older and wiser and Christmas being such a solemn holiday I find it hard to believe, in this prestigious neighborhood that an intruder lurked. I am swaying as others with the Patsy theory. She really didn't seem quite right to me. (I am mother of 3) - never would have sent my son off right after. I would have had him RIGHT next to me, with an intruder out and doubt... leaves us to wonder.
 
I did not live in the neighborhood. I worked at a nearby store. It was the only business open that night, the person I described was the only person who came in for more than hour. This person was suspicious enough that I thought of him after hearing what had happened. I dismissed my suspicions after seeing this person again.
Years later, after seeing details (of the crime) on this website and others, I realized many details potentially matched the person I saw. In the brief exchanges I had with this man, I learned that he was temporarily staying in the area near the Ramsey home.
 
I did not live in the neighborhood. I worked at a nearby store. It was the only business open that night, the person I described was the only person who came in for more than hour. This person was suspicious enough that I thought of him after hearing what had happened. I dismissed my suspicions after seeing this person again.
Years later, after seeing details (of the crime) on this website and others, I realized many details potentially matched the person I saw. In the brief exchanges I had with this man, I learned that he was temporarily staying in the area near the Ramsey home.

BBM Care to explain exactly what details you are talking about? Because as far as I know investigators can't find a single piece of evidence to suggest that somebody was even there. Interested to know how you could possibly tie some random stranger that you saw that night to the crime?
 
Well, I am not quite finished with James Kolar's book, and I know I am about to spoil it for some of the amateur crime sleuths on the site, but Kolar nails it in my opinion when he ties up all the loose ends, explains the red herrings, discards the foolish theories, and literally re-constructs the crime from beginning to end; finally identifying Burke as the one who committed the acts (somewhat as FIDES described) in his post.

Actually I'm surprised that Kolar's book has not grabbed more headline news around the country. As far as I'm concerned, this man has solved the crime. I've been following this case for years and read most of the major books that have been written. In my opinion, Kolar's is by far the best. Any true crime fan and follower of this case that hasn't yet read it - well you are really missing out on what must be the most thorough investigation of the case by the most qualified individual connected to it.

Amateur crime sleuths, magazine writers, and even law enforcement professionals like former FBI profiler John Douglas can say whatever they want. In my view, opinions are a dime a dozen, but qualified opinions of investigators who have had their hands on the evidence, spent hundreds of hours reviewing sworn testimony, and have years of experience and training in conducting investigations - they are the ones I'm listening very carefully to. In regard to Mr. Kolar, who in my understanding is a former police chief and was also the chief investigator for the DA's office in charge of investigating the case, I can think of no one more qualified to render an opinion.

I can assure you that I have nothing to gain by recommending Kolar's book, it's just simply the best book I've yet read on the case to date. Although I'm not quite finished with the last pages yet, I am finding it hard to understand why Mary Lacy and others in high positions in the DA's office are not yet under investigation for their actions and motives in the case. It would seem to me that if there is any higher authority with ethical standards that oversees the DA's office, then charges of official misconduct or malfeasance against Lacy and others should rightfully come under serious discussion based upon what I've read in Kolar's book.
 
Well, I am not quite finished with James Kolar's book, and I know I am about to spoil it for some of the amateur crime sleuths on the site, but Kolar nails it in my opinion when he ties up all the loose ends, explains the red herrings, discards the foolish theories, and literally re-constructs the crime from beginning to end; finally identifying Burke as the one who committed the acts (somewhat as FIDES described) in his post.

Actually I'm surprised that Kolar's book has not grabbed more headline news around the country. As far as I'm concerned, this man has solved the crime. I've been following this case for years and read most of the major books that have been written. In my opinion, Kolar's is by far the best. Any true crime fan and follower of this case that hasn't yet read it - well you are really missing out on what must be the most thorough investigation of the case by the most qualified individual connected to it.

Amateur crime sleuths, magazine writers, and even law enforcement professionals like former FBI profiler John Douglas can say whatever they want. In my view, opinions are a dime a dozen, but qualified opinions of investigators who have had their hands on the evidence, spent hundreds of hours reviewing sworn testimony, and have years of experience and training in conducting investigations - they are the ones I'm listening very carefully to. In regard to Mr. Kolar, who in my understanding is a former police chief and was also the chief investigator for the DA's office in charge of investigating the case, I can think of no one more qualified to render an opinion.

I can assure you that I have nothing to gain by recommending Kolar's book, it's just simply the best book I've yet read on the case to date. Although I'm not quite finished with the last pages yet, I am finding it hard to understand why Mary Lacy and others in high positions in the DA's office are not yet under investigation for their actions and motives in the case. It would seem to me that if there is any higher authority with ethical standards that oversees the DA's office, then charges of official misconduct or malfeasance against Lacy and others should rightfully come under serious discussion based upon what I've read in Kolar's book.


Topcop,

Thanks for the nod regarding my theory above.
I have read Kolar's book and believe as you do, that he solved the case. I disagree that he reconstructs the crime from beginning to end. Rather, to protect himself from litigation, he leaves holes and invites readers to theorize for themselves.

My theory varies a bit from his implied theory, as I recall (and this info could also be pulled from his Reddit AMA). He felt that the violence started in the breakfast bar, and I believe it began in the basement. Chief Kolar implies that the garrote was used to fill a need, perhaps fitting with his Sexual Behavior Problem thesis. I also recall him mentioning the use of the garrote stemming from curiosity. I disagree. I believe the neck and wrist ligatures were used to shift blame to an intruder and hide the head bash from John and Patsy; they were created in fear to avoid discovery, punishment and rejection. The most random and childlike - and maddening - parts of the coverup are explained by this thesis.

I join you in your kudos for Chief Kolar. Foreign Faction is required reading for anyone following this case.

Apologies to the forum for breaking thread protocol.



[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
 
Pm me if you can. I'd like to ask you a few more questions. Regarding Kolar's reconstruction; I think he did as well as he could legally do. He leaves it for the reader to connect the dots but makes it fairly easy to draw conclusions based on his theory. I like the way he wrote the book, even the beginning where he cleverly leaves it to the reader to conclude how unrealistic the intruder theories are.
 
Well, I'm convinced Patsy did it. And alone. And no sexual molestation by anyone. This is Patsy's psychosis. This is her psychotic, cathartic, dramatic explosion. Everything written about the similarities with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie fits. Pineapple with cream = happiness. "Individuals." Misspelling Bussiness versus misspelling possession. And everything written about Psalm 118 fits.

It's Sep 2015, 18 years since the press finally, finally, got a copy of the ransom note. Never knew if it was by legal or illegal means, but, as one who lived in Denver at the time, I remember the *gasp* upon seeing it. Wow it sure sounded like, and looked like, a drama-queen wife all pissed at her husband. And finding an excuse to justify her murdering her baby girl. That was Patsy's handwriting and linguistics! She was someone who was having a psychosis which was having a jumbled catharsis. And "hence," I'm spending the day tooling around on the internet trying to see what the consensus is now. Landed here, after reviewing posts about the similarities with The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Psalm 118.

Was it Patsy? Certainly.

Did she have an underlying personality disorder which was engaging in a long-term "snap?" Certainly. She was a jumbled, perfectionist gal, prone to mood swings and rage if things were not perfection. Just looking at her loud Southern Belle bizzarro redecoration of a quaint Boulder house; crushing, smothering Holiday decorations; messy, chaotic basement and house filled with STUFF; matching, home-made clothing in posed family photos; doppelganger My Twinn Doll for her doppelganger daughter; deluxe craft parties when most of us just went to Build-a-Bear; the words of Psalm 118; witness statements of Patsy engaging in rage; and over-the-top pageantry of Jon Bene't (note French apostrophe as in attache') scream narcissism and/or anxious perfectionism. Combine that with the unimaginable stress of terminal cancer at a young age, (years and YEARS of that stress!) and a narcissistic desire to have her perfect baby girl be spared the misery of Earthly life and be an angel (note the "star" tshirt) waiting for her in heaven - it all makes sense.

Some speculate Patsy was molested as a child. I doubt it. Something created the disassociative, sociopathic, borderline, narcissistic, or whatever personality traits in her. Couldn't it just be a controlling parent, combined with anxious genes, which lead for a strive for perfectionism? And resultant anxiety and "changing the theater" personality if things weren't "perfect?"

Foreign DNA? No, contamination. And politics.

Sexual molestation? No, douches. Or an anxious child trying to pick out constipation.

Bedwetting and bowel movements in bed? Anxious child. Not uncommon. Poor kid should've gotten the medicine for enuerisis and made to eat a healthy diet.

Unreasonable number of doctor visits? No, normal if one has premium health care and a mother doting for perfection.

Boulder ruled by politics and money? yes. Yes. YES. Went to CU in the 1970's. Watched it in the 1980's, 1990's. Explosively-growing, yet creepy, druggie, transient-downtown in the 1970's. Rated number one party college town by Playboy around 1973. Millionaire/billionaire PC town by the 1990's.

JR or BR involved? No, except JR's mind protecting the unthinkable done by his beautiful princess bride.

This case will continue to evolve as more comes out. Glad there is a forum here. I think when someone is undergoing great stress, whether real (terminal cancer) or imagined (perfectionism), they go back to places which brought comfort and/or accolades. Thus The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Psalm 118.

I listened to Ceril Wecht's interview with Tricia last night. Thank you, Tricia. First time I heard it. It is 4 years old. It was hard to follow as Ceril throws in a lot of qualitative stuff. But I came away trying to figure out if he was asserting there was long-term, prior sexual abuse, and the garrote was part of that. Or not. My opinion, now, 18 years after that ransom note was released - is that it was all just part of Patsy's psychosis and theater. Re-enacting some perceived sexual stuff. And yet a desire to "save by the cross" her beautiful doppelganger. All done by a highly-intelligent gal, entombed in the swirl of long-term psychosis, all brought about by incredible real and imagined stress, which her personality disorder(s) tried to cope with. She wrote that note BEFORE. She planned this with the trip to McGuckin's Hardware where she bought the thin rope and duct tape. She planned this happening on Christmas Day, and thus the headstone which says Dec 25, 1996. This was her sacrifice/gift. It was planted in the wine cellar room where Patsy held all of her Christmas decorations and presents.

It all made sense to Patsy. Not us.
And a little Colorado town just wasn't up for the fight to figure this out.
 
Burke had previously molested Jonbenet. Around 11.30pm Jonbenet is eating some pineapple. Burke is also present at some point. Something happens. Perhaps an argument? Jealousy over gifts? Jonbenet played with his train set? Burke is just a ice cold psychopath? I don't know. Around 1.15am Burke, with an overhead downward striking motion knocks Jonbenet unconscious with a torch. Burke carries Jonbenet to the wine cellar. Burke undresses Jonbenet. At some point Burke forcefully prods Jonbenet's back with a piece of his train set. He also forcefully and quickly puts a broken piece of a paintbrush within her. Around 2am, after a superficial binding of her wrists (or perhaps this was after?), Burke strangles/garrotes Jonbenet with the ligature, which is attached to the wood. Not sure about the order of things but what happens next involves Patsy discovering what Burke had done. Patsy is the one who screams. Patsy redressing Jonbenet and placing the blanket over her legs. Patsy placing the duct tape over her mouth. Patsy washing/wiping Jonbenet's crotch area. Patsy or John wiping the torch and batteries clean at some point.
Patsy writes the ransom note, and places the ductape on Jonbenet so that it appears like a kidnapping gone wrong. Patsy told John she found the note, John tells patsy to call the police, John studies note, realizes Patsy wrote it, John locates Jonbenet's body before the arrival of police.
Patsy calls as many friends as she can to contaminate the crime scene. John is caught up and/or a willing participant in the coverup of Burke's crime. The motivation behind the coverup is to protect their reputation, and their son, and to avoid losing both children.
John becomes anxious she has not been found yet, long after the police arrived. He leads a Sgt. to the body, pretending he is searching.
DNA on Jonbenet's underwear is just contamination. The case was mishandled from the beginning and a lot of political pressure was applied due to the Ramsey's position in society.

Basically Burke was not a normal kid, who committed prior sexual abuse on his sister which escalated into a horrific murder which his parents then attempted to conceal (and essentially, succeeded).

People may say that a child would never do that. But this is not an ordinary case. This case is unique in that this modus operandi had never been seen before (murder, leave body at site, leave ransom note). An extraordinary case, probably has an extraordinary explanation. There have been cases of younger children than Burke committing such crimes (although their mothers didn't fake a ransom note).
 
There will never be a "fresh" way to theorize on this case until one of two things happen. 1) LE gives up more of the evidence, or 2) The Ramseys start talking and don't stop till they tell everything that happened that night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
2,039
Total visitors
2,167

Forum statistics

Threads
599,447
Messages
18,095,546
Members
230,861
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top