Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[joeskidbeck]

Then where does the abuse fit in?We have too much to deal with in this crime.Her being sexually assaulted (even if it was just digital penetration) that night and possibly more times before is one of the big reasons I don't think PDI.It just doesn't fit,dunno.The wiping off,someone taking the time to redress her.

On the other hand,the splinters in her vagina....to me it looks like someone (wearing gloves,cause there are no prints on the garrote,paintbrush,at least that's what we know so far) digitally penetrated her AFTER breaking the brush.
(that's how the splinters got transfered)


Ughhh this caseeeee........


:waitasec:

Here's one of the theories I have about it. I believe Patsy may have walked in on John while he was molesting JB (digitally). This was probably in JB's bedroom and I think Patsy snuck in there with flashlight in hand because she suspected what was going on. If John had been standing over (or on his knees by the bed) JB while she was laying on the bed when Patsy walked in and she went into a blind rage, tried to whack John on the head, but he jumps out of the way and the flashlight comes down on JB's head. I'm sure there are holes here but I'm thinking this is pretty close to what happened that night. After that they both had to engage in all the staging that went on. I don't think they agreed on every detail, but I believe Patsy wrote the note.

 

[joeskidbeck]

You know, this may be why P's fibers were entwined in the garrotte. John may have done the staging up to the ligature and then refused because he didn't want to be the one to do that. These are the only reasons I can come up with for both of them to be involved, unless of course, a scenario that involves Burke.

 

[Mendara]

Then maybe it wasn't used in a sex game.........but an accident happened a sex game (hit her head,or she screamed and was pushed) and the garrote was made on her neck ok after ,to finish her off....maybe she wasn't functioning anymore after the ehad bash but she was still breathing....

Hmm so then why did he or she tie it to her wrist? If she was passed out tying it to her wrist makes no sense - tying it to her wrist to watch her pull and strangle herself as she struggled as well as twisting the garrote sounds right to me and was the plan or was to "look" like the plan. IMO

This was either a very sick intruder, a very sick daddy - or a very sick staging taken from something seen on tv or heard of. Can't imagine Burke thinking this fun and not having a prior history of trying to strangle her or other kids.

So the Garrote is what keeps me from thinking it was the Ramseys. But then the RN brings me back. MOO

 

[LinasK]

Hmm so then why did he or she tie it to her wrist? If she was passed out tying it to her wrist makes no sense - tying it to her wrist to watch her pull and strangle herself as she struggled as well as twisting the garrote sounds right to me and was the plan or was to "look" like the plan. IMO

This was either a very sick intruder, a very sick daddy - or a very sick staging taken from something seen on tv or heard of. Can't imagine Burke thinking this fun and not having a prior history of trying to strangle her or other kids.

So the Garrote is what keeps me from thinking it was the Ramseys. But then the RN brings me back. MOO

When you have these possibilities, why wouldn't you think it was the Ramsey's? Noone wants to think of people being so sick, especially when they don't look evil (i.e. normal, wealthy looking), but that has nothing to do with what's inside of them/their character. Last night I was watching a Cold Case File segment on a pastor who murdered his wife because she discovered his huge phone bills to phone sex lines!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Okay,what I am going to say now is kinda crazy but here it goes.....what if someone (you know who) wanted her very badly BUT still couldn't do it (shame,fear,who knows),so she was hit in the head (the urge was getting too strong) because he couldn't do it while she was conscious (again shame,fear,etc)....and then after he was done he finished her off (to silence her OR becuase he couldn't face her after what he did to her).....
Some could say,well,what urge is that,she wasn't raped,only digitally penetrated,was just a little game.....well maybe he had problems...you know...getting it &*?

Does this makes sense?

Then where does the head bash fit in? The marks in her throat suggest the cord was not pulled and released repeatedly, as would be needed for erotic
asphyxiation. I see the scream coming as she was being penetrated. Then she was bashed to shut her up. The garrote seems to have been placed on an already STILL JB.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi, I'm new here so sorry if this is either the wrong spot or already been spoken about at length...

Firstly, like most of the posters here, I seem to be pointing at the parents. But I've not seen anyone provide what appears to be, for want of a better word, a suitable motive.

I know what counts as an acceptable motive is different in the mind/s of the actual killer, but we all seem reasonably convinced of who did it, I'm just keen to find the motive.

Indeed if it was an accident, a motive could have developed in order to protect other family members, but it seems like an awful risk if then more than one member may be found guilty in the future. That's keeping in mind most people don't do this sort of thing because they believe they will get caught, but you know what I mean.

Okay, enough rambling for a first post.

Motive is not always needed in murder cases. Not even in court. Sometimes there IS no motive. In a case like this, it seems that her death was not what was wanted, but it happened under "strained" circumstances which the parents could not or would not have wanted made known. So when it is described as an accident, it really is better to describe it as an UNINTENDED death rather than an accident. An accident needs no cover-up. An unintended death that was the result either of a rage attack or violent response to JB's reaction to sexual abuse WOULD need to be staged to look like something else, unless the parents would have to tell police how she ended up dead.
Actually, that was the entire case right there in that one sentence- "they would have to explain to police how their daughter ended up dead in her own home". That's why the phony ransom note was written, the phony 911 call placed and the reason why she was found strangled in her own home.
Now they didn't have to explain anything, because the note DID. She was taken (not really though) and killed because they called police.

 

[DeeDee249]

BTW, that's is also why the Rs never spent a moment or a penny to find the "real killer/intruder". There wasn't one. They DID spend on lawyers and PI to help with their defense, though....not that it was needed. There was never anyone with the guts to prosecute them.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi, I'm new here so sorry if this is either the wrong spot or already been spoken about at length...

Firstly, like most of the posters here, I seem to be pointing at the parents. But I've not seen anyone provide what appears to be, for want of a better word, a suitable motive.

I know what counts as an acceptable motive is different in the mind/s of the actual killer, but we all seem reasonably convinced of who did it, I'm just keen to find the motive.

Indeed if it was an accident, a motive could have developed in order to protect other family members, but it seems like an awful risk if then more than one member may be found guilty in the future. That's keeping in mind most people don't do this sort of thing because they believe they will get caught, but you know what I mean.

Okay, enough rambling for a first post.

wonderllama,
The staging in the wine-cellar is the key to the case. No intruder needs to perform a staging, he is simply required to make an entrance, commit his crime, and then exit asap.

Assuming a Ramsey Did It, then they too dont need to perform a staging since a sexual assault plus a homicide can be blamed on an intruder entering JonBenet's bedroom.

But prior molestation does need to be obscured, hence the possible motive for redressing JonBenet in size-12's and longjohns?

Fibers from Johns black israeli shirt were matched to fibers found on JonBenet's genitalia and fibers from Patsy's jacket were found embedded into the knotting on the garrote, despite Patsy stating she never visited the basement the previous night.

Whoever killed JonBenet knew the acute and chronic molestation would be revealed, it is this that underpins the motivation to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar.

.

 

[CathyR]

John Douglas stated several things that I find only in his book. A copy of Mindhunter was not in the items the police took from the home. Not in the list of items Pam removed from home. No evidence the R's had that book, before the crime, exists. Thomas stating he saw it is not enough as it was never taken into evidence and while the home still had all it's furnishings John Douglas toured it and looked at the crime scene. The hiring of John Douglas was done by the lawyers and they knew who he was the R's did not. He was not asked to do a profile just analysis of the evidence. He stated that the analysis may not be favorable to their clients but he would do it. He in so much as stated his opinion was not for sale at any price.


The only place where the information about the red fibers in the garrote are on an internet web site. I can not find any reference to them in Steve Thomas's book or in Schillers. book either. John Douglas does not refer to them and no other source quotes this as fact. I am very suspicious of this evidence as I can not confirm in from ANY other source.

Parents who don't even swat their kids on the bottom don't just snap and commit an act of violence, no behavior precipitates this. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and having never committed an act of violence towards their children and then commit one. It is acting out of character which is something people just don't do especially when under stress.

John was wearing a blue and white striped shirt and khaki pants when French arrived that morning. Not a black Israeli made shirt as reported.

John finds body-something an offender would not do-they would orchestrate the situation for someone else to find the body.

The body was not lovingly wrapped- the blanket covered her torso with her legs and arms extended sticking out. In parental or close family murders the body should be "cocooned" in the blanket not just having a blanket around the torso area. The blanket was used to try and hide her body and not an afterthought of guilt by a remorseful killer. Thomas tried to dispute this with Douglas and he (Douglas) explained the difference but Thomas continually ignored evidence that did not support his theory.

John unstages the scene when he finds JBR. He removes tape from her mouth, he loosens the knots at one wrist and removes it, he takes the blanket off her, he carries her upstairs. Why go to all the trouble of staging if you are going to unstage it later?

The experts who were consulted about prior sexual assault were contacted and asked (and paid) to come to that conclusion. The police had a theory and they tried to make the theory fit the crime. They did not allow the evidence to tell the story they just looked for experts to support the theory. No expert who examined JBR ( post and prior to her death) ever came to that conclusion.
The damage to her vaginal area was done that night and the evidence of prior abuse is only suggested by a few experts who were asked to come to that conclusion by people like Steve Thomas who looked for evidence to support his theory.

The DA and BPD had a war going long before this case came about.

The R's friend who was a lawyer(Bynum) was the one who hired lawyers for them, suggested they needed lawyers, and even went so far as to tell the police and DA's office that he was representing the R's BEFORE they even knew he was representing them.

 

[UKGuy]

John Douglas stated several things that I find only in his book. A copy of Mindhunter was not in the items the police took from the home. Not in the list of items Pam removed from home. No evidence the R's had that book, before the crime, exists. Thomas stating he saw it is not enough as it was never taken into evidence and while the home still had all it's furnishings John Douglas toured it and looked at the crime scene. The hiring of John Douglas was done by the lawyers and they knew who he was the R's did not. He was not asked to do a profile just analysis of the evidence. He stated that the analysis may not be favorable to their clients but he would do it. He in so much as stated his opinion was not for sale at any price.


The only place where the information about the red fibers in the garrote are on an internet web site. I can not find any reference to them in Steve Thomas's book or in Schillers. book either. John Douglas does not refer to them and no other source quotes this as fact. I am very suspicious of this evidence as I can not confirm in from ANY other source.

Parents who don't even swat their kids on the bottom don't just snap and commit an act of violence, no behavior precipitates this. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and having never committed an act of violence towards their children and then commit one. It is acting out of character which is something people just don't do especially when under stress.

John was wearing a blue and white striped shirt and khaki pants when French arrived that morning. Not a black Israeli made shirt as reported.

John finds body-something an offender would not do-they would orchestrate the situation for someone else to find the body.

The body was not lovingly wrapped- the blanket covered her torso with her legs and arms extended sticking out. In parental or close family murders the body should be "cocooned" in the blanket not just having a blanket around the torso area. The blanket was used to try and hide her body and not an afterthought of guilt by a remorseful killer. Thomas tried to dispute this with Douglas and he (Douglas) explained the difference but Thomas continually ignored evidence that did not support his theory.

John unstages the scene when he finds JBR. He removes tape from her mouth, he loosens the knots at one wrist and removes it, he takes the blanket off her, he carries her upstairs. Why go to all the trouble of staging if you are going to unstage it later?

The experts who were consulted about prior sexual assault were contacted and asked (and paid) to come to that conclusion. The police had a theory and they tried to make the theory fit the crime. They did not allow the evidence to tell the story they just looked for experts to support the theory. No expert who examined JBR ( post and prior to her death) ever came to that conclusion.
The damage to her vaginal area was done that night and the evidence of prior abuse is only suggested by a few experts who were asked to come to that conclusion by people like Steve Thomas who looked for evidence to support his theory.

The DA and BPD had a war going long before this case came about.

The R's friend who was a lawyer(Bynum) was the one who hired lawyers for them, suggested they needed lawyers, and even went so far as to tell the police and DA's office that he was representing the R's BEFORE they even knew he was representing them.

CathyR,
Here we go again. Just like MurriFlower same erroneous reasoning e.g. I've personally not seen the evidence so this absence allows me to assume it does not exist. Maybe you are all the same people attempting to deny the evidence?

The only place where the information about the red fibers in the garrote are on an internet web site. I can not find any reference to them in Steve Thomas's book or in Schillers. book either. John Douglas does not refer to them and no other source quotes this as fact. I am very suspicious of this evidence as I can not confirm in from ANY other source.

Patsy's 2000 Atlanta Interview, excerpt

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.

John was wearing a blue and white striped shirt and khaki pants when French arrived that morning. Not a black Israeli made shirt as reported.

Where is this reported? John wore a black israeli shirt to the Whites party, he appears in photographs taken by other guests.

John unstages the scene when he finds JBR. He removes tape from her mouth, he loosens the knots at one wrist and removes it, he takes the blanket off her, he carries her upstairs. Why go to all the trouble of staging if you are going to unstage it later?

Just so you could claim he must be innocent!

The experts who were consulted about prior sexual assault were contacted and asked (and paid) to come to that conclusion. The police had a theory and they tried to make the theory fit the crime. They did not allow the evidence to tell the story they just looked for experts to support the theory. No expert who examined JBR ( post and prior to her death) ever came to that conclusion.
The damage to her vaginal area was done that night and the evidence of prior abuse is only suggested by a few experts who were asked to come to that conclusion by people like Steve Thomas who looked for evidence to support his theory.

The police were not allowed to investigate your suggested evidence. The coroners autopsy report supports both acute and chronic sexual abuse.

http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

and...
JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 24. states:-

In mid-September, a panel pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaiginal trauma prior to the day she was killed

And JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 32. states:-

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarly for men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of jonBenet. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse although the detectives referred to it only as 'prior vaginal trauma.'

Holly Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all.

Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything.

Absence of evidence does not allow you to conclude this is evidence of absence since the forensic evidence has been sealed.


.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Great job, UKGuy. I would just add one more sentiment. John Ramsey himself told that the Ramsey team was hired to keep them out of prison. If you really believe they would have used one word John Douglas said (if it had pointed to the Ramseys), there is nothing that will convince you what happened here.
The very things that make me think the Ramseys are guilty can be found in John Douglas' book, "Mindhunter". This is why I can only come to one of two conclusions:
1- John Douglas lied about his opinion being for sale OR
2- I can disregard everything I read in "Mindhunter". Way too many coincendences in there for the average person, much less LE.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you have never read "Mindhunter", please take the next opportunity to do so. It's my opinion that if it's not better info than found in the JonBenet books, it's darn close.
Anyway, even if neither of the Ramseys read this book, it still would point to them, that's what gets me about John Douglas' opinion that the Ramseys are innocent. He had to disregard his own theories to reach that conclusion.

 

[BBB167893]

John Douglas stated several things that I find only in his book. A copy of Mindhunter was not in the items the police took from the home. Not in the list of items Pam removed from home. No evidence the R's had that book, before the crime, exists. Thomas stating he saw it is not enough as it was never taken into evidence and while the home still had all it's furnishings John Douglas toured it and looked at the crime scene. The hiring of John Douglas was done by the lawyers and they knew who he was the R's did not. He was not asked to do a profile just analysis of the evidence. He stated that the analysis may not be favorable to their clients but he would do it. He in so much as stated his opinion was not for sale at any price.


The only place where the information about the red fibers in the garrote are on an internet web site. I can not find any reference to them in Steve Thomas's book or in Schillers. book either. John Douglas does not refer to them and no other source quotes this as fact. I am very suspicious of this evidence as I can not confirm in from ANY other source.

Parents who don't even swat their kids on the bottom don't just snap and commit an act of violence, no behavior precipitates this. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and having never committed an act of violence towards their children and then commit one. It is acting out of character which is something people just don't do especially when under stress.

John was wearing a blue and white striped shirt and khaki pants when French arrived that morning. Not a black Israeli made shirt as reported.

John finds body-something an offender would not do-they would orchestrate the situation for someone else to find the body.

The body was not lovingly wrapped- the blanket covered her torso with her legs and arms extended sticking out. In parental or close family murders the body should be "cocooned" in the blanket not just having a blanket around the torso area. The blanket was used to try and hide her body and not an afterthought of guilt by a remorseful killer. Thomas tried to dispute this with Douglas and he (Douglas) explained the difference but Thomas continually ignored evidence that did not support his theory.

John unstages the scene when he finds JBR. He removes tape from her mouth, he loosens the knots at one wrist and removes it, he takes the blanket off her, he carries her upstairs. Why go to all the trouble of staging if you are going to unstage it later?

The experts who were consulted about prior sexual assault were contacted and asked (and paid) to come to that conclusion. The police had a theory and they tried to make the theory fit the crime. They did not allow the evidence to tell the story they just looked for experts to support the theory. No expert who examined JBR ( post and prior to her death) ever came to that conclusion.
The damage to her vaginal area was done that night and the evidence of prior abuse is only suggested by a few experts who were asked to come to that conclusion by people like Steve Thomas who looked for evidence to support his theory.

The DA and BPD had a war going long before this case came about.

The R's friend who was a lawyer(Bynum) was the one who hired lawyers for them, suggested they needed lawyers, and even went so far as to tell the police and DA's office that he was representing the R's BEFORE they even knew he was representing them.

You have some interesting ideas, CathyR. The problem with using Douglas as a source of information is that he can't be trusted. He made a fool out himself in this case and his ego wouldn't let him back off.

If I had a choice between Thomas and Douglas, it's pretty simple. Even if Douglas had NOT sold himself, on the one hand you have a dedicated detective who worked the case to the point of dropping and worked with an army of experts; on the other, you have a profiler who was condemned by all of his colleagues for breaking his own rules. Brent Turvey was one of them. Brent Turvey. In his book, Criminal Profiling, he had this to say:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

As I say in my own book, Douglas's ego is clearly out of control, made obvious by every interview he gives concerning the case. He advised the Boulder police to work with the FBI, then became angry when the FBI disagreed with him. One even said, "if the Ramseys aren't guilty, I'll turn in my credentials." He denies his own writings about staging to say that the scene wasn't staged, and seems to bear Det. Thomas a special grudge for having the temerity to point out how Douglas sold himself out like the worst *advertiser censored* in the street. I personally would consider it a badge of honor to be hated by this guy. He doesn't mention the other profilers, such as Turvey, McCrary, Ressler and Ron Walker, who go against him, though. I guess he figures it's easier to target a narcotics cop than to match wits with his fellows, who might actually know something about the profession.. Now he claims he took no money and never did any profile. He sure has a bad memory for a lawman.

 

[UKGuy]

Great job, UKGuy. I would just add one more sentiment. John Ramsey himself told that the Ramsey team was hired to keep them out of prison. If you really believe they would have used one word John Douglas said (if it had pointed to the Ramseys), there is nothing that will convince you what happened here.
The very things that make me think the Ramseys are guilty can be found in John Douglas' book, "Mindhunter". This is why I can only come to one of two conclusions:
1- John Douglas lied about his opinion being for sale OR
2- I can disregard everything I read in "Mindhunter". Way too many coincendences in there for the average person, much less LE.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you have never read "Mindhunter", please take the next opportunity to do so. It's my opinion that if it's not better info than found in the JonBenet books, it's darn close.
Anyway, even if neither of the Ramseys read this book, it still would point to them, that's what gets me about John Douglas' opinion that the Ramseys are innocent. He had to disregard his own theories to reach that conclusion.

joeskidbeck,
Thanks, I read his opinion that JonBenet's death was overkill and that the parents would never use that amount of violence never mind sexually assault their own daughter.

.

 

[GingBreade]

Not sure where to put this! PR interview: PR: And all that’s water under the dam and let’s start new. But I want to go together here. We got to, there’s somebody out there and I don’t want him to do it again, and heaven forbid, you know, if they are not found.

Heaven forbid he does it again! He's out there!

 

[joeskidbeck]

Not sure where to put this! PR interview: PR: And all that’s water under the dam and let’s start new. But I want to go together here. We got to, there’s somebody out there and I don’t want him to do it again, and heaven forbid, you know, if they are not found.

Heaven forbid he does it again! He's out there!

Hey GB! Maybe the fear of Patsy Ramsey "starting new" with LE scared this killer straight. Yeah, right.

 

[madeleine]

joeskidbeck,
Thanks, I read his opinion that JonBenet's death was overkill

maybe he got this part right

the parents would never use that amount of violence never mind sexually assault their own daughter.

.

this is BS and I am amazed he says it
and you don't have to be a profiler to know it,just check the news

 

[BBB167893]

this is BS and I am amazed he says it

So were his colleagues, maddy!

and you don't have to be a profiler to know it,just check the news

Good advice.

 

[txsvicki]

Since I'm wide awake with insomnia, been reading and thinking, so I'll go ahead and ask this: I know most all here think that Patsy did it, but does anyone think that with the recent questioning of Burke they might be taking another look at the cleaning lady? Some of her comments are pretty disturbing and out there IMO. Maybe she blabbed a lot about all the money the Ramseys had, his previous bonus, had a "friend" over during the day, etc. It's kind of odd that she'd know where Burke's knife was and placed it there in the linen cabinet. Now she's convinced that the dead woman did it and trying to convince others, but not John. I really think this will eventually be solved, and that John hasn't just been ignoring it all these years.

 

[DeeDee249]

Since I'm wide awake with insomnia, been reading and thinking, so I'll go ahead and ask this: I know most all here think that Patsy did it, but does anyone think that with the recent questioning of Burke they might be taking another look at the cleaning lady? Some of her comments are pretty disturbing and out there IMO. Maybe she blabbed a lot about all the money the Ramseys had, his previous bonus, had a "friend" over during the day, etc. It's kind of odd that she'd know where Burke's knife was and placed it there in the linen cabinet. Now she's convinced that the dead woman did it and trying to convince others, but not John. I really think this will eventually be solved, and that John hasn't just been ignoring it all these years.

The cleaning lady LHP knew where BR's knife was because she herself put it away there. Nothing suspicious about that.
While LHP and her family may seem "unsavory" to a lot of people. NOTHING links he to the crime. She (and her husband) gave DNA and writing samples to police. NO fibers, not a hair or speck of LHP's DNA were found on JB or anywhere else at the crime scene.
See- that is what rules her out for me. LHP was in that house three times a week, including just days before the crime. Her fibers, skin cells, prints and DNA are bound to be all over that house.
Yet- they are not actually found AT the crime scene or on the body.
By the same token, the parents' fibers, skin cells, prints and DNA would also be all over the house.
YET- they were NOT on some things they should have been- (The RN- it was Patsy's pad, and both parents said they read the note) and JB's longjohns- Patsy admitted putting them on her and JR carried her up from the basement holding her around the waist OVER her clothing.

And parents' fibers WERE in places they SHOULDN'T have been- places specific to the crime itself- the paint tote, the knot of the ligature, the sticky side of the tape that had been on her mouth, and the INSIDE of the crotch of panties that did not belong to JB and for which she had no other matching pairs of a 7-pair set).
Patsy's forearm hair found on the white blanket JB was wrapped in is something else to consider, however- even a freshly-laundered blanket may still have hair on it and Patsy obviously put the blanket on and off JB's bed sometimes. Interesting that LHP, who always made JB's bed up with fresh linens on the days she was there did NOT have any hair or fiber found on that blanket. Nor was any hair belonging to any unknown person found there.

 

[minazoe]

has anyone ever brought up Patsy as the actual sexual abuser? If we have to theorize all possibilities..could Patsy herself have abused Jon Benet? I know this would be rare, but I beleive in the case of Sybil this was the case. Also recently we had that bizarre case of the young woman who abused and murdered a little neighbor girl.

Patsy was the person in charge of objectifying Jon Benet as a pageant doll.

Has anyone ever thought of Patsy having an exxagerated form of Munchaussen?

Could Patsy have been attention seeking? objectifying her child, sexualizing her child, taking the child to the doctor for po po probs, while she herself is having female probs?
abusing and murdering her child and writing a letter for ransom to get attention and pity?

surely you can't deny that Patsy made quite the grieving figure in her Jackie O glasses.

such a bizarre case.



I still have many questions, and I may have aked this before, but, I wonder what kinds of drugs Patsy was taking for her cancer. I also wonder what Patsy's childhood medical records reveal about her.