We are only dealing in facts and reasonable scenarios from now on

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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Thought I'd add that I don't have an opinion on whether or not Patsy had breaks with reality as suggested at the link I just posted. But, I do think she caused the skull fracture in a moment of reckless behavior. I think she designed and used the ligature and I think she wrote the note.
 
Hello. Having read more about this child's death than I care to admit, I finished Mr. Kolar's book a few weeks ago. I have a theory of the crime based on Kolar's invitation to connect his dots. I posted it on DocGs blog not long ago, and then discovered this forum. After reading many threads back about a year I do not see the same theory posted here. I think it meets the criteria expressed in this thread, but not sure if theories belong here or in RDI only. Or in BDI? Thanks!
 
Fides said:
Hello. Having read more about this child's death than I care to admit, I finished Mr. Kolar's book a few weeks ago. I have a theory of the crime based on Kolar's invitation to connect his dots. I posted it on DocGs blog not long ago, and then discovered this forum. After reading many threads back about a year I do not see the same theory posted here. I think it meets the criteria expressed in this thread, but not sure if theories belong here or in RDI only. Or in BDI? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Welcome, Fides! :happydance:

There's a thread called Members' Theories (found here) where you can post your theory. I look forward to reading what you believe happened!
 
Thank-you Olivia! I see looking on the front page that I was only reading the discussion threads and missed the TOP thread - sheesh! Thanks again!
 
This is completely off topic, but I've got into some type of argument with someone on another website about the JBR case. I'm ending my conversation with him because he's getting rather heated. Part of me wants to toy with him like a cat pawing at a mouse. The other part of me knows that doing that would be wrong. I've learned so many facts about this case that I could really get under this guy's skin (if I haven't done that already). This person actually scares me. He seems unreasonable and possibly unbalanced.
 
BoldBear said:
This is completely off topic, but I've got into some type of argument with someone on another website about the JBR case. I'm ending my conversation with him because he's getting rather heated. Part of me wants to toy with him like a cat pawing at a mouse. The other part of me knows that doing that would be wrong. I've learned so many facts about this case that I could really get under this guy's skin (if I haven't done that already). This person actually scares me. He seems unreasonable and possibly unbalanced.
Click to expand...

I'd keep away if I were you. Sound like Topix, right? There are a LOT of creeps on internet forums. You gotta know when to walk away.
 
I indeed posted my theory, after reading the entire thread. Long! I was surprised that although there are a large number of creative theories, no one proposed that Burke hid the fatal head injury he inflicted on his sister by faking a murder scene via garrote. To me, this seems like a belivable thing for a scared little boy to do. I say this in part because as a child I once faked a murder scene to trick the neighbor boy. No actual body was involved, just fake blood and some shotgun shells I found in the woods, but I recall spending a lot of time on it, and really scaring the boy.

I was actually a pretty nice child, so WHY I did such a thing escapes me. But I did.

My point is not to compare the two, but to say that the task itself is not outside the imagination of a typical 9-10 year-old. Because if you thought you accidentally killed your sister (and since she started pageants you had overheard warnings of how bad guys might want to hurt her), pretending a bad guy did it instead of you might seem like your only escape from your parents hating you forever.
 
I am not sure how to put up a link to the site or whatever up so i will just tell you this is the name of the documentary KILLER REVEALED "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" 2015 Documentary I suggest you go to youtube and look that up and watch it..it says its new but who knows maybe some or all of you have allready seen it but if not you should its very interesting so sorry if its old its very new to youtube anyway .If anyone doughts that patsy wrote the ransome note watch this docu and i guarantee you will change your minds and again sorry if its not actually new but new to youtube check it out its really well done...
 
CanManEh said:
I am not sure how to put up a link to the site or whatever up so i will just tell you this is the name of the documentary KILLER REVEALED "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" 2015 Documentary I suggest you go to youtube and look that up and watch it..it says its new but who knows maybe some or all of you have allready seen it but if not you should its very interesting so sorry if its old its very new to youtube anyway .If anyone doughts that patsy wrote the ransome note watch this docu and i guarantee you will change your minds and again sorry if its not actually new but new to youtube check it out its really well done...
Click to expand...


Good video. I believe that Patsy wrote the note to protect her son (and her image) by hiding the garrote - to blame it on someone else. Certainly a foreign faction bent on beheadings would be capable of making a garrote, right?
 
Fides said:
I indeed posted my theory, after reading the entire thread. Long! I was surprised that although there are a large number of creative theories, no one proposed that Burke hid the fatal head injury he inflicted on his sister by faking a murder scene via garrote. To me, this seems like a belivable thing for a scared little boy to do. I say this in part because as a child I once faked a murder scene to trick the neighbor boy. No actual body was involved, just fake blood and some shotgun shells I found in the woods, but I recall spending a lot of time on it, and really scaring the boy.

I was actually a pretty nice child, so WHY I did such a thing escapes me. But I did.

My point is not to compare the two, but to say that the task itself is not outside the imagination of a typical 9-10 year-old. Because if you thought you accidentally killed your sister (and since she started pageants you had overheard warnings of how bad guys might want to hurt her), pretending a bad guy did it instead of you might seem like your only escape from your parents hating you forever.
Click to expand...


Does this qualify as a factual and reasonable scenario?
 
Fides said:
I indeed posted my theory, after reading the entire thread. Long! I was surprised that although there are a large number of creative theories, no one proposed that Burke hid the fatal head injury he inflicted on his sister by faking a murder scene via garrote. To me, this seems like a belivable thing for a scared little boy to do. I say this in part because as a child I once faked a murder scene to trick the neighbor boy. No actual body was involved, just fake blood and some shotgun shells I found in the woods, but I recall spending a lot of time on it, and really scaring the boy.

I was actually a pretty nice child, so WHY I did such a thing escapes me. But I did.

My point is not to compare the two, but to say that the task itself is not outside the imagination of a typical 9-10 year-old. Because if you thought you accidentally killed your sister (and since she started pageants you had overheard warnings of how bad guys might want to hurt her), pretending a bad guy did it instead of you might seem like your only escape from your parents hating you forever.
Click to expand...

Fides,
Interesting theory, no reason it never happened as you describe. Previously I proposed BR manually constricted JonBenet's throat leading to her falling unconcious, via vagus nerve, JR whacking JonBenet on the head, and PR applying the ligature/paintbrush, so to obscure BR's manual constriction, you can see these marks beneath the neat circumferential furrow.

James Kolar thinks JonBenet was assaulted in the kitchen, suggesting PR may not have been present, and might not have been aware of the pineapple snack, which would be consistent with the Ramsey's version of events.

JonBenet likely dressed for bed in her favorite pink barbie nightgown, found later bloodstained in the wine-cellar. The change of underwear must result from JonBenet bleeding, and the Wednesday pair an attempt to be visually consistent with the Day Of The Week? I reckon it was either BR or JR who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, Patsy would have fetched a size-6 pair from upstairs, knowing full well that the size mattered more than the day of the week!

JonBenet's internal injuries are either staged or part of some pathological behaviour, this aspect is an open question for me, although Kolar offers hints in his book via book purchases by the Paughs.

.
 
UKGuy said:
(snip)
The change of underwear must result from JonBenet bleeding, and the Wednesday pair an attempt to be visually consistent with the Day Of The Week? I reckon it was either BR or JR who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, Patsy would have fetched a size-6 pair from upstairs, knowing full well that the size mattered more than the day of the week!
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that the wrong-sized underwear might've been because there wasn't much (or any...?) clean underwear in her room because of her bedwetting problem.

I found it hard to believe because kids' underwear is very cheap and the Ramseys weren't lacking in funds so one would think they would just buy a lot of packs of white underwear and do laundry with bleach regularly. Or even consider sleep diapers for nights when they were at home. But I suppose PR could've been in denial over the seriousness of the problem and gotten caught off guard.
 
Will the Intruder thread be reopened??
I hope so..

I understand that we can not accuse people without proof and evidence. But since no one is charged, I feel like there are still so many options open in this case. Things that have to be explored.. And can be without pointing fingers at innocent people..

At least I hope we still can.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Will the Intruder thread be reopened??
I hope so..

I understand that we can not accuse people without proof and evidence. But since no one is charged, I feel like there are still so many options open in this case. Things that have to be explored.. And can be without pointing fingers at innocent people..

At least I hope we still can.
Click to expand...

I definitely think there are reasonable IDI scenarios, and I also think there are reasonable scenarios involving people other than JR, PR, and BR being involved without those people necessarily being random intruders. I think RDI theories that involve things like Satanic sacrifice or "accidental" stranglings and sexual assaults (i.e. she slipped and fell onto the paintbrush and her neck got tangled up) are as unreasonable or more unreasonable than most IDI theories. Not that there have been a lot of those here, but I don't think IDI is in itself unreasonable if you make an effort to explain the details of the crime. I understand it's wrong to accuse someone by name but I can definitely see the temptation when it's clear whoever did it must have some connection to the family. Of course that's why I lean RDI but at the same time there is a chance they're not guilty and I definitely think they wouldn't get convicted in a court of law unless more evidence came out or JR confessed.

I think an IDI thread is important at the very least to analyze all possible ways this crime could have happened. This is even very beneficial for RDI people because a lot of the ideas put forth could also apply to some RDI theories. Like the theory JB got herself out of bed and tried to cover up having wet the bed, or that there was pedophilia in the pageant world, some of these ideas that IDI people come up with (because they have to be a bit more creative sometimes given the strong feeling here and on other sites against it) are applicable to RDI theories and a lot of RDI people might've never considered them. If someone who is IDI figures something out that credibly explains how or why this crime occurred that's relevant no matter who we think did it.
 
Hello ....it's all over youtube that the dnain her panties is a match to this guy ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART ...But who the heck is he...and all the vids on youtube that talk about this and theres alot but there all with in 8 months so this must be fairly new
 
LadyTudorRose said:
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that the wrong-sized underwear might've been because there wasn't much (or any...?) clean underwear in her room because of her bedwetting problem.

I found it hard to believe because kids' underwear is very cheap and the Ramseys weren't lacking in funds so one would think they would just buy a lot of packs of white underwear and do laundry with bleach regularly. Or even consider sleep diapers for nights when they were at home. But I suppose PR could've been in denial over the seriousness of the problem and gotten caught off guard.
Click to expand...

LadyTudorRose,
Well nobody and I mean nobody has confirmed whether size-6 Wednesday Day Of The Week underwear was found in JonBenet's underwear drawer, but size-12 underwear was found to be absent, go figure!

.
 
aussiesheila2 said:
Does this qualify as a factual and reasonable scenario?
Click to expand...



Hi Aussiesheila2, thanks for your response. The short answer is, yes, I think it is reasonable. No idea if it is factual, but it is based on facts. The Grand Jury heard evidence we have not and they also seemed to think BDI. If Patsy and John were indicted as accessories after the fact, then the GJ believed that they were protecting someone else. It is not reasonable to assume they were protecting an intruder, so I assume they were protecting their son. My theory is one scenario out of many that reflect that reasonable assumption.

Kolar proposes that BR may have had serious emotional problems. While Kolar surely has information we do not, I see little evidence of that in reports from school, friends, housekeepers, and babysitters. My theory proposes that BR launched an impulsive, elaborate and dramatic cover-up all by himself to hide the head injury from his parents. I assume he was very frightened and tired, and his possible sexual interaction with his sister increased his shame, fear, and need to hide the injury by pretending a murderer killed her. I propose his mother woke up and intervened, but I would guess that was after he decided his sister was dead, made and used the garrote, and arranged the scene himself.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Patsy wrote the note to protect BR and the family from what the garrote and the paintbrush assault would mean to others. However logically BR might have constructed the "crime scene" to try to blame his sister's death on a "bad guy," there really was no good way for his mother to explain his actions to anyone else. Thus, I propose that Patsy invented the foreign faction, the allusion to beheading, the kidnapping gone wrong, to explain the "crime" scene.

As I mentioned in the Member Theories thread, I like this theory because it explains so many things without demonizing anyone. No family member throttled JonBenet to try to kill her. If her brother hit her on the head in anger, whether it was the angle of the flashlight, the force he used, or the head's full absorption of the blow (I posit that she was lying on the carpet over concrete in the basement), the blow was catastrophic and the results were an accident. There is nothing to suggest that the adults in this family would not call 911 if they found their child injured by a head blow, or that these parents or their son would strangle JonBenet to murder her. There is plenty to suggest that kids get angry, and that a mother might want to cover up her son's cover-up, thinking it was the only thing she could do in a horrible situation.
 
UKGuy said:
Fides,
Interesting theory, no reason it never happened as you describe. Previously I proposed BR manually constricted JonBenet's throat leading to her falling unconcious, via vagus nerve, JR whacking JonBenet on the head, and PR applying the ligature/paintbrush, so to obscure BR's manual constriction, you can see these marks beneath the neat circumferential furrow.

James Kolar thinks JonBenet was assaulted in the kitchen, suggesting PR may not have been present, and might not have been aware of the pineapple snack, which would be consistent with the Ramsey's version of events.

JonBenet likely dressed for bed in her favorite pink barbie nightgown, found later bloodstained in the wine-cellar. The change of underwear must result from JonBenet bleeding, and the Wednesday pair an attempt to be visually consistent with the Day Of The Week? I reckon it was either BR or JR who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, Patsy would have fetched a size-6 pair from upstairs, knowing full well that the size mattered more than the day of the week!

JonBenet's internal injuries are either staged or part of some pathological behaviour, this aspect is an open question for me, although Kolar offers hints in his book via book purchases by the Paughs.

.
Click to expand...



UK guy,

Thanks for your response. Your theory of of all three family members involved in assaulting JonBenet is interesting but for me does not fit with the evidence. If two educated, successful adults were collaborating, there would not be pineapple of unknown origin, a flashlight left lying around, or size 12 underwear. It would not take months for a guilty Mr. Ramsey to mention an open window; he would be primed to discuss unlocked doors and windows the minute police arrived. Instead, he told them he was pretty sure the house was secure. He and Patsy knew nothing about the pineapple or the flashlight and made no effort to create a back story for them until after they were revealed.

I think they did not know about these things because their son shared the pineapple with his sister, used the flashlight to peek at presents or play a sex game or both, and then to hit his sister, too hard. He created the crime scene to hide the accident from his parents, and once they became aware of it they never discussed it with him. His mother probably discovered what he did, sent him to bed and wrote the crazy ransom note to explain the fake murder. Had his father been awake, he probably would have called lawyers and tried to fix the problem another way, but he was not. Instead, John was left to try to support them after the fact, with lawyers and psychiatrists and media consultants.

My theory supposes that everyone in the family was acting out of a combination of love and fear, and that the initial injury was an accident of force. I might be wrong, but I agree with the IDI folks who say that there is no evidence that any of these people was the crazed psychopathic killer the garrote implies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 107 more.
Total: 331 (members: 108, guests: 223)

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
223
Total visitors
331
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,844
Messages
18,193,510
Members
233,597
Latest member
Slafrance74
Back
Top