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

[x_files]

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.

 

[x_files]

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.

Unless they knew he had SA JB in the past and didn't seek help and feared the repercussions.

 

[Tower]

Unless they knew he had SA JB in the past and didn't seek help and feared the repercussions.

It’s certainly possible, but he was in therapy, so they did seek help. Again, he was nine. I would not blame a parent who didn’t realize their nine-year-old was capable of murder, even if he had assaulted her in the past. Adults are so much more likely and capable of every aspect of this crime: the murder itself, the staging and the RN, in my opinion.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Just watching the new Netflix special now. It's strange to me that John says that he thought they fixed the window but realized they hadn't after going in the basement that morning. If you thought you had the window fixed and you thought someone broke in through that window why would you think it wasn't broken again by the killer unless you knew no one actually broke in.

 

[Elisaa444]

Just watching the new Netflix special now. It's strange to me that John says that he thought they fixed the window but realized they hadn't after going in the basement that morning. If you thought you had the window fixed and you thought someone broke in through that window why would you think it wasn't broken again by the killer unless you knew no one actually broke in.

I have been waiting on someone to comment on the new Netflix special. Yes, that stuck on to me too about the window. I just finished episode one. I still have to finish it. I keep coming back to this site to see what other people think of the newest special.

(Moo, Mooo)

 

[CrimeTheorist]

The documentary said that John trying to charter his plane out of Boulder soon after the murder was not true. It was tough for me to tell if they were trying to say he never tried to leave or that he did try to leave but it just wasn't going to be in his own plane and he wasn't going to be the one flying it. If it's the latter I'm not sure why that would even matter.

 

[IMWizzy]

I watched the Netflix docuseries today. I haven’t given much thought to this case in quite some time. For 30 years, I’ve believed that someone in the family accidentally killed JBR and the family covered it up. The series really tries to sway your opinion away from that theory, however, I still believe it was Burke, but would not be surprised if it were Patsy.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

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.

He makes it clear he was alone downstairs putting together the toy while the others were "kinda in bed". This is functionally identical to what John said, given Burke's perspective - how would he know what his parents were doing at that time? Note the "kinda".

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.

Yes, I don't doubt French is the source of the error. Adding the "sitting room" or "solarium" as the place John read to the kids also makes no sense, and further points to confusion.

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.

Sorry, that does not check out. JonBenet was thought to have died just after midnight, French claims the time she went to bed was 22:30. The stories, from a timing perspective, are identical. The family comes home, they put JonBenet to bed (even if John read to her before, it's still part of the process), JonBenet was asleep hours before her death. Why would the Ramseys change a story without a single benefit to them? Had they stuck to "reading to her then going to bed" nothing would have changed.

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.

And I've seen pictures where they do match, so I'm going to trust Smit over Kolar on this (especially considering his ridiculous train track theory).

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.

Tuttle's issue was with the marks being "perfect", i.e. that JonBenet hadn't moved. This of course presumes JonBenet wasn't restrained in any way. Funnily enough, it is trivially easy to find identical marks from stun guns on other people with a simple google search.

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.

That honestly depends on where and when the stun gun was applied. Was she restrained? Was it after she was unconscious?

I do find it interesting that Jaycee Dugard was similarly hit by a stun gun during her abduction, and it didn't cause a big commotion, waking everyone up.

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.

His theories weren't debunked, and that he got "too close" to the Ramseys is just an opinion. I find his behaviour considerably more restrained and professional than say, Steve Thomas or James Kolar. Also, unlike the latter two, Smit actually solved murder cases - quite a lot of them.

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.

Why would the flashlight be incriminating? There was no evidence on it. If the idea is that it was wiped, it makes even less sense that they would wipe it of prints yet leave it out. The bowl of pineapple also likely wasn't there that morning. JonBenet had pineapple in her duodenum, yes, but also grapes and cherries, none of which were in the bowl. Schiller also mentions that the victim advocates brought "bagels and fruit" for everyone, and we see plated bagels (using Ramsey family dishes) in the kitchen. It's hardly odd to think the "fruit" was the pineapple in the bowl.

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?

No one pushed back on John's request because he never made it. Thomas recounts that "was overheard to ask someone quietly" to get the clubs, and I value that as much as the other hearsay Thomas fills his book with. And Pam wouldn't be in a position to get the clubs anyway, because she wasn't allowed to go in the basement. Thomas gives a list of what was taken, intending us to be shocked, no doubt - yet it all seems perfectly reasonable from the perspective of a bereaved family. Dolls, toys and dresses belonging to JonBenet as well as clothes, bank records and credit cards for them to use. I know Thomas has some bizarre conspiracy theory that the Ramseys were protected politically, but this just sounds like rank incompetence to me. If the items were important, they shouldn't have been released, and that's on the cops, not the Ramseys.

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.

The bat was found on the north side of the house. The kids played on the south side, and there certainly wasn't a place for baseball up there.

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?

Yes, for a thrill. Getting off on violation and transgression is often a big part of it. Leopold and Loeb again fit the bill. He's committed the crime, JonBenet is dead - and no one has woken up. Not a sound from anyone in the house. So he decides to further torment the family by hiding JonBenet in the wine cellar (the next room) and composing the note. From a geographical perspective it also checks out. He carries the bat with him up the basement stairs, past the butler kitchen and spiral staircase, then he's in the hallway where pen and paper can be found. He either composes the note there, or more likely, moves into John's study which is adjacent to the hallway. Once done, he moves back into the hallway, places the note on the bottom step of the spiral staircase, then continues through the butler kitchen, out the door, moving east along the north side of the house until he's about to hit the front garden. At this point he leaves the bat on a ledge, since a man walking the streets in the middle of the night might be memorable, but one carrying a baseball bat definitely would be.

While we don't know the exact intentions, there are several that fit. He could have considered it an attempt to delay discovery, ensuring that he would be well out of the area before someone found JonBenet. He could have considered it further torment to the family, probably John, given the antagonistic nature of the ransom note, sending them scurrying all over the place to meet his conditions only to find out it was all futile. Or he could have geniunely hoped for a ransom, expecting the Ramseys to follow the instructions and not call the police - but then they did do that.

 

[fridaybaker]

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.

They haven’t caught the killer because they don’t want to. JMO.

 

[ldunnam16]

There is a YouTube video about north fox island l, that has a small tie to the grandfather of Jbr. It’s about the mcck and a pedophilia ring. It’s intriguing.

 

[summergirl1]

I'm not sure that this case will ever be officially solved unless something comes of the DNA evidence (if there was an intruder). Otherwise, it's the same evidence and arguments that have been going on for 28 years now. I have read most of the books about this case, although some years ago now, and I have never been sure if her family did it or not. I think someday the truth may be known, though. The most important thing that has happened since this crime occurred that is relevant is that technology has greatly improved to solve crimes in ways no one in 1996 would mostly have imagined.

It's not surprising this case got a lot of attention and continues to. I thought it was interesting from the moment I heard about it on the radio when I was ten years old, at the time, although it was not until some years later I started to follow the case. I thought at the time, that the murder of another child was sad, and hoped it would be solved.

 

[CloudedTruth]

There is a YouTube video about north fox island l, that has a small tie to the grandfather of Jbr. It’s about the mcck and a pedophilia ring. It’s intriguing.

I have read about this.....it certainly is intriguing.

 

[CloudedTruth]

He makes it clear he was alone downstairs putting together the toy while the others were "kinda in bed". This is functionally identical to what John said, given Burke's perspective - how would he know what his parents were doing at that time? Note the "kinda".



Yes, I don't doubt French is the source of the error. Adding the "sitting room" or "solarium" as the place John read to the kids also makes no sense, and further points to confusion.



Sorry, that does not check out. JonBenet was thought to have died just after midnight, French claims the time she went to bed was 22:30. The stories, from a timing perspective, are identical. The family comes home, they put JonBenet to bed (even if John read to her before, it's still part of the process), JonBenet was asleep hours before her death. Why would the Ramseys change a story without a single benefit to them? Had they stuck to "reading to her then going to bed" nothing would have changed.


And I've seen pictures where they do match, so I'm going to trust Smit over Kolar on this (especially considering his ridiculous train track theory).



Tuttle's issue was with the marks being "perfect", i.e. that JonBenet hadn't moved. This of course presumes JonBenet wasn't restrained in any way. Funnily enough, it is trivially easy to find identical marks from stun guns on other people with a simple google search.



That honestly depends on where and when the stun gun was applied. Was she restrained? Was it after she was unconscious?

I do find it interesting that Jaycee Dugard was similarly hit by a stun gun during her abduction, and it didn't cause a big commotion, waking everyone up.



His theories weren't debunked, and that he got "too close" to the Ramseys is just an opinion. I find his behaviour considerably more restrained and professional than say, Steve Thomas or James Kolar. Also, unlike the latter two, Smit actually solved murder cases - quite a lot of them.



Why would the flashlight be incriminating? There was no evidence on it. If the idea is that it was wiped, it makes even less sense that they would wipe it of prints yet leave it out. The bowl of pineapple also likely wasn't there that morning. JonBenet had pineapple in her duodenum, yes, but also grapes and cherries, none of which were in the bowl. Schiller also mentions that the victim advocates brought "bagels and fruit" for everyone, and we see plated bagels (using Ramsey family dishes) in the kitchen. It's hardly odd to think the "fruit" was the pineapple in the bowl.



No one pushed back on John's request because he never made it. Thomas recounts that "was overheard to ask someone quietly" to get the clubs, and I value that as much as the other hearsay Thomas fills his book with. And Pam wouldn't be in a position to get the clubs anyway, because she wasn't allowed to go in the basement. Thomas gives a list of what was taken, intending us to be shocked, no doubt - yet it all seems perfectly reasonable from the perspective of a bereaved family. Dolls, toys and dresses belonging to JonBenet as well as clothes, bank records and credit cards for them to use. I know Thomas has some bizarre conspiracy theory that the Ramseys were protected politically, but this just sounds like rank incompetence to me. If the items were important, they shouldn't have been released, and that's on the cops, not the Ramseys.



The bat was found on the north side of the house. The kids played on the south side, and there certainly wasn't a place for baseball up there.



Yes, for a thrill. Getting off on violation and transgression is often a big part of it. Leopold and Loeb again fit the bill. He's committed the crime, JonBenet is dead - and no one has woken up. Not a sound from anyone in the house. So he decides to further torment the family by hiding JonBenet in the wine cellar (the next room) and composing the note. From a geographical perspective it also checks out. He carries the bat with him up the basement stairs, past the butler kitchen and spiral staircase, then he's in the hallway where pen and paper can be found. He either composes the note there, or more likely, moves into John's study which is adjacent to the hallway. Once done, he moves back into the hallway, places the note on the bottom step of the spiral staircase, then continues through the butler kitchen, out the door, moving east along the north side of the house until he's about to hit the front garden. At this point he leaves the bat on a ledge, since a man walking the streets in the middle of the night might be memorable, but one carrying a baseball bat definitely would be.

While we don't know the exact intentions, there are several that fit. He could have considered it an attempt to delay discovery, ensuring that he would be well out of the area before someone found JonBenet. He could have considered it further torment to the family, probably John, given the antagonistic nature of the ransom note, sending them scurrying all over the place to meet his conditions only to find out it was all futile. Or he could have geniunely hoped for a ransom, expecting the Ramseys to follow the instructions and not call the police - but then they did do that.

Burke testified to the Grand Jury. He apparently also at that time admitted to being downstairs after he thought everyone else was in bed. John mentions this at one point, saying that neither he or Patsy were aware that Burke had been awake after he was put to bed.

We cannot assume that Officer French is the source for an error. John told two other officers the same story. Then John & Patsy started telling a different story. If one looks at the history of their comments, especially John, they were prolific at changing stories. This is where the Ramseys score low on the credibility scale, and there is no one to blame for that except themselves.

The coroner was unable to pinpoint the time of death. The most probable timeline was sometime between midnight and 2AM, but it could have been later.

Yes, Smit's theories were debunked. Quite easy. He was not brought on to the case until later on and made most of his observations by viewing photographs. One of my favorites is his insistence that there could not be any footprints visible because there wasn't snow. The first officers on the scene arrived before sunrise and it was still dark. Snow was still on the walkways at that point. The pictures were quite obviously taken well after sunrise as it is no longer dark. Even when it's still cold, at our high altitudes here in Colorado snow on pavement melts very quickly once the sun comes up. His conclusion was not well thought out. Smit's reputation was somewhat legendary.....legendary in that it was exaggerated. The infamous case he was credited with solving was actually solved by someone on his team and not him, although he certainly took credit. His main attribute was not giving up. While admirable, that doesn't qualify him as a "Sherlock Holmes". And I am not the only one who holds the opinion that he got too close to the Ramseys, that was / is a widely held opinion that has been discussed even in the law enforcement community. He also was allowed to present his "theories" to the Grand Jury. They didn't buy them either.

The flashlight has been discussed as the possible heavy object that was used for the head blow. It was wiped clean inside and out. John initially tried to deny it was his, then changed the story (another instance!) that he never used it and it probably didn't work because it was never used and so the batteries would be dead. Even Patsy knew it was theirs, given as a gift by John Andrew. If it was never used, why was not in its drawer?

The bowl of pineapple was left out, along with an empty glass with a used tea bag in it. In the police photos, one can clearly see that there is a bowl with pineapple in milk. It was there and was quite obviously triggering for Burke when he was asked about that picture when he was interviewed in Atlanta. The story about grapes and cherries in JonBenet's system is false. That was put forth by Paula Woodward, but when the material was sent to UOC for examination, they confirmed that it was raw pineapple. Yet the rumors about a fruit cup persist.

The kids played everywhere around the house. And had well observed habits of dropping their stuff everywhere. Finding it on the north side does not mean they played baseball there, but certainly Burke could've carried it around and dropped it there. They wouldn't have played baseball on the patio either, and yet there was a bat found there. Where things were found isn't proof of anything other than kids who were known for not putting there things away where they belonged. One of the neighbors who lived across the alley from the Ramseys told police her dogs barked whenever anyone was in the alley, or when anyone was wandering around that area. That was on the north side. Her dogs did not bark at anything that night.

Barbara Fernie recounted hearing John ask for the gold club bag. That was one of the first things she heard said where she started to wonder about the Ramseys. Then there was the blatant lie from Patsy about the pry marks on an outside door that she had told Barbara were already there from some time ago. After Patsy allowing police to think the pry marks might be proof of an intruder trying to get in the house, she called police as her suspicions were starting to grow. It is interesting to note that the Fernies were not the only friends who found the Ramseys behavior suspicious after awhile and started questioning their veracity, their credibility and their refusal to cooperate with the investigation. And certainly worth mentioning is why Fleet White was called to the Ramsey's attorneys office on 12/27 and told in no uncertain terms that Haddon & Morgan were in charge and that he needed to "not interfere". Threats being made within 24 hours?

I already said it was a mistake for the police to let Patsy's sister just grab whatever she felt like from the house. That also included their passports. They needed those for the funeral? I am very aware of Thomas' suggestions of "friends in high places", and it is not some random, bizarre theory. If you look at the people involved from the DA's office to the attorney firm, to Mike Bynum, there are some very interesting connections. One cannot ignore the misconduct by the DA himself in this case, which he should have been called on the carpet and fired for. He has admitted that he and his office were responsible for many of the leaks to the tabloids that occurred, and also that he gave investigative information to the defense team. Remarkable and highly suspect. Grounds for prosecutorial misconduct.

Of the long list of close friends and acquaintances that the Ramseys ended up throwing under the bus of suspicion, they were all cleared. Given that this mystery intruder had to have known the house and the Ramseys so well to pull this off as they did, which John liked to say was an inside job, it's certainly interesting that despite efforts to point fingers that has been unsuccessful. This person is very good at keeping secrets apparently! A master criminal. As an inside job, even Smit decided that it was someone with a grudge against John. Nothing to do with thrills.

 

[ldunnam16]

I have read about this.....it certainly is intriguing.

The video is something I recommend

 

[CloudedTruth]

The video is something I recommend

Thanks, I will look for it.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Burke testified to the Grand Jury. He apparently also at that time admitted to being downstairs after he thought everyone else was in bed.

Yes, which matches what John has said from day one.

John mentions this at one point, saying that neither he or Patsy were aware that Burke had been awake after he was put to bed.

At one point? Where?

We cannot assume that Officer French is the source for an error. John told two other officers the same story.

Arndt and who else? I can't say I'm impressed with Arndt's report - weeks late and plenty of dollars short.

Then John & Patsy started telling a different story. If one looks at the history of their comments, especially John, they were prolific at changing stories. This is where the Ramseys score low on the credibility scale, and there is no one to blame for that except themselves.

Yet funnily enough, a third party usually has to be involved. It's rarely "Ramsey said this here and that here" but "Ramsey said this here and some other person claims they said that here." That makes me skeptical, especially when the people in question are French and Arndt, arguably the two cops most responsible for nothing the case.

The coroner was unable to pinpoint the time of death. The most probable timeline was sometime between midnight and 2AM, but it could have been later.

So the point is that changing the story from "she was awake when we came home and we put her to bed" to "she was asleep when we came home and we put her to bed" changes nothing from a timing perspective. So why would they change it (if they did)?

Yes, Smit's theories were debunked. Quite easy. He was not brought on to the case until later on and made most of his observations by viewing photographs.

And proceeded to back them up. Smit was just what was needed to break the case out of tunnel vision.

One of my favorites is his insistence that there could not be any footprints visible because there wasn't snow. The first officers on the scene arrived before sunrise and it was still dark. Snow was still on the walkways at that point. The pictures were quite obviously taken well after sunrise as it is no longer dark. Even when it's still cold, at our high altitudes here in Colorado snow on pavement melts very quickly once the sun comes up. His conclusion was not well thought out. Smit's reputation was somewhat legendary.....legendary in that it was exaggerated. The infamous case he was credited with solving was actually solved by someone on his team and not him, although he certainly took credit. His main attribute was not giving up. While admirable, that doesn't qualify him as a "Sherlock Holmes". And I am not the only one who holds the opinion that he got too close to the Ramseys, that was / is a widely held opinion that has been discussed even in the law enforcement community. He also was allowed to present his "theories" to the Grand Jury. They didn't buy them either.

He got a little time to present out of the massive and lengthy Grand Jury sessions. Interestingly, the Grand Jury didn't buy the police theory either, since they didn't indict either Ramsey for the murder of JonBenet.

Perhaps Smit convinced them the case was much weaker than the prosecution claimed?

The flashlight has been discussed as the possible heavy object that was used for the head blow. It was wiped clean inside and out.

We don't know that. All we know is that there were no fingerprints on it. And if they wiped it "inside and out", why leave it out?

John initially tried to deny it was his, then changed the story (another instance!) that he never used it and it probably didn't work because it was never used and so the batteries would be dead. Even Patsy knew it was theirs, given as a gift by John Andrew. If it was never used, why was not in its drawer?

Did they change their story? Because from the interviews it's clear that they think it looks like theirs (though dirty in at least one picture) but couldn't be sure.

Remember what I said about geography? The flashlight was kept in a drawer in the same hallway the pen and paper were. If, like I believe, the killer wrote the note after the murder, he could have written it on the kitchen counter - like John's study, it was adjacent to the hallway. The flashlight could then have been used for illumination (the northern neighbor did say they saw an unusual light from the kitchen during the night).

What is clear is that the Ramseys didn't need to use a flashlight.

The bowl of pineapple was left out, along with an empty glass with a used tea bag in it. In the police photos, one can clearly see that there is a bowl with pineapple in milk.

There's no milk. That's a late myth, but if you look at statements and documents from everyone who saw the bowl, handled the bowl or tested it's content, they only ever describe it as a bowl of pineapple. Thomas says do in his book, as does Schiller. Patsy was interviewed extensively about her kids' snacking habits in relation to the bowl and pineapple, and milk or dairy of any kind was never mentioned - as it absolutely would be had there been milk in the bowl.

As for the white stuff visible in some of the images, by the time they were taken the bowl had been sitting out for three days in an empty house - and it clings to the top of the fruit. White mold, most likely.

It was there and was quite obviously triggering for Burke when he was asked about that picture when he was interviewed in Atlanta.

"Obviously triggering." It is no such thing, people just tend to see what they want to see. Burke sees a bowl filled with something he has no idea what it is, that's it.

The story about grapes and cherries in JonBenet's system is false. That was put forth by Paula Woodward, but when the material was sent to UOC for examination, they confirmed that it was raw pineapple. Yet the rumors about a fruit cup persist.

Woodward reproduced the scanned documents from the FA's office which showed that, yes, the botanists were sent the material from the duodenum and yes, there was fresh pineapple and yes, there were grapes and cherries too. Not a fruit cup, then, but some kind of fruit salad.

The kids played everywhere around the house. And had well observed habits of dropping their stuff everywhere. Finding it on the north side does not mean they played baseball there, but certainly Burke could've carried it around and dropped it there. They wouldn't have played baseball on the patio either, and yet there was a bat found there.

That was the front of the house, not the back. It makes sense to leave toys there, not on the north side. And this bat showed signs of having been in the boiler room, which is the room where JonBenet died.

Where things were found isn't proof of anything other than kids who were known for not putting there things away where they belonged. One of the neighbors who lived across the alley from the Ramseys told police her dogs barked whenever anyone was in the alley, or when anyone was wandering around that area. That was on the north side. Her dogs did not bark at anything that night.

The alley was on the west side.

Barbara Fernie recounted hearing John ask for the gold club bag. That was one of the first things she heard said where she started to wonder about the Ramseys.

She suddenly remembered it over a year later. I'm guessing cause and effect are vice versa in this case.

Then there was the blatant lie from Patsy about the pry marks on an outside door that she had told Barbara were already there from some time ago. After Patsy allowing police to think the pry marks might be proof of an intruder trying to get in the house, she called police as her suspicions were starting to grow.

There were pry marks on more than one door. On one they were described by police sources as fresh.

It is interesting to note that the Fernies were not the only friends who found the Ramseys behavior suspicious after awhile and started questioning their veracity, their credibility and their refusal to cooperate with the investigation. And certainly worth mentioning is why Fleet White was called to the Ramsey's attorneys office on 12/27 and told in no uncertain terms that Haddon & Morgan were in charge and that he needed to "not interfere". Threats being made within 24 hours?

I take Fleet White with quite a few grains of salt. He, like Thomas, espouse a political conspiracy theory.

I already said it was a mistake for the police to let Patsy's sister just grab whatever she felt like from the house. That also included their passports. They needed those for the funeral?

Their personal documents. Since they likely knew even then that they would never again live in the house where their daughter died.

I am very aware of Thomas' suggestions of "friends in high places", and it is not some random, bizarre theory. If you look at the people involved from the DA's office to the attorney firm, to Mike Bynum, there are some very interesting connections.

That is literally a conspiracy theory. "Some very interesting connections." Vague yet ominous.

One cannot ignore the misconduct by the DA himself in this case, which he should have been called on the carpet and fired for.

While I can't say Hunter didn't make mistakes, his conduct was far less egregious than the Boulder police.

He has admitted that he and his office were responsible for many of the leaks to the tabloids that occurred,

And the Boulder police also leaked plenty.

and also that he gave investigative information to the defense team. Remarkable and highly suspect. Grounds for prosecutorial misconduct.

Withholding evidence from the defense should be grounds for prosecutorial misconduct, not the opposite.

Of the long list of close friends and acquaintances that the Ramseys ended up throwing under the bus of suspicion, they were all cleared.

Because even a close friend could have been the killer. The Ramseys suggesting people to investigate isn't throwing them under the bus - the investigation will determine what's true. Of course, then Thomas and Kolar can put it all in their little books...

Given that this mystery intruder had to have known the house and the Ramseys so well to pull this off as they did, which John liked to say was an inside job, it's certainly interesting that despite efforts to point fingers that has been unsuccessful. This person is very good at keeping secrets apparently! A master criminal. As an inside job, even Smit decided that it was someone with a grudge against John. Nothing to do with thrills.

I agree with Smit that the killer had a grudge against John - but in a parasocial sense, all tied up in his obsession with JonBenet, John being the prime obstacle between them. There was a news article found in the basement, an article featuring John and a few other business men. John was marked with a red heart, the others crossed out. Since there was a red heart painted in JonBenet's palm, I think this was the original note, the one he brought with him, put away after he came up with the plan to hide JonBenet and write s ransom note. The red markings are similar to the movie Ricochet, which in turn is similar to the movies paraphrased in the ransom note.

 

[proust20]

John also told two versions of breaking the window. He disappeared from the house. He said that he saw a strange van by the house, but chose to say nothing. He immediately destroyed the CS. JR sought a flight out of CO right after 'finding' his daughter. Although, he had been scheduled for a family Holiday event in MI. It is not known what evidence led the GJ to indict the parents. Just as, we do not know what Burke told them. Neither parent was searched when they left the home.

Patsy did not ask the invitees to look for JonBenet on their way over. She failed to mention her name during the 911 on which she was deceptive. Patsy is the only R whose knowledge of the size 12 Bloomis is certain. The size 6 Wednesday pair is missing. The 12s were way too large for JB to wear IRL. Why she was found in them is one of the puzzling aspects. Whoever wiped JB had to pull them down to do so. After a delay, Patsy did provide some clothing that she claimed was worn to the Whites' party and she put back on in the morning. It cannot be certain if she submitted the same items, and if they were, how much dry cleaning was done.

How could the intruder(s) know about the size 12s, and where to find them? Why even bother? The intruder(s) just chanced upon a child who was the victim of chronic SA? Proponents of IDI never outline the sequence of events, e.g. how did the intruder(s) arrive at and depart from the residence - car, bike, on foot? Why wait 40 minutes between the head bashing and using the ligature made from PR's paintbrush? Just chillin' in a big house for Christmas? As the Rs deny giving JB pineapple, the intruder(s) had also to take up more time feeding it to her from a bowl with Burke's fingerprints. The pineapple rind matched what was in the fridge. Besides knowing her favorite snack, the intruder(s) knew her favorite nightgown and retrieved her favorite blanket from the dryer? Then again needlessly ate up more time to wrap JB in it, before making an immaculate getaway? In addition, the kidnapper(s) were clever enough to remove JB from her room with great stealth and not leave fingerprints nor footprints; but were foolish enough to leave without the RN or the body?

LS did not enter through the window under identical circumstances. He needed to remove the grate while it was snow-covered.

 

[CloudedTruth]

All true, all good points. Yes.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The bowl of pineapple with milk was photographed and taken into evidence on the 26th. The milk with pineapple was not a myth, it was discussed as being a favorite snack. Crime scene photographs clearly show it’s a white liquid with the pineapple…..milk. It was not “white mold”.

A DA does not turn over evidence to the defense during the investigation. In this case, not only did the DA do just that, he provided the defense with copies of statements the Ramseys made prior to their interviews they finally agreed to 4 months later so they could be reminded of what they said initially. That is not only not required, it was unprecedented. Providing the defense with evidence against them is a requirement for trial, not during the investigation. Who does that?? Only the DA in this case.

The Grand Jury did return indictments against the Ramseys. Two for each parent for a total of four. But only those four pages out of an 18 page document of their findings has been released. And those were only released because a news agency pursued their release in court, believing the public had a right to know. The judge agreed and ordered them released. If Alex Hunter had his way, we would still not know and he refused to sign the indictments.

Too time consuming to continue with this. Seems like a lot of discrediting of all involved in the case except Lou Smit and a few others. You are entitled to your beliefs, but some of this stuff is misrepresented and simply not true.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

John also told two versions of breaking the window.

I've only ever seen the one - that the summer of 96 while the rest of the family were in Michigan, he came home, didn't have the key and the garage door didn't work, so he broke the window and entered through it. If there's another version of it I haven't seen it.

He disappeared from the house.

We don't know that. Arndt lost sight of him for a while, but she only assumed he had left the house because when she saw him next he was opening his mail. She didn't know they got their mail through a slot in the door.

He said that he saw a strange van by the house, but chose to say nothing.

When did he remember seeing one?

He immediately destroyed the CS.

Crime scene? Remarkable that a parent who finds his dead child is expected to adhere to standards the police didn't bother with.

JR sought a flight out of CO right after 'finding' his daughter. Although, he had been scheduled for a family Holiday event in MI. It is not known what evidence led the GJ to indict the parents. Just as, we do not know what Burke told them. Neither parent was searched when they left the home.

We do know that they weren't indicted for murder, and this was after more than a year of Grand Jury sessions. It is extremely easy to get an indictment from a Grand Jury, but this one had neither ham nor sandwich. Just a wilted piece of lettuce.

Patsy did not ask the invitees to look for JonBenet on their way over.

Not deceptive, in panic.

She failed to mention her name during the 911 on which she was deceptive.

Not deceptive, in panic.

Patsy is the only R whose knowledge of the size 12 Bloomis is certain. The size 6 Wednesday pair is missing.

What size 6 pair? I've never heard there was a size 6 set that was missing.

The 12s were way too large for JB to wear IRL. Why she was found in them is one of the puzzling aspects.

Likely the same reason she had put on a white shirt rather than the red turtleneck her mother wanted - she dressed herself. She found the underwear, saw that it was Wednesday and wore that pair.

Whoever wiped JB had to pull them down to do so. After a delay, Patsy did provide some clothing that she claimed was worn to the Whites' party and she put back on in the morning. It cannot be certain if she submitted the same items, and if they were, how much dry cleaning was done.

They had pictures from the White party. I doubt Patsy would have picked something she didn't wear.

How could the intruder(s) know about the size 12s, and where to find them? Why even bother?

JonBenet would know. If she dressed herself that day (since she didn't want to wear what Patsy wanted her to wear), she'd put them on herself. She died in those underwear. A more pertinent question might be, why would anyone in the family change them before she died?

The intruder(s) just chanced upon a child who was the victim of chronic SA?

That is not known. She was definitely assaulted the night she died. If she was before, well, there's reason to believe (like the comment she made to a friend about a secret visit from Santa) that her killer had approached her before.

Proponents of IDI never outline the sequence of events, e.g. how did the intruder(s) arrive at and depart from the residence - car, bike, on foot? Why wait 40 minutes between the head bashing and using the ligature made from PR's paintbrush?

That the blow came 40 minutes before death is not certain. Wecht and Doberson claim the headwound was perimortem and Meyer told Woodward he didn't know which was first as they were "as close to happening simultaneously as I've seen." The opposing view comes from a quote by Dr Rorke, but my issue with that is that it contradicts the autopsy report - it specifies massive swelling of the brain even down the spine, but the autopsy report notes no such thing, and it would be incredibly noiicable. Rorke's full report has never been released.

Just chillin' in a big house for Christmas? As the Rs deny giving JB pineapple, the intruder(s) had also to take up more time feeding it to her from a bowl with Burke's fingerprints.

No need, since that bowl was unlikely to be the source of the pineapple in her duodenum. For one, the duodenum contents contained grapes and cherries along with pineapple, neither of which was in the bowl.

The pineapple rind matched what was in the fridge.

No pineapple was found in the fridge.

Besides knowing her favorite snack,

She liked pineapple, but I'm unaware of any statement that it was her favorite snack.

the intruder(s) knew her favorite nightgown and retrieved her favorite blanket from the dryer?

The housekeeper speculated that it might have been in the dryer. Patsy said it was likely on the bed, so it could have been swept up (with the nightgown) by an intruder.

Then again needlessly ate up more time to wrap JB in it, before making an immaculate getaway?

Hiding the body best as he could in the deepest room in the house and covered up, delaying potential discovery.

In addition, the kidnapper(s) were clever enough to remove JB from her room with great stealth and not leave fingerprints nor footprints; but were foolish enough to leave without the RN or the body?

Leaving body and note was deliberate. I believe the goal was to kill her, so why bring the body? And there were brown cotton fibers found on JonBenet that were never sourced to anything in the house. Wearing brown work gloves means no fingerprints.

LS did not enter through the window under identical circumstances. He needed to remove the grate while it was snow-covered.

I've never seen confirmation that there was snow on the grate.