Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[observation]

I doubt this has any true basis, but it caught my interest and made me think of this case. I had Criminal Minds playing in the background, and one of the agents had said "Parents tend to blame each other and pull away, but you two are sticking together and backing each other up." In relation to the murder of their child. I don't know, it got my attention. I want to research this theory just for personal use, but it does make me wonder about JR and PR's relationship, especially immediately after the murder.

They probably stuck together for Burke's sake and maybe more as friends vs. a true love for one another. IIRC- JR found a love interest in the mom of N. Holloway rather quickly after PR's death. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deadhead_Kay]

I doubt this has any true basis, but it caught my interest and made me think of this case. I had Criminal Minds playing in the background, and one of the agents had said "Parents tend to blame each other and pull away, but you two are sticking together and backing each other up." In relation to the murder of their child. I don't know, it got my attention. I want to research this theory just for personal use, but it does make me wonder about JR and PR's relationship, especially immediately after the murder.

Wow, I forgot to add the important part that made me want to post here, further proof i should not stay up for more than 24 consecutive hours. The parents were actually covering up their child's death, their older son was the murderer. Thinking about it more, the reason for the death was because the younger brother broke his older brother's beloved toy. Leading to an act of pure rage. I'm not of the camp that BDI, but considering everything transpired during the holiday of gift giving...I don't know. I'm just throwing out any random theory that might spark something in someone far superior, and far more knowledgeable of this case than i.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SuperDave. I just started here. I agree. I think the DNA is probably not related to the murder. I do not trust the vindication of Patsy by the DA based on this "new evidence." I just can't get past that note. Patsy wrote it.

I'll tell you what, mrseeker, and I know I've said this a million+ times before, but there are cases where the "CSI-type" just isn't very useful, and one of them is the domestic homicide, such as this. Cases like this are solved by getting people to talk, either potential witnesses or the suspects themselves. I'm reminded of a line from Lennie Brisco (Jerry Orbach) in Law & Order: "If we break ths case, we're gonna break it in there," with "there" being the interview room. It's absolutely standard procedure, and the cops wanted to do just that. But, for whatever reason you believe, it was never allowed to happen.

 

[UKGuy]

I'll tell you what, mrseeker, and I know I've said this a million+ times before, but there are cases where the "CSI-type" just isn't very useful, and one of them is the domestic homicide, such as this. Cases like this are solved by getting people to talk, either potential witnesses or the suspects themselves. I'm reminded of a line from Lennie Brisco (Jerry Orbach) in Law & Order: "If we break ths case, we're gonna break it in there," with "there" being the interview room. It's absolutely standard procedure, and the cops wanted to do just that. But, for whatever reason you believe, it was never allowed to happen.

SuperDave,
BBM: IMO it was never allowed to happen because they never wanted the killer's name made public, so obvious follow up questions in interviews were mysteriously neglected, just enough was done to constitute an investigation, but not enough to paint a picture of the likely suspect.

.

 

[AndHence]

When do you guys think the redressing of JonBenet was done? If she emptied her bladder just outside the wine cellar and the clothes she was found in were urine stained, this would mean she was wiped down /possibly redressed after the head blow but before the strangulation that ended her life. On a related note, didn't Patsy's initial statement of what JonBenet wore to bed that night change between December 26 and her first formal police interview in April of the following year?

 

[mrseeker]

When do you guys think the redressing of JonBenet was done? If she emptied her bladder just outside the wine cellar and the clothes she was found in were urine stained, this would mean she was wiped down /possibly redressed after the head blow but before the strangulation that ended her life. On a related note, didn't Patsy's initial statement of what JonBenet wore to bed that night change between December 26 and her first formal police interview in April of the following year?

I have a theory of what happened, not unlike other Patsy did it theories. I am just not sure how to tell it without being too graphic or breaking the rules. I know Patsy wrote the note, and from there it would be pure imagination as to why she did it. I do not think John did it, or the body would not have been found in the house. I do not think the brother did this, but it is possible Patsy convinced John he had something to do with it and that is why he went along. Of course he could have went along for Patsy too. And it is also possible even John really never heard the truth from Patsy, and was never certain there was not an intruder. I just know in this case, there was no intruder. Mommy did it.

 

[BBB167893]

You know, UKGuy, I've been accused by some of peddling conspiracy theories. (I won't mention names; they know who they are.) So, perhaps now would be a good time to set the record completely straight.

At no point have I ever believed that there was some kind of bribe or backroom deal between the Ramseys and LE. Or between John Ramsey's gov't-connected, billion-dollar level defense company employer. I'd even be hard-pressed to believe that the Haddon law firm threatened to out a dirty secret (or several) of the DA's office. What I MIGHT believe, if evidence were to present itself, is that the DA, Alex Hunter, had something dirty (possibly related to this case, more likely not) that he did not want anyone to know about, something which, if it got out, would have led, at the very least, to him resigning in disgrace, a la Richard Nixon. And that if he took this to trial, whatever it was would come out.

Anybody have thoughts on that?

 

[BBB167893]

When do you guys think the redressing of JonBenet was done? If she emptied her bladder just outside the wine cellar and the clothes she was found in were urine stained, this would mean she was wiped down /possibly redressed after the head blow but before the strangulation that ended her life.

That's about right, far as I go.

 

[UKGuy]

You know, UKGuy, I've been accused by some of peddling conspiracy theories. (I won't mention names; they know who they are.) So, perhaps now would be a good time to set the record completely straight.

At no point have I ever believed that there was some kind of bribe or backroom deal between the Ramseys and LE. Or between John Ramsey's gov't-connected, billion-dollar level defense company employer. I'd even be hard-pressed to believe that the Haddon law firm threatened to out a dirty secret (or several) of the DA's office. What I MIGHT believe, if evidence were to present itself, is that the DA, Alex Hunter, had something dirty (possibly related to this case, more likely not) that he did not want anyone to know about, something which, if it got out, would have led, at the very least, to him resigning in disgrace, a la Richard Nixon. And that if he took this to trial, whatever it was would come out.

Anybody have thoughts on that?

SuperDave,

BBM: Sure this would an alternative explanation for what I think really took place, e.g. a Legal Conspiracy, covertly agreed by all the actors you cite to make sure BR's name never appeared in the context of JonBenet's homicide?

Also I think there were deals done, in smoked filled rooms, at Estate Agents offices, Private Investigators offices, all with benign legal motives.

.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,

BBM: Sure this would an alternative explanation for what I think really took place, e.g. a Legal Conspiracy, covertly agreed by all the actors you cite to make sure BR's name never appeared in the context of JonBenet's homicide?

Also I think there were deals done, in smoked filled rooms, at Estate Agents offices, Private Investigators offices, all with benign legal motives.

.

What you say may be the case, UKGuy. But I wouldn't say for sure unless I was sure. Although, we do know for certain, as verified in court, that the Private Investigators had their fingers in the pie up to the shoulder.

But this is what I'm saying, and I want everyone's opinion on it: if I believed what I described and you bolded, it would explain some things. Like I said, it wouldn't necessarily have to be related to this case.

 

[BoldBear]

I was just in the grocery store. JB is on the cover of two tabloid rags again. It had something about two new confessions. I didn't open or purchase the mags. I'm glad the tabloids are reporting that this case is finally solved and it was intruders! If I had a nickle for every time....

 

[UKGuy]

I was just in the grocery store. JB is on the cover of two tabloid rags again. It had something about two new confessions. I didn't open or purchase the mags. I'm glad the tabloids are reporting that this case is finally solved and it was intruders! If I had a nickle for every time....

BoldBear,
I thought about posting a RDI to the Members Theories section, and it was going to dwell on why has the Intruder never been arrested for something else or why the Foreign Faction have appeared to have never attempted another fund raising abduction, and considered is that not so obvious, i.e. its a fabrication?


Its general outline was the case is BDI or its one of the parents with the other assisting. With the latter speculating that there was enough forensic evidence to implicate the parents as accomplices to a homicide but not enough to differentiate between who actually killed her, so pressure was brought to bear upon AH to engineer the GJ outcome by the R's, since their PIs had dug up some dirt on AH?

Nearly everyone seems to overlook the GJ decision and AH's behavior, it should be factored into any RDI theory and explained away?

.

 

[BBB167893]

Its general outline was the case is BDI or its one of the parents with the other assisting. With the latter speculating that there was enough forensic evidence to implicate the parents as accomplices to a homicide but not enough to differentiate between who actually killed her, so pressure was brought to bear upon AH to engineer the GJ outcome by the R's, since their PIs had dug up some dirt on AH?

Nearly everyone seems to overlook the GJ decision and AH's behavior, it should be factored into any RDI theory and explained away?

.

I'd say that applies no matter which member of the family you think did it.

 

[BoldBear]

Nearly everyone seems to overlook the GJ decision and AH's behavior, it should be factored into any RDI theory and explained away?

You're completely right about a terrorist group that has a grudge against John's country and kidnaps his little girl for $160,000 but respects his company. Foreign faction fiction or alliteration hell. If you can make any sense about what they said about themselves, you're smarter than I am.

SuperDave is not one of those people who's overlooked AH's behavior. AH was outgunned and ill prepared. He knew it. I wouldn't be surprised if he looked at Marsha Clark's career and thought it was going to happen to him. That would have kept him very friendly to the R's defence team.

I'm okay with the idea that they dug something up on AH, but is that necessary? He was already a very weak DA. I'd go so far as to call him impotent. He was a decaf skim with fake sugar: he was a why bother?

The real problem I see in putting your faith in the GJ decision is that it is weakly worded. It's not "we find sufficient evidence to bring John and Patsy to trial." Instead, it's "we find sufficient evidence to implicate the parents as accomplices." If I was one of their defense attorneys, I'd be dancing in my office. From there, all they needed was some gloves that were too small and AH would be able to join Marsha Clark on an extended vacation.

 

[secretlymorbid]

I am new. I am very, very new. So, after reading many of the forum posts regarding JBR. I am under the impression that people are pretty much divided into the RDI and IDI theories. I was wondering if anyone had read the recent article regarding Gary Oliva, a recently arrested pedophile who was a person of interest in JBR case. Has anyone considered that it could be both. Could have an intruder did this to JB but for reasons that would make zero sense to us, but would to the Ramseys, they covered it up. This person Gary is a paranoid schysophrenic from what I read, I cant imagine how on earth he could write a ransom note, but I can very much see him getting into the house and getting JBR. Perhaps, they thought that John's older son did it so they covered up, I heard he was weird. OK. I'm done. Please have mercy on me, I am weak and lowly of mind in this court of theory kings. Thanks!

 

[UKGuy]

You're completely right about a terrorist group that has a grudge against John's country and kidnaps his little girl for $160,000 but respects his company. Foreign faction fiction or alliteration hell. If you can make any sense about what they said about themselves, you're smarter than I am.

SuperDave is not one of those people who's overlooked AH's behavior. AH was outgunned and ill prepared. He knew it. I wouldn't be surprised if he looked at Marsha Clark's career and thought it was going to happen to him. That would have kept him very friendly to the R's defence team.

I'm okay with the idea that they dug something up on AH, but is that necessary? He was already a very weak DA. I'd go so far as to call him impotent. He was a decaf skim with fake sugar: he was a why bother?

The real problem I see in putting your faith in the GJ decision is that it is weakly worded. It's not "we find sufficient evidence to bring John and Patsy to trial." Instead, it's "we find sufficient evidence to implicate the parents as accomplices." If I was one of their defense attorneys, I'd be dancing in my office. From there, all they needed was some gloves that were too small and AH would be able to join Marsha Clark on an extended vacation.

BoldBear,
AH night have been outgunned and ill prepared, but lets face it, he got the result he wanted.

Its not that the GJ decision is not strongly worded, its that it's out there for our delectation.

Personally I reckon you can make a weak case for a parent being the perpetrator, but a vastly stronger case for BDI, even the media seem to have failed to cover a BDI, particularly in the light of the GJ findings, what does that suggest?

What AH did was wrong, possibly even a crime in public office, designated malfeasance in public office over here in the UK.

Just consider the man who appears to be outgunned and ill prepared, who normally takes the easy route to prosecution or none at all, decides to traverse a long and winding road, designed to hide that the R's have been considered accomplices to a homicide by the GJ, which patently raises the question: accomplice to whom?

I'll bet it was this that was not lost on either the R's or AH, so was any pressure brought to bear upon AH to effect this outcome, why should AH care about whether a GJ court document is made public?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I'd say that applies no matter which member of the family you think did it.

SuperDave,
ITA, so who were the parents accomplices to? Patently not each other, so who does that leave in the frame? This is what I reckon explains AH's rationale behind his arcane bureaucratic behavior, its the inference that BDI that was being concealed not that the parents were accomplices?

If the case is BDI then I reckon AH will have been pressurized to arrange circumstances such that BR's name never enters judicial discussion, except to airbrush him from the case, under Colorado's State's child statutes.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I am new. I am very, very new. So, after reading many of the forum posts regarding JBR. I am under the impression that people are pretty much divided into the RDI and IDI theories. I was wondering if anyone had read the recent article regarding Gary Oliva, a recently arrested pedophile who was a person of interest in JBR case. Has anyone considered that it could be both. Could have an intruder did this to JB but for reasons that would make zero sense to us, but would to the Ramseys, they covered it up. This person Gary is a paranoid schysophrenic from what I read, I cant imagine how on earth he could write a ransom note, but I can very much see him getting into the house and getting JBR. Perhaps, they thought that John's older son did it so they covered up, I heard he was weird. OK. I'm done. Please have mercy on me, I am weak and lowly of mind in this court of theory kings. Thanks!

secretlymorbid,
Hello there, welcome to websleuths. You should order James Kolars book: Foreign Faction, it will give you all the background you need to generate your own theory as to who killed JonBenet.

It probably was not Gary Oliva, who's dna does not match the sample at the crime-scene, he is just the latest off the wall suspect to be targeted.

.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave is not one of those people who's overlooked AH's behavior.

Isn't THAT the truth! Everybody should know exactly what kind of prosecutor he was.

AH was outgunned and ill prepared.

My dad was a Marine in Vietnam. It galled him to be risking his life in some God-forsaken jungle while the politicians back home were pulling the rug out from under him. Reading ST's book and the statements from other LEOs who worked with (against?) AH over the years, I get that same feeling.

He knew it. I wouldn't be surprised if he looked at Marsha Clark's career and thought it was going to happen to him. That would have kept him very friendly to the R's defence team.

I KNOW he thought that, BoldBear. He as much as said it in his commentary on the OJ case.

I'm okay with the idea that they dug something up on AH, but is that necessary? He was already a very weak DA. I'd go so far as to call him impotent. He was a decaf skim with fake sugar: he was a why bother?

Because in the world of men like Hal Haddon and Lin Wood, if you don't play dirty, you don't play at all.

 

[singularity]

You know, UKGuy, I've been accused by some of peddling conspiracy theories. (I won't mention names; they know who they are.) So, perhaps now would be a good time to set the record completely straight.

At no point have I ever believed that there was some kind of bribe or backroom deal between the Ramseys and LE. Or between John Ramsey's gov't-connected, billion-dollar level defense company employer. I'd even be hard-pressed to believe that the Haddon law firm threatened to out a dirty secret (or several) of the DA's office. What I MIGHT believe, if evidence were to present itself, is that the DA, Alex Hunter, had something dirty (possibly related to this case, more likely not) that he did not want anyone to know about, something which, if it got out, would have led, at the very least, to him resigning in disgrace, a la Richard Nixon. And that if he took this to trial, whatever it was would come out.

Anybody have thoughts on that?

I agree 100% that there was no grand conspiracy but something was very fishy about BDA and the Ramsey attorneys. I could never pinpoint it but I never really did much(if any) digging in that aspect of the case. If Hunter is kosher so to speak, then the way they handled the case top to bottom makes zero sense. There is plenty of incompetence in this case and many mistakes along the way but they took it to new levels.

The DA did everything in his power to put up road blocks to prevent any forward movement in the case. Giving the Ramsey attorneys access to basically the whole case is just inexcusable and I still don't know how he got away with it.

IMO Hunter knew in the early stages that he was never taking this case to trial. His only plan was to sit on it and let a few people create smoke and mirrors. He passed the torch to the next DA.

I also don't think the DA's handling of the case has anything to do with Burke. Didn't matter which Ramsey killed her, Hunter wasn't pushing it. Period.

Has anyone considered that it could be both. Could have an intruder did this to JB but for reasons that would make zero sense to us, but would to the Ramseys, they covered it up

Such a bizarre, alternate theory was tossed around a bit eons ago. Don't remember the details but something like this....

Robber/pedo/kidnapper breaks into the house
Jonbenet winds up dead
Patsy and/or John wake up
Due to abuse/incest, they worry that their house of cards will crumble so stage this bizarre scene

Its borderline laughable and even IF possible, there's one thing that definitely destroys that theory.....

the personal nature of the crime.