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

[CloudedTruth]

Well, I've said before that I'm pretty firmly in the FDI camp.

And for the past decade or so, John Ramsey himself has said he has suspicions that the killer was in their inner circle of friends.

He said it was "an inside job" from day one. Following the clues planted in the RN they first hinted it was Linda Hoffman-Pugh or a supposed disgruntled business associate / employee of John's. Then it became the crazed, sick pedophile. A creature. Then back to an inside job. Then can't imagine they knew anyone capable of it. Back to the sicko pedophile.

I think the motive for the killing was an obsession with JBR, and I think FW's history of tending to JBR's personal hygiene exacerbated the obsession.

In Patsy's deposition, she was repeatedly asked why she had been so tired that night. She was also asked if she thought her family could have been drugged before they came home.

And she answered the question that they were tired because of a long day. She did not think they had been drugged.

FW knew the layout of the Ramsey house, and he searched the basement earlier that day but claimed he didn't see her. After John found her, LE told FW to guard the door to the basement and not let anyone go down, but he ran down and picked up the duct tape that had been on JBR's mouth and put it on the blanket.

FW could not find the light when he opened that door. It was pitch dark. JB's body was to the left side as you open the door. Police did light tests and concluded that he was telling the truth. The real question should be how did JR see her before turning on the light and stepping into the room when no one else could? JR also did not follow Det. Arndt's instructions. He was told not to touch anything.

In the days that followed, his behavior was anything but normal, when he started verbally attacking his hosts in GA.

That's the story the Ramsey's told. It was greatly exaggerated by them.

But one of the biggest after-the-fact red flags for me was his demand to have a copy of his earlier deposition before he testified at the GJ. Does an honest person need to do that? Or one that is afraid he can't remember what he said before?

The Ramseys were also given the "courtesy" of the DA handing over copies of everything they said before they would agree to be interviewed. So if honest people don't need to do that, there is guilt implied for the Ramsey's too, isn't there?

Then he sued to get his GJ testimony record and he wrote rambling, disjointed letters to media and threatened to sue the PD.

The White's lawsuit was for a "full release of long-suppressed documents drafted by a grand jury investigating the 1996 murder of the Ramsey's six year old daughter, JonBenet". Westword, 7/11/2014. This was in response to the only partial release of the 4 pages that included the indictments. They felt everything should be released, not just FW's testimony.

From the same article in Westword:
White, who was John Ramsey's sailing buddy before a highly publicized falling out shortly after JonBenet's death, believes the full record of official actions taken by the grand jury, including possibly other charges considered or rejected, should be released. The Whites' complaint, filed earlier this week, cites a strong precedent for the full release of information detailed in a grand jury indictment. In 2007, regarding a battle over access to the extensive indictment of Aaron Thompson in the death of his daughter Aarone, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that state law "requires the indictment to be released for public inspection in its entirety."

As to your "Why now?" question -- who knows?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

It is all only an assumption. The fibers were "consistent with" it possibly being a towel used to wipe her. No towel was ever found at the house and no match was made to any item.

We do not even know for a fact that it was a towel. We do not know if it was used (if she was cleaned) at her house, at the Whites or at some other location. There is no clear answer that explains the DNA being there, but there are many possibilities how and when a foreign DNA could have gotten there.

Okay yes I guess they can't really tell where those blue fibers came from. You didn't acknowledge my premise though, that the DNA probably came from the tip of the paintbrush that was inserted into the body. Because that seems the most logical way that the DNA got into the two blood spots in the underwear, after the body was cleaned. Without getting on anything else.

So again, I think the body was staged with the new underwear, but perhaps the paintbrush started to come out from the body cavity last moment, as the perp moved her body around. So the perp grabbed something like a t-shirt from the laundry hamper, or even an old napkin out of the trash, to push the tip of the paintbrush back in further again, as one final thing. This material that he used to do this, had some random saliva DNA on it. The DNA from this material got on the tip of the paintbrush when he pushed it.

The DNA from this material that he used, also got on the perps gloves while he used it. And that's why touch DNA got on the long johns and jonbenet's fingers, as he moved them back again into final position.

Then the perp pulled the underwear up again. Actually maybe he just pulled up the long johns, and not the underwear, and the underwear just came up along with the long johns. That's why the DNA is on the long johns and not on the side of the underwear. So after he pulled the long johns up the final time, a few new drops of blood came out of the vagina, because of the fresh irritation of pushing the paintbrush in again. And the blood dripped past the paintbrush tip, picking up the DNA there, and dripped into the underwear, forming the new underwear blood spots. That's why the DNA is only in those two blood spots.

Edit- I'm thinking maybe a possibility is, the perp opened up a new package of paint cloths, from the art painting setup there, to push the paint brush in. And maybe that DNA came from the manufacturer of the paint cloth.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Yes, IMO - and I hope I do not offend anyone here - ,I think that the whole case could be solved just by looking only at the timeframe of from that 911 call to the time she was found.

I also think the case could be solved by seeing the complete phone records for the entire month of December.

 

[Ponytale]

I’m not negating you here at all, but I would NOT want to sleep in the same house where my child was murdered (but, I would stay within the town to help however I could… I would not flee the state).

I agree. They had plenty of friends to go to just a few minutes drive away. They also could have afforded an hotel room.

Had John been getting death threats at all? Or been blackmailed at all?

I don't think nothing of that kind has been stated. He, before starting to blame his friends, stated that he did not know of anyone who would have done it.

I think that an intruder (a sadistic pedophile that somehow knew of the family- I think through St. John’s Episcopal Church) entered the home while the Ramseys were at the Whites house. I think he was wearing gloves (maybe even a Santa suit) and went through the house and got bored and wrote the ransom note just to try and add another level of torture for the family.

He must have worn a hazmat suite for not leaving any kind of evidence behind. But yes, he sure did have to wear gloves too because there were no prints anywhere. If he did just wrote the ransom letter out of boredom with the intent to torture the family it did not work very well, did it? Patsy didn't even read it. They didn't even bother to take it seriously enough to not call the cops, as the intruder had asked. It seems that they were quite sure that he will not behead her. IMO

This guy had been fantasizing about this for a long time; inspired by crime movies. Sadistic pedophiles start their acts around late teens/early twenties.

Well, if it was a sadistic pedophile from a church sex-ring that had been fantasizing about JB since his teens, he somehow failed to show any evidence of those "fantasies" at the crime scene. IMO. There was nothing really sadistic about it. A crazed killer with an intent to kill would, IMO, leave behind a much gruesome scene. Especially if he intended to torture the family. The few drops of blood on the crotch of JB's underpants, IMO, does not point to someone who came to the house with sexual fantasies. Actually, IMO, a sexually motivated intruder would have assaulted her in ways that have been described in other cases where there actually was a rapist/sexual predator attacking a child. And those scenes do not include wiping the victim, redressing and placing them tucked into their favorite blanket. Like you said - the purpose was to torture.

I do think that the offender did stage the body as well… I think he probably took her actual panties as a souvenir and then put those ginormous underwear on her as he was working to display her as a “present” for John.

If he wanted to torture the family by the gruesome acts that he did to a little 6- year-old girl then why didn't he do it? If he was a sexually motivated person, why not rape her? Why was there no evidence of anyone actually found on her? If he wanted to assault her and fantasized about her in sexual ways - why not just do it and leave all the evidence that is supposed to be there in those types of crimes? There was nothing. It seems to me that the person was more interested/concerned in not leaving any evidence behind. IMO

 

[Ponytale]

Okay yes I guess they can't really tell where those blue fibers came from. You didn't acknowledge my premise though, that the DNA probably came from the tip of the paintbrush that was inserted into the body. Because that seems the most logical way that the DNA got into the two blood spots in the underwear, after the body was cleaned. Without getting on anything else.

So again, I think the body was staged with the new underwear, but perhaps the paintbrush started to come out from the body cavity last moment, as the perp moved her body around. So the perp grabbed something like a t-shirt from the laundry hamper, or even an old napkin out of the trash, to push the tip of the paintbrush back in further again, as one final thing. This material that he used to do this, had some random saliva DNA on it. The DNA from this material got on the tip of the paintbrush when he pushed it.

The DNA from this material that he used, also got on the perps gloves while he used it. And that's why touch DNA got on the long johns and jonbenet's fingers, as he moved them back again into final position.

After the perp pulled the underwear up again, a few new drops of blood came out of the vagina, because of the fresh irritation of pushing the paintbrush in. And dripped past the paintbrush, picking up the DNA there, and dripped into the underwear blood spots. That's why the DNA is only in those two blood spots.

We do not know for sure and never will I believe.
It has not been 100% confirmed that this missing piece of a paintbrush was the tool used to SA her. There was only a microscopic cellulose material found that is suggested to have come from the paintbrush. It has also been speculated that it could have come from gloves made of fabric. If I express my opinion on that matter then I think that if anyone really wanted to sexually assault her at the point of staging the crime scene, there would have been much more evidence of that then only 2 drops of blood on her panties and a microscopic cellulose material found.

But it is a possibility, like many others.

 

[GRT]

Yes, I have read your comments and I respect your opinion on that.

I agree, but John has pointed his finger in any direction he could to point to someone outside the family. He also suspected of Fleet's wife. He is allowed to do that of course, but I'd sure see it more plausible if there were any reasons for doing so. Suspecting someone would need a reason to be suspicious, right? What are the reasons for John to suspect Fleet?

But Fleet had been friends with the Ramsey's for a long time. I'd think that they had spent plenty of time together alone and with their families through the years. I think that if you call someone a "friend" or even a close friend, the person has to be more than just a colleague or an acquaintance. So, IMO, they must have developed a trusting relationship, especially knowing that their kids spent time playing together. I mean, as a parent myself - if I had any sketchy feelings towards an adult, I sure wouldn't let my kids play there or be around that person without my presence. If John and Patsy allowed their kids to play together at their house and be alone around Fleet, IMO, it does not point to any suspicious feelings/thoughts regarding them. It seems actually quite the opposite - they must have trusted them enough to let their kids spend time with them. IMO

Are there any indications that Fleet White enjoyed or expressed un-natural thoughts when talking about helping JB with her toileting issues? Were there any signs of obsession from Fleet towards JB? Photos, videos? Or even comments or observations by others? I have not seen any.

And, if I remember correctly, she stated that she did not believe that she was or thought of anything unusual.
Thinking about the day of the 25th - arguing with JB over what she should wear, packing things for the trip, having no help that day from the housekeeper, getting kids and herself ready for the party, taking along the gifts to drop off later, driving home with the kids excited and bubbly at the back seat of the car, planning and preparing the last minute things to do before the early morning flight - I see plenty of reasons why Patsy could have been more tired than usual that day. IMO

We can not prove his statement about searching the basement and not seeing her to be a lie, can we? It was stated somewhere (sorry, can't quote right now) that when John went to the Wine Cellar room the sun had already risen and was shining (or at least more light was coming through) through the boiler room window. It was early morning when Fleet went down there by himself and it was still dark outside - no light came from outside. It is possible that he did go there and opened the door, could not find the switch and did not see anything - we really can not argue that, can we?

I have a similar room in my basement that any of my family members, including myself, rarely enter. I have many guests that come to my house but they have never been to my basement. And even the few that may have been to my basement sure do not know where the light switch to that separate room is located and what is in that room. Even my 14 year old son asked about that light switch a couple of years ago as he was looking for it and didn't know where it was. And he has been living here his whole life. We just do not use that room that often.

Is the statement that LE (who?) asked Fleet (just Fleet and only Fleet not anyone else who was around) to guard the basement door (why wouldn't LE do it himself and would ask a random person to do that?) verified? Who made that statement and at what time was it made? Arndt? It must be in the Arndt's statements then. I will go and read that part again.

There are many possibilities why he went there and did what he did, IMO. If I could do an interview with Fleet, it would be one of the questions I sure would ask him. Why did he go back down? Why did he touch the tape? I mean, there must have been some kind of reason. What seemed odd for him?


There are many statements regarding that topic. They are all someone's opinions and interpretations of that situation. Some say there was nothing that serious or aggressive about the whole "confrontations", some say there is. It is one of the things that we will never know for sure. We know that emotions were high and people tend do see things differently in such situations. Since we were never there to witness it we can assume both ways.

But what did he say that would be suspicious? Or incriminating? He did not change his statements and has been, IMO, quite honest. He sure seems to remember a lot more about things than Ramsey's themselves do. And if you look how much (or little) the Ramsey's have cooperated regarding this whole investigation and how much the Whites have, it does not seem to raise any red flags. IMO

But it also could be that he was just so frustrated with how the PD dealt with this investigation. He was also not pleased with how the Ramsey's did not cooperate. He must have had his reasons.

I mean. Again, I like to put myself into those situations. If I had a good friend who had such a crime happened in her house. And I know that family well - their demeanor, their way of living, talking, expressing emotions. And if I'd know them well enough to tell when they are being truthful and when they are not. I believe I could easily pick up on clues and random little things that others (LE) may not suspect or see strange. So if I'd notice something like that - something odd or just not right. I would be suspicious - what's going on here? Maybe I would go and do my own "research" to verify what has been said or confirm something for myself. Possibly... And after a few days, adding that the friends family does not really like to cooperate, travels out of state and does an interview... well. If it would not seem right to me and I'd believe something else was happening I would act the same way like the Whites did. - I would confront, I would ask for answers, I would go and tell them that they should cooperate. And I would do it myself if they didn't. I see it possible, don't you?

All my opinion, again.

Yes, these are all good points, but my gut tells me John Ramsey had nothing to do with it. Just recently, the Behavioral Panel, a group of four experts in body language, came away with a similar sentiment. To be fair, I've also watched their assessment of Patsy Ramsey, and they weren't as kind.

I think there's a slim chance Patsy might have been involved, but I doubt it.

I think there's no logical chance that Burke was involved.

And, I think JR is as innocent as they come. He did hire attorneys soon after but they were tried in the media from day one, and most people are going to lawyer up. If they can afford to.

I'm deeply disturbed by FW cleaning and wiping JBR's bottom. I think that's where the child abuse indictment comes from--I don't think the GJ accepted that it was normal for the Ramseys to allow that sort of thing to go on.

Plus, I think Patsy Ramsey is the type of mother that others love to hate because she put her child in pageants. I don't like pageants either, but the majority of girls who participate grow up to be productive members of society. The tabloids, however, made it sound as if Patsy was trafficking JBR.

The way JBR was killed, it makes more sense to me that it was an intruder. But, not one that broke in through a window--one that let himself in through the front door with a key.

Although Patsy denied being drugged at the Whites, it's apparent LE considered it because they questioned her. Personally, I think it could be true.

Yes, the Ramseys and the Whites were very close at the time of JBR's death but that ended soon after. In some of the books I read, that was blamed on LE telling each of the parties that the other suspected them. That could have started the rift, but that's a common LE tactic. FW's behavior in GA was considered very odd and antisocial by many who witnessed it.

For me, there are too many coincidences. Too much odd behavior from FW--both before and after JBR died.

Right now, I'm pinning my hopes on the new DNA tests being able to separate the composite samples so we can finally find a killer.

All MOO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

I agree. They had plenty of friends to go to just a few minutes drive away. They also could have afforded an hotel room.

I don't think nothing of that kind has been stated. He, before starting to blame his friends, stated that he did not know of anyone who would have done it.

He must have worn a hazmat suite for not leaving any kind of evidence behind. But yes, he sure did have to wear gloves too because there were no prints anywhere. If he did just wrote the ransom letter out of boredom with the intent to torture the family it did not work very well, did it? Patsy didn't even read it. They didn't even bother to take it seriously enough to not call the cops, as the intruder had asked. It seems that they were quite sure that he will not behead her. IMO

Well, if it was a sadistic pedophile from a church sex-ring that had been fantasizing about JB since his teens, he somehow failed to show any evidence of those "fantasies" at the crime scene. IMO. There was nothing really sadistic about it. A crazed killer with an intent to kill would, IMO, leave behind a much gruesome scene. Especially if he intended to torture the family. The few drops of blood on the crotch of JB's underpants, IMO, does not point to someone who came to the house with sexual fantasies. Actually, IMO, a sexually motivated intruder would have assaulted her in ways that have been described in other cases where there actually was a rapist/sexual predator attacking a child. And those scenes do not include wiping the victim, redressing and placing them tucked into their favorite blanket. Like you said - the purpose was to torture.

If he wanted to torture the family by the gruesome acts that he did to a little 6- year-old girl then why didn't he do it? If he was a sexually motivated person, why not rape her? Why was there no evidence of anyone actually found on her? If he wanted to assault her and fantasized about her in sexual ways - why not just do it and leave all the evidence that is supposed to be there in those types of crimes? There was nothing. It seems to me that the person was more interested/concerned in not leaving any evidence behind. IMO

But he DID leave evidence… he left saliva mixed with her blood at the scene on the crotch of her underwear; he left his DNA on the bands of her long johns; and in her fingernails. He could have been wearing a Santa Suit. No? You make great points and I think what is so strange about this case is that the puzzle pieces do NOT fit together… like one of those things where you look at it from one direction and you see one picture and then you look at it from the opposite direction and it’s a different picture. I respect all theories. I just want to be able to be on a side and feel so confident in it that my mind can obsess over something else haha.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I also think the case could be solved by seeing the complete phone records for the entire month of December.

Yes that sure would help @CloudedTruth …. but IIRC weren’t there reports that one of Mr. R’s phones from that time disappeared or was destroyed, and that a new one was obtained? SMH. Pretty sure I read that in one of these threads and background. Unfortunately with the plethora of them now, I will not be able to find it. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I am in error. MOO

 

[Bean&Cheese]

Yes, these are all good points, but my gut tells me John Ramsey had nothing to do with it. Just recently, the Behavioral Panel, a group of four experts in body language, came away with a similar sentiment. To be fair, I've also watched their assessment of Patsy Ramsey, and they weren't as kind.

I think there's a slim chance Patsy might have been involved, but I doubt it.

I think there's no logical chance that Burke was involved.

And, I think JR is as innocent as they come. He did hire attorneys soon after but they were tried in the media from day one, and most people are going to lawyer up. If they can afford to.

I'm deeply disturbed by FW cleaning and wiping JBR's bottom. I think that's where the child abuse indictment comes from--I don't think the GJ accepted that it was normal for the Ramseys to allow that sort of thing to go on.

Plus, I think Patsy Ramsey is the type of mother that others love to hate because she put her child in pageants. I don't like pageants either, but the majority of girls who participate grow up to be productive members of society. The tabloids, however, made it sound as if Patsy was trafficking JBR.

The way JBR was killed, it makes more sense to me that it was an intruder. But, not one that broke in through a window--one that let himself in through the front door with a key.

Although Patsy denied being drugged at the Whites, it's apparent LE considered it because they questioned her. Personally, I think it could be true.

Yes, the Ramseys and the Whites were very close at the time of JBR's death but that ended soon after. In some of the books I read, that was blamed on LE telling each of the parties that the other suspected them. That could have started the rift, but that's a common LE tactic. FW's behavior in GA was considered very odd and antisocial by many who witnessed it.

For me, there are too many coincidences. Too much odd behavior from FW--both before and after JBR died.

Right now, I'm pinning my hopes on the new DNA tests being able to separate the composite samples so we can finally find a killer.

All MOO

Also (and I’m trying to find it), wasn’t Fleet Whites sister murdered in the same way as Jon Benet? Or was that a different suspect?

 

[GRT]

Also (and I’m trying to find it), wasn’t Fleet Whites sister murdered in the same way as Jon Benet? Or was that a different suspect?

For some reason, I'm thinking that might have been John Andrew Ramsey's girlfriend. But, I could be wrong.

Sorry -- I'm wrong. I think that was John Mark Karr's little sister.

Nah, I don't know. I better quit while I'm behind.

 

[Ponytale]

Yes, these are all good points, but my gut tells me John Ramsey had nothing to do with it. Just recently, the Behavioral Panel, a group of four experts in body language, came away with a similar sentiment. To be fair, I've also watched their assessment of Patsy Ramsey, and they weren't as kind.

And sometimes all we have is the gut feeling to go with. I respect that.

I think there's a slim chance Patsy might have been involved, but I doubt it.

May I ask who do you think wrote the Ransom note? Fleet? Why and when?

I think there's no logical chance that Burke was involved.

But why? There may be aspects of the crime that are logical to assume that he was not involved in them, but can you conclude it to all of the crime? If you abandon your gut feeling for a moment and entertain the idea that it all could have begun from an accidental head blow - can you exclude Burke causing the accident? If so, could you explain why?

And, I think JR is as innocent as they come. He did hire attorneys soon after but they were tried in the media from day one, and most people are going to lawyer up. If they can afford to.

IMO it was the other way around - the media and police started to act suspiciously towards them because they lawyered up. And it was not the only reason. The way they acted brings many questions, and if those questions are not answered it seems quite fair to be suspicious. IMO

I'm deeply disturbed by FW cleaning and wiping JBR's bottom. I think that's where the child abuse indictment comes from--I don't think the GJ accepted that it was normal for the Ramseys to allow that sort of thing to go on.

It may be. But it also could be from something else. We do not know for sure.
Yes I agree as a parent that it is weird and I sure would not allow it. But again, all of my kids were toilet trained by the age of 4 and if one of them would have had any issues then I would have dealt with them right away.
I have never been in that situation, but if I place myself to a situation where my friends child is over at our place and is at the age of 6 and asks for help - Should I say no to that child and walk away? Leave him/her crying there? Leave him/her to sit alone for hours in the toilet? I mean, if I am put to that (yes, uncomfortable) situation, I would do it if it is needed. What better option is there? And after that I would go and address this topic with his/her parents. I would say I am not okay with it and it is not okay for a child that age to ask help like that. Did the Whites do that? There is not much that they could do, it is the parents job to toilet train their kids and teach them about hygiene.

Plus, I think Patsy Ramsey is the type of mother that others love to hate because she put her child in pageants. I don't like pageants either, but the majority of girls who participate grow up to be productive members of society. The tabloids, however, made it sound as if Patsy was trafficking JBR.

I am not a fan of pageants too, but I do not blame Patsy for doing that. We do not know her reasons and judging her will not help the case.

The way JBR was killed, it makes more sense to me that it was an intruder. But, not one that broke in through a window--one that let himself in through the front door with a key.

What about that way that she was killed makes you believe that it was rather an intruder (a family friend) who did it?

Although Patsy denied being drugged at the Whites, it's apparent LE considered it because they questioned her. Personally, I think it could be true.

I think that it is a question that should be asked by the LE in any case. I would ask it too.

Yes, the Ramseys and the Whites were very close at the time of JBR's death but that ended soon after. In some of the books I read, that was blamed on LE telling each of the parties that the other suspected them. That could have started the rift, but that's a common LE tactic. FW's behavior in GA was considered very odd and antisocial by many who witnessed it.

Again, we can only base our conclusions about that topic on the interpretations of others. There are no facts or evidence to support it in either way.

For me, there are too many coincidences. Too much odd behavior from FW--both before and after JBR died.

I accept that and do not argue with you. We all have our reasons to believe in the theory that we believe to be true.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Yes that sure would help @CloudedTruth …. but IIRC weren’t there reports that one of Mr. R’s phones from that time disappeared or was destroyed, and that a new one was obtained? SMH. Pretty sure I read that in one of these threads and background. Unfortunately with the plethora of them now, I will not be able to find it. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I am in error. MOO

Yes, supposedly JR’s cell phone had been lost and replaced. But the records should still have been available. The DA sat on the subpoena for a year, never acting upon it. JR eventually handed over some, but not all phone records. The month of December showed no calls, which was very suspicious when compared with other months. Some hanky panky went on there, and the DA gave them plenty of time to manipulate and hide anything on those records.

 

[Ponytale]

But he DID leave evidence… he left saliva mixed with her blood at the scene on the crotch of her underwear; he left his DNA on the bands of her long johns; and in her fingernails. He could have been wearing a Santa Suit. No?

If a random intruder that has never been to that house was in that house for hours - wondering around the four levels, looking for a pen and a pad to write a ransom note, take the time to sit and write it, wind the needed objects that he was going to use to fulfill his fantasy and stage the crime scene - there would be a lot more of that one persons DNA, hair, fibers and fingerprints found around the house and on the body of JB. Even if he did wear gloves (cause he did not leave any fingerprints) and a Santa Suite. IMO

You make great points and I think what is so strange about this case is that the puzzle pieces do NOT fit together… like one of those things where you look at it from one direction and you see one picture and then you look at it from the opposite direction and it’s a different picture.

I too respect all theories and am happy to discuss and think along with other ideas. And yes there is much that we do not know and most likely will never know. But if I talk about myself, I have followed this case for over 20 years and have had the same theory all those years since I was 13 years old and first learned the name JonBenet. Nothing has made me doubt it. There are aspects about this crime that I change my mind about time to time, but I have never believed anyone outside the Ramsey family did this.

I respect all theories. I just want to be able to be on a side and feel so confident in it that my mind can obsess over something else haha.

Thank you for sharing your theory! I love to think along with all of you and I hope that you (and no-one else in that matter ) do not feel offended by me asking questions or debating ideas.

 

[Tower]

Oh good; I've been looking for a source that has verified the specific "brand" of Patsy's sexual abuse she suffered as a child herself and have never found that. Do you know your source on that? I'd love to read more.

As to Patsy "demonstrating no signs of that type of sexual abuse", I'm ultra confused. Are there some specific signs of that specific kind of abuse that signify that particular kind of sexual abuse did (or did not) happen to a person in their childhood? I'm only familiar with the more commonly known huuuge numbers of people who often take years of therapy before they have been able to bring up and discuss childhood sexual abuse at all.

I'm just trying to be sure we aren't taking what we'd "like" to believe is true and then building confirmation statements around that wish as though it "is" indeed true instead of being an as yet unknown.

Yes, I promise I’ll find at least one, please be patient with me. I’m having a disaster of a week at work, all US healthcare insurance-related! :’(

 

[CloudedTruth]

Also (and I’m trying to find it), wasn’t Fleet Whites sister murdered in the same way as Jon Benet? Or was that a different suspect?

I don't recall hearing about any of the suspects having a relative murdered. There was the abduction of Bill McReynolds' daughter along with a friend. She was 9 at the time. The friend was sexually assaulted, but they both were released. In an odd coincidence, the abduction occurred on 12/26, but in 1974.

Also, in 1976 Bill's wife wrote a play called Hey Rube, which was a fictionalized account of a real crime that had occurred in 1965. The crime the play was based on involved a 16 year old girl from Indiana named Sylvia Likens. She was tortured and killed by a gang of teenagers, aided by the woman in whose home she was boarding.

 

[GRT]

May I ask who do you think wrote the Ransom note? Fleet? Why and when?

I think so. MOO I think JBR was killed early in the night -- maybe before midnight, because some LE reported that they smelled decomposition on her body and that would indicate she died not long after being put to bed. That would give the killer plenty of time to sit down and write the note.

A little off-topic but were you aware that a top document expert found Chris Wolf's handwriting to be an exact match to the ransom note? That still gives me pause...

But why? There may be aspects of the crime that are logical to assume that he was not involved in them, but can you conclude it to all of the crime? If you abandon your gut feeling for a moment and entertain the idea that it all could have begun from an accidental head blow - can you exclude Burke causing the accident? If so, could you explain why?

Nothing can be excluded, but the split in JBR's skull was so extensive it's hard to imagine someone as small as BR being able to do that. I guess he (theoretically) cold have pushed her over the rail on the stairs and she landed on her head on the hard tile floor, but no blood?

I've never seen a major head wound that didn't bleed like a stuck pig. That's why I tend to think the theory about the strangulation and head smack to be about the same time--the perimortem phase. And for that to happen, a person (if it was only one person) would need to hold the twisted rope in one hand and then use a tremendous amount of force to hit her with an object in the other hand.

Yes I agree as a parent that it is weird and I sure would not allow it. But again, all of my kids were toilet trained by the age of 4 and if one of them would have had any issues then I would have dealt with them right away.

Yeah, just not being toilet trained by JBR's age was odd. Lazy parenting? Probably, but maybe PR's cancer treatments interrupted it and they never got it worked back out.

I have never been in that situation, but if I place myself to a situation where my friends child is over at our place and is at the age of 6 and asks for help - Should I say no to that child and walk away? Leave him/her crying there? Leave him/her to sit alone for hours in the toilet? I mean, if I am put to that (yes, uncomfortable) situation, I would do it if it is needed. What better option is there? And after that I would go and address this topic with his/her parents. I would say I am not okay with it and it is not okay for a child that age to ask help like that. Did the Whites do that? There is not much that they could do, it is the parents job to toilet train their kids and teach them about hygiene.

It's been pondered that FW might have been alone with the kids, which is why he couldn't call his wife.

I can't say for sure why FW did what he did, and maybe it was innocent. But I sure don't feel good about it. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

I would do what you would do -- tell the parents it's not okay for a child that age to ask for help from just about any adult.

What about that way that she was killed makes you believe that it was rather an intruder (a family friend) who did it?

It's hard to imagine a parent doing that out of the blue. Typically, there are warning signs of building abuse. But no one noticed any abuse of either Ramsey kid. Teachers did notice JBR being more clingy to her mother in the month or two before the murder, but no one knew why.

I accept that and do not argue with you. We all have our reasons to believe in the theory that we believe to be true.

I agree and just hope the killer is found one day. Such a horrible thing to happen to such a beautiful child.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Yes, supposedly JR’s cell phone had been lost and replaced. But the records should still have been available. The DA sat on the subpoena for a year, never acting upon it. JR eventually handed over some, but not all phone records. The month of December showed no calls, which was very suspicious when compared with other months. Some hanky panky went on there, and the DA gave them plenty of time to manipulate and hide anything on those records.

Thank you for the confirmation @CloudedTruth …. yes, records should still be available. Something it seems.

But at the same time, IIRC, sometimes certain details and information are tied to or specific to a certain device. And if that’s the case, then it sounds like something might be lost perhaps? Forever? And then again, even if in this JBR case, the DA was to later release further information, I don’t know that I could believe any of it based on what I’ve seen this far unfortunately.

I remain convinced. Four people entered that resident that evening and early morning. And by the next morning only three remained alive. That IMO, tells the entire story. All of it. Period. And the only other thing that seems clear? And you’ve alluded to it as well, the DA office. IMO they sure seem to have run interference for some potential adult suspects in this case. And only one of those individuals remains. MOO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I agree. They had plenty of friends to go to just a few minutes drive away. They also could have afforded an hotel room.

I don't think nothing of that kind has been stated. He, before starting to blame his friends, stated that he did not know of anyone who would have done it.

He must have worn a hazmat suite for not leaving any kind of evidence behind. But yes, he sure did have to wear gloves too because there were no prints anywhere. If he did just wrote the ransom letter out of boredom with the intent to torture the family it did not work very well, did it? Patsy didn't even read it. They didn't even bother to take it seriously enough to not call the cops, as the intruder had asked. It seems that they were quite sure that he will not behead her. IMO

Well, if it was a sadistic pedophile from a church sex-ring that had been fantasizing about JB since his teens, he somehow failed to show any evidence of those "fantasies" at the crime scene. IMO. There was nothing really sadistic about it. A crazed killer with an intent to kill would, IMO, leave behind a much gruesome scene. Especially if he intended to torture the family. The few drops of blood on the crotch of JB's underpants, IMO, does not point to someone who came to the house with sexual fantasies. Actually, IMO, a sexually motivated intruder would have assaulted her in ways that have been described in other cases where there actually was a rapist/sexual predator attacking a child. And those scenes do not include wiping the victim, redressing and placing them tucked into their favorite blanket. Like you said - the purpose was to torture.

If he wanted to torture the family by the gruesome acts that he did to a little 6- year-old girl then why didn't he do it? If he was a sexually motivated person, why not rape her? Why was there no evidence of anyone actually found on her? If he wanted to assault her and fantasized about her in sexual ways - why not just do it and leave all the evidence that is supposed to be there in those types of crimes? There was nothing. It seems to me that the person was more interested/concerned in not leaving any evidence behind. IMO

And why redress her. Why not just leave her undressed. If it was to punish JR, wouldn't that be more demeaning?

 

[Slebby]

Yes, these are all good points, but my gut tells me John Ramsey had nothing to do with it. Just recently, the Behavioral Panel, a group of four experts in body language, came away with a similar sentiment. To be fair, I've also watched their assessment of Patsy Ramsey, and they weren't as kind.

<snipped>

Snipped by me for focus on one element of your post…

I’m glad you brought up the behaviour panel, I watch a lot of their videos. I go there a lot when I’m following a crime, see if they’ve covered it, and what is their perspective. They have a very unique skill set.
In one of their earlier episodes on this case, you are right, their position on the Rs was that they had "guilty knowledge". It's been a while since I watched it, it may have been just in PR that they detected guilty knowledge.

Much more recently, the panel actually met JR, i might be wrong but I think it was at a Crime Con? Meeting him in person, they seemed to have a very favourable impression of him. My theory is that these white alpha males at the top of their field feel a common bond with JR, a white alpha male successful in his field. I think JR has a gift of winning people over. Like Lou S.

Anyway, love their coverage of different personalities in the news, I highly recommend giving them a watch, they’re on YouTube.

IMHO

 

[Deleted member 187229]

So the FBI were incompetent also?
Why is that? They were assisting LE but you seem to disregard everyone who was on the case as unable to do their job. They had first hand knowledge and were there to observe the scene. We were not.

I don’t know what the FBI thought. I’ve never seen any FBI reports. I know the Ramsey’s have never been charged due to lack of evidence. That’s a fact.