Members' Theories

[IvyLew]

Is it possible an actual small foreign faction murdered JBR? A group of individuals with negative views toward American values. Possibly from a country governed by Sharia Law. You know, the RN addresses John only. I wonder if that's because he is a man. Patsy is not mentioned at all and JBR is only referred to as “your daughter”. Perhaps the foreign faction was angered or offended by JBR's pageant attire. Before September 11, I only associated the word “beheaded” with Henry the 8th. Now I know that it still happens in some parts of the world. Plus the use of the word "execute'. It sounds punitive. After the murder, the killers might have quickly fled out of the country, and that's why there is no DNA match after the crime. The fact they committed the crime on Christmas may be significant as well. This theory is improbable. Wouldn't it be nuts though if the killers were who they say that they were? Let me clarify, I don't believe this was an act sanctioned by a foreign organization but rather a cabal within that organization, like a faction. Maybe the killers acted upon their own authority under a delusional belief that their actions were in accordance with the agenda of the organization that they supposedly represented. Perhaps they were mistaken. Perhaps they came too late to the realization that their goals were not lined up with the goals of the overall organization. The RN was vague, yet it contained cryptic references, as in SBTC. The RN was vague enough not to out the organization directly, but specific enough to permit the organization an opportunity to claim responsibility for the crime after the fact. I can image these rouge killers running back to the organization, as fast as they could run, expecting to be heroes but running into reality instead. Finding out that their actions were not in accordance with the agenda or the best interest of the group that they purportedly represented. Nor did the killers possess the authority to act on the group's behalf. Perhaps the group did not report the offense to the FBI, because they feared retaliation from the US, or they merely didn't want their cause to be tainted by a senseless crime committed by crazy people. Perhaps the affiliation opted to yield their own justice to the rebels instead. If that was the case, I suspect that the killers just like JBR, died viciously.

 

[southernmimi]

I think any intruder or stranger murder theory has been laid to rest after all these years. This case, to me, is as simple as can be. Evenso, it has been thoroughly dissected through the years.

 

[blackcatsarecool]

I think The murderer was a business associate of JR. He was jealous of JR and infatuated with JBR. I think he was hiding in the house before the family came home from the white's party. After JBR was put to bed and the rest of the family were asleep, Jonbenet was hit in the head with a baseball bat while she was sleeping in her bed. She was then carried down to the basement where the murderer created his visually pleasing scenario, his fantasy of power, tying her hands above her head, placing the duct tape over her mouth, placing the garrote around her neck and then sexually assaulted her. I think he used a condom which is why birefringent material was found in her vagina. he then rolled her over onto her stomach and strangled her with the garrote, which explains why her pants were wet in the front. he placed her in the wine cellar room, cocooning her in with her blanket, like sleeping beauty, creating another fantasy scenario. High on adrenaline, feeling powerful and craving more, he wrote the fake ransom note, fantasising, creating a movie in his head. He placed the note on the stairs and left. He would have loved the media circus that followed. He would have felt invincible, knowing he got away with murder. He would have felt smarter than the police, smarter than the media, smarter than the people. I think he is one very deranged sick man.

 

[Rhett]

If so blackcat, then why hasn't he struck again? After acting out his fantasies once and getting away with it, could he really refrain from never doing it again? Your theory is very straightforward and quite plausible but I still have those two questions.

 

[apabld]

I think The murderer was a business associate of JR. He was jealous of JR and infatuated with JBR. I think he was hiding in the house before the family came home from the white's party. After JBR was put to bed and the rest of the family were asleep, Jonbenet was hit in the head with a baseball bat while she was sleeping in her bed. She was then carried down to the basement where the murderer created his visually pleasing scenario, his fantasy of power, tying her hands above her head, placing the duct tape over her mouth, placing the garrote around her neck and then sexually assaulted her. I think he used a condom which is why birefringent material was found in her vagina. he then rolled her over onto her stomach and strangled her with the garrote, which explains why her pants were wet in the front. he placed her in the wine cellar room, cocooning her in with her blanket, like sleeping beauty, creating another fantasy scenario. High on adrenaline, feeling powerful and craving more, he wrote the fake ransom note, fantasising, creating a movie in his head. He placed the note on the stairs and left. He would have loved the media circus that followed. He would have felt invincible, knowing he got away with murder. He would have felt smarter than the police, smarter than the media, smarter than the people. I think he is one very deranged sick man.

Very valid theory. While I personally think it's more likely that someone in the family did it, I also feel that an intruder theory is still possible - not likely but not impossible.

 

[Anance]

My theory on who murdered JonBenet Ramsey

I wholeheartedly believe that BR accidentally murdered his sister JR had to finish what BR done and the family created the hoax that still haunts us today someone got away with murder and still is yet to be punished

Do you agree with my theory or do you believe that the Ramseys themselves were not guilty

Sad circumstances: Accidental death with staging. And ridiculous staging at that.

The grief-stress-guilt cocktail the Ramseys were drinking that night impaired thinking clearly. Afterwards as the staging fell apart, they (like many rich/powerful people) used their money for self-preservation. The bitter feelings around the case derived from their cover up.

But the whole thing was tragic. JonBenét was Patsy's life, John had founded a successful company in his own garage, Burke was child. The victim was a beautiful little girl.

In retrospect, I wonder if the Ramseys ever wished they had simply called 911 and reported an accident.

 

[Anance]

Kids fight if that was the case why cover it up and in such a gruesome way?

Kids also "play doctor." As a pageant winner, JonBenét became highly sexualized. Giving the benefit of the doubt, the parents were probably aware of it and doing something about it. Denial was a powerful drug for the family; by "aware of it" I meant they were not dealing with the full implications of relationship b/t the brother and sister. After JonBenét lapsed into a coma, the denial broke down. After that, the parents were no longer thinking clearly.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Not sure where to put this. JBR's photographer Randall DeWitt Simmons was arrested in Oregon for child *advertiser censored*. 15 counts of 2nd degree encouraging child sex abuse. He was arraigned on Thursday. Pleaded not guilty per Daily Mail.

 

[UKGuy]

Not sure where to put this. JBR's photographer Randall DeWitt Simmons was arrested in Oregon for child *advertiser censored*. 15 counts of 2nd degree encouraging child sex abuse. He was arraigned on Thursday. Pleaded not guilty per Daily Mail.

waltzingmatilda,
Thanks, to date this photographer has been a footnote in the case, as he was investigated and ruled out.

Now due to his alleged viewing of illegal material online he is toast and if he is not retired he will be shortly.

He will feature in future JonBenet documentaries along with lurid storylines. The thing is nobody is ruling out him having any innapropriate JonBenet photographs?

If he did and it forms part of the prosecutions case then until he is sentenced and beyond it will generate wall to wall media coverage and crash the JonBenet forums.

The question seasoned websleuthers will ask is: will JonBenet be named as a victim on the charge sheet?

.

 

[SlappyMc]

As a pageant winner, JonBenét became highly sexualized.

Dear lord. Sexualized in his context means that she was, to use the word, objectified. By adults. It doesn't mean that either she or Burke knew anything at all about sex, let alone that they ever engaged in any sexual act.

 

[Emerald2]

Q

 

[ohcomeon]

I think the person responsible for her murder was the Santa Clause that had been at the Christmas party the night before. He lived across the street and was a loser. I think he was already in the house when they came home and he waited until they went to bed. I think he tried to remove her from the house but she fought. In trying to stop her from fighting he killed her. The rest was what the killer did to make it look like something else had happened. The fact that the killer knew how much Mr R's bonus was says to me that he was in the house for some time before they came home and went through their personal papers. Maybe in a search for paper to write the ramson note on and he saw the amount of the Christmas bonus on a bank deposit or whatever. I think Santa Clause, the man who was Santa Clause at the Ramseys Christmas Party killed JB. He told JB that he had a special gift for her and that he would be back the next night. I also think the Boulder police department completely screwed up this case and any biological evidence that was left behind. I think they then tried to cover up their mistakes. I guess Boulder Police department does not train their officers in crime scene preservation. A child was missing and the office let anyone who wanted to trample through a potential crime scene. I think they ignored very important clues. Like whos, DNA was found in JB's underwear? Both of the males who lived in that house were eliminated. What are those marks on the wall in the basement? How did that window get broken? I would like to know if there are any similar cases that have happened. I know one thing. Whoever did it got away with it.

 

[SheMantis]

An Affair Theory (based on Patsy writing the ransom note):

Ok I'll set the scene. Patsy was well educated and outgoing, then gets married/becomes a housewife at 23. She had her volunteering things, but dreamt of creating something of her own. She didn't work, and the finances were controlled by JR.

Patsy started having an affair with another man, let's call him X, possibly a colleague of JR (who knew his bonus amount). He would come over when JR was at work. It was all very exciting. She confided in him her desire to start her own business (or he suggested the idea to her/was manipulating her for his own benefit) but the obstacle was John. She didn't have any of her own money to put towards something like this and JR would never have supported the idea, as the kids needed proper mothering!

X then convinced Patsy of a plan, making it sound super simple and easy. They would pretend JBR had been kidnapped (the only thing drastic enough that would get JR to handover money). PR would wake up JBR asking her if she wanted to come and say hi to Santa. X was dressed as Santa, and PR handed JBR over, reassuring her to go with him for a little while (X was probably known to JBR).

All the while Patsy was sure JBR would be returned safely and they would get the money they needed. Hence using her own paper, pen, etc to write the note (she didn't anticipate police being involved). Also there's an incentive in the ransom note to withdraw the money earlier, suggesting whoever 'kidnapped' JBR didn't want to hold her for long.

Meanwhile X had other plans. Patsy can sense something isn't right (or gets a sign that it isn't) and then freaks out, starts running around the house screaming 'where's my baby?!'.

Police are called, body found.

JR had his suspicions about X and Patsy, and upon reading the ransom note, know that it was linked somehow to her death. And then the family went into a shame/denial spiral (explains the tension between PR and JR/not talking to each other the morning they found the body - this is an important point I think).

There was a don't ask, don't tell unspoken rule.

** OR swap it around, with JR having the affair, got another woman pregnant and had to pay her to keep quiet.

Either way I think it was a kidnapping with financial motive, staged by one or both of the parents, that got out of their control and both shame and protection of Burke kept them quiet.

 

[cherrymeg]

An Affair Theory (based on Patsy writing the ransom note):

Ok I'll set the scene. Patsy was well educated and outgoing, then gets married/becomes a housewife at 23. She had her volunteering things, but dreamt of creating something of her own. She didn't work, and the finances were controlled by JR.

Patsy started having an affair with another man, let's call him X, possibly a colleague of JR (who knew his bonus amount). He would come over when JR was at work. It was all very exciting. She confided in him her desire to start her own business (or he suggested the idea to her/was manipulating her for his own benefit) but the obstacle was John. She didn't have any of her own money to put towards something like this and JR would never have supported the idea, as the kids needed proper mothering!

X then convinced Patsy of a plan, making it sound super simple and easy. They would pretend JBR had been kidnapped (the only thing drastic enough that would get JR to handover money). PR would wake up JBR asking her if she wanted to come and say hi to Santa. X was dressed as Santa, and PR handed JBR over, reassuring her to go with him for a little while (X was probably known to JBR).

All the while Patsy was sure JBR would be returned safely and they would get the money they needed. Hence using her own paper, pen, etc to write the note (she didn't anticipate police being involved). Also there's an incentive in the ransom note to withdraw the money earlier, suggesting whoever 'kidnapped' JBR didn't want to hold her for long.

Meanwhile X had other plans. Patsy can sense something isn't right (or gets a sign that it isn't) and then freaks out, starts running around the house screaming 'where's my baby?!'.

Police are called, body found.

JR had his suspicions about X and Patsy, and upon reading the ransom note, know that it was linked somehow to her death. And then the family went into a shame/denial spiral (explains the tension between PR and JR/not talking to each other the morning they found the body - this is an important point I think).

There was a don't ask, don't tell unspoken rule.

** OR swap it around, with JR having the affair, got another woman pregnant and had to pay her to keep quiet.

Either way I think it was a kidnapping with financial motive, staged by one or both of the parents, that got out of their control and both shame and protection of Burke kept them quiet.

That actually makes sense.

 

[cherrymeg]

I think the person responsible for her murder was the Santa Clause that had been at the Christmas party the night before. He lived across the street and was a loser. I think he was already in the house when they came home and he waited until they went to bed. I think he tried to remove her from the house but she fought. In trying to stop her from fighting he killed her. The rest was what the killer did to make it look like something else had happened. The fact that the killer knew how much Mr R's bonus was says to me that he was in the house for some time before they came home and went through their personal papers. Maybe in a search for paper to write the ramson note on and he saw the amount of the Christmas bonus on a bank deposit or whatever. I think Santa Clause, the man who was Santa Clause at the Ramseys Christmas Party killed JB. He told JB that he had a special gift for her and that he would be back the next night. I also think the Boulder police department completely screwed up this case and any biological evidence that was left behind. I think they then tried to cover up their mistakes. I guess Boulder Police department does not train their officers in crime scene preservation. A child was missing and the office let anyone who wanted to trample through a potential crime scene. I think they ignored very important clues. Like whos, DNA was found in JB's underwear? Both of the males who lived in that house were eliminated. What are those marks on the wall in the basement? How did that window get broken? I would like to know if there are any similar cases that have happened. I know one thing. Whoever did it got away with it.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of Santa Claus. You are telling kids that some magical man is going to come into the house while they sleep and bring them presents. The month before there are people dressed as Santa in malls, schools on the street. They are taught to trust a guy with a red suit and fake beard. I always wanted to catch Santa as a kid. My parents had strict rules about not going downstairs on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning before everyone was up the tree would be turned on. I sat at the top of the stairs trying to catch him. I figured if he came I could go downstairs as long as I didn't open any presents. I was always sleep deprived and miserable the next day. lol.
Could someone have been waiting planning on robbing the home once they left the next day and she came across them?

 

[Swirlz]

This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of Santa Claus. You are telling kids that some magical man is going to come into the house while they sleep and bring them presents. The month before there are people dressed as Santa in malls, schools on the street. They are taught to trust a guy with a red suit and fake beard. I always wanted to catch Santa as a kid. My parents had strict rules about not going downstairs on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning before everyone was up the tree would be turned on. I sat at the top of the stairs trying to catch him. I figured if he came I could go downstairs as long as I didn't open any presents. I was always sleep deprived and miserable the next day. lol.

I know this is way off topic, but I've thought the same thing. We unrelentingly pump kids with stranger-danger warnings and then make them go sit on a total stranger's lap to have their picture taken.

 

[cherrymeg]

I know this is way off topic, but I've thought the same thing. We unrelentingly pump kids with stranger-danger warnings and then make them go sit on a total stranger's lap to have their picture taken.

If you don't like the idea of Santa people act like you are a monster that is depriving kids of Christmas. You not only encourage kids to sit on Santa's lap but to welcome him into their home in the middle of the night. The easter bunny is similar but the costume is more like someone dressed as a character at an amusement park than a guy with a beard. Also easter isn't as big a deal as far as getting baskets from them. Santa you are encouraged to tell him what you want for Christmas.

 

[Userid]

This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of Santa Claus. You are telling kids that some magical man is going to come into the house while they sleep and bring them presents. The month before there are people dressed as Santa in malls, schools on the street. They are taught to trust a guy with a red suit and fake beard. I always wanted to catch Santa as a kid. My parents had strict rules about not going downstairs on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning before everyone was up the tree would be turned on. I sat at the top of the stairs trying to catch him. I figured if he came I could go downstairs as long as I didn't open any presents. I was always sleep deprived and miserable the next day. lol.
Could someone have been waiting planning on robbing the home once they left the next day and she came across them?

Interesting take. I remember my mom actually telling me that Santa wasn't real when I was like 4 or 5 years old -- and you know what -- I actually loved that she did that, even at the time. I was so happy I had a mom that told me the truth, even at that young age. People act like they will ruin their kids or something if they tell them Santa isn't real -- in my case, it made me all the more closer to her for doing so. And even though I knew he wasn't real, we would still go to the mall, and I'd still visit Santa. It didn't ruin the experience at all for me, and it was still fun. And of course, it certainly didn't "ruin Christmas," as every kid always looks forward to that time of year. It's about the presents after all, not Santa.

Also, I don't have kids, but wouldn't you want them to know that the presents bought for them were from the people that actually love and care for them -- as opposed to believing they're from some mythical figure? There are other ways to nurture a child's imagination, aren't there?

That said, I'm not trying to "eliminate Santa." If parents like the idea, that's fine. I don't completely agree that it sends mixed signals to kids when it comes to strangers (as I think the distinction is clear enough), but again, it is an interesting take.

 

[cherrymeg]

Interesting take. I remember my mom actually telling me that Santa wasn't real when I was like 4 or 5 years old -- and you know what -- I actually loved that she did that, even at the time. I was so happy I had a mom that told me the truth, even at that young age. People act like they will ruin their kids or something if they tell them Santa isn't real -- in my case, it made me all the more closer to her for doing so. And even though I knew he wasn't real, we would still go to the mall, and I'd still visit Santa. It didn't ruin the experience at all for me, and it was still fun. And of course, it certainly didn't "ruin Christmas," as every kid always looks forward to that time of year. It's about the presents after all, not Santa.

Also, I don't have kids, but wouldn't you want them to know that the presents bought for them were from the people that actually love and care for them -- as opposed to believing they're from some mythical figure? There are other ways to nurture a child's imagination, aren't there?

That said, I'm not trying to "eliminate Santa." If parents like the idea, that's fine. I don't completely agree that it sends mixed signals to kids when it comes to strangers (as I think the distinction is clear enough), but again, it is an interesting take.

I would have appreciated my gifts so much more if I knew they came from my parents. My mom convinced me to not tell my kid about Santa not being real. When he was about 4 or 5 I didn't act as if he was real. I didn't give presents from Santa. My mom might have tried keeping that up like Santa left your presents at my house. Christmas is more than just Santa.

 

[Emerald2]

This post presents a model of the Ramsey case based on evidence the murder was an execution planned by the Ramseys months in advance. Premeditation models have been advocated before, but I am not aware of any such theory that traces premeditation back much before the hang-up call of December 23. Hence this model breaks new ground in the analysis of the Ramsey case.
Emerald2



I have a tale to tell………


AN ACCIDENT GONE WILD? – Proponents of RDI models almost always maintain the crime started as an accident. This seems a strange conclusion given the brutality of the crime. One reason such traditional models are popular is the ransom note and its sidekick the false start. The ransom note shows marks of hasty composition – words are crossed out and written over. The false start is part of this pattern. And the paper and pen used to write the note can be traced to sources inside the house. If the composition of the note was premeditated one might expect it to be typewritten beforehand to avoid evidence of handwriting. All this suggests the ransom note was improvised. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the crime as a whole was improvised. There is no reason a premeditated crime cannot include improvised elements. Ultimately a murder is judged most tellingly by the murder itself, not by associated acts. And there is ample reason to believe the death of JonBenet was no accident. Medical evidence indicates JonBenet suffered a blow to the head, causing an 8-inch skill fracture, then strangled with a garrote an hour or two later (Beckner interview). So the head strike was the initial “accident”. Yet there was no outward sign of injury after the blow to JonBenet. No visible bleeding, no swelling or bruise, only an unconscious (but still breathing) child. At the time, if the blow was accidental, it would seem she was only knocked out. After her failure to come to with the passage of time it would become apparent things are more serious than first appeared and perhaps a call for medical assistance is in order. But at no point would the situation seem hopeless; no reason to believe she was doomed. The common presumption that the parents would have perceived JonBenet as doomed is nothing more than hindsight. The only realistic reason parents would kill her at this stage is if they wanted her dead. The deliberate nature of the murder is proved by the use of a garrote to finish her off, a method that requires premeditation. To prop up the accident theory one detective suggested Patsy believed JonBenet was dead immediately after the head strike. Such a wildly implausible idea (especially for such a smart woman) reminds this author of internet theories.
Other considerations also undermine the “accident gone wild” theory. What did the parents expect to gain by proceeding to kill her? With JonBenet’s history of doctor’s visits brought on by falls they could have done better just by claiming she fell down the stairs (no shortage of these in the Ramsey house). This is what other people in this situation would have done. Of course the police may be suspicious, but they will be all the more suspicious if the child ends up with a garrote around its neck. And how is an 8-inch skull fracture created in a 6-year old by accident? No convincing scenario has yet been found. To be sure it’s theoretically possible the head strike really was an accident – RDI models have been proposed that assume this and then treat the strangulation as deliberate.
But an injured child is not a license to kill. Reacting this way to an accident is almost as sinister as premeditated murder. What then is the advantage of such theories? Traditional RDI theories are really just police fantasies that bob and weave to avoid premeditation. So why was the ransom note allowed to overrule compelling evidence of premeditation from the murder itself? It seems the police put the Ramseys on a pedestal because they are rich and philanthropic parents without records. Even though the cops believe the Ramseys did it they trivialize a brutal murder by doing their best to pretend it was an “accident”. To restore integrity to the investigation a new approach is required which embraces, not evades, the evidence of premeditation.

A TROUBLED CHILD –Another pillar of traditional models is the positive image of the Ramsey family. “The parents were loving and doting” is the way investigator James Kolar put it. For his part Steve Thomas remarked "It seems……John and Patsy were ideal parents, Christian people. It has been difficult at best during this investigation to uncover anyone that can offer any other perspective”. The sterling reputation of the Ramseys has always been a stumbling block for RDI models. Well, it may have seemed that way at the time of the original investigation, but since then new evidence has surfaced that casts a dark shadow over this picture of serene benevolence. In the Daily Beast for October 2008 Pam Archuleta asserted that during the last months of her life JonBenet had this haunted, defeated look. She looked frozen when she got that beauty queen attitude on. I think she was just plain worn out.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-ramseys-lingering-suspicions
JonBenet had a haunted look the last months of her life? This is a stunning admission from one of the Ramseys stauchest supporters. Perhaps Pam was reluctant to come forward before Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys. In any event Pam uses the kind of language appropriate for horror stories. To be sure she herself attributes this look simply to pressure from Patsy to perform in pageants. But is Pam’s interpretation reliable? At the same time Pam was noticing the haunted look JonBenet was interacting with her “pageant-mates” at the pageants. Three of them who competed with her till the end were interviewed by Inside Edition for September 12, 2016. None mentioned any difficulties JonBenet might be having with pageants. Instead they emphasized how positive she was. Another interpretation of the haunted look, based on the approximate correspondence between the onset of the look and the start of school, might be that problems at school caused the look. But again her teachers and classmates at school found her invariably upbeat. And cerainly no academic difficulties have ever been suggested. Now a third interpretation, based on the late appearance of this look in JonBenet’s life, might be that an atmosphere of friction or conflict had arisen in the family that would ultimately lead to JonBenet’s murder. The haunted look expresses JonBenet’s worry over this conflict. It’s hard to test this interpretation, but I believe it is true because it’s difficult to imagine much else (least of all pageant pressure) that could so disturb the sunny and confident JonBenet. Since the conflict doesn’t involve school she can forget it while she is there, which is why she seems normal at school.
The housekeeper Linda Hoffman provides additional evidence supporting the picture of a troubled child:
In the summer of "96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper type underpants-Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenet started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed.
PMPT pages 198-202
Traditionally JonBenet wet the bed only occasionally. For her to be doing so almost every day suggests she was under great strain. The time scale is similar to that of the haunted look, although it might extend back a month or two before Pam noticed the haunted look. For their part the Ramseys maintained her bedwetting in this period was minimal (Paula Woodward’s book, page 153) raising questions about their veracity.
Recently questfortrue of FFJ, in the context of traditional RDI models, anticipated this section using a purely theoretical argument:
Like others, I don’t think I will ever ‘get it’: How the person (someone in her family, I believe) who was responsible and the person(s) who covered up the story of JonBenét’s end, could go from loving her to crushing her life and concealing her death in the space of a few hours. Someone abandoned her in her deepest hour of need. One of the conclusions possible is that a long simmering conflict within the family was resolved by JonBenét’s death.
(Forums For Justice thread “18 years later” December 24, 2017)
Substitute “a few months” for “a few hours” and this conclusion applies as well in a premeditation context as it does in a traditional context. It has been borne out by the evidence detailed above.

SECRET OF THE SUITCASE – In regard to the suitcase left beneath the window John had this to say in his 1998 interview with Boulder police:
But what I did specifically notice was the suitcase sitting under the window. That was not -- that didn't fit. I could explain why the window was broken or why it might have been partly open, but the suitcase just kind of jumped out at me. From the standpoint of RDI theorists this statement implies that – premeditation or no premeditation – the suitcase is part of the cover-up. The contents of the suitcase included a Dr. Seuss book and a blanket with a semen stain. This unusual combination of items suggests a pedophile, confirming the suitcase is part of the cover-up. Now in traditional RDI models the suitcase and its contents are thought of as having been improvised on the spot. This scenario contains a fatal flaw. One could come up with a suitcase on a few hours notice; one might come up with a Dr. Seuss book on a few hours notice; but it’s difficult to come up with a sample of someone’s semen on short notice when that someone is not even in the house. It is with this observation that it first dawned on me the crime must have been premeditated well in advance. According to Linda Arndt’s report of January 8, 1997 (Paula Woodward’s book We Have Your Daughter page 487) John Andrew had been in Atlanta since December 15, 1996. So the murder plot must have already existed by that date to procure the semen.

PORTENT OF EVIL – It is in September or October of 1996 that the first signs of the murder plot appear. Chapter 25 of James Kolar’s book Foreign Faction includes the following passage: (Barbara Fernie) indicated that late in the summer, or early fall of 1996, she had observed damages to the latch area of an exterior screen door located on the rear, south side of the Ramsey home. Mrs. Fernie was concerned that perhaps a burglary attempt had been made to the home, and shared this information with Patsy. They inspected the door, and determined that the interior door exhibited no damages whatsoever. Patsy expressed no concern about the damaged screen door…………… The location specified is close to both JonBenet’s room and the broken window above the suitcase. From the viewpoint of the premeditation model these marks look like an attempt to create evidence of forced entry. The time scale agrees well with the onset of JonBenet’s haunted look. And Patsy’s lack of concern suggests she knows something Barbara doesn’t know. Barbara’s discovery of the project long before it was finished apparently caused the Ramseys to abandon it. Hence police found no sign of forced entry when JonBenet was killed.

A TALL TALE – Another matter that has come to the fore since the original investigation involves the house’s security system. It was not engaged the night of the murder. This is exactly what the premeditation model would predict – the Ramseys don’t want it contradicting their claim an intruder did the deed. Furthermore they aren’t likely to turn it off just before the crime; that would look suspicious. Linda’s report states the alarm had been off for “awhile” according to Patsy, “months” according to John. No other details were provided, but the time scale suggested by these quotes corresponds well with the time scale of JonBenet’s haunted look. According to a Reddit/JonBenet post written by aspidistra76 the Ramsey’s most developed account of the security system, published in 2000, appears in their book Death of Innocence pages 326-328. Here all hell breaks loose when three-year old JonBenet pushes every button at once trying to open the garage door. An ear-splitting siren fills the air while Patsy vainly tries to find the code to turn off the alarm. Then all manner of emergency vehicles – police, fire, and medical – show up. And still Patsy cannot turn off the alarm. After this episode the traumatized Ramseys would never again engage the security system. Is this wild story credible? Well, I don’t know what the records show, but if it’s true it would certainly make one think twice before re-engaging the system. Yet I’m surprised a family as capable as the Ramseys would give up on the security system over such an incident. After all, it would be easy for Patsy and JonBenet to make adjustments. Or change the interior siren to an exterior one, as John himself noted. Another problem is the discrepancy in the time scale between this story and their original statements. This story implies the security system had been off for years, but both of their original statements described a much shorter period of time. Now eight years after publishing Death of Innocence Patsy was gone and John was alone. In that October 2008 interview with the Daily Beast John had this to say about the security system: I kicked myself for not getting more sophisticated house security. We left it off that night because it would go off like a siren and catapult us out of bed. John says nothing here of any grandiose episode caused by JonBenet. Instead he gives the impression of repeated false alarms while the family was sleeping, as if for example the wind kept setting off the alarm. These shifting stories about when and why the security system was turned off suggest the Ramseys are hiding something.

AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES – The suitcase was not the only evidence the Ramseys planted. As soon as a detective walks through the front door of the Ramsey house he enters a world of deception. The JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia, under the heading Specific Evidence for An Intruder, lists white Styrofoam packing material found in the wine cellar and window-well, black duct tape used to gag JonBenet, the cord used to bind her, beaver hair on the duct tape, dark animal hairs on JonBenet’s hands (her dog had white hair), footprints in the basement including one with a HI-TECH mark, a baseball bat outside the house, a brown paper sack in the guest room with a rope inside, brown cotton fibers found on the body, paintbrush, duct tape, and cord, a flashlight in the kitchen, and marks on JonBenet that some thought were caused by a stun gun. The Ramseys claim to have no idea how this menagerie got into their house, and no source of most of these items was discovered in the house. Now from the viewpoint of the premeditation model this “Evidence for an intruder” translates as “Evidence the Ramseys staged the scene”. To organize this mass of evidence I have listed it below with the message the Ramseys may have been trying to convey.


Item //Implied Purpose in Intruder Model Styrofoam packing material //an intruder tracked it into the wine cellar /footprints in the wine cellar //an intruder was present in the wine cellar /cord //intruder bound JonBenet /black duct tape // intruder gagged JonBenet /beaver hair on black duct tape //intruder was in proximity of beaver(s) /animal hairs on JonBenet’s hands //JonBenet petted intruder’s lure animal /flashlight //to see in the darkness /baseball bat // intruder’s strike weapon / brown paper sack and rope //hanky-panky in the guest bedroom /unidentified marks on JonBenet //intruder used stun gun on JonBenet? / brown cotton fibers on the body //intruder wore gloves to avoid fingerprints?

How does the premeditated RDI model compare to traditional RDI models in accounting for this evidence? The first thing one notices is the sheer number of items on the list. Could all these items, and the garrote, and the ransom note, and the suitcase, really have been arranged in the few hours available after the “accident”? It doesn’t seem likely. What is particularly telling is the subtle nature of some of these items. The baseball bat was found complete with fibers consistent with basement carpet. Small pieces of brown sack material were found in JonBenet’s bed and the body bag used to transport her. A beaver hair was discovered on the duct tape. And even the batteries inside the flashlight were without fingerprints. All this seems more elaborate and organized than one would expect from improvised staging. The problems are so great traditional models never made much of this evidence. But the premeditated model has ample time to arrange for all of this, perhaps including acquiring items outside Colorado
to avoid being traced.
How does the premeditated model compare to intruder models in accounting for this evidence? The essential difference between intruder models and the premeditated model in this regard is that in intruder models these items reflect the behavior of an actual intruder; whereas in the premeditated model they reflect the ideas of the Ramseys. The truth will emerge in an evaluation of how realistic the picture painted by the items is. Now the sheer number of items is a problem for intruder models as it was for traditional RDI models. While an intruder might be expected to come with tape, cord, and stun gun it seems a bit heroic to add a bat, a bag with rope, and even an animal. How often in the real world does an intruder bring along so much stuff? And even if he did bring it why does he leave so much behind? Most intruders prefer to take, not give. The whole house gives the impression of a Rube Goldberg contraption. As such it is more convincing to interpret it as staging due to the Ramseys rather than the work of an actual intruder. In this regard I find the animal hairs on JonBenet’s hands particularly intriguing. The obvious interpretation of these hairs is that JonBenet petted at least one animal before her death. Alternatively it is possible to argue the hairs simply mean JonBenet handled fur clothing before her death. But I find two reasons to reject this more conservative approach: 1) There is no obvious point in JonBenet handling fur clothing; it doesn’t seem very effective as a lure.
2) One might have expected, based on finding sources of other trace evidence, to find the clothing itself in the house. Now some might be startled at hearing the Ramseys planted evidence implicating an animal in the crime. Yet John suggests an intruder removed Patsy’s notepad and paintbrush from their house before Christmas (Paula Woodward’s book page 398). If an intruder periodically entered the house it would not be remarkable if an animal tagged along on his last visit. Now real-life child predators do use animals for the purpose of establishing control over children. And this approach to controlling JonBenet would have fit well with her personality. She liked animals and had a pet dog, a gift from her parents. I once saw a video of JonBenet speaking with a pageant judge in which she mentioned visiting a zoo. The Ramseys could have acquired animal hairs from a petting zoo or pet store. Compared to such sophisticated staging the ransom note seems crude indeed. Almost alone amidst this profusion of staging it was probably drafted after the murder when time was limited.

PREMEDITATION VERSUS DNA – All this staging seriously undermines the credibility of certain DNA finds deemed exculpatory by intruder theorists. For in the context of premeditation such DNA simply looks like another piece of planted evidence. Anyone who can obtain semen to place in a suitcase, or a beaver hair to stick on tape, shouldn’t find it too challenging to get a sweat or saliva sample to put in clothing. The DNA finds turn out to be paper tigers. At the same time contamination remains a viable possibility. In similar fashion the marks on JonBenet, whether they were caused by a stun gun or not, fit into the premeditation model just as well as they fit into intruder models.

A CALL BEFORE ITS TIME – Another piece of evidence supporting premeditation is the hang-up 911 call of December 23, just 2 ½ days before the real 911 call. It occurred during the Ramsey’s Christmas party. No one knows who made this call or why they made it. What is its significance? Was it an innocent mistake by a party guest?
There are serious problems treating it as an innocent mistake. For one thing it was necessary to dial 1 to get an outside line from the house’s traditional phones. Many of the party guests may not have known this, and so were precluded from calling 911 from these phones even in a real emergency. This makes it more likely one of the Ramseys made the call. A bigger problem is the proximity of the hang-up call to the actual emergency call. This would be quite a coincidence if the hang-up call was unconnected to the murder. The third and biggest problem is that nobody ever owned up to making the call, which is hard to understand if it was an innocent mistake. These difficulties make the innocent mistake theory unlikely.
On the other hand a variety of scenarios have been proposed involving nefarious goings-on prior to the murder. One common idea has it someone attempted to report JonBenet was being abused. A variation on this theme is that JonBenet herself made the call, an interpretation in accordance with A Troubled Child. Others suggest someone was testing the police response, a possibility directly connected to premeditation. Here is another hypothesis connected to premeditation – with the murder impending someone become curious about what to expect from the 911 operator. This hypothesis and the mistake theory both account for the abrupt termination of the call. But the “reconnaissance” hypothesis also accounts for the proximity of the two 911 calls, and the silence of the people in the house regarding the call, which the mistake theory cannot. Presumably the caller didn’t realize the call would be traced back to the house.
Whatever the motivation for the hang-call may have been it fits well with premeditation but is very difficult to explain if the murder is treated as an accident. In my opinion this call is even more powerful as evidence than the pineapple, for it is just as inexplicable but more sinister. It is fair to conclude from it, and the well-known personal nature of the crime, that the killer is among those present at the party.

ORIGIN OF THE GARROTE – But what about the murder itself? What does the premeditated model have to say about that? Well, the outstanding characteristic of the murder is that it took place in two distinct stages; first a blow to the head and later on strangulation by garrote (Beckner interview).The fatal nature of the head strike, which given enough time would have killed JonBenet by itself, plus the long time interval between the two attacks, strongly suggest the Ramseys expected the head strike to kill JonBenet outright. So if there was panic in their house that night it was not, as some have suggested, because JonBenet had been struck down. Rather it was because she refused to die. Eventually they decided to finish the job with a garrote. The two-stage character of the murder, in some form, is an automatic consequence of the premeditation model given the failure of the initial assault to kill JonBenet. The Ramseys would hardly stand by and do nothing once it became clear the head strike didn’t get the job done.
So the garrote joins the ransom note and false start as perhaps the only items improvised after the crime was underway. And like the ransom note and false start the garrote’s status as an improvised item is supported by its being one of the few items having a source inside the house (Patsy’s art supply box). There is a close correspondence between items that are improvised and items with a source inside the house. Evidently the Ramseys were too preoccupied in those final hours to fully conceal the sources of such items.

ORIGIN OF THE NOTE – The contents of the suitcase, prepared well in advance, suggest the alleged intruder was sexually motivated. The garrote was an improvised item constructed while JonBenet was still alive, but it too suggests a sexually motivated intruder. Yet the ransom note, probably written after JonBenet was gone and perhaps not long before dawn, ignores all this and advances a financial motive. Why did the Ramseys introduce such a foreign element into an otherwise carefully choreographed crime? Perhaps the answer can be found in Patsy’s behavior that morning of the 26th. According to Linda Arndt’s report of
January 8:
I asked Patsy if she could think of anyone who might be responsible for JonBenet’s disappearance. Patsy told me that her housekeeper….Linda Hoffman had phoned Patsy on the morning of Dec 24. Linda Hoffman asked Patsy if she could borrow some money. Patsy had said yes. Patsy told me she had loaned money to (Linda Hoffman)in the past.(Linda Hoffman) phoned Patsy again on the afternoon of Dec 24.(Linda Hoffman) was crying. (Linda Hoffman) said she needed to borrow $2,000……
So just before the murder takes place the housekeeper turns up in urgent need of money. At this point it may have occurred to the Ramseys they had been presented with a golden opportunity to frame her for the crime. In Steve Thomas’s book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigaion (Little Miss Christmas) page 26, he writes:
When detectives asked the parents who might be responsible for the disappearence of JonBenet, Patsy promptly gave the name of her housekeeper who had recently asked for a $2000 loan. The handwriting in the ransom note, the mother said, also looked a little like the housekeeper’s. Reverend Hoverstock told police about a phone call made that morning to Patsy’s parents, Nedra and Don Paugh, in Atlanta. Mrs. Paugh, he said, mentioned that Linda Hoffmann Pugh had commented about how beautiful JonBenet was and expressed the fear that someone might kidnap her. The housekeeper’s name had come up several times in a short period, and police had already been told she had a key. She became the first suspect, and police made plans to contact her immediately……
Evidently the Ramseys made a major effort to implicate the housekeeper that morning of the 26th. And they were using the note to support this endeavor, raising the possibility the note was written explicitly for that purpose.
Patsy’s comparison of the note’s handwriting to that of the housekeeper suggests she tried to emulate her handwriting as she wrote the note. And over time the Ramseys kept up the pressure on the housekeeper. A week later the Ramseys appeared on CNN where Patsy remarked about the supposed intruder “ I don’t know who it is, I don’t know if it’s a he or a she.” Usually it is taken for granted such intruders are male; Patsy’s introduction of “a she” for no apparent reason is probably a reference to the housekeeper. Much later, in his 1998 interview with police, John stated he and Patsy discussed how someone could know they used that staircase (the spiral staircase where the note was found) all the time.
And the impression left by the note itself – that it was written by a woman, that its author was close to the Ramseys by virtue of the ransom amount and calling John by name – lends support to the housekeeper being its author. Its statement ”use that good southern common sense of yours” (directed to John) is such as to imply the author was aware the family had southern roots, but was not aware John himself was not from the South. This accords with the experience of the housekeeper, who for the most part interacted with Patsy and Nedra rather than John. All the evidence points to the ransom note being drafted with the housekeeper in mind. Websleuth Chiquita71, working with traditional RDI models, reached this conclusion ten years ago:
The RN was (maybe)written to look like the housekeeper wrote it. That's why its okay to be a woman's handwriting, okay to be on a pad found in the house: that is why JR would be the one to point it out to LE. The amount would be an amount the housekeeper might know.The housekeeper would feel comfortable in the house. Comfortable using Patsy's things. Patsy was supposed to leave a check for two thousand on the counter for the housekeeper(who has a key)but would be picking it up after the Rs go on their trip.
In thinking of the language: switching to using the familiar "John". Using the "motherly" directions. Get good rest(paraphrased). The misspelling of the words and the whole kidnapping/ransom note plan in general, could be the Ramsey's idea of what the "uneducated poor" desperate for money(and maybe jealous)would try to pull off.
From page 1 of the thread Linguistic and Handwriting Analysis of the Ransom Note, August 15, 2009
The note is at odds with the crime as a whole because the Ramseys did not anticipate this opportunity to frame the housekeeper would arise at the last minute, when most other staging was already prepared and ready to go.

STAGING FOR THE AGES – Some may believe this letter presents a fanciful treatment of the Ramsey case because the staging involved is out of the ordinary and therefore hard to believe. This argument overlooks the fact John and Patsy themselves were out of the ordinary – John was a self-made millionaire, and Patsy graduated from university magna *advertiser censored* laude. Their intelligence and sophistication far surpass that of ordinary criminals. As such the criminal acts they commit can be expected to reflect this even as the very house they live in reflects it. The proof is the ransom note, one of the most elaborate on record despite being conceived on the spur of the moment. Out-of-the-ordinary staging was already evident even in traditional RDI models.

JOHN’S REGRET – Another stumbling block to extended premeditation is the Ramsey’s noble lifestyle before the murder, which became a pillar of traditional RDI models. Their charitable work and lack of criminal record or child abuse was taken to mean the Ramseys were basically good people who found themselves in a bad situation. Well, this reasoning may have seemed convincing the day of the murder, but their behavior after the crime tells a different story. In particular their habit of accusing friends is a little disturbing from the viewpoint of traditional RDI theories, for it implies the Ramseys were trying to climb out of the hole they dug for themselves by stepping on their friends. Is this how a “basically good” person behaves? But in the context of the premeditation model such behavior makes perfect sense, for parents who turn on their own child probably wouldn’t hesitate to turn on their friends as well. Not to mention the housekeeper.
Or Consider what John had to say in his 2016 interview with Dr. Phil: The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by [the system].
The real story is not that a child was murdered? Tell it to JonBenet. No matter how much a parent might suffer from unjust accusations no genuinely loving parent would denigrate a murdered child’s fate in comparison to their own.
This quote, or a similar one, made a deep impression on me the very day I took up the Ramsey case.
Now evidence favoring an intruder tends to melt away in the light of the premeditation model. But evidence against the Ramseys that traditional models were based on – their shifting stories and reluctance to grant interviews to police, no sign of forced entry or disturbed frost, the obscure location of the body, the similarities between Patsy’s handwriting and that of the ransom note, the false start, Patsy’s failure to change clothes and her fatigue, the pineapple, and more – remains as valid as ever. To this body of evidence the premeditated model adds more of its own as detailed above, taking the RDI model to a new level of sophistication and power.