If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[Tower]

The JBR threads IMO are getting confusing and conflated perhaps? Maybe it is for a reason…… although I am now confused. There seems to be a considerable discussion about a Doctor Beuf also in a different thread on the case. And it might be related to pints in this thread? MOO

Post in thread 'Colorado Little Miss Christmas 12/17/96'
Colorado Little Miss Christmas 12/17/96

Agree that too many threads are getting confusing for me. The topics do not seem well-delineated so we probably don’t need so many separate threads?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Agree that too many threads are getting confusing for me. The topics do not seem well-delineated so we probably don’t need so many separate threads?

I agree @Tower … entirely. IMO several of these could be collapsed into one. It is mind-numbingly confusing. Unless, that is by design? And if so all h the more reason for this to get aligned. And IMO these still need to be comingled. MOO

ETA - and in the interest of not having mods have to do too much ‘mopping’ up….. maybe the best thing is to simply close some of those needing - and point to the continuing thread. MOO

 

[Ponytale]

Sorry, but as a new member writing here, I would like to ask are there any rules about making new topics? I mean I see all them quite valid to discuss, but I understand that there are some that overlap here right now and it makes it confusing to keep track. Yet, the topics keep discussions and this forum alive. Just asking for to learn myself.

 

[fridaybaker]

From the bits and pieces of what can be cobbled together about this part of the case, IMO the SA had not been going on all that long. We have the teachers that noted a change in JonBenet's demeanor that started about a month or so before the murder. We have the housekeeper's statements about Patsy becoming particularly moody about a month before the murder. We have the report of JonBenet becoming upset during the part on the 23rd and telling someone she didn't feel pretty. We have the odd circumstance of the 3 after hours calls made by someone in the house to Dr. Beuf in close succession to each other on either 12/7 or 12/17. Dr. Beuf recalls seeing JonBenet in his office for the last time in November.

SA often starts out with grooming. Touching, caressing that may very well seem innocent and loving especially coming from a loved one, a person that is trusted. It then escalates slowly from there. There probably weren't any physical outward signs, and to determine internal vaginal injury requires a pelvic exam done by a specialist and under anesthesia. I do think Dr. Beuf may have been a little lax on the front of his being so dismissive about the number of visits for recurring issues with JonBenet because it was the Ramseys. I have heard over and over again from parents that 27-30 visits in a 3 year period is definitely unusual, excessive and would've been a cause for concern. We also know that the very appearance conscious Patsy was not 100% truthful with the doctor when he asked general health questions about JonBenet. The fact that her bedwetting had progressed to a nightly event, coupled with her other toileting issues and hygiene issues should have been a red flag, however we do not know how forthcoming Patsy was about all of that.

And then there's the part that so many have gotten hung up on in this case, the facade that the Ramseys presented of a good Christian family who loved their children dearly and who could never be perceived as being capable of such a terrible crime. Lou Smit is a perfect example of that mindset. He became so convinced of their innocence, partly because of what he thought were shared "Christian values" he lost all objectivity, and instead of following evidence to find the truth it became all about proving the Ramsey's innocence at any cost.

I do think that some of Dr. Beuf's behavior after the murder crossed a line and he did not always act as professionally as he should have. Clearly he was motivated by the personal relationship that he had with the Ramseys. But I also think, and this is just my opinion, that he too may have fallen under their spell rather than being an active participant in covering up abuse. The experts that found the evidence of abuse post mortem were unable to pinpoint with certainty when the abuse started, with an estimate of approximately 10 days prior. May have been longer than that, but probably not by much.

Cloudedtruth, I appreciate reading your well-thought-out posts. You always seem to strive for a calm, logical reading of the events and people in this case, and offer considered and nuanced reasoning. Your posts are often thought-provoking, and this one is an example of that.

I think you might be right in Dr. B getting caught up in what many folks seemed to have gotten caught up in: That the Ramseys presented themselves in a way that made it very hard for people to think that they could be capable of, if not outright murder, at least a horrifically staged cover-up.

I have to admit that I’m pretty appalled that anyone would consider the Ramseys to be “Christian”, but perhaps that explains a lot of things in life.

 

[Tower]

Sorry, but as a new member writing here, I would like to ask are there any rules about making new topics? I mean I see all them quite valid to discuss, but I understand that there are some that overlap here right now and it makes it confusing to keep track. Yet, the topics keep discussions and this forum alive. Just asking for to learn myself.

I am certainly not the rule-maker. But what I find confusing about a new JBR thread popping up every couple days is the conversation moves on from the original topic. So different people are discussing basement cobwebs at the same time on 3 different threads. If you ever want to go back to a certain media post, you can’t find it. When a popular topic is discussed for over 25 years, it just gets really convoluted. You have no idea what is being discussed in which thread.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yes, and how important would it have been to pick up the letter and read the whole thing several times IF YOU WANTED YOUR DAUGHTER BACK?????

First question I would have asked JR and PR....WHY didnt you read the letter and follow the instructions??

JMO but Patsy didn't have to read the letter. It took her several times to get it right, she already had it memorized.

 

[Ponytale]

I am certainly not the rule-maker. But what I find confusing about a new JBR thread popping up every couple days is the conversation moves on from the original topic. So different people are discussing basement cobwebs at the same time on 3 different threads. If you ever want to go back to a certain media post, you can’t find it. When a popular topic is discussed for over 25 years, it just gets really convoluted. You have no idea what is being discussed in which thread.

Thank you for explaining, I see your point.

 

[ShadyLady]

JMO but Patsy didn't have to read the letter. It took her several times to get it right, she already had it memorized.

Just goes to show how interviews gave Ramseys soft ball questions. No matter who wrote the letter, JR and PR were well acquainted with the contents before they called LE.

And of course the letter accomplished all sorts of confuse which was intended...call friends...Mess up the crime scene, etc etc.

"Why didnt you read the letter?" and "Why didnt you follow the instructions if you wanted your daughter back?"

John read his mail but NOT the ransom letter....laughable.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Just goes to show how interviews gave Ramseys soft ball questions. No matter who wrote the letter, JR and PR were well acquainted with the contents before they called LE.

And of course the letter accomplished all sorts of confuse which was intended...call friends...Mess up the crime scene, etc etc.

"Why didnt you read the letter?" and "Why didnt you follow the instructions if you wanted your daughter back?"

John read his mail but NOT the ransom letter....laughable.

Thank you @ShadyLady for cogently describing this matter. Yes, it says it all.

And thank you also to all the fellow posters who reported and posted in depth with the latest on the Netflix series on this case. It saved me…… as I was so looking forward to not watching it. MOO

 

[CloudedTruth]

Cloudedtruth, I appreciate reading your well-thought-out posts. You always seem to strive for a calm, logical reading of the events and people in this case, and offer considered and nuanced reasoning. Your posts are often thought-provoking, and this one is an example of that.

I think you might be right in Dr. B getting caught up in what many folks seemed to have gotten caught up in: That the Ramseys presented themselves in a way that made it very hard for people to think that they could be capable of, if not outright murder, at least a horrifically staged cover-up.

I have to admit that I’m pretty appalled that anyone would consider the Ramseys to be “Christian”, but perhaps that explains a lot of things in life.

Well, thank you very much for your kind words, fridaybaker.

I totally understand your feelings about the Ramseys being "Christian", and I do share those feelings. Patsy's faith or beliefs if you will were very important to her, but on a level which may have been somewhat fantastical. Not sure that's the right word. Patsy I think was much more complicated than John. She had rather grandiose ideas and also tended to view things from a romanticized point. She was emotional and dramatic. I do think it's likely that her cancer treatments enhanced some of her behaviors.

I recall a story where she related to a friend that she had a dream where John's deceased oldest daughter Beth came to her to say that she would experience a miracle and be cured. She relied very heavily on the book written by Joel Osteen's mother Dodie Healed of Cancer, which promotes the power of prayer and faith in healing. Patsy prayed with the Reverend of her church before having testing done after she finished treatment, which found no signs of cancer. She insisted that it was "Devine Intervention". Her wailing / screaming about Jesus raising JonBenet from the dead as he did Lazarus was bizarrely theatrical.

Patsy did give off her time to her kids' schools and also to local charities. But she also wanted to run things the way she thought they should be run. On her terms or nothing. To those who were in the same social circle, or perceived to be people the Ramseys should know, she was sweet as pie. To those who weren't she came across as snobbish and uninterested. John was his usual aloof, rather cold self. The church they chose to attend was a conscious choice based upon the social status of many in the congregation. The Ramseys were social climbers. I think one of the most telling stories is the media circus initiated by the Ramsey's PR team when they held the memorial service at the Boulder church. Much of the congregation were appalled and felt used by the Ramseys.

And then there was the JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation which they set up with the help of Mike Bynum in 1997, with the stated mission of "child safety and parental resources". It was also initially set up to collect donations for a reward to find the killer of JonBenet. They claimed that all the proceeds from their book "Death of Innocence" would go to the foundation, after their legal expenses were paid. They also pledged an annual donation of $15k per year for the years 1997, '98 and '99. Financial records show no donations made in that amount for those years. Patsy also stated in 2000 that she had never seen any financial records for the foundation, and yet she was listed as President and as such was supposed to receive a full accounting on an annual basis. There were supposed to be grant programs, outreach programs, etc. that never seemed to materialize.

I recently saw an interview of John and Patsy where they were asked some very specific questions about the foundation, and oh, boy the reactions from both of them are priceless and telling. Lots of pausing, hemming and hawing and they were very clearly very uncomfortable. What's up with that? Patsy finally blurted out that they had recently given away around $12,000 (if memory serves) to a kid's summer camp (I think). Turns out they only made good on that donation after the interview. Of course the foundation ceased to exist a long time ago, and to my knowledge never made good on anything they promised. Lots of accusations that the real purpose of the foundation was to funnel money to pay legal and ongoing PR expenses.

 

[fridaybaker]

Wow, Cloudedtruth. If all this is true, that’s shocking, especially in light of JBR’s death.

You see, I would think the violent death of a child would shake a serious person (an, ahem, “Christian”) to his core. There simply would be no foundations or interviews or anything else in the immediate aftermath. Only disabling grief. Overwhelming regret. A gaping, abyss of loss. Then, later, if one set up a “foundation” a scrupulous focus on EVERY PENNY going toward the charitable goal.

The antithesis of “Christian” is: Social climbing; inauthenticity; being an overly “romantic”, “dramatic” person; and dressing up your precious, innocent child, as a tart for adults to ogle. Essentially, stealing their innocence. “Christian”, no. Vile, yes.

 

[Lilibet]

The antithesis of “Christian” is: Social climbing; inauthenticity; being an overly “romantic”, “dramatic” person; and dressing up your precious, innocent child, as a tart for adults to ogle. Essentially, stealing their innocence. “Christian”, no. Vile, yes.

Vile indeed. The whole pageant thing disgusted me at the time. That poor child. And then to push the idea of an intruder and SA…I remember thinking, “Well, what did you expect? You set her up for SA.”

But, their actions that day and afterward quickly made me believe they were involved even more directly. Horrible people.

JMO

 

[Rumination1]

I had a thought and this is opinion only …. How could either the parents or brother commit this act and then also maintain absolute secrecy about it . Not plausible to me
Possibly plausible to me is that one parent concocted this plan with the help of a third party. This third party was used to stage a fake kidnapping in order to access the money which was needed for ??? Reason.
However , that plan went awry because no one knew that JBR would pass out following the strike w the flashlight from her brother and the person who assaulted her decided to kill her rather than be identified .
This theory supposes then that at least one adult was cognizant of the plan and that person maintained secrecy as did this third party .
I cannot bring myself to believe a child of 9 had a hand in this. I think the marks on her body are a mystery I cannot compute. Could these have been done much earlier say around the time of the first sexual assaults ? Might these marks have been the reason for the 3 calls to the paediatrician ?

I hope this poor child gets the respect and honour and justice she deserves very soon

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Vile indeed. The whole pageant thing disgusted me at the time. That poor child. And then to push the idea of an intruder and SA…I remember thinking, “Well, what did you expect? You set her up for SA.”

But, their actions that day and afterward quickly made me believe they were involved even more directly. Horrible people.

JMO

Yes @Lilibet …. so true IMO. And RSBBMFF:

“But, their actions that day and afterward quickly made me believe they were involved even more directly. Horrible people.”

In following this case over the years, IMO nearly every single action (or inaction) by the R and their attorneys, publicists, etc. was off-tilt. Or seemed improper. IMO none of the things that were done were what one would have expected from an ‘uninvolved’ individual(s). Or someone that didn’t have much more knowledge than being let on. There are too many things to even begin to list. But some of those televised publicity interviews were IMO very telling…… I best stop here.

The only more infuriating aspect of this tragedy IMO - was the way it seemed the Boulder DA office handled the case, GJ indictments, the family, and any measure to seek justice for JBR. And to then issue a statement seeming to ‘absolve’ the family of involvement based on then available evidence. Absolutely bewildering IMO. SMH. And if anyone had argued that there were different levels of DA access or treatment in this case who IMO could disagree with that?

And to see that IIUC JR is on ‘the circuit’ again. On the heels of a recent ‘documentary’. IIUC even the Boulder authorities are again saying something about the case at this time near an anniversary of it? SMH again. MOO

 

[Slebby]

I had a thought and this is opinion only …. How could either the parents or brother commit this act and then also maintain absolute secrecy about it . Not plausible to me
-Snipped-

I have a friend whose father-in-law sexually abused his own daughter. The victim told her mother,who did nothing and is still married to the abuser to this day. I guess she did the plus/minus and decided she was better off to stay with him.
My own father had several years of business dealings with the abuser, long before I ever knew him or knew of the abuse. My father thought he was an absolute prince of a man.
Family members can carry awful secrets, and stay with abusers. They can weigh their options and choose to turn a blind eye. Evil people can fool people who consider themselves good judges of character. It is my opinion that the Rs fooled a lot of people.

IMO

 

[Lilibet]

I have a friend whose father-in-law sexually abused his own daughter. The victim told her mother,who did nothing and is still married to the abuser to this day. I guess she did the plus/minus and decided she was better off to stay with him.
My own father had several years of business dealings with the abuser, long before I ever knew him or knew of the abuse. My father thought he was an absolute prince of a man.
Family members can carry awful secrets, and stay with abusers. They can weigh their options and choose to turn a blind eye. Evil people can fool people who consider themselves good judges of character. It is my opinion that the Rs fooled a lot of people.

IMO

A famous example of this is the writer Alice Munro.

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/nx-s1-5032827/alice-munro-daughter-abuse-stepfather

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Do you think a little girl the size of JBR could sustain a crack like that from falling onto the edge of a tub or sink?

The reason I ask is that there is a scenario that has been bandied about for many years and by many people who think that this was an accident as PR was helping her in the bathroom, and then she panicked, and the rest is history. I'm not sure I believe it in this case, but I can see such a thing happening in general.

No I don't think it was an accident.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

So one thing that interested me recently, are all the marks on her body. Some said it look like she had taser marks on her. So I looked up a few pictures of them. In my opinion it looks like a fireplace poker did it.

That would make sense with the idea that she had the burn mark on her cheek. That could be the tip of a fireplace poker. Also the smash on the back of her head could be the fireplace poker with one of the ends making the bigger holes. Because that smash looks a little too hard just for a softer flashlight. Also police removed a brick from the fireplace with one of jonbenet's hair on it. Also someone wrote on here they found a fireplace poker near her body downstairs, but I couldn't find the actual post yet. I looked it up, there was a fireplace in the downstairs living room. It would be interesting to see if they were running a fire that night.

I also tried to look up some pictures of the supposed train track marks, but did not see any yet, but I did see a graphic, kind of demoing where they were. They went all the way up and down her body. I'm still not sure what to think about that.

A fireplace poker makes me think more of an intruder, or maybe even Burke. Even though I'm not really into either one of those theories. But let's say JonBenet was sitting on the floor by the fireplace in living room, looking into the fire. After she and her brother ate some pineapple. The mother is cleaning up in the kitchen which is in a different area. First he starts poking his little sister with the hot poker. She screams and makes too much noise. And then the boy stands and swings the poker from behind her, while she is sitting, and just smashes down on her on the back of the head. After she fell, is when he did the train tracks on her with a lot of force. Eventually the mother came into the room. That could work.

Edit- I guess if we had to rework that scenario for Patsy, after they ate pineapple JonBenet ran into the living room to play with some toys, sitting down next to the dying fire. Maybe Patsy came in and asked JonBenet if she'd like her doll present. And JonBenet said no she didn't. And Patsy just lost it. She went into a fit. She started poking her with the hot fireplace poker and then smashed her on the back of her head.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

If I'm going to go with the intruder theory, the intruder was maybe waiting in a basement in the house the whole night. Maybe after they went to sleep, he went up into the living room. He heard the three come down and eat pineapple. He kind of watched them go up, and followed the flashlights light from downstairs to see which bedrooms they went to. And later he went into jonbenet's Ramsey room. He told her to come down and go to the living room for more presents. She obeyed him because he was dressed as Santa Claus. And while she was sitting on floor next to the fire, he smashed her with the poker.

I could go with all three scenarios, of Burke Patsy or an intruder.

Edit- I could go with all three people, but I do not believe Patsy would make train track marks on the body. I would like to get some more information on these train marks, and if they're sure they're actually train track marks. Unless, she was clever enough to think, that no one would think, she would ever do that, lol. Lot of reverse psychology. So yeah I don't know, it's hard to tell.

And how do you make these train track marks? How hard would you have to press down to get those red marks? I guess she would have to be unclothed for that to happen. I don't know, it's kind of weird.

 

[Ponytale]

If I'm going to go with the intruder theory, the intruder was maybe waiting in a basement in the house the whole night. Maybe after they went to sleep, he went up into the living room. He heard the three come down and eat pineapple. He kind of watched them go up, and followed the flashlights light from downstairs to see which bedrooms they went to. And later he went into jonbenet's Ramsey room. He told her to come down and go to the living room for more presents. She obeyed him because he was dressed as Santa Claus. And while she was sitting on floor next to the fire, he smashed her with the poker.

The intruder must have rather worn a hazmat suite to the house for moving around the different rooms and levels of the house, climbing through the window twice, waiting, eating and writing all night long, and not leaving any forensic evidence, or any proof of him being there, after all those hours "living" in the house.
And to answer the question that might come from here - the DNA found on her is to this day still not in any way proven to be the DNA of an intruder.

But, if the intruder really wore the hazmat suite (or even just gloves) not leaving any fingerprints behind anyway, then why would an intruder suddenly feel the need to wipe down the flashlight, including the batteries?