Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Anti-K]

Do you think the letter is intentionally suspicious to frame them? Is that why it's copied to their pad (or the pad is removed and brought back)? That seems so passive aggressive to me. I have a hard time putting that sort of angry together with murder of a child. I also don't see how someone would think, even on their pad and all that, that blaming an intruder would point the finger at the parents. There's got to be much better ways of framing people for something.

I have no idea. All I’m certain of is IDI; and, my own fallibility as a theorist. I’ll try to answer anyway, but, I’m going to frame my answers within the context of my own fav “theory.”

No, I don’t think there was an intent to specifically frame the Ramseys, and, I don’t think there was any anger present (at least, no anger directed towards them).

If the killer used Mindhunter and similar as a template than ït does make perfect sense that “blaming an intruder would point the finger at the parents.” I mean, who do you think did it? The parents. Why? Because you think the parents (or, one of them) wrote the note!
This “theory” could be wrong, but, it doesn’t make IDI wrong, IDI is
not dependant upon me. I’m just a poster.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

I have more than one theory, but my main and fav “theory” is here (4 parts) http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh:

You read it, and you wrote this in response: “thanks for taking the time to share your theories and your perspective on the ransom note. It's certainly a lot to think about.” Http://tinyurl.com/j848z2a

So, why are you now acting like you never read it? If you don’t understand it or want to discuss it (or, point out why it’s wrong), then we can do that; but, please, don’t pretend like you don’t know about it when you already commented on it.
AK

I did read this. I wasn't pretending not to - I simply thought it wasn't a complete theory, (it didn't explain a timeline very well) and also it was in an IDI only section so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to fully comment on it in any thread. I'm still not sure how that works. Since you said it's okay, I will comment here on your thread only, not other IDI posts in the thread in question.

When I first read it, and read it again now to refresh my memory, I felt like this was quite the reach. It reads more like someone analyzing a book for English. If this was a fictional work, this analysis is wonderful and I'd be on board for a cool 'fan theory' for a fictional crime book. For real life, this just doesn't work out. It's too tin-foil-hat for real life and analyzing a real life situation. Real life isn't nearly as rife with metaphors and references to film and literature.

I'm aware that lines from the note sound similar to popular films. As someone who used to write for fun, let me say, these lines are hackney and the reason they are cliche is actually because they come so readily to one's mind when imagining what a kidnapper might say. If they started quoting Pulp Fiction or whatever I'd be like, okay this person was referencing a movie. This is because Pulp Fiction goes against the norm in many respects and uses distinctive dialogue. The other films are 'classic kidnapper' stuff, because they're not unique or special, they're just typical bad guy lingo from your dime a dozen kidnapper trope.

You bring up things that point so clearly to the Ramsey's and then keep denying the Ramsey's are involved. You say early on that some mothers have committed crimes very similar to this, even including ransom notes with a dead child wrapped in a blanket, but then for some reason you think this is why the Ramsey's didn't do it? You think the Ramsey's should be extremely familiar with this knowledge and I guess have it on hand for that one time they never imagined would ever happen to them?

Why wouldn't they make the same dumb mistakes that are the clear giveaways that other parents/spouses made? Why are they above everything? I feel like many IDI put them on a pedestal, and think they can do no wrong, or think they are way too smart to do this or that. They seem pretty average to me to be honest. John is obviously business savy, shown by his success, but that doesn't mean he knows what things to avoid in a coverup or staging. (For myself I'm still unsure what role John played). And Patsy strikes me as being educated but rather average. And she wasn't educated in criminal law or forensics or anything. So to you, it's like they wouldn't have committed this crime because they knew better. To me, it's that there's no reason why they should know better. If they were in LE or something, yeah, but they weren't.

You say there was clear evidence of staging, which I agree with. But instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Ramsey's did the staging, you conclude someone else did it as part of a sort of demented obsession with a book they read and a desire to play a murder game in real life with real humans. The easier explanation is the staging was done by the Ramsey's. It's a clear motive (not get caught) and it's something everyone's seen a million times before.

Also, if what you wrote is true, this person is beyond unhinged. This person was playing a murder mystery game with actual live human beings. This person who did it would belong in a psychiatric ward, unfit for society, yet they only do this one thing and never play murder games again. If this theory is right it would have been meticulously planned - something someone who plays murder 'games' with people couldn't be capable of accomplishing. They also never commit any crime again, or else the unidentified DNA would be matched. But... this doesn't fit the profile of a psychotic person. Psychotic people are not afraid of getting caught, not law abiding, and not very good at keeping their mouths shut. Most of the time it's because they don't even realize what they're doing it wrong. They don't even know right from wrong for themselves or others in society. They don't even hide it when they kill, steal, set fires, etc.

So basically your motive appears to be general insanity, but the killer's careful behaviour and staging says anything but insanity. Also this theory doesn't explain too many details of the crime scene. It doesn't explain how a lunatic was able to feed JBR a snack without her screaming as he rambled on about Bible verses or whatever... it doesn't explain how he could have known the location of all of these items he used in the home, especially that messy and maze-like basement... it doesn't explain how he got JBR from her bed without her screaming or parents hearing... it doesn't explain why Patsy's side of the bed wasn't slept in, and why Patsy's Christmas outfit sweater was all over the tape, the rope, the paint tote, and the blanket.

I feel like basically you are seeing the same things as RDI's in many respects, but you are coming up with a very off the wall explanation. It's not a contest of who can be the most creative, it really should be much more logical than that. I think we both agree generally that we see Z, but you point to A, if that makes sense.

 

[Annapurna]

I totally agree andreww and BOESP. I think the "no fingerprints" is kind of a red herring. The batteries could have been factory inserted, or if not think about how you slide the batteries out of your fingers when loading a flashlight. This process of sliding the battery would smudge the fingerprint beyond usability.

Thanks B for the correct weight on that flashlight. That just cemented in my mind that it was not the murder weapon. I'm starting to come around to your side about the low velocity, high pressure wound. I wonder if this idea of her being thrown would explain those mysterious marks on her face. If they are bruises as well as abrasions, which the color suggests and the AR states (abrasions) this could be consistent with hitting something with some force. I know we say that she doesn't appear to have the right type of injuries for this, but she does have some mysterious bruises that I often forget to take into account.

The placement of the flashlight reminds me very much of the pineapple set-up. It wasn't seen by the stager as particularly important, and therefore forgotten. Little did they know the importance it would take to those who study the case.


andreww would you mind linking me the source to that experiment? If the flashlight was indeed used I have trouble believing it could have been wielded by a child. I'm no physicist but it just seems like an incredible amount of force required.

 

[Broken Angel]

Hello, I'm new at posting on this forum but I've been researching the Ramsey's case for about 10 years (I am younger than JBR would be) and I have to admit for the first few years I believed an intruder killed JonBenét. Until I started looking at the facts...

 

[Ellie9]

Hello, I'm new at posting on this forum but I've been researching the Ramsey's case for about 10 years (I am younger than JBR would be) and I have to admit for the first few years I believed an intruder killed JonBenét. Until I started looking at the facts...

Nice to meet you! I have a similar situation. At first thought there was no way R's did anything like this, but then the facts seemed to prove me wrong, so I switched to the more logical side of things.

 

[InstantProof]

I did read this. I wasn't pretending not to - I simply thought it wasn't a complete theory, (it didn't explain a timeline very well) and also it was in an IDI only section so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to fully comment on it in any thread. I'm still not sure how that works. Since you said it's okay, I will comment here on your thread only, not other IDI posts in the thread in question.

When I first read it, and read it again now to refresh my memory, I felt like this was quite the reach. It reads more like someone analyzing a book for English. If this was a fictional work, this analysis is wonderful and I'd be on board for a cool 'fan theory' for a fictional crime book. For real life, this just doesn't work out. It's too tin-foil-hat for real life and analyzing a real life situation. Real life isn't nearly as rife with metaphors and references to film and literature.

I'm aware that lines from the note sound similar to popular films. As someone who used to write for fun, let me say, these lines are hackney and the reason they are cliche is actually because they come so readily to one's mind when imagining what a kidnapper might say. If they started quoting Pulp Fiction or whatever I'd be like, okay this person was referencing a movie. This is because Pulp Fiction goes against the norm in many respects and uses distinctive dialogue. The other films are 'classic kidnapper' stuff, because they're not unique or special, they're just typical bad guy lingo from your dime a dozen kidnapper trope.

You bring up things that point so clearly to the Ramsey's and then keep denying the Ramsey's are involved. You say early on that some mothers have committed crimes very similar to this, even including ransom notes with a dead child wrapped in a blanket, but then for some reason you think this is why the Ramsey's didn't do it? You think the Ramsey's should be extremely familiar with this knowledge and I guess have it on hand for that one time they never imagined would ever happen to them?

Why wouldn't they make the same dumb mistakes that are the clear giveaways that other parents/spouses made? Why are they above everything? I feel like many IDI put them on a pedestal, and think they can do no wrong, or think they are way too smart to do this or that. They seem pretty average to me to be honest. John is obviously business savy, shown by his success, but that doesn't mean he knows what things to avoid in a coverup or staging. (For myself I'm still unsure what role John played). And Patsy strikes me as being educated but rather average. And she wasn't educated in criminal law or forensics or anything. So to you, it's like they wouldn't have committed this crime because they knew better. To me, it's that there's no reason why they should know better. If they were in LE or something, yeah, but they weren't.

You say there was clear evidence of staging, which I agree with. But instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Ramsey's did the staging, you conclude someone else did it as part of a sort of demented obsession with a book they read and a desire to play a murder game in real life with real humans. The easier explanation is the staging was done by the Ramsey's. It's a clear motive (not get caught) and it's something everyone's seen a million times before.

Also, if what you wrote is true, this person is beyond unhinged. This person was playing a murder mystery game with actual live human beings. This person who did it would belong in a psychiatric ward, unfit for society, yet they only do this one thing and never play murder games again. If this theory is right it would have been meticulously planned - something someone who plays murder 'games' with people couldn't be capable of accomplishing. They also never commit any crime again, or else the unidentified DNA would be matched. But... this doesn't fit the profile of a psychotic person. Psychotic people are not afraid of getting caught, not law abiding, and not very good at keeping their mouths shut. Most of the time it's because they don't even realize what they're doing it wrong. They don't even know right from wrong for themselves or others in society. They don't even hide it when they kill, steal, set fires, etc.

So basically your motive appears to be general insanity, but the killer's careful behaviour and staging says anything but insanity. Also this theory doesn't explain too many details of the crime scene. It doesn't explain how a lunatic was able to feed JBR a snack without her screaming as he rambled on about Bible verses or whatever... it doesn't explain how he could have known the location of all of these items he used in the home, especially that messy and maze-like basement... it doesn't explain how he got JBR from her bed without her screaming or parents hearing... it doesn't explain why Patsy's side of the bed wasn't slept in, and why Patsy's Christmas outfit sweater was all over the tape, the rope, the paint tote, and the blanket.

I feel like basically you are seeing the same things as RDI's in many respects, but you are coming up with a very off the wall explanation. It's not a contest of who can be the most creative, it really should be much more logical than that. I think we both agree generally that we see Z, but you point to A, if that makes sense.

I agree there's only so much you can write in a ransom note (faked for this crime, or written by a screenwriter) and movie connections are probably a red herring.
The R's may possibly have been too smart for this crime scene, on a normal day, but it should be considered that one of them or both of them (depending on theory) may have been traumatized, scared, in shock etc. You don't always do sensible things under those conditions.

 

[Anti-K]

This is really hard to understand here. There were rough drafts done, one small draft left in the tablet itself. With so much planning ahead and time, why did the intruder bother? Also, he broke in twice (at least), both times leaving no mark or evidence? The only part of this I can say could work is that I guess it's possible people wouldn't notice one tablet and pen missing for a while. Otherwise, this is kind of a messy theory imo.

Also, why would a kidnapper write a ransom note if he wanted the girl dead anyway (according to your other post). If the person was doing this to hurt the parents, or one parent, they would have left the body on display and wouldn't have done anything to cover the child in a blanket, re-dress her, etc. I can only see cleaning the body as something he would have done to erase evidence. However, he then hides the body in one of the best/most remote hiding places in the house honestly... and still leaves a note.... it just doesn't really add up.

What is your theory exactly? He planned a murder so wrote a note in advance?

And how could one go walking around with a small strip of duct tape? I don't get this. He managed to climb into a tiny basement window through a tiny window grate cover thing, all while not making this tape unsticky or folded up into itself? And then doesn't even need the tape?

What exactly is the main idea behind your theory? I'm getting very confused by it to be honest.

I meant to address this: he broke in twice (at least), both times leaving no mark or evidence?

From the Smit deposition: …a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.
.
If IDI, I don’t think the window was used that night, but I do agree that it had been used recently. And, I’m not taking about Mr Ramsey’s entry earlier in the year. Anyway, I don’t know if there was an earlier entry, but, there is evidence seemingly consistent with one.

if you use my “theory” of intent as a key, the so-called practice note is an intentional creation left for investigators (like the note itself, and the brush end in the paint tote, etc).
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I did read this. I wasn't pretending not to - I simply thought it wasn't a complete theory, (it didn't explain a timeline very well) and also it was in an IDI only section so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to fully comment on it in any thread. I'm still not sure how that works. Since you said it's okay, I will comment here on your thread only, not other IDI posts in the thread in question.

When I first read it, and read it again now to refresh my memory, I felt like this was quite the reach. It reads more like someone analyzing a book for English. If this was a fictional work, this analysis is wonderful and I'd be on board for a cool 'fan theory' for a fictional crime book. For real life, this just doesn't work out. It's too tin-foil-hat for real life and analyzing a real life situation. Real life isn't nearly as rife with metaphors and references to film and literature.

I'm aware that lines from the note sound similar to popular films. As someone who used to write for fun, let me say, these lines are hackney and the reason they are cliche is actually because they come so readily to one's mind when imagining what a kidnapper might say. If they started quoting Pulp Fiction or whatever I'd be like, okay this person was referencing a movie. This is because Pulp Fiction goes against the norm in many respects and uses distinctive dialogue. The other films are 'classic kidnapper' stuff, because they're not unique or special, they're just typical bad guy lingo from your dime a dozen kidnapper trope.

You bring up things that point so clearly to the Ramsey's and then keep denying the Ramsey's are involved. You say early on that some mothers have committed crimes very similar to this, even including ransom notes with a dead child wrapped in a blanket, but then for some reason you think this is why the Ramsey's didn't do it? You think the Ramsey's should be extremely familiar with this knowledge and I guess have it on hand for that one time they never imagined would ever happen to them?

Why wouldn't they make the same dumb mistakes that are the clear giveaways that other parents/spouses made? Why are they above everything? I feel like many IDI put them on a pedestal, and think they can do no wrong, or think they are way too smart to do this or that. They seem pretty average to me to be honest. John is obviously business savy, shown by his success, but that doesn't mean he knows what things to avoid in a coverup or staging. (For myself I'm still unsure what role John played). And Patsy strikes me as being educated but rather average. And she wasn't educated in criminal law or forensics or anything. So to you, it's like they wouldn't have committed this crime because they knew better. To me, it's that there's no reason why they should know better. If they were in LE or something, yeah, but they weren't.

You say there was clear evidence of staging, which I agree with. But instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Ramsey's did the staging, you conclude someone else did it as part of a sort of demented obsession with a book they read and a desire to play a murder game in real life with real humans. The easier explanation is the staging was done by the Ramsey's. It's a clear motive (not get caught) and it's something everyone's seen a million times before.

Also, if what you wrote is true, this person is beyond unhinged. This person was playing a murder mystery game with actual live human beings. This person who did it would belong in a psychiatric ward, unfit for society, yet they only do this one thing and never play murder games again. If this theory is right it would have been meticulously planned - something someone who plays murder 'games' with people couldn't be capable of accomplishing. They also never commit any crime again, or else the unidentified DNA would be matched. But... this doesn't fit the profile of a psychotic person. Psychotic people are not afraid of getting caught, not law abiding, and not very good at keeping their mouths shut. Most of the time it's because they don't even realize what they're doing it wrong. They don't even know right from wrong for themselves or others in society. They don't even hide it when they kill, steal, set fires, etc.

So basically your motive appears to be general insanity, but the killer's careful behaviour and staging says anything but insanity. Also this theory doesn't explain too many details of the crime scene. It doesn't explain how a lunatic was able to feed JBR a snack without her screaming as he rambled on about Bible verses or whatever... it doesn't explain how he could have known the location of all of these items he used in the home, especially that messy and maze-like basement... it doesn't explain how he got JBR from her bed without her screaming or parents hearing... it doesn't explain why Patsy's side of the bed wasn't slept in, and why Patsy's Christmas outfit sweater was all over the tape, the rope, the paint tote, and the blanket.

I feel like basically you are seeing the same things as RDI's in many respects, but you are coming up with a very off the wall explanation. It's not a contest of who can be the most creative, it really should be much more logical than that. I think we both agree generally that we see Z, but you point to A, if that makes sense.

Thanks Ellie9.

The "theory" (did you read all 4 parts?) ASSUMES IDI and is it NOT meant to prove IDI or disprove or address RDI. My remarks about what the Ramsey's would not do was in response to the early day rumor that Douglas' "Mindhunter" was found in the Ramsey home. I'm simply noting that if they had a book that said parents give themselves away by doing A. B and C, they, if guilty, would avoid doing A, B and C. That seems obvious to me.

The parents described in Mindhunter report fake kidnappings because they've disposed of the body. Big difference here!

Some of your objections - no timeline, how did he find his way, etc have all been addressed elsewhere. I have gone so far as to, with aid, re-enact many aspects of the crime so that I could time them. I can repost this if you're interested.

I also have detailed instructions on how to navigate the house without having been in it before. I have scenarios that use different starting points - back door, basement, garage door, etc. All easy.

I also have posted and can repost directions on how easily items could have been found. I can repost this, too. If you want.

Some things that you wrote had nothing to do with what I said in the "theory." For example, I rejected all movie references except Dirty Harry (which I write about in some detail).

This "theory" uses the ransom note as a key. So, I agree that parts of it read sort of like a book analysis.

Other than the RDI part of it, I'm somewhat in agreement with your assessment of the Ramsey's. But, once again, this "theory" ASSUMES IDI and is not meant to disprove or address RDI in any meaningful way.

Also, this is NOT a theory of motive but is a theory of INTENT.

There is no pineapple as I do not believe that it is associated with the crime.

I didn't address everything I wanted to. No worries, I think we'll be discussing this for awhile.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

BTW, I think this “theory” of intent is a little simpler than it might seem. The killer created a crime specifically for profilers; the crime was designed to lead them towards a conclusion. That’s it.
...

AK

 

[Annapurna]

The bit about 'Mindhunter' is a bit much. These people weren't studying the text or using it for reference that night. Is that even a fact that they had it? If they did, John read it not PR. Regardless, they were never convicted so who's to say it didn't work?


This crime was indeed planned to lead LE to a conclusion, a false one that preserved the innocence of the family. It only half worked. Do you honestly believe its more likely a killer created a crime for "specifically for profilers" than someone close to the child who didn't want to be punished for her death? Thats ridiculous.

You think someone planned out a "Murder Mystery" full of subterfuge and obfuscation, going so far as to break in the house just to steal paper. You recognize the staging, yet you perform such mental gymnastics to fit this into a theory. You think it is more likely that someone intentionally and carefully staged a kidnapping poorly, than the idea that someone in her family tried to stage a kidnapping badly?

What confuses me the most is the evidence you do acknowledge: That the scene is staged, the kidnapping scenario is fake, there was a practice note, that the note was intended to confuse LE, the manner of death is suggestive of someone with "personal cause" etc. and this somehow points away from the Ramseys???

I'm honestly baffled by your logic. You seem reasonable, you clearly research and enjoy debating. So why do you feel the need to make this crime so....cartoonish? Its like you see and recognize the evidence in this case but instead of arriving at the obvious conclusion you take the extra step to make it even more "mysterious" so it can be an intruder.


Ok so you're saying this is just the "intent", and its already illogical and nonsensical. A mastermind psychopath who is an expert in criminal profiling, knows how to control every element of the case and wants to harm a little girl. So how was this person supposed to have pulled it all off? How can you make this theory fit the timeline? I guess when your suspect is a Scooby Doo villain you can make them do anything you want, it doesn't have to make any real world sense.

I'm not trying to attack you, I read your theory looking for what gives you such conviction about this case that you come here to debate daily. I don't think you're stupid, so I wanted to see what you believe. I cannot find any logic in what you are saying. Most of your posts are reasonable and thought provoking, good for debating, but when I see this theory I'm only reminded of the lengths one has to go to for the intruder theory to work. Why is it harder for you to believe a family member killed this little girl, perhaps by accident, than a super-genius psychopath who just happened to target the R's?

 

[TeaTime]

Why would the IDI ransom note read "get plenty of rest"? Supposedly, it was left for PR to find when she went downstairs in the morning, after waking. Even if The Perp didn't know what time she would do this, The Perp was going to call at 10am and between finding the note and the 10am call, JR was to get $118K from his account. Where is the time for rest? When does the bank open, 8 or 9 am? So where is this time for 'rest" before the exhausting delivery?

The way it reads is that it was written before they went to bed and almost an affirmative note to self to "get some rest, if you can, tomorrow is going to be a long day". At midnight, one might be thinking of how tired they are and that they need to rest before starting the show. But The Perp who plans that they won't see the note until 6 or 7am isn't going to say 'get some rest' before the 10am call.

It is drama mama PR.

 

[Anti-K]

The bit about 'Mindhunter' is a bit much. These people weren't studying the text or using it for reference that night. Is that even a fact that they had it? If they did, John read it not PR. Regardless, they were never convicted so who's to say it didn't work?


This crime was indeed planned to lead LE to a conclusion, a false one that preserved the innocence of the family. It only half worked. Do you honestly believe its more likely a killer created a crime for "specifically for profilers" than someone close to the child who didn't want to be punished for her death? Thats ridiculous.

You think someone planned out a "Murder Mystery" full of subterfuge and obfuscation, going so far as to break in the house just to steal paper. You recognize the staging, yet you perform such mental gymnastics to fit this into a theory. You think it is more likely that someone intentionally and carefully staged a kidnapping poorly, than the idea that someone in her family tried to stage a kidnapping badly?

What confuses me the most is the evidence you do acknowledge: That the scene is staged, the kidnapping scenario is fake, there was a practice note, that the note was intended to confuse LE, the manner of death is suggestive of someone with "personal cause" etc. and this somehow points away from the Ramseys???

I'm honestly baffled by your logic. You seem reasonable, you clearly research and enjoy debating. So why do you feel the need to make this crime so....cartoonish? Its like you see and recognize the evidence in this case but instead of arriving at the obvious conclusion you take the extra step to make it even more "mysterious" so it can be an intruder.


Ok so you're saying this is just the "intent", and its already illogical and nonsensical. A mastermind psychopath who is an expert in criminal profiling, knows how to control every element of the case and wants to harm a little girl. So how was this person supposed to have pulled it all off? How can you make this theory fit the timeline? I guess when your suspect is a Scooby Doo villain you can make them do anything you want, it doesn't have to make any real world sense.

I'm not trying to attack you, I read your theory looking for what gives you such conviction about this case that you come here to debate daily. I don't think you're stupid, so I wanted to see what you believe. I cannot find any logic in what you are saying. Most of your posts are reasonable and thought provoking, good for debating, but when I see this theory I'm only reminded of the lengths one has to go to for the intruder theory to work. Why is it harder for you to believe a family member killed this little girl, perhaps by accident, than a super-genius psychopath who just happened to target the R's?

I’m not sure how to approach an answer because I think I could answer in a lot of different ways (remember my “theory” is only speculation and this is only one of my theories. I’m like Ellie9, 99.9999% sure of my position, I’m just not sure about the details. also, remember that this “theory” ASSUMES IDI, and is not meant to prove IDI or disprove or address RDI).

I want to say that I find it hard to believe “a family member killed this little girl, perhaps by accident” simply because the evidence does not support it: the evidence strongly suggests (IMO beyond doubt) that she was struck an intentional, massive and precise blow and that she was intentionally asphyxiated to death. She was intentionally murdered – twice. She was also intentionally sexually assaulted with an object at or near point of death.

So, now I have to believe that a family member intentionally killed this little girl and that they killed her twice and in an extreme fashion, plus, you know – the penetration. Okay. That could happen. But, it takes a special kind of person to do these things to their own child (or, to anyone!), and investigation did not show these to be those kinds of people. Investigation showed them to be good, loving parents. Even Kolar said so.

The Ramseys must be amongst the most heavily investigated persons ever and nothing has ever been found that shows that these specific people, the Ramseys, were capable of performing these extreme acts upon anyone, never mind their own child. Yes, they might be capable anyway, but the evidence shows the opposite. Evidence over theory, Occams Razor (apologies to Ellie9).

But, it isn’t a family member vs a super-genius psychopath. I envision someone with average intelligence but with some expertise “real or imagined” in a particular field (let’s say, Law enforcement and tactics). A psychopath? Sure, why not? I mean, maybe. Certainly something similar.

What strikes me is that evidence seems to have been intentionally created. For example, the ransom note, the so-called practice note; the garrote handle, the brush end in the paint tote. Some things seem to have been removed from the house, but items intentionally created, that connect the note and the garrote to the house are left behind. An intruder leaving behind items that connect the note and the murder weapon to the house (therefore, not to him) makes perfect sense, but a Ramsey... Occams razor, IDI hands down.

If something is intentionally created, it implies purpose.

Consider the wrist ligatures. IMO, these are fixed loops. You can’t tie them around something. You have to tie them first, then you slip them over. The arms are raised above the head. Look at me! Investigators should have found that body. Look at me! Check out the extreme force applied with the ligature. So tight. Embedded. Not even noticed at first because of it. Look at the wrist ligatures. Night and day.

Consider what the FBI said (paraphrased), if this was staging it was staging unlike any they had seen before; this looked like staging within staging.

IMO the wrist ligatures and the tape (as example) were staged so that investigators would easily deduce that they were staged. Everyone knows how to restrain someone by tying them up, even if they wouldn’t be able to pull it off very well. We all know what this should look like. This looks OBVIOULSY fake. Arms raised, look at me! Note brings investigators to crime scene and preserves it for their discovery (should have happened!). Look at me. Note is constructed to make investigators suspicious. Look at me. The items removed, the items used, the placement of items, the note and body in house, the acts committed, on and one – one single, simple IDI explanation: look at me!
…


AK

 

[UKGuy]

Why would the IDI ransom note read "get plenty of rest"? Supposedly, it was left for PR to find when she went downstairs in the morning, after waking. Even if The Perp didn't know what time she would do this, The Perp was going to call at 10am and between finding the note and the 10am call, JR was to get $118K from his account. Where is the time for rest? When does the bank open, 8 or 9 am? So where is this time for 'rest" before the exhausting delivery?

The way it reads is that it was written before they went to bed and almost an affirmative note to self to "get some rest, if you can, tomorrow is going to be a long day". At midnight, one might be thinking of how tired they are and that they need to rest before starting the show. But The Perp who plans that they won't see the note until 6 or 7am isn't going to say 'get some rest' before the 10am call.

It is drama mama PR.

TeaTime,
Yikes its Boxing Day, and the Foreign Fiction, sorry Faction want their money!

Jeremy Bentham says its all nonsense on stilts.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Why would the IDI ransom note read "get plenty of rest"? Supposedly, it was left for PR to find when she went downstairs in the morning, after waking. Even if The Perp didn't know what time she would do this, The Perp was going to call at 10am and between finding the note and the 10am call, JR was to get $118K from his account. Where is the time for rest? When does the bank open, 8 or 9 am? So where is this time for 'rest" before the exhausting delivery?

The way it reads is that it was written before they went to bed and almost an affirmative note to self to "get some rest, if you can, tomorrow is going to be a long day". At midnight, one might be thinking of how tired they are and that they need to rest before starting the show. But The Perp who plans that they won't see the note until 6 or 7am isn't going to say 'get some rest' before the 10am call.

It is drama mama PR.

I interpret that part as Patsy communicating that she had told John sometime between 8 and 10 on 25 Dec to take JonBenet to bed. The delivery will be exhausting = JonBenet is sleepy. And she told him that he'd better get to bed too = so I advise you to be rested.

 

[curiousjo]

My theories -
1. I think PR killed JB. Motive? I am not sure...
-Accident: PR was angry that JB would not go to bed, wet her pants, or was in bed with son......
-Intentional: PR wanted to hurt her husband, JB dead, and all the attention to herself.
**PR was pathologically jealous of JB. Everyone was giving JB all the attention, including her husband. PR was the ex beauty queen trophy wife. She had cancer. She should be getting the attention and pity. With JB out of the picture, then she would be the star again.
**JR is a pedophile. He has 2 daughters that died! That is VERY ODD. Maybe he molested the older girl, then "messed with the car breaks" before she talked. PR noticed his sexual interest in JB. Maybe he had molested her(and she was "soiled") or he was intending to molest her. PR realized this. She had cancer. He wasn't having sexual relations with PR anymore. PR was angry. She wanted to solve the problem and decided to sacrifice her angel JB on Xmas.
--Either way, this would have been planned, not accidental.

2. Alternative: Son is psychopath and killed JB - because he was sick of the attention she stole from him. Parents covered up for him.
======================================================
The ransom note is such a give away!! PR wrote it all by herself. She practiced the note. Its too long. Ransom is an odd number AND happens to be the exact sum of his work bonus - known by very few! JR not involved in note, or he would have said no note or short and sweet - and a whole number 100K ransom.

The fact that JR called his pilot is odd. Most people would want to stay with the police in hopes of finding the perpetrator that killed their child! Fleeing like OJ is a red flag!

 

[InstantProof]

I interpret that part as Patsy communicating that she had told John sometime between 8 and 10 on 25 Dec to take JonBenet to bed. The delivery will be exhausting = JonBenet is sleepy. And she told him that he'd better get to bed too = so I advise you to be rested.

Running the case through my head a day or two ago I came to this conclusion for the first time. Patsy possibly told John "I advise you to be well rested" because of the trip, and then it's in the letter along with a lot of other husband/wife stuff to clue him in that she wrote it. That's the only reason I can think of to write that sort of stuff. Unless she really wanted to play games with the police, but I doubt that. So if it's clues for John, what could she have been thinking? Was she desperate to not have to tell him what happened? But also to get him to go along with the kidnapping farce? Maybe leave it for him to find while she "sleeps" so she can remove herself, but he didn't come down when she anticipated? Or got up too early? So I was thinking maybe she wrote the letter and expected he could remove the body, get the money at the bank (small amount- his bonus) ditch the money and recover the body. But he didn't catch on immediately and Patsy panicked, or he refused to go along and told her to call the police or he would- but she calls and mentions the letter. Which now makes no sense. By the time police come, I think at the very least he knows she is involved, if nothing else.

 

[InstantProof]

So, now I have to believe that a family member intentionally killed this little girl and that they killed her twice and in an extreme fashion, plus, you know – the penetration. Okay. That could happen. But, it takes a special kind of person to do these things to their own child (or, to anyone!), and investigation did not show these to be those kinds of people. Investigation showed them to be good, loving parents. Even Kolar said so.

The Ramseys must be amongst the most heavily investigated persons ever and nothing has ever been found that shows that these specific people, the Ramseys, were capable of performing these extreme acts upon anyone, never mind their own child. Yes, they might be capable anyway, but the evidence shows the opposite. Evidence over theory, Occams Razor (apologies to Ellie9).



AK

Maybe I watch too much true crime but I would never say somebody is not capable of murder. I think dysfunction in the family built up and paved the way to whatever took place.

 

[Ellie9]

I feel like some posters may be going a little too out there with some of the lines in the ransom note. I think it's just a good display of amateur hour personally. Some lines may have been used as a hopeful wish for extra time or to not be questioned going around with a large bag. But, most of it honestly I think is just someone pretending to be a kidnapper, from the movies, and failing embarrassingly.

 

[Ringfinger]

I feel like some posters may be going a little too out there with some of the lines in the ransom note. I think it's just a good display of amateur hour personally. Some lines may have been used as a hopeful wish for extra time or to not be questioned going around with a large bag. But, most of it honestly I think is just someone pretending to be a kidnapper, from the movies, and failing embarrassingly.

I agree 100%

i fortet get the exact quote, but the "get some rest" was taken from a movie. I think most of these type of lines are deep in all of our subconscious minds from watching movies, and now they just sound like what a kidnapper would write.

The person writing this is being emotional at times. They are incredibly cold and distant when it comes to JB, but they seem to be emotionally connected to. JR. As we spoke of before, it's very telling that they "respect" Access Graphics, and they start off with anger towards the US. That part tells me that the person would not like to see any of this affect business at Acess Graphics, which was the hand that fed many people, some more than others.

After spending some time researching this case, it becomes clear that the Rs felt like outsiders in Boulder. They seem to feel like the liberal north had already persecuted them from the start. Their way of dealing with it seemed to be an attempt to out show and outshine everyone. I feel like in their minds they got a bit of a kick out of all this drama and rivalry. They probably had a vision of grand enemies that didn't even exist, as the world seemed to revolve around at least one of them in their own mind. It would be easy for that particular R to write a letter that showed a bit of that hostility that maybe they amplified in their imaginations to begin with. It appeared that the other R was very much interested in joining these really big "fat cats" more than anything else.

Maybe JR didn't tell PR about the bonus and she found out. Maybe a bit of that spite found its way into the note. Or maybe that amount cast suspicion on a disgruntled employee from AG. It definitely doesn't help the idea of it being a stranger.

The most incriminating activity of all is their behavior. The lawyers were very smart in shutting all statements down so we are left without many smoking guns, but all together it's terrible looking for them. Anyone TRULY innocent would say "I know you think we did this, but let's talk and talk and talk until you see we didn't and we can find who did, because when you talk to us long enough you'll figure out the truth" . Look at how much energy has gone into this. We could have all proven them innocent by now. A lot of us went into this really wanting to know the truth and honestly not wanting it to be them.

another thought on the note. It's always been my idea that it could have been set up to look like the intruder was waiting down there in the wc or basement and then they could allude that JBR was killed because they called the police. That action botches the abduction, and the intruder leaves. If they got the money, he could have worked around that leaving the house when they go to get it) and telling them "she's in the basement". Understand I don't believe this to be what happened of course, but that everything there is set up for that.

j didn't particularly point things in any direction at any time from what I see. He did however allow others to make connections. I feel like dots were laid out in so many directions.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I no longer know which one hit JB on the head, which tightened the garrote (has this been DNA tested?) but IMO they are both as guilty as sin.

Neither gave a flying fig their daughter was murdered.

A common motive for mothers to murder their children is Jealousy

Patsy most definitely involved but the Cover Up is Johns.

All MOO.

 

[Ellie9]

Just wanted to add in a thought here to everyone else's mix.

I know there is a lot of contention over why a kidnapping was staged exactly, especially with a dead body. I'd say, think about it. What else happens to children this age at all that doesn't point the finger right at the parents?

For an adult, you can come up with many things. Drug overdose, car 'accident', 'accidental' house fire, they were mixed up with the wrong crowd, had gambling debt, jealous secret lover, suicide (that's really homicide). So many ideas. A child, though, there's basically only one single go-to. Kidnapping. The reason this excuse is overused by guilty parents everywhere is because it's basically the only possible excuse. Running away is a possibility for faking innocence - but not in the dead of winter, not usually at age six, and not without questioning about what would lead a small child to run away from home in the first place. So really there's only one possible way to point the finger at an outsider and away from the home, and that's kidnapping. It has been used as an excuse for ages, and it will be continued to be used no matter how many parents get caught in this lie. And that's because it's the only lie they can possibly use that stands a chance.

I was reading about the Caylee Anthony case recently, and here it is all over again. Obviously suspicious parent blames a kidnapper. It's the way this always goes. So therefore I view the fact that a ransom note and a kidnapping premise was used as further proof that there isn't actually anything too unusual with the Ramsey case at all. The only thing that left this case in such mystery is the botched crime scene and the lack of an indictment.