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

[scruffydog]

Over the years I have waffled between all three Ramseys that were in the house that night. There's a case to be made all the way around for each of them. Lately, I am inclined to remove Burke from the mix. The "little perfect family" that both John and Patsy were so invested in presenting to the world was far from the truth, that has been what has become most evident in this case. Both parents were self absorbed and not really interested or invested in doing actual parenting. As a result, both of their children were victims who were forced to live in a highly dysfunctional, chaotic and toxic environment that was neither safe or conducive to nurturing young psyches.

Even if one believes that Burke was the killer which for various reasons I do not, ultimately the responsibility lies with the parents and the environment they created and allowed to exist for their own selfish purposes. And that's pretty much what the indictments that were made public attest to. Both Patsy and John were involved up to their eyeballs and I believe that's what the evidence shows. The evidence also makes a clear case for SA. Patsy may very well have been in denial, but a mother who is actively parenting and in tune with her children should have a sense of something being off. Patsy was obsessed with other things. Her obsessions ruled her orbit and allowed for her to live in a world where reality was often pushed aside.

I agree with everything you've just said!

 

[jenbo1970]

I understand why people suspect the Ramseys, but… Burke was 9 years old. Even if he did hit JB over the head and kill her accidentally (not what I believe happened), I do NOT see John and Patsy tying a garrote around her neck and sexually assaulting her-just to try to protect Burke. That idea, to me, is ridiculous. As for why they didn’t find JB immediately, they probably had no reason to look for her down in those basement rooms. Why would she be down there if she had no history of going in that part of the house? The ransom note said somebody had taken her. It did not say somebody took her down to a room in the basement! And I know the ransom note is questionable-I am not sure how I feel about it. I know there were no footprints in the snow, indicating someone left on foot-as an intruder. Is it at all possible that the killer was not the Ramseys at all, but was still in the house-somewhere-when JB was found? Could the killer have escaped right under the noses of the Ramseys and LE?
None of it makes sense-why haven’t they caught the killer? There IS DNA evidence that, for some reason, Boulder PD has not sent to be tested, which I find very fishy. Is the killer in LE? Who are they protecting? Just my thoughts.

 

[Marie A]

I understand why people suspect the Ramseys, but… Burke was 9 years old. Even if he did hit JB over the head and kill her accidentally (not what I believe happened), I do NOT see John and Patsy tying a garrote around her neck and sexually assaulting her-just to try to protect Burke. That idea, to me, is ridiculous. As for why they didn’t find JB immediately, they probably had no reason to look for her down in those basement rooms. Why would she be down there if she had no history of going in that part of the house? The ransom note said somebody had taken her. It did not say somebody took her down to a room in the basement! And I know the ransom note is questionable-I am not sure how I feel about it. I know there were no footprints in the snow, indicating someone left on foot-as an intruder. Is it at all possible that the killer was not the Ramseys at all, but was still in the house-somewhere-when JB was found? Could the killer have escaped right under the noses of the Ramseys and LE?
None of it makes sense-why haven’t they caught the killer? There IS DNA evidence that, for some reason, Boulder PD has not sent to be tested, which I find very fishy. Is the killer in LE? Who are they protecting? Just my thoughts.

I totally agree with you.

The killer was definitely an intruder- it was easy to get access to the house and to JB IMHO
It makes me sick that the Boulder police dept screwed this up so royally.
FBI should have taken over immediately

 

[summergirl1]

Genetic genealogy can solve pretty much anything if the DNA is usable. I wonder if it is usable at this time to potentially solve this. If not, technology is always improving..

 

[CloudedTruth]

I understand why people suspect the Ramseys, but… Burke was 9 years old. Even if he did hit JB over the head and kill her accidentally (not what I believe happened), I do NOT see John and Patsy tying a garrote around her neck and sexually assaulting her-just to try to protect Burke. That idea, to me, is ridiculous. As for why they didn’t find JB immediately, they probably had no reason to look for her down in those basement rooms. Why would she be down there if she had no history of going in that part of the house? The ransom note said somebody had taken her. It did not say somebody took her down to a room in the basement! And I know the ransom note is questionable-I am not sure how I feel about it. I know there were no footprints in the snow, indicating someone left on foot-as an intruder. Is it at all possible that the killer was not the Ramseys at all, but was still in the house-somewhere-when JB was found? Could the killer have escaped right under the noses of the Ramseys and LE?
None of it makes sense-why haven’t they caught the killer? There IS DNA evidence that, for some reason, Boulder PD has not sent to be tested, which I find very fishy. Is the killer in LE? Who are they protecting? Just my thoughts.

From my perspective, if my child was missing regardless of ransom note, there would not be an inch of my house that I did not search to try and find her. Not one inch.

Not only did the Ramsey's NOT thoroughly search the house, they didn't even bother to ask the only other person in the house who shared a floor with JonBenet if he had heard or seen anything. They immediately lawyered up and did not cooperate with the investigation for months. By the time they allowed themselves to be interviewed by police, many of their answers were, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall" or "I don't know". The biggest roadblock to the investigation was the Ramseys themselves. They did everything in their power to ensure that LE's hands were tied from finding the truth, and they were aided in that path by the DA and his office.

The ransom note is a huge tell that it was an inside job. It was written in the house with paper and pen from the house and would've taken quite some time to write given its length. We know Burke went back downstairs after everyone else was supposedly in bed, and yet he never saw or heard this mysterious "intruder". We also know that the Ramseys lied about the sequence of events after they returned home that night. Why? JonBenet was awake and they lied about that. Why? Why leave a ransom note which may reveal clues as to the perpetrator when the victim is already dead? That makes no sense.

There is literally no credible evidence that points to anyone other than the Ramseys being in the house that night. No footprints, no fingerprints, no foreign fibers. No one came through that window, no one took JonBenet from her bed. The DNA evidence is not much and is questionable at best. She was wiped down and re-dressed at some point. Not only is that a bold and unprecedented move for an intruder to make, that also required at least one trip back upstairs to her room to get other clothes, which also begs the question why? Risky behavior that increases the odds of being caught in the act. Everything that was used to commit this crime was sourced from inside the house. Again, unprecedented. Wouldn't an intruder bring his or her own tools of the trade for efficiency of time and the act itself?

The cover up was also an important aspect of trying to hide the fact that there was SA going on. If you look at it with that in mind, what occurred after the blow to the head makes more sense.

 

[Tower]

Over the years I have waffled between all three Ramseys that were in the house that night. There's a case to be made all the way around for each of them. Lately, I am inclined to remove Burke from the mix. The "little perfect family" that both John and Patsy were so invested in presenting to the world was far from the truth, that has been what has become most evident in this case. Both parents were self absorbed and not really interested or invested in doing actual parenting. As a result, both of their children were victims who were forced to live in a highly dysfunctional, chaotic and toxic environment that was neither safe or conducive to nurturing young psyches.

Even if one believes that Burke was the killer which for various reasons I do not, ultimately the responsibility lies with the parents and the environment they created and allowed to exist for their own selfish purposes. And that's pretty much what the indictments that were made public attest to. Both Patsy and John were involved up to their eyeballs and I believe that's what the evidence shows. The evidence also makes a clear case for SA. Patsy may very well have been in denial, but a mother who is actively parenting and in tune with her children should have a sense of something being off. Patsy was obsessed with other things. Her obsessions ruled her orbit and allowed for her to live in a world where reality was often pushed aside.

I have always discounted the idea it could be Burke because it makes no sense to come up with this elaborate scene if a 9-year-old child killed his sister, even deliberately. The family would have called 911 and said it was accidental.

He was too young to be charged with a crime. They would have known that. The arguments that they would do all of these crazy things because they didn’t want to lose Burke when they had no chance of losing him is implausible to me.

An adult did it: Patsy, John or brother John, in my opinion.

 

[Chimera]

From my perspective, if my child was missing regardless of ransom note, there would not be an inch of my house that I did not search to try and find her. Not one inch.

Not only did the Ramsey's NOT thoroughly search the house, they didn't even bother to ask the only other person in the house who shared a floor with JonBenet if he had heard or seen anything. They immediately lawyered up and did not cooperate with the investigation for months. By the time they allowed themselves to be interviewed by police, many of their answers were, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall" or "I don't know". The biggest roadblock to the investigation was the Ramseys themselves. They did everything in their power to ensure that LE's hands were tied from finding the truth, and they were aided in that path by the DA and his office.

The ransom note is a huge tell that it was an inside job. It was written in the house with paper and pen from the house and would've taken quite some time to write given its length. We know Burke went back downstairs after everyone else was supposedly in bed, and yet he never saw or heard this mysterious "intruder". We also know that the Ramseys lied about the sequence of events after they returned home that night. Why? JonBenet was awake and they lied about that. Why? Why leave a ransom note which may reveal clues as to the perpetrator when the victim is already dead? That makes no sense.

There is literally no credible evidence that points to anyone other than the Ramseys being in the house that night. No footprints, no fingerprints, no foreign fibers. No one came through that window, no one took JonBenet from her bed. The DNA evidence is not much and is questionable at best. She was wiped down and re-dressed at some point. Not only is that a bold and unprecedented move for an intruder to make, that also required at least one trip back upstairs to her room to get other clothes, which also begs the question why? Risky behavior that increases the odds of being caught in the act. Everything that was used to commit this crime was sourced from inside the house. Again, unprecedented. Wouldn't an intruder bring his or her own tools of the trade for efficiency of time and the act itself?

The cover up was also an important aspect of trying to hide the fact that there was SA going on. If you look at it with that in mind, what occurred after the blow to the head makes more sense.

Bbm.
Ita with all of this.
The bolded has been esp. troubling, imo.

Question : It's been so long ago now-- but in listening to podcasts and reading articles about JonBenet's case-- didn't the parents also lie about Burke saying he was asleep when in reality his voice was heard at the end of the 911 call, after the mother thought she'd hung up ?
Omo.

 

[scruffydog]

I have always discounted the idea it could be Burke because it makes no sense to come up with this elaborate scene if a 9-year-old child killed his sister, even deliberately. The family would have called 911 and said it was accidental.

He was too young to be charged with a crime. They would have known that. The arguments that they would do all of these crazy things because they didn’t want to lose Burke when they had no chance of losing him is implausible to me.

An adult did it: Patsy, John or brother John, in my opinion.

I'd leave out the brothers personally, and stick with the parents

 

[Tower]

I'd leave out the brothers personally, and stick with the parents

I agree. I haven’t read about the adult brother in a long time, but thought he may be responsible for SA. But yes, the adults who were verified in the home are most obviously involved.

 

[Chimera]

Question : That dna sample that people get stuck was a mitochondrial dna sample aka the dna left by the person who sewed the garment in the factory, I believe ?
As in, not a sample left on JB's body itself nor on the paintbrush/garotte/rope used to tie her hands.

Killing of JonBenét Ramsey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...In 2003, trace DNA that was taken from JonBenét's clothes was found to belong to an unknown male; Others, including former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, disagreed with exonerating the Ramseys, characterizing the DNA as a small piece of evidence that was not proven to have any connection to the crime..."

Trace dna is a very infinitesimal sample i.e., mitochondrial ?

JonBenét Ramsey's father insists his daughter's 28-year-old murder will still be solved

John Ramsey, 80, said advances in DNA technology can help police in Boulder, Colorado, take a fresh look at the 6-year-old girl's murder, which garnered international attention around Christmas 1996.

www.nbcnews.com

Ramsey said, "...So I really wanted to set the record straight. It's a very clear-eyed examination of how it's so obvious that this was an intruder."
While renewed attention on his child's killing can also spawn conspiracy theories...."
Red bolding mine.
No, it's still not obvious even after all these years.

Still curious if Burke went downstairs after the family had gone to sleep and if so ... let's say there was an intruder-- he didn't notice anything ?

The problem as I see it, is that what JR claims could be "conspiracy theories" might actually be the truth.
It almost defies belief that an intruder would use the families' own pen and notepads, not to mention Patsy's paintbrush and the families' own rope.
And then commit the murder and leave JonBenet in the basement of their own home.

Most heinous kidnappers and killers take their victim elsewhere, out of fear the victim will wake up and make a lot of noise; as an intruder couldn't be certain the parents and brother were fast asleep ?
My opinion at this time is that John Ramsey's going to go to his grave silent about what he knows and that is sad.
Imo.

 

[Prince Namor]

I've never understood people claiming the ransom note wasn't written by an intruder because it was written with pen and paper from inside the house. Where else would the intruder get the pen and paper? Would he have brought his own? Couldn't the intruder have been in the house while the Ramseys were at their friends house and possibly written it at that time? Are all ransom notes written ahead of time and brought to the scene of the crime?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

We know Burke went back downstairs after everyone else was supposedly in bed, and yet he never saw or heard this mysterious "intruder".

We don't know that. Burke said he was up fiddling with a toy which matches what John has said - that while he and Patsy were putting JonBenet to bed, Burke was downstairs with his new toy, then John came down, helped Burke with it, then took him to his room.

We also know that the Ramseys lied about the sequence of events after they returned home that night. Why?

We don't know that.

JonBenet was awake and they lied about that. Why?

We don't know that because we don't know that she was awake.

Why leave a ransom note which may reveal clues as to the perpetrator when the victim is already dead? That makes no sense.

Why did young sociopaths Leopold and Loeb do the exact same thing back in the day?

There is literally no credible evidence that points to anyone other than the Ramseys being in the house that night. No footprints, no fingerprints, no foreign fibers.

There are brown cotton fibers and animal fur that have never been sourced to the house or anywhere else.

No one came through that window, no one took JonBenet from her bed.

There were pieces of green garland in JonBenet's hair that matched the garland on the guardrail on the spiral staircase that led down from JonBenet's room. If she walked down, she wouldn't get it in her hair, but if she was carried?

The DNA evidence is not much and is questionable at best.

Two separate garments of different age (one brand new) with two separate sources (saliva Vs touch) yielding the same profile is considerably above "questionable".

She was wiped down and re-dressed at some point. Not only is that a bold and unprecedented move for an intruder to make, that also required at least one trip back upstairs to her room to get other clothes, which also begs the question why?

The underwear she was wearing was stained with urine, as was the mat in the boiler room. There is no reason to believe she wasn't wearing the same underwear when she died (as well as when she was in bed before) as when she was found. Someone pulled down her undergarments (aforementioned touch DNA) and wiped her, yes, butore likely in connection with SA, which occurred that night.

Risky behavior that increases the odds of being caught in the act. Everything that was used to commit this crime was sourced from inside the house. Again, unprecedented. Wouldn't an intruder bring his or her own tools of the trade for efficiency of time and the act itself?

The intruder would have. The tape used in the crime was never sourced to the house. No roll was found, no other used tape. The cord used for the ligature and garrotte was never sourced to the house. Rope found in the room next to JonBenet's was never sourced. A stun gun, if used (and I believe the evidence supports that) was not sourced. Those are the type of tools an intruder and would-be murderer would bring and take with him after the fact, while the household objects used (pad, pen, paintbrush, possibly bat) were left behind. The only household object that wasn't found was a piece of the paintbrush and based on evidence found inside JonBenet, it is likely because that bit was used to assault her.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Bbm.
Ita with all of this.
The bolded has been esp. troubling, imo.

Question : It's been so long ago now-- but in listening to podcasts and reading articles about JonBenet's case-- didn't the parents also lie about Burke saying he was asleep when in reality his voice was heard at the end of the 911 call, after the mother thought she'd hung up ?
Omo.

The voices on the 911 call is controversial. Some people say they can hear the 3rd voice and what they think was said, and others either do not hear it or think it's the power of suggestion that something is really there.

That said, it is my understanding that the original recording is in the custody of the Boulder PD. It was analyzed by a company called Aerospace Corporation (I believe located in California), and that was where they were able to use certain techniques to digitally copy from the original dictaphone format, clean it up enough to distinguish 3 separate voices after Patsy thought she had hung up, and what was said. I believe that the disc with this digitally enhanced recording is in the custody of the Boulder PD. The versions that we have heard "cleaned up" as it were, are copies recorded from broadcasts and therefore are not nearly as clear as what the Aerospace Corporation was able to produce.

It should be noted that the as the original recording was dictaphone, it was difficult to enhance without the most updated technology and digital tools. The original recording I have heard was sent off to both the FBI and the Secret Service for evaluation, but they lacked the advanced technology to accurately enhance the recording enough to pick up anything substantial.

 

[CloudedTruth]

We don't know that. Burke said he was up fiddling with a toy which matches what John has said - that while he and Patsy were putting JonBenet to bed, Burke was downstairs with his new toy, then John came down, helped Burke with it, then took him to his room.



We don't know that.



We don't know that because we don't know that she was awake.



Why did young sociopaths Leopold and Loeb do the exact same thing back in the day?



There are brown cotton fibers and animal fur that have never been sourced to the house or anywhere else.



There were pieces of green garland in JonBenet's hair that matched the garland on the guardrail on the spiral staircase that led down from JonBenet's room. If she walked down, she wouldn't get it in her hair, but if she was carried?



Two separate garments of different age (one brand new) with two separate sources (saliva Vs touch) yielding the same profile is considerably above "questionable".



The underwear she was wearing was stained with urine, as was the mat in the boiler room. There is no reason to believe she wasn't wearing the same underwear when she died (as well as when she was in bed before) as when she was found. Someone pulled down her undergarments (aforementioned touch DNA) and wiped her, yes, butore likely in connection with SA, which occurred that night.



The intruder would have. The tape used in the crime was never sourced to the house. No roll was found, no other used tape. The cord used for the ligature and garrotte was never sourced to the house. Rope found in the room next to JonBenet's was never sourced. A stun gun, if used (and I believe the evidence supports that) was not sourced. Those are the type of tools an intruder and would-be murderer would bring and take with him after the fact, while the household objects used (pad, pen, paintbrush, possibly bat) were left behind. The only household object that wasn't found was a piece of the paintbrush and based on evidence found inside JonBenet, it is likely because that bit was used to assault her.

We don't know that because we don't know that she was awake.

We don't know that.

It was John who told the story about helping Burke with a toy in order to get him to bed quicker, and that was John's story not Burke's. Burke very specifically told Dr. Phil that he snuck downstairs after being put to bed, and after (he thought) everyone else had gone to bed in order to put together a toy that he was obsessed with. He never mentions John.

John's first story about what occurred when they arrived home, as told to 3 separate police personnel was that he read to the kids in the solarium before going to bed. This story changed after they lawyered up to the one where JonBenet is "zonked" and never woke up. This story was only told months after the murder. Susan Stine told police she saw the whole family, intact and bubbly about the upcoming trips when they dropped off presents before heading home. The Stine's house was less than a two minute drive from the Ramseys. Burke has also said that she was awake and walked upstairs by herself with Patsy following behind. And we know she ingested pineapple within a short period of time before her death. She was awake.

The dark colored animal fur was thought to have come from either or both a jacket and boots that Patsy had that were lined with beaver fur. She refused to hand those over to the PD for examination and testing. The dark cotton fibers it was determined may have come from a shirt of John's that he was wearing that night.

Fibers consistent with things found in the basement were found on the floor where JonBenet's bedroom was. It is possible that the blow to the head occurred there and then she was carried downstairs where the green garland could have made contact with her hair.

The DNA evidence in this case is not at all conclusive. After retesting the underwear and finding a small amount of unidentified touch DNA (unknown male profile 1), Mary Lacy sent the long johns off to be tested too. There was a mixture of DNA found, the major contributor of which was JonBenet. There was a partial profile of possibly two other contributors aside from JonBenet. Unknown male profile 1 could neither be excluded or concluded as being a contributor. There was no single source profile found. The sample on the underwear could not be determined as saliva or sweat as it was compromised by the amount of urine that was present. It is a misstatement to say that there were two separate sources of DNA confirmed to have come from the same contributor, that has not been proven at all.

We know that JonBenet was not wearing the same articles of clothing when her body was found that she was wearing when put to bed according to the Ramseys claim. We also know from the coroner's report that she was wiped down with something. Patsy's comments about the size 12 underwear are confusing and suspect. She stated she had bought them as a present for her niece, but JonBenet wanted them even though she already had the same underwear in her size. Supposedly the size 12 underwear, brand new and fresh from the package were in JonBenet's drawer in her bedroom rather than wrapped and in the basement. The rest of the package with the other days was never found. If that's what she was wearing initially, which I doubt Patsy would have dressed her in to begin with knowing that it was highly likely that JonBenet would ask someone at the party to wipe her after going to the bathroom, where were the rest of the underwear? They were nowhere to be found.

Some of the items used in the crime could very easily have been disposed of before police came on the scene, and it makes perfect sense that they would be disposed of. Patsy had made purchases at a local hardware store that matched the pricing and location in the store of the tape and other items. The stun gun theory doesn't hold water. The marks do not match any stun gun in existence at that time, and using a stun gun does not result in the effect many have tried to claim. At the time they were not mainstream other than for law enforcement. They were loud and resulted in those who were stunned or tased to loudly express pain and discomfort. It's highly likely the firing of the stun gun and JonBenet's reaction would have been heard. It seems a little odd that this mysterious intruder would bring a stun gun in order to kidnap his victim, but not think to bring a pre-written concise ransom note. And then decide to SA his victim in the house instead of or before actually kidnapping her, then kill her and still leave the War and Peace of ransom notes. None of that makes any sense. Remaining in the house for as long as what is being attributed to this person having done there also makes no sense. His or her movements within the house could have been noticed by neighbors, he or she could have been discovered by a family member at any given moment. And then of course there's the question of how he or she got in and out without being noticed and without leaving any clues behind. It's just too far of a reach IMO.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I've never understood people claiming the ransom note wasn't written by an intruder because it was written with pen and paper from inside the house. Where else would the intruder get the pen and paper? Would he have brought his own? Couldn't the intruder have been in the house while the Ramseys were at their friends house and possibly written it at that time? Are all ransom notes written ahead of time and brought to the scene of the crime?

Where else would the intruder get a pen and paper? Practically anywhere! A stationary store, Target, Walmart, a grocery store.......most kidnappers come prepared with a pre-written note. Short, concise and to the point. The idea is to get in and out quickly so as not to be detected and to leave as few clues behind as to their identity.

 

[crime_junkie]

Except that a lot of people failed to find her in the house:

"He [Ofc. Reichenbach] went down into the sprawling basement and walked through it. At the far end was a white door secured at the top by a block of wood that pivoted on a screw. Reichenbach tried to open the door, stopped when he felt resistance, then returned upstairs. Reichenbach, Officer French, and one of the friends Patsy had called, Fleet White, would all check that white door in the basement during the morning, and White would even open it. They found nothing." -- JonBenet by Steve Thomas

Fleet White didn't turn on the light because he couldn't find the unusually-placed light switch and couldn't see into the windowless room, which was completely black. He was looking for a child who was hiding so I understand his reasoning: she wouldn't be hiding in there. Ofc. French had been told by John Ramsey that the house was locked up and, if memory serves, French then checked the first-floor doors and windows himself. (There was a broken window in the basement, of course.)

Few people would put a high priority on searching their house for a missing child if a seemingly-legitimate ransom note was found on the premises. It's interesting that even so Fleet White thought she might be hiding.

For the record, Thomas thinks that John Ramsey did find the body--at 11am when he was out of sight of Det. Arndt for about an hour--but kept quiet about it, realizing the implications.

Are we sure that her body was found at 11am, because I'm looking through Boulder archives and they say that John Ramsey and Fleet White found her body at 1:30pm

 

[crime_junkie]

Hi. I am new to this site but I will give my opinion. I am a nurse, but I also have a forensic background. In one of my classes. we reviewed the autopsy report for poor Jonbenet. As a forensic psychologist and RN, there are many things that were notable.

I have watched the documentaries on this case and looking for patterns: this is what I surmise:

Patsy Ramsey was a pageant mother. As we know, Jon Benet was a victim of the pageant circuit. Pageant mothers, I believe, live vicariously through their children so losing is not an option. Keep in mind, the Ramseys were also important in the community so appearances were everything. As a young child, Jon Benet was okay with being a pageant doll and going to the pageants with her mom. This made Patsy feel important. The most important thing for these children is to behave. As the Ramsay reputation was being built on this, as Jon Benet got older, she started to tire of the pageant scene. I believe that she was punished by being put into the dark basement to control her natural instincts. I also believe that, as Jon Benet got older, her father began fondling her when she was in the basement. I think he did it to control her more. As time went on, Jon Benet was getting more independent, which Patsy did not like. I think she allowed her husband to punish Jon Benet as he wanted. I believe there were multiple times when he down to the basement and "lightly" strangled her to control her outburts and force her to behave. Make up covers a lot, that is why we never saw any marks on her neck during the pageant.

Let's not forget, she had a brother. Most of the time, his parents were too busy for him. I think, at times he went down to the basement, with his father, and punished her for taking up all his parents' time.

There was a time when Jon Benet told her mother she didn't want to wear the Christmas sweater that her family was wearing for the family portrait, according to the documentary. I believe that she was pushed in the basement. At this point, her brother had enough. I think he was the one who garrotted her. The partial photo we saw in the documentary showed how long it took. Her neck was swollen and bruised and the autopsy report that we had gone over in class verified it. We know manual strangulation is very personal.

I think Mr Ramsey realized what he and his wife had created so that is why he covered it up. I think Patsy was so guilt ridden, that is why she did not pursue aggressive treatment for her breast cancer.

The documentary ended by stating they are doing touch DNA on her clothes. This is still a new procedure and is extremely time consuming but, the results will be indisputable .Touch DNA, as I understand it is scraping fine fibers off of clothes that can't actually be seen by the human eye. I Think they need a special lens to see the stain and then they start scraping. I believe Jon Benet's brother has very limited freedom as they are closing in on him and Mr. Ramsey

thank you for your time. I hope I Was not out of line on my first posting

what documentaries had this theory?

 

[CloudedTruth]

Are we sure that her body was found at 11am, because I'm looking through Boulder archives and they say that John Ramsey and Fleet White found her body at 1:30pm

Her body was found about 1:10 pm by John and Fleet White. However Stuart Long, Melinda Ramsey’s boyfriend said that John told him that he found the body at 11am, which interestingly coincided with the timeframe that John went missing for about an hour.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

It was John who told the story about helping Burke with a toy in order to get him to bed quicker, and that was John's story not Burke's. Burke very specifically told Dr. Phil that he snuck downstairs after being put to bed, and after (he thought) everyone else had gone to bed in order to put together a toy that he was obsessed with. He never mentions John.

Actually, he didn't. If you rewatch the interview, what Burke says he remembers is being downstairs alone with his toy, matching John's account. The bits about sneaking downstairs comes from Dr Phil.

John's first story about what occurred when they arrived home, as told to 3 separate police personnel was that he read to the kids in the solarium before going to bed. This story changed after they lawyered up to the one where JonBenet is "zonked" and never woke up. This story was only told months after the murder. Susan Stine told police she saw the whole family, intact and bubbly about the upcoming trips when they dropped off presents before heading home. The Stine's house was less than a two minute drive from the Ramseys. Burke has also said that she was awake and walked upstairs by herself with Patsy following behind. And we know she ingested pineapple within a short period of time before her death. She was awake.

Three officers? I know of French (which I regard as the actual source for the rest) and Arndt in her late, error-riddled report. There's no reason in my mind to think this comes from anyone other than French. And it's an easy mistake to make, John saying he put the children to bed then read for a while, and French interpreting it as "read to the children" (or just JonBenet per Armdt).

Because here's the thing - in each scenario, JonBenet goes straight to bed, awake or asleep. People lie for reasons, and here there's no reason to lie and change the story since the outcome is functionally the same.

(And the Stines and Burke may remember wrong, though I wouldn't trust Thomas on what Burke said in that interview - he also said Burke claimed JonBenet wetting the bed was a big problem, yet when footage emerged it turned out Burke had said the opposite)

The dark colored animal fur was thought to have come from either or both a jacket and boots that Patsy had that were lined with beaver fur. She refused to hand those over to the PD for examination and testing. The dark cotton fibers it was determined may have come from a shirt of John's that he was wearing that night.

The police believed she had fur boots that they didn't find. Yet they checked every single closet for hairs and fibers and could never match anything to those hairs. Plus, why hide the boots and hand over the jacket (with the red fibers) and John's shirt, if they were guilty and had worn those? And the sole source for the black fibers being from John's shirt is from the 2000 interviews (contradicting Schiller, but LE is allowed to lie in interviews).

Even if that is accepted, it still means that the Beaver fur and the brown cotton fibers are unsourced.

Fibers consistent with things found in the basement were found on the floor where JonBenet's bedroom was. It is possible that the blow to the head occurred there and then she was carried downstairs where the green garland could have made contact with her hair.

Actually, that would make more likely that someone who had been in the basement came up to the second floor to carry her down.

The DNA evidence in this case is not at all conclusive. After retesting the underwear and finding a small amount of unidentified touch DNA (unknown male profile 1), Mary Lacy sent the long johns off to be tested too.

That there was an unknown male profile mixed with her blood was clear since first years, and by 2003 they had enough identified alleles to have it entered into CODIS.

There was a mixture of DNA found, the major contributor of which was JonBenet. There was a partial profile of possibly two other contributors aside from JonBenet. Unknown male profile 1 could neither be excluded or concluded as being a contributor.

That is incorrect. From one spot on the waistband UM1 "cannot be excluded". The other spot says UM1 "cannot be excluded or included". So on the first case we essentially have an identification. And while there are too few alleles identified in the second spot, what we see is consistent with UM1. The additional contributor represents two faint alleles (which weren't present in the UM1 sample) neither belonging to JonBenet or UM1, but this is common in touch DNA testing.

There was no single source profile found. The sample on the underwear could not be determined as saliva or sweat as it was compromised by the amount of urine that was present. It is a misstatement to say that there were two separate sources of DNA confirmed to have come from the same contributor, that has not been proven at all.

Amylase was found in the foreign stain swab of the underwear. That indicates saliva but could be another body fluid. Either way, it's not touch DNA.

We know that JonBenet was not wearing the same articles of clothing when her body was found that she was wearing when put to bed according to the Ramseys claim.

The Ramsey's say they put her to bed in the top she wore at the Whites and exchanged her pants for a pair of longjohns. Those are the clothes she was found in. The sole disagreement is the French report which doesn't make sense. Why would they exchange her top for a red turtleneck when putting her to bed. Again, it's easy to see where French got confused given that the turtleneck is what she was originally supposed to wear at the Whites.

We also know from the coroner's report that she was wiped down with something.

Yes. And then the same urine soaked underwear and longjohns she wore when killed were pulled up again.

Patsy's comments about the size 12 underwear are confusing and suspect. She stated she had bought them as a present for her niece, but JonBenet wanted them even though she already had the same underwear in her size. Supposedly the size 12 underwear, brand new and fresh from the package were in JonBenet's drawer in her bedroom rather than wrapped and in the basement. The rest of the package with the other days was never found. If that's what she was wearing initially, which I doubt Patsy would have dressed her in to begin with knowing that it was highly likely that JonBenet would ask someone at the party to wipe her after going to the bathroom, where were the rest of the underwear? They were nowhere to be found.

I wonder how well they looked. And JonBenet dressed herself that day, going against what Patsy wanted her to wear.

Some of the items used in the crime could very easily have been disposed of before police came on the scene, and it makes perfect sense that they would be disposed of.

Why, when they didn't dispose of the other objects that were used, like pen, pad and paintbrush? Duct tape and cord are things any household could have, why remove the source? Especially when the potentially incriminating bits - i.e. those used in the crime - were left behind.

Patsy had made purchases at a local hardware store that matched the pricing and location in the store of the tape and other items.

Which was ridiculously generic prices and still doesn't explain why none of the tape and cord were used in the house.

The stun gun theory doesn't hold water. The marks do not match any stun gun in existence at that time, and using a stun gun does not result in the effect many have tried to claim. At the time they were not mainstream other than for law enforcement. They were loud and resulted in those who were stunned or tased to loudly express pain and discomfort. It's highly likely the firing of the stun gun and JonBenet's reaction would have been heard.

As per Schiller, Lou Smit found stun guns that matched the markings as well as a local store that sold them to the public. Michael Doberson, a coroner who had conducted extensive testing with stun guns for a recent case, agreed that it was likely a stun gun, as did another coroner who had worked on a similar case.

Kolar (I believe that is where the notion comes from) may not have found a stun gun that matched, but since I've seen one myself, I'm going with Smit. And Kolar's train track theory certainly doesn't hold up.

It seems a little odd that this mysterious intruder would bring a stun gun in order to kidnap his victim, but not think to bring a pre-written concise ransom note. And then decide to SA his victim in the house instead of or before actually kidnapping her, then kill her and still leave the War and Peace of ransom notes. None of that makes any sense.

The presumption is that kidnapping was the plan. I don't believe that. The ransom note was an afterthought, he came in to assault and kill JonBenet.

Remaining in the house for as long as what is being attributed to this person having done there also makes no sense. His or her movements within the house could have been noticed by neighbors, he or she could have been discovered by a family member at any given moment.

There was of course risk involved, but the other side of risk is thrill. And if someone in the house had woken up and confronted him? The likeliest murder weapon (for the head bash) was the baseball bat, which had fibers consistent with the mat in the boiler room. Where was the bat found? On a ledge on the north side of the house, just before a person would leave the shadows and become visible when leaving the house. I believe the bat was his security measure in case a parent woke up.

And then of course there's the question of how he or she got in and out without being noticed and without leaving any clues behind. It's just too far of a reach IMO.

Except for DNA, rope, fibers, shoeprint...

And the window in the train room is the likeliest point of entry.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Actually, he didn't. If you rewatch the interview, what Burke says he remembers is being downstairs alone with his toy, matching John's account. The bits about sneaking downstairs comes from Dr Phil.

John's account and Burke's do not match.

John in police interview, June of 1998:
"Right. I started to get Burke
into bed; get him ready. And he was sitting in the
living room working on a toy, an assembly little
toy he got for Christmas. And I could see that I
was going to get him to go easy. So I sat down and
helped him put it together to try to expedite the
process. So we did that together and it took us
ten or twenty minutes, I guess. And then he went
up to bed. And then we went up to bed. And I think
we used the front stairs (INAUDIBLE)."

Burke to Dr. Phil: "Yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was kinda in bed and wanting to get this thing out."
Dr. Phil: "Did you use the flashlight so you wouldn't be seen?"
Burke: "I don't remember. I just remember bing downstairs. I remember this toy".

Burke makes it clear he is putting together the toy by himself after everyone else is in bed, no mention whatsoever of John helping him.

There was not a misinterpretation of John saying he read for awhile before bed, meaning himself, he was specific on the morning of the 26th saying he read to JonBenet and Burke before bed. He also said that when he went to bed, he took a Melatonin and went right to sleep. This is all in Officer French's report written by him that very afternoon, which he reiterated in an interview 2 weeks later. He was specific to say that John told him that he read to the kids in the sitting room. 4 months later, that story changes. Typically, unless you're lying from moment one, things recounted early on and close to the event are likely to be closest to the truth. The Ramseys and JonBenet going to bed later than what they ended up changing their stories to didn't fit with the timeline of when it was estimated her death occurred. They needed to say they went right to bed in order for the timing of the intruder theory to make sense. One can argue that this was pointed out by the attorneys they immediately hired, and so when they finally agreed to be interviewed 4 months later, suddenly they have different stories. The amount of lies and purposeful misrepresentations made by the Ramseys over the years are easily tracked.

Lou Smit was unable to find any stun guns whose marks matched the marks found on JonBenet, similar but no match. There are pictures and you can clearly see they do not match. Nonetheless, he somehow determined that an Air Taser stun gun was used. The manufacturer was contacted who told police "in no uncertain terms that the marks on JonBenet's boy would not have been created by this device". Quote from Kolar's book. It's worth noting that some people familiar with the case, most notably Fleet White, have stated that Schiller's book is full of errors. That Smit found stun guns that matched the marks is just one of them.

The tests that Doberson did were on anesthetized pigs. Not the same as using a stun gun on a child who was alive and most likely would have reacted physically. Again, the tests found that the Air Taser made the most similar marks, but it was not a match.

Most of Smit's theories were easily debunked. He ended up becoming too close to the Ramseys, John in particular which compromised his ability to remain unbiased. He ended up going on an unprecedented and unauthorized media tour where he spouted his debunked theories to the public. Very unprofessional. Sadly, Lou's antics affected his credibility. The video he recorded of climbing through the window is just one example. It's as clear as day his entire body takes up the open window. He unwittingly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one could've come through the window without dragging debris with them. Not to mention the undisturbed spider web that moving the grate (which was heavy and loud) would have broken.

As far as what was and wasn't removed from the house, you'd have to ask the Ramseys, although you wouldn't get a truthful answer. The most logical explanation is that whatever happened that night was not planned. So here you have two people who are not criminals and don't think like a criminal would. They did their best to cover up what had happened and who was responsible, but some things were forgotten. Like the bowl of pineapple, the flashlight. And then before a full inventory was taken, Pam Paugh was allowed to enter the house and collect some things which were supposed to be items of clothing and whatever was needed for the upcoming funeral in Georgia. Police for whatever reason allowed her to take a stunning amount of items out of the house that had nothing to do with being needed for the funeral. An example of the unprecedented latitude extended to the Ramseys which should not have been, all the while during which they loudly complained about being unfairly targeted by police. The police did push back on the request to take out John's golf bag (why on earth would he need that in the dead of winter?), but who knows the extent of the items taken out of the house that may have been significant to the investigation?

There were two baseball bats and a golf club all of which were found outside the house. One bat was found on the north side of the home in the bushes near the butler pantry door, a golf club with a hair on it was found on the west side of the home, and the 2nd bat was found on the south side of the house on the patio. There were some fibers found on the one bat that indicated at one time it was near the crime scene. But no fingerprints, no DNA was found on the bat. In typical Ramsey fashion, neither Patsy or John could give definitive answers about the bats. John admitted that Burke played baseball and that they practiced batting in the back yard, but was unsure if Burke had a bat. Then also admits that a picture looks like Burke's bat and that it wasn't unusual for Burke to leave his bats laying around the outside of the house. Burke admits this too. And not just about the bats. Very common for both kids to drop whatever they had wherever they were.....that included toys and articles of clothing. The Ramseys were messy, particularly Patsy and the kids.

If the plan was for the mystery intruder to assault and kill JonBenet, there was no need for a rambling ransom note. It just doesn't make sense. Especially as an afterthought, meaning the assault and murder occurred first and then the perpetrator sat down to compose a couple of drafts first, and then the War and Peace of ransom notes. For what purpose? This person sure felt comfortable spending hours in the house wandering around at will and executing his evil plan. For a thrill?