Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[SerialGal]

Yes.

Not only did John NOT think of the basement window and check it, when he did look around the basement he found that window slightly open. By his own account he closed it. And he told no one about the window. Not until much later when Fleet was in the basement with him and mentioned the broken window. John then came up with the story about having broken it himself the summer before. Why did he just close it and not mention it to police?

SBM.
I never understood why the initial police search skipped those basement areas. Also, did JR KNOW they were skipped? Is that why HE went there first? Both are troubling - non thorough police work, foreknowledge, or coincidence? How many coincidences before it becomes statistically impossible to be a coincidence, including when leaning on an Occam’s Razor line of thought? Just me musing …

 

[CloudedTruth]

Do you think the Ramseys were behind the Krebbs smear campaign?

Good question. I’m inclined to think no, because she also accused John. How she came to speak out is believable. But, Hunter certainly latched onto it once she came forward and stoked the fires. Was that of his own doing or did he have encouragement from team Ramsey? They did prove that her family knew the Whites in California, but no evidence that JR knew any Whites until they met in Colorado.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

It’s irrelevant to the case.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

I think one of most poignant things we have learned in this case is that what things look like from the outside is rarely a true picture of what may be going on behind closed doors. This is one of the most classic cases of that very idea. As this case has unfolded over the years and layers have been pulled back allowing glimpses into the dynamics of this family, it has become abundantly clear that this was a family that was highly dysfunctional with a daughter as another commenter here pointed out, may very well have been in crisis.

John may have been a "happy workaholic" but that also meant that he was not as aware of what was going on in his own house as he should have been. Many of the people who had worked for them over the years assisting with child care and housekeeping spoke of being overwhelmed with the workload and underpaid as a result. The house often looked like a hoarder's den and that's with a housekeeper. John had recently gone off on Patsy for her poor (nonexistent?) housekeeping skills. That was after all her realm, her responsibility. And she was failing. There are signs that she was overwhelmed, signs that her husband should have seen.

The kids were essentially left to their own devices. Not expected to clean up after themselves, not being taught to respect their home. They had poor hygiene habits, poor toileting habits. They lived in a chaotic, messy, toxic environment. That's not healthy for anyone, let alone young kids who need guidance and positive examples to learn to follow.

Yes, the Ramseys socialized a lot. They had expensive toys, they took expensive holidays. It's all pretty glitzy on the surface, but is that really what makes people happy? By all accounts the marriage was more like a business arrangement than an actual marriage. John had to be told by friends when Patsy was very ill and fighting for her life that he needed to take a little time off and support her. She was flying to and from Baltimore all by herself and sick as a dog. Where was John? Working. I wonder how that made Patsy feel, that her husband was so caught up in working that it didn't even occur to him that maybe he could take a few days off here and there to be with her in the fight of her life so that she didn't have to be alone.

The had a big house filled with stuff. But a great life? That's not how I would describe it.

I don’t believe anything written in Linda Hoffman Pufh’s book. I don’t believe John went off at patsy for being a lousy housekeeper. But if he did that means nothing. They’d been married for 20 years, I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what patsy was like. You can’t judge what state their house was in all the time based on a few Christmas photos and a crime scene video. Whose house doesn’t get messy over Christmas. As for John having to be told by friends to be more supportive of patsy during her cancer treatment, I take that with a grain of salt. Often people will say anything to make money. Often people invent stories to make money. I don’t think gossip proves anything about the ramseys private life. I prefer to stick to the facts of the case.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

I've seen several JR interviews where he is still throwing little bombs at FW.
When asked about his Navel back ground and sailing skills, he answers that FW was the expert sailor. No JR, you were asked about YOUR background not FWs. He really is a snake to keep throwing shade on him.
And yes, the list of people he and PR threw a cloud of suspicion over without ever publicly clearing them shows his level of integrity. He has done nothing but scorn the public for unfairly accusing him and Patsy and then turned around and threw an umbrella of suspicion over a list of people publicly.
I loved how both FWs children made it known that they were questioned by the Grand Jury. As in, we had something to say.

If your child was murdered 30 years ago and the killer was never brought to justice, you’d be suspicious of friends and associates too.

 

[GRT]

I think I remember reading that they called Fleet "Mr. Mom" as kind of a joke, but he did take care of the kids a lot. His daughter Daphne was I think the same age as JB, so it tracks that he would've helped with "sensitive" care of his daughter.

The "Mr. Mom" aspect is a real thing, and while it makes me uncomfortable when a little girl is 6, and the male assisting her is not her dad, I realize socially acceptable gender lines are definitely bending--if not being erased.

I don't want to unfairly malign all males--it's only what eventually happened to JBR that brings all this into question.

And it is true that JB would yell for anyone that was closest to wipe her. At her age, I have to wonder why that was not addressed during talks about sensitive issues with Dr. Beuf. We know there was at least one conversation about touching. The other thing that strikes me was reading the interview Patsy did in June of 1998 with Trip DeMuth and washing hands and bathing. She didn't really have a clue if JB had washed her hands before going to the White's, or if anyone had asked her / told her to wash her hands before dinner that night. That's a parent's responsibility, not the people in whose house you are a guest. They seemed perfectly fine with other people taking care of their kids' needs. They just come across as lazy parents who didn't want to be bothered.

I think this is spot-on, and I have to wonder if this is behind the GJ indictments on child abuse and accessory.

Of course, we don't have access to the GJ records, but they didn't indict on murder, only on those two things. Did they believe allowing virtually anyone to wipe their child after she used the toilet was not just inappropriate, but a form of child abuse? Did the Ramsey's lack of parenting, combined with pushing their daughter into pageants, which are likely watched by pedophiles, put her in danger?

It's all speculation and MOO, but I agree the Ramseys seemed like lazy parents. Or, that they bought into the "It takes a village to raise a child" concept.

 

[Ponytale]

If your child was murdered 30 years ago and the killer was never brought to justice, you’d be suspicious of friends and associates too.

Yes, at first it would be normal to be suspicious of everyone. You'd be in shock and question all the people you know, even your own family - which, by the way, Ramsey's never did.
But after some time has passed and there is an ongoing investigation. You'd have had time to talk with your family and friends and hear them out. You'd cooperate with police to understand their evidence and facts. You'd learn who of your family and friends have an alibi. After you come out of the initial shock and start thinking more clearly and productively - you start reasoning and learn for yourself who amongst your friends and family tells the truth and who should you be suspicious of.
You do not just go against the police and suspect someone without any actual proof against them. Especially if you are talking about your long time friends. Or if you really truly believe that this one person has something to do with it, you only point your fingers to that one person and pursuit with working with the police to make them see what you are telling to have them investigate that person more.
Randomly accusing different people (friends) who are not seen suspicious by the police rather seems like an action of despair. And makes others wonder why are you exactly trying to prove by doing so.

 

[GRT]

I too am shocked at the allegations, gossip and innuendo directed at FW.
It seems lately that folks will say almost anything with no foundation in fact or evidence. I’ve also seen speculation about Linda HP, Doug Stine and Santa based on rumours, it’s irresponsible and highly unfair.
IMHO

Every book I've read about JonBenet's murder includes a lot about Fleet and Priscilla White.

The Whites are in an identical position as the Ramseys. Both were cleared at one time, yet both are still the object of suspicion/innuendo/rumors/accusations because JonBenet's murder was never solved.

Fleet White did a lot of suspicious things, both before and after JBR died, and those have been widely publicized by both members of law enforcement, the media, and FW himself through his many letters, demands, and lawsuits.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

If your child was murdered 30 years ago and the killer was never brought to justice, you’d be suspicious of friends and associates too.

Suspicious is not the same as telling the public someone may be responsible for a murder without any factual proof and harming them financially and harming their reputation. Put yourself in their situation. Just by virtue of knowing someone, you are falsely accused of murder and have to spend thousands of dollars you may not have to defend yourself. How much money could you afford after the Ramseys now made you unhireable because you are now a murder suspect of a child murder no less. They left victims in their wake and didn't give a rats as long as it shifted the blame from them. How many times did they get it wrong and rectify the damage they caused?
JR is still publicly throwing suspicion on FW after he has been cleared.
JR hadn't been cleared and cries foul anytime anyone points in his direction due to his own suspicious behavior the day she was found dead in HIS house.
There are aspects of this case that I feel sympathy for the Ramseys but this isn't one of them. It actually makes me angry for the way people were treated.
I hope you never find yourself in the Fleets, McReynolds, LHP, or various othe people who had the misfortune of knowing or befriending the Ramseys.
JR loves to throw out the narrative that people dislike them and are jealous of their wealth but fails to look at his own integrity . A man of such religious faith should know "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Matthew 7:12

 

[GRT]

Yes, at first it would be normal to be suspicious of everyone. You'd be in shock and question all the people you know, even your own family - which, by the way, Ramsey's never did.

We don't know if they did or didn't. We're not privy to private thoughts and conversations.

But after some time has passed and there is an ongoing investigation. You'd have had time to talk with your family and friends and hear them out. You'd cooperate with police to understand their evidence and facts. You'd learn who of your family and friends have an alibi.

That's always been a sticking point. Virtually everyone in their immediate circle (the Ramseys, Whites, Stines, the housekeeper, the electrician, the town's Santa) all had the exact same alibi -- they were asleep.

It would only be natural to suspect that someone might be lying. Especially if you knew someone had the keys to your house, so they could slip in quietly.

After you come out of the initial shock and start thinking more clearly and productively - you start reasoning and learn for yourself who amongst your friends and family tells the truth and who should you be suspicious of.

I wish all crimes could be solved that way. We wouldn't need law enforcement if we could all reason and discern "the truth." There would be no such thing as cold cases, and Websleuths wouldn't exist.

You do not just go against the police and suspect someone without any actual proof against them. Especially if you are talking about your long time friends.

A smart parent will question everyone until the perp is found. If, over the years, the Ramseys have become increasingly suspicious of close friends, there may be something to that, even if LE cannot prove it. A child is dead.

Statistics tell us:

• More than 90% of abusers are people children know, love and trust.
• 30-40% of victims are abused by a family member.
• 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.

Or if you really truly believe that this one person has something to do with it, you only point your fingers to that one person and pursuit with working with the police to make them see what you are telling to have them investigate that person more.
Randomly accusing different people (friends) who are not seen suspicious by the police rather seems like an action of despair. And makes others wonder why are you exactly trying to prove by doing so.

If you read any of the several books about JonBenet's murder, you'll find none of the accusations are "random."

I know some folks badly want the Ramseys to be found guilty. Some want others to be found guilty.

I just want the case to be solved. At this point, I think FDI but if DNA points to a different culprit--I'll happily accept that.

 

[GRT]

Suspicious is not the same as telling the public someone may be responsible for a murder without any factual proof and harming them financially and harming their reputation. Put yourself in their situation. Just by virtue of knowing someone, you are falsely accused of murder and have to spend thousands of dollars you may not have to defend yourself. How much money could you afford after the Ramseys now made you unhireable because you are now a murder suspect of a child murder no less. They left victims in their wake and didn't give a rats *advertiser censored* as long as it shifted the blame from them. How many times did they get it wrong and rectify the damage they caused?
JR is still publicly throwing suspicion on FW after he has been cleared.
JR hadn't been cleared and cries foul anytime anyone points in his direction due to his own suspicious behavior the day she was found dead in HIS house.
There are aspects of this case that I feel sympathy for the Ramseys but this isn't one of them. It actually makes me angry for the way people were treated.
I hope you never find yourself in the Fleets, McReynolds, LHP, or various othe people who had the misfortune of knowing or befriending the Ramseys.
JR loves to throw out the narrative that people dislike them and are jealous of their wealth but fails to look at his own integrity . A man of such religious faith should know "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Matthew 7:12

The Ramseys were cleared too, but that doesn't stop the speculation that they were somehow involved.

Until the murderer is caught -- which is looking less likely as the decades pass -- law enforcement (and others) will continue to look at all the evidence, motive, and opportunity.

They will continue to look at the Ramseys and the Whites, and all the others they've been looking at.

They may not call any of them suspects or persons of interest anymore. But they haven't forgotten about them.

And let's remember -- the Whites were not destitute. FW was a wealthy oil man.

 

[GRT]

If your child was murdered 30 years ago and the killer was never brought to justice, you’d be suspicious of friends and associates too.

Absolutely!

It would nag at you every day.

 

[GRT]

Given the "possible" saliva in her panties & that FW had wiped the anus of this 6 year old girl, it brought to mind my earliest social work years. Some "funny uncle" types of males with this kind of access to young girls would sometimes take advantage of the opportunity to wet their own fingers then slide them into the labia and sometimes vagina to see if it elicited a titillated response from the girl. Young girls often dont even know this is not normal. Some males (and females) got off just watching faces for a response. Some used that response to convince themselves the girl was "ready" for more. It was so sickeningly routine to hear " but she wanted it".

That is so shocking, but I shouldn't be surprised. We naturally want to think the best of everyone, but some people have strong sexual drives and they do things like that.

I'm very aware that FW, or any person with such access to JBR, could have left saliva from a 5-10 minute or less bathroom encounter during a busy party. Or after arriving back home. It didn't have to happen in the basement back home. Digital insertion during "potty cleanups" can easily cause blood spotting & could be the source of the signs of chronic sa. Even BR, especially if he'd had access to pornographic content at his young age, could cause this. Was BR ever called on to "potty wipe" his own sister where that kind of quick sa coukd have happened undetected? That seemed to be a household sinking under general overwhelm while the Ramseys struggled to "keep up superficial appearances".

I'm behind on many details but is there any possibility at all that JR'S fresh panties were actually changed into at the White's house after soiling her own there? Did PR routinely take clean undies with her to account for JBR's frequent mishaps?

I don't remember reading about PR taking extra undies along, but I wouldn't be surprised if she did. If JBR regularly soiled her undies, I think most moms would.

I read that JBR and the White's daughter might have swapped clothes occasionally. Both Priscilla and Patsy said the girls didn't do that but White's daughter said they did.

And yes, there are stories about FW tending to JBR at the White's home when she would soil her panties or when she went to the bathroom and needed to be wiped.

At 6, a child should wipe themselves, but it sounds as though JBR was slow in learning this.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

I think this is spot-on, and I have to wonder if this is behind the GJ indictments on child abuse and accessory.

Of course, we don't have access to the GJ records, but they didn't indict on murder, only on those two things. Did they believe allowing virtually anyone to wipe their child after she used the toilet was not just inappropriate, but a form of child abuse? Did the Ramsey's lack of parenting, combined with pushing their daughter into pageants, which are likely watched by pedophiles, put her in danger?

I've read a lot but said nothing in this forum, but this post ^ motivates me to share my own pov on some of what we have.

From the way the indictment was worded, we can read between the lines and see that the "child abuse" charges were broad catch-all charges to blame someone but were not really based on actual child abuse that was committed by the Ramseys in the traditional sense.

Instead, the so-called "child abuse" that they theorize is that the Ramsey's were supposed to protect their daughter, and someone killed her, so each Ramsey's failure to prevent it is a form of child abuse. It's word games, to blame someone without having any specifics to say what they did wrong - she died, so it must be the parents' fault.

The "accessory" charge is similar semantics, a broad catch-all charge that it's the Ramseys' fault that the investigation didn't turning up the killer(s). Therefore, they have somehow been helpers (aka "accessories") to the killers, not that they necessarily knew or intended to do so.

It's telling that there was no indictment for any actual actions the R's may have done, not for killing or death or the like, only a charge to blame for what they didn't somehow keep from happening (or make happen).

And with such broad charges, it's easy to see how those who saw what they really had (or, didn't have) as evidence to take to trial all figured this case would never convict anyone in an actual trial. It was a multi-year dead end, lacking anything solid, apparently.

As for how to work with the evidence, we just have surmising, guessing, opinions, and debate now. New evidence is unlikely to appear.

There IS one thing that could make a difference at this point and that's via the DNA that they have, and haven't yet properly identified. They have that evidence, it is what it is, and it just awaits better testing. And there are TWO different avenues there, if either the technology OR the databases (two separate and huge factors) evolve far enough where we can discover who else was in the mix at some point. Just finding that person changes everything, because then they can pursue why was it THAT person's DNA, when it might have been left on JBR, who else that implicates, and how it changes the story.

Until that question ("whose DNA?") is answered, I don't think this case can ever progress much beyond the endless debate we have in this forum that is opinions and perspectives of sleuths from afar, each with their own biases and pov's and their own way to word it. It's a good lively discussion, but imo it's a rehash of the same stuff that's been said for over 20 years.

 

[GRT]

From which version of their story?
Weren’t there something like 6?

I don’t think anything was crumbling. For all we know they were perfectly happy and comfortable with their roles. Patsy was enjoying being a mum and putting the kids in music lessons, sports and beauty pageants, John was a happy workaholic and was involved with the kids. He had his role, patsy had hers. They had a house keeper to do the cleaning, they did a lot of socialising. They had a lot of friends, got invited to a lot of places. They had a great life.

At the point when JBR was murdered, I think they were probably happy, too. Patsy's cancer was in remission, so she very likely felt she had a second lease on life.

Even though I (personally) don't like beauty pageants, Patsy herself was a beauty queen, and she wanted the same for her daughter. I also think the beauty pageant thing is a bigger draw in the South, so it would have been more natural for her.

They had many close friends and lived busy lives. They may not have been the tidiest family, but they seemed happy.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

I've read a lot but said nothing in this forum, but this post ^ motivates me to share my own pov on some of what we have.

From the way the indictment was worded, we can read between the lines and see that the "child abuse" charges were broad catch-all charges to blame someone but were not really based on actual child abuse that was committed by the Ramseys in the traditional sense.

Instead, the so-called "child abuse" that they theorize is that the Ramsey's were supposed to protect their daughter, and someone killed her, so each Ramsey's failure to prevent it is a form of child abuse. It's word games, to blame someone without having any specifics to say what they did wrong - she died, so it must be the parents' fault.

The "accessory" charge is similar semantics, a broad catch-all charge that it's the Ramseys' fault that the investigation didn't turning up the killer(s). Therefore, they have somehow been helpers (aka "accessories") to the killers, not that they necessarily knew or intended to do so.

It's telling that there was no indictment for any actual actions the R's may have done, not for killing or death or the like, only a charge to blame for what they didn't somehow keep from happening (or make happen).

And with such broad charges, it's easy to see how those who saw what they really had (or, didn't have) as evidence to take to trial all figured this case would never convict anyone in an actual trial. It was a multi-year dead end, lacking anything solid, apparently.

As for how to work with the evidence, we just have surmising, guessing, opinions, and debate now. New evidence is unlikely to appear.

There IS one thing that could make a difference at this point and that's via the DNA that they have, and haven't yet properly identified. They have that evidence, it is what it is, and it just awaits better testing. And there are TWO different avenues there, if either the technology OR the databases (two separate and huge factors) evolve far enough where we can discover who else was in the mix at some point. Just finding that person changes everything, because then they can pursue why was it THAT person's DNA, when it might have been left on JBR, who else that implicates, and how it changes the story.

Until that question ("whose DNA?") is answered, I don't think this case can ever progress much beyond the endless debate we have in this forum that is opinions and perspectives of sleuths from afar, each with their own biases and pov's and their own way to word it. It's a good lively discussion, but imo it's a rehash of the same stuff that's been said for over 20 years.

Perfectly said!

 

[GRT]

I've read a lot but said nothing in this forum, but this post ^ motivates me to share my own pov on some of what we have.

From the way the indictment was worded, we can read between the lines and see that the "child abuse" charges were broad catch-all charges to blame someone but were not really based on actual child abuse that was committed by the Ramseys in the traditional sense.

Instead, the so-called "child abuse" that they theorize is that the Ramsey's were supposed to protect their daughter, and someone killed her, so each Ramsey's failure to prevent it is a form of child abuse. It's word games, to blame someone without having any specifics to say what they did wrong - she died, so it must be the parents' fault.

The "accessory" charge is similar semantics, a broad catch-all charge that it's the Ramseys' fault that the investigation didn't turning up the killer(s). Therefore, they have somehow been helpers (aka "accessories") to the killers, not that they necessarily knew or intended to do so.

It's telling that there was no indictment for any actual actions the R's may have done, not for killing or death or the like, only a charge to blame for what they didn't somehow keep from happening (or make happen).

And with such broad charges, it's easy to see how those who saw what they really had (or, didn't have) as evidence to take to trial all figured this case would never convict anyone in an actual trial. It was a multi-year dead end, lacking anything solid, apparently.

As for how to work with the evidence, we just have surmising, guessing, opinions, and debate now. New evidence is unlikely to appear.

There IS one thing that could make a difference at this point and that's via the DNA that they have, and haven't yet properly identified. They have that evidence, it is what it is, and it just awaits better testing. And there are TWO different avenues there, if either the technology OR the databases (two separate and huge factors) evolve far enough where we can discover who else was in the mix at some point. Just finding that person changes everything, because then they can pursue why was it THAT person's DNA, when it might have been left on JBR, who else that implicates, and how it changes the story.

Until that question ("whose DNA?") is answered, I don't think this case can ever progress much beyond the endless debate we have in this forum that is opinions and perspectives of sleuths from afar, each with their own biases and pov's and their own way to word it. It's a good lively discussion, but imo it's a rehash of the same stuff that's been said for over 20 years.

I agree with this. Well stated.

I hope DNA finally leads to the real killer. So sad it's taking so long.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It is not my intent to make excuses for them but from my understanding of the RN they already risked condemning their daughter to an excruciating death by beheading when they called 911. They were warned that the two men watching over her disliked John to the point they would have no problem executing their daughter. In the hypothetical that the abduction was real, what did JR and PR think would happen when the police car pulled up and it is reported back to JBR’s abductors by their spies? Worse, PR didn’t even pass that warning off to LE before she hung up on 911. It could have helped them out and their daughter (which is why I think it is valid that people view their behavior as suspicious or question their motives)

What about beforehand when they brought Burke over to the Stines? It was said in the note that they didn’t even want them talking to a stray dog, so it is doubtful that interacting their neighbors and friends would be okay under this hypothetical?

Of course, another plausible theory is that PR and RR were aware of the contradictions between their decisions and risks to JBR according to RN but perhaps they were apathetic to all of it because they already knew JBR had been murdered and this was part of the cover-up.

According to Det. Thomas, Ofc French and Ofc. Reichenbach, the first two responders on scene, found the Ramsey parents suspicious and something “not right” about the case, but still determine a kidnapping had occurred and call for more officers, a victims rights advocate and scene. If the cat wasn’t out of the bag before, it is by the time the requested team members show up. How likely was it then that at this moment, under this RN-based abductor hypothetical presented by J and PR, that it was decided that JBR’s life was forfeited and she would be murdered in cold blood. The writer of the supposed RN made it very clear that above all they did not want to get caught, that they knew counter measures and locations to thwart LE intervening and should JR betray them his daughter would be made to suffer. Knowing that the Ramseys were talking to the cops probably set them off a lot more than the friends trickling in afterwards and would probably serve as a bigger motivator should they choose to murder their daughter.

Not that it makes any of this okay. They were right, in my opinion, to call for help from their local police department. Nonetheless the family friends and priest of the Ramseys should have been escorted out of the house to preserve the integrity of any evidence suggest they maybe followed up with them in their homes or the PD office later if they feel like they have something important or some insight they would like to share. Then again, with the exception of investigators, staff members and the Ramseys themselves, the whole house should have been locked down as it was a potential scene considering they didnt know when or where JBR was or if she ever even left the house in the likelihood she was killed by one or both of her parents, as theorized by Arndt and French.

French should have checked the wine seller more thoroughly, just like the very room and crawl space in the residence. He could have just borrowed his partners flashlight or borrow one of the homeowners instead of turning his back to it. Had he did, he might have found JBR earlier and preserved the crime scene better.

I was not saying "not" to call LE
Sorry @ShadyLady but I wasn’t saying you were. I brought that up their decision to call 911 because it was at that point that the writer’s tone grows more hostile and aggressive particularly in how they threaten to will kill JBR. It seemed like a trigger for them since they even threatened to behead her, a child. Who does that? MOO but if one or more people kidnapped her and removed her from their house, then PR and JR contacting the police could have served as the biggest risk or threat to their daughter bc she would be harmed due to their noncompliance. Furthermore, If PR or JR did write this RN, I can’t even imagine how they could even pretend it wasn’t hoax or put into words the threat of inflicting such brutality against their own flesh and blood. Especially not as she laid deceased downstairs after being violated sexually and physically before being tortured to death with a garrote wrapped around her neck.

I think the use of both a garrote and the threat about being beheaded is notable too bc they both aim to end the life of someone by aiming at their neck. JMO

Let's go with your reasoning. First of all, PR said she didn't read the note- RED FLAG
Second, the 911 call should have sounded like" My daughter has been kidnapped, they are threatening to kill her if I call the police. Please come through the back alley, dear God, don't make your presence known or they will kill her!!"
Not let's invite everyone and their brother so we guarantee she is beheaded.
Even Burke could understand the cause and effect of doing so if the note was real.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Let's go with your reasoning. First of all, PR said she didn't read the note- RED FLAG
Second, the 911 call should have sounded like" My daughter has been kidnapped, they are threatening to kill her if I call the police. Please come through the back alley, dear God, don't make your presence known or they will kill her!!:
Not let's invite everyone and their brother so we guarantee she is beheaded.
Even Burke could understand the cause and effect of doing so if the note was real.

Yep. Exactly.

The 911 IIRC clocked in at 60 seconds. The dispatcher was trying to get details out of Patsy, she just hung up. And then proceeded to call the friends. She never even mentions JonBenet by name.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I've read a lot but said nothing in this forum, but this post ^ motivates me to share my own pov on some of what we have.

From the way the indictment was worded, we can read between the lines and see that the "child abuse" charges were broad catch-all charges to blame someone but were not really based on actual child abuse that was committed by the Ramseys in the traditional sense.

Instead, the so-called "child abuse" that they theorize is that the Ramsey's were supposed to protect their daughter, and someone killed her, so each Ramsey's failure to prevent it is a form of child abuse. It's word games, to blame someone without having any specifics to say what they did wrong - she died, so it must be the parents' fault.

The "accessory" charge is similar semantics, a broad catch-all charge that it's the Ramseys' fault that the investigation didn't turning up the killer(s). Therefore, they have somehow been helpers (aka "accessories") to the killers, not that they necessarily knew or intended to do so.

It's telling that there was no indictment for any actual actions the R's may have done, not for killing or death or the like, only a charge to blame for what they didn't somehow keep from happening (or make happen).

And with such broad charges, it's easy to see how those who saw what they really had (or, didn't have) as evidence to take to trial all figured this case would never convict anyone in an actual trial. It was a multi-year dead end, lacking anything solid, apparently.

As for how to work with the evidence, we just have surmising, guessing, opinions, and debate now. New evidence is unlikely to appear.

There IS one thing that could make a difference at this point and that's via the DNA that they have, and haven't yet properly identified. They have that evidence, it is what it is, and it just awaits better testing. And there are TWO different avenues there, if either the technology OR the databases (two separate and huge factors) evolve far enough where we can discover who else was in the mix at some point. Just finding that person changes everything, because then they can pursue why was it THAT person's DNA, when it might have been left on JBR, who else that implicates, and how it changes the story.

Until that question ("whose DNA?") is answered, I don't think this case can ever progress much beyond the endless debate we have in this forum that is opinions and perspectives of sleuths from afar, each with their own biases and pov's and their own way to word it. It's a good lively discussion, but imo it's a rehash of the same stuff that's been said for over 20 years.

How can you say that the charge of child abuse was a broad catch-all unless you were part of the GJ and saw with your own eyes what was presented to them?
I'm curious as you accuse others as presenting baseless theories.
13 months of evidence was presented to the GJ. You are certain nothing was presented to them that raised red flags? How do you know this? Are you surmising?
The crime scene was contaminated because the Ramseys weren't concerned with their daughter being beheaded or they wouldn't have hosted a kidnap gathering. Someone with an IQ of 50 wouldn't be able to ignore the obvious. The who did what made their job difficult. The one Grand Jurer who spoke said he felt he knew who was responsible but proving would be difficult.
This more than lively discussion to some. A little girl was found dead in her home. Statistics are not in the Ramseys favor. There are more red flags and inconsistancies that are WELL documented and the more JR talks, the more are revealed.
I personally find the privilege they had during the investigation grossly unfair.
Put some Black family in the PJs under the same circumstance and tell me the prosecutors would be handing information over to the defense. It would never play that way. Ever.
If any family member was responsible and you can't count them out as they have not been cleared, we have been fed a load if shiz for 30 years. Maybe none of these things bother you but they bother other folks.