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

[FergusMcDuck]

The bowl of pineapple with milk was photographed and taken into evidence on the 26th.

Untrue. It was photographed on December 29th, per the interview with Patsy in 1998. In Woodward's latest book is a scan of the DAO's index that says the bowl was received into property on December 30th 10:17. You are misinterpreting the search warrants. They were signed on December 26th, but that is not when the inventories were all written. You can even see later dates noted on some of the pages.

The milk with pineapple was not a myth, it was discussed as being a favorite snack.

No, it wasn't. Whenever I see people make this claim, I ask for a source, and no one ever has one. No Ramsey has ever claimed JonBenet liked pineapple with milk. Neither has any of their friends or extended family.

Crime scene photographs clearly show it’s a white liquid with the pineapple…..milk. It was not “white mold”.

It's not clearly a white liquid. The photos are nowhere near as good as to make that claim.

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.

It seems reasonable to me. It was very clear that the police were pursuing the Ramseys as suspects, not as witnesses. At that point, a defense lawyer would tell his client to keep quiet as their earlier statements could be used against them, regardless of their guilt or innocence. This way, the police got their interview and the Ramseys didn't have to worry about the police twisting their statements against them.

The Grand Jury did return indictments against the Ramseys.

But not for murder.

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.

Likely because the rest were no-bills. Why else would they not be 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.

Of course he wouldn't sign the indictments. The incompetence of the BPD had given him a case he couldn't win. He would be wasting time and money just to save the prestige of Boulder's less-than-finest.

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.

I base my beliefs on facts and evidence. And the evidence for an intruder is far stronger than that against the Ramseys.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

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.

I cropped this initial comment, but the ransom note is just something I cannot get past and for me, is the most telling aspect of the case. The length of it is such an oddity. I cannot for the life of me think of another case where a similar-sized note has been left, especially one that was written in the home! I saw a show where they investigated the note at length and timed how long it took to write. If I remember correctly, it took over 20 minutes to copy it word for word and that's without factoring in the time it would take to actually compose it. The note stinks and without it, I wouldn't be so convinced it was someone in the home. jmo.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I cropped this initial comment, but the ransom note is just something I cannot get past and for me, is the most telling aspect of the case. The length of it is such an oddity. I cannot for the life of me think of another case where a similar-sized note has been left, especially one that was written in the home! I saw a show where they investigated the note at length and timed how long it took to write. If I remember correctly, it took over 20 minutes to copy it word for word and that's without factoring in the time it would take to actually compose it. The note stinks and without it, I wouldn't be so convinced it was someone in the home. jmo.

The note left by Leopold and Loeb was nearly as long, 310 words to the Ramsey note's 353. In both cases the child was already dead when the note was left. The note for the 1968 kidnapping of Barbara Mackle was 970 words, more than twice the length of the Ramsey note.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

The note left by Leopold and Loeb was nearly as long, 310 words to the Ramsey note's 353. In both cases the child was already dead when the note was left. The note for the 1968 kidnapping of Barbara Mackle was 970 words, more than twice the length of the Ramsey note.

Hmm so just a quick google search and it's interesting how Leopold and Loeb was 1924, and of course Barbara Mackle 1968... both before this case. How strange..

Also, just moving away from the length of the letter, there are other weird instances about it. The amount asked for, the tone, the language used. It's a farce and red herring. Jmo.

 

[sunspun]

I cropped this initial comment, but the ransom note is just something I cannot get past and for me, is the most telling aspect of the case. The length of it is such an oddity. I cannot for the life of me think of another case where a similar-sized note has been left, especially one that was written in the home! I saw a show where they investigated the note at length and timed how long it took to write. If I remember correctly, it took over 20 minutes to copy it word for word and that's without factoring in the time it would take to actually compose it. The note stinks and without it, I wouldn't be so convinced it was someone in the home. jmo.

It's always seemed peculiar to me how many people find it hard to believe that an intruder sat down in their house and took the time to write the longest ransom note anyone's ever seen, but they somehow find it easy to believe that a mother, whose adored 6 year old baby girl has JUST been brutally murdered in her own home, sat down at her kitchen table and took the time to compose a lengthy, action-movie-reference-filled, over-the-top virtual manifesto of a fake ransom note, all the while knowing that her beloved child lay dead on the floor of their dark, damp basement alone and, again, dead. Dead. Her child.

No matter how she came to be dead, by whose hand, even if it's by the mother's hand herself, I would think it would be next to impossible for anyone to believe that mother would be able to write this thing at that moment, in that style. But it seems many people have no problem believing that somehow. But they have a big problem with the also-unlikely act of an intruder waiting til he's in the home of the victim to write it.

Well, to me, both of these stories are hard to believe, but I know I personally find it easier to believe that an intruder wrote it in the home than to believe that a devastated mother wrote it at all. Especially when that mother has no outrageous, awful acts in her known past, when to all who knew her, she seemed always to be nothing but a loving, law-abiding, relatively mentally stable person... Contrast that to an intruder who by definition is a person of criminal tendencies, who has committed a depraved and inhuman act against a defenseless little girl, who we might safely assume has all kinds of shocking and bizarre things always going through his mind and who probably regularly does things that would seem to a normal person to be illogical, irrational, nonsensical etc., one of which that night may have been his decision to sit down and write a crazy-long ransom note which was obviously the product of a disturbed and unconventional mind, either before or after brutally murdering a sweet child in her own home. I'm certain that this hypothetical person has done many things that would shock you more than him being the one who wrote that note would. We can't understand why a person like that does whatever they might do. They probably do a lot of things that don't seem normal or expected, things that don't make sense to us. Because we thankfully aren't like them, and our minds don't work like the mind of someone who would murder a child. We shouldn't be surprised to find out something they did in the course of a murder seems to us to have no reason, no motive, goes against what any normal person would decide to do. Because this person is not normal! They do abnormal things! Things you can't believe.

Because you're not like that. If you can relate to anyone in this scenario, I would assume you relate to the mother more than the intruder. She may not be you, but she's more like you than the intruder. I hope. And just like I think we shouldn't be so surprised to learn that an intruder would do something so abnormal like writing this note right there in their house, I also think we should be appalled to think of any mother writing it right after having to face the fact of her baby's death. There was never a time in Patsy's life until this happened when anyone ever suspected her of being capable of murdering a child or even of covering up the murder of her child by her husband or her son.

How can it be easier to believe she did this than to believe some deranged person with a sick, disordered, abnormal mind did?

And this is coming from a person (me!) who has long believed it was done by someone in the family too young to be prosecuted for it and covered up by his parents, including writing of the note by the mother herself. I can't say what changed my mind, but once I started thinking of it in the way that I TRIED to explain (probably not very well) above, I found it impossible to believe that anymore. No explanation is easy to believe in this case, but some things are easier than others, and this is one of them. To think Patsy went from her child's dead body to immediately sit and write this crazy ransom note... I just can't believe that anymore.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Hmm so just a quick google search and it's interesting how Leopold and Loeb was 1924, and of course Barbara Mackle 1968... both before this case. How strange..

Also, just moving away from the length of the letter, there are other weird instances about it. The amount asked for, the tone, the language used. It's a farce and red herring. Jmo.

Out of curiosity, have you read those two notes? I'd argue the tone and language used are markedly similar to the Ramsey note.

Leopold and Loeb:

Dear Sir:
As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you line up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty.
1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today $10,000. this money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. the money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.
3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.
4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o'clock. See that the telephone is not in use.
You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course.
As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions.
However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.

Yours truly,
George Johnson

The Mackle note (boy howdy):

Sir, your daughter has been kidnapped by us and we now hold her for ransom. She is quite safe, if somewhat uncomfortable. We offer no proof of our possession of her at this time. It will arrive by mail in a few days. Barbara is presently alive inside a small capsule buried in a remote piece of soil. She has enough food and water and air to last seven days. At the end of the seven days the life supporting batteries will be discharged and her air supply will be cut off. The box is waterproof and very strong-fiberglass reinforced plywood-she has little chance of escaping. The box is in an unusual and lonely place. She has no chance of being accidently stumbled upon. Contemplate, if you will, the position into which this puts you. If you pay the ransom prior to seven days, we will tell you of her whereabouts. Should you catch the messenger we send to pick up the ransom, we will simply not say anything to anyone and ergo Barbara will suffocate. The messenger knows only one of us and he will report to us via radio from the pickup site. We will immediately know his fate. Should you catch all, of us we will never admit anything as to do so would be suicide and again-she will die. As you can see, you don't want to catch us for to do so would be condemning your lovely and intelligent daughter to death. The police may allow you to have a free hand prior to the return of your daughter should you be so callous as to contact them. If you ask the police to advise you in this matter please be aware that their very presence will scare us off. We can see no way for you to secure the safe return of your daughter other than to obey instructions explicitly.

1. Although we will always anticipate the involvement of the police in this situation, be assured that if your communication with them or their actual presence is detected, we will break off negotiations with you immediately. We have tied into several of the possible means of communications that you have with the police and feel that you will be unable to contact them without our knowledge.
2. The ransom will be $500,000 in recently issued $20 bills. Here are the requirements you must meet in this matter: The notes must not be older than 1950 issue. No more than ten notes must have consecutive serial numbers; ie., the notes must have a great variety of serial-numbers and not be merely shuffled. The notes must be Federal Reserve notes of standard configuration. No more than one-half of the notes may be uncirculated. No form of marking on the bills is acceptable. Please note that the bills will undergo a minimum of eight hours of intense examination before we allow you to have knowledge of the subject's whereabouts. We have planned a series of 44 tests on a large representative of the bills. These tests include every chemical and physical test of any remote applicability. No omission, shaving, spotting, cutting, counterfeiting, irradiating, ad nos will go undetected.
3. The bills should occupy no more than 400 cubic inches and thusly fit into a standard large suitcase of inside dimensions 31.5" longx18.75" highx6.25" deep. Purchase such a suitcase and lock the bills inside. When you have the money in readiness, call all the Miami area major newspapers and place the following ad in the "personal" section of the classified advertisemsnts: "Loved one-please come home. We will pay all expenses and meet you anywhere at anytime. Your Family." Prepare your car for a trip and on the night of the ad's first appearance we will call you at home after midnight to advise you of where you must go to deliver the money. You must be the one to deliver the money, Robert. You will dress yourself in an all-white outfit. You must use the Lincoln to deliver the money. In order to prevent the instructional call being traced it will be very brief and no portion of it will be repeated. If the phone rings more than three times or the connection takes longer than 15 seconds we will not contact you. You will have a limited period of time to make the rendezvous so you should be ready to leave your house within one minute of receiving the phone call in order to be within the time limit. You will proceed to the area of the meeting within the legal speed limit as if you were in no hurry. We will not meet you if you fail to show within the time limit which is only a short time longer than you will require to drive to the pickup site. Any unusual police activity or other activity in the area of the pick up will cancel the appointment. When you arrive at the pick up site you will know it by a signal of three short flashes repeated continuously from a flashlight directed at the windshield of your car. When you see the signal you will stop the car and immediately take the suitcase toward the light. The light will be mounted on the top of a box. The suitcase should be placed within the box. You will then return to your car and proceed back up the street, in the direction from which you came and go home. Any deviation from this outline will result in your death. Our messenger will have you in his sights from the time you leave your car. Within twelve hours after you deliver the money you will receive another call advising you of your daughter's whereabouts. A letter will be sent also to insure the findings of your daughter.

Imagine if the Ramsey note had "and ergo" or "ad nos" and over 900 words...

 

[Moonstrawbs]

It's always seemed peculiar to me how many people find it hard to believe that an intruder sat down in their house and took the time to write the longest ransom note anyone's ever seen, but they somehow find it easy to believe that a mother, whose adored 6 year old baby girl has JUST been brutally murdered in her own home, sat down at her kitchen table and took the time to compose a lengthy, action-movie-reference-filled, over-the-top virtual manifesto of a fake ransom note, all the while knowing that her beloved child lay dead on the floor of their dark, damp basement alone and, again, dead. Dead. Her child.

No matter how she came to be dead, by whose hand, even if it's by the mother's hand herself, I would think it would be next to impossible for anyone to believe that mother would be able to write this thing at that moment, in that style. But it seems many people have no problem believing that somehow. But they have a big problem with the also-unlikely act of an intruder waiting til he's in the home of the victim to write it.

Well, to me, both of these stories are hard to believe, but I know I personally find it easier to believe that an intruder wrote it in the home than to believe that a devastated mother wrote it at all. Especially when that mother has no outrageous, awful acts in her known past, when to all who knew her, she seemed always to be nothing but a loving, law-abiding, relatively mentally stable person... Contrast that to an intruder who by definition is a person of criminal tendencies, who has committed a depraved and inhuman act against a defenseless little girl, who we might safely assume has all kinds of shocking and bizarre things always going through his mind and who probably regularly does things that would seem to a normal person to be illogical, irrational, nonsensical etc., one of which that night may have been his decision to sit down and write a crazy-long ransom note which was obviously the product of a disturbed and unconventional mind, either before or after brutally murdering a sweet child in her own home. I'm certain that this hypothetical person has done many things that would shock you more than him being the one who wrote that note would. We can't understand why a person like that does whatever they might do. They probably do a lot of things that don't seem normal or expected, things that don't make sense to us. Because we thankfully aren't like them, and our minds don't work like the mind of someone who would murder a child. We shouldn't be surprised to find out something they did in the course of a murder seems to us to have no reason, no motive, goes against what any normal person would decide to do. Because this person is not normal! They do abnormal things! Things you can't believe.

Because you're not like that. If you can relate to anyone in this scenario, I would assume you relate to the mother more than the intruder. She may not be you, but she's more like you than the intruder. I hope. And just like I think we shouldn't be so surprised to learn that an intruder would do something so abnormal like writing this note right there in their house, I also think we should be appalled to think of any mother writing it right after having to face the fact of her baby's death. There was never a time in Patsy's life until this happened when anyone ever suspected her of being capable of murdering a child or even of covering up the murder of her child by her husband or her son.

How can it be easier to believe she did this than to believe some deranged person with a sick, disordered, abnormal mind did?

And this is coming from a person (me!) who has long believed it was done by someone in the family too young to be prosecuted for it and covered up by his parents, including writing of the note by the mother herself. I can't say what changed my mind, but once I started thinking of it in the way that I TRIED to explain (probably not very well) above, I found it impossible to believe that anymore. No explanation is easy to believe in this case, but some things are easier than others, and this is one of them. To think Patsy went from her child's dead body to immediately sit and write this crazy ransom note... I just can't believe that anymore.

I think just being active on here shows how often parents do unthinkable things to their children, so it doesn't feel as unbelievable or as shocking imo. It is not surprising that someone capable of hurting their child would then be capable of covering up evidence in the immediate aftermath.
I also believe in moments like that, perpetrators experience a surge of adrenaline, which aids them to power through the cover up process.

The emergency call Pasty made is particularly strange - how she cuts off crying and screaming almost instantly when she thinks the call has disconnected. This has just came to mind so I wanted to mention it.

That being said, I don't think it's a case of what's easier to believe. If solving crimes were judged on what's easier to believe, then a lot would be left unresolved. Some are downright crazy, make no sense, and seem to be out of the blue of the perpetrators day to day, expected behaviour.

I say this and I'm not 100% sure what I think happened that night, I don't think we will ever know but I do lean more towards it being someone inside the home/family. jmo.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

Out of curiosity, have you read those two notes? I'd argue the tone and language used are markedly similar to the Ramsey note.

Leopold and Loeb:



The Mackle note (boy howdy):



Imagine if the Ramsey note had "and ergo" or "ad nos" and over 900 words...

Thank you very much for sharing! I hadn't seen the notes, that is interesting to compare with. As they were both before this case, I could see some copying going on here, therefore imitating the tone of the letters. Just a difference of opinion, I still think it is super unusual for a note to be that long, written in so close to the crime scene, and statistic-wise supports that too. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the ransom note as a whole?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Thank you very much for sharing! I hadn't seen the notes, that is interesting to compare with. As they were both before this case, I could see some copying going on here, therefore imitating the tone of the letters. Just a difference of opinion, I still think it is super unusual for a note to be that long, written in so close to the crime scene, and statistic-wise supports that too. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the ransom note as a whole?

I think it shows a young man, inexperienced in criminal matters, likely socially isolated - and the fact that he knows less well known lines from popular movies well enough to paraphrase them tells me he's likely compensating for lack of a social life with movies.

The purpose of the note, I've spoken of earlier in this thread. It could have one of many purposes, or many at once. Delaying discovery. Tormenting the family. A pipe dream of actually getting the ransom money.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Thank you very much for sharing! I hadn't seen the notes, that is interesting to compare with. As they were both before this case, I could see some copying going on here, therefore imitating the tone of the letters. Just a difference of opinion, I still think it is super unusual for a note to be that long, written in so close to the crime scene, and statistic-wise supports that too. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the ransom note as a whole?

It can't be ignored that the Ramsey note in part was influenced by the Leopold and Loeb note. There are definite similarities. For its time, it was known as "the case of the century" and America was obsessed with it.

The differences are, the note was typewritten ahead of time and elsewhere and then delivered to the Frank home the following day. They lured their prey, 14 year old Bobby Frank into their car, killed him and tried to hide the body by stuffing it into a culvert. Their intent was not so much focused on murdering someone, but the idea of getting away with it. And they very may well have done so had Leopold not lost his glasses in the culvert

Nathan Leopold was highly intelligent, having graduated from the University of Michigan at age 17 and was due to attend law school beginning in the fall. He was obsessed with the idea of committing the perfect crime. HIs counterpart, Richard Loeb was the more outgoing of the two pals, good looking and charming, but was in love with Leopold and would do anything to please him and for "favors".

 

[CloudedTruth]

I did mistype 12/26 for the date of photography of the pineapple. It was 12/27. I'll take whatever Patsy Ramsey says with a huge grain of salt since her credibility is very questionable.

Patsy Ramsey told police JonBenet liked pineapple. John Ramsey told police JonBenet liked pineapple. Burke Ramsey told police JonBenet LOVED pineapple. Burke also told Det. Schuler that pineapple was his favorite snack. One of Patsy Ramsey's favorite books was The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, in which the character Jenny Gray is invited to tea at her friend Sandy Stranger's house where Pineapple cubes with cream is served. They gobbled it up with spoons. This book also contains a character discussing how to spell possession.

The pineapple was found in JonBenet's duodenum indicating it had been consumed not too long before her death. The contents of the duodenum were confirmed specifically by scientists at UOC. There was other matter found in other parts of her digestive system farther along in the digestive tract that were consistent with grapes, etc. The presence in a different part of the system meant they were not consumed together as Paula Woodward liked to promote. Paula was wrong and chose to word it in a way that was inconsistent with the facts of what was found during the autopsy and subsequent tests.

What always stands out to me is the way in which the Ramseys reacted to things whenever asked for explanations. Instead of admitting the possibility that JonBenet and possibly Burke prepared a snack for themselves, the denials seem to be highly defensive. Patsy's OTT exclamations that she would never, ever place that kind of a spoon in that kind of bowl and that it simply was not possible that her children might have done so seem rather unreasonable. John tells police he can "guarantee" that JonBenet did not have pineapple after arriving home. By his own admission, he took a Melatonin and was sound asleep. How is it then possible to "guarantee" neither JonBenet or Burke got up on their own and went downstairs and had pineapple? We know Burke was downstairs by his own admission. Again, the fact that neither John or Patsy will even consider the possibility is unreasonable.

Regardless of the opinion that it was okay for the DA to turn over investigative evidence to the defense during an ongoing investigation, it was unprecedented and highly questionable. It showed a clear bias from the DA to ensure that the defense had advantages they were not entitled to under any circumstances.

The indictments returned by the Grand Jury that we do know about make it clear that they found the Ramseys to be responsible for JonBenet's death. Using the amount of time that Lou Smit had to present his theories to the Grand Jury as an excuse for the jurors not to buy those theories is inconsequential. What is of consequence is that it is not at all common for the defense to present a case to a Grand Jury at all. If his theories were so compelling the time with which to present them would not have mattered. The facts remain that the Grand Jury did not find them compelling at all. They were readily dismissed and they went ahead and returned indictments against the Ramsey parents.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I did mistype 12/26 for the date of photography of the pineapple. It was 12/27. I'll take whatever Patsy Ramsey says with a huge grain of salt since her credibility is very questionable.

The source isn't Patsy, it's Tom Haney and Patrick Burke, who interviewed Patsy in 1998. Why would they lie about this? Especially when the search warrant specifies that things were taken into inventory over multiple days.

Patsy Ramsey told police JonBenet liked pineapple. John Ramsey told police JonBenet liked pineapple. Burke Ramsey told police JonBenet LOVED pineapple. Burke also told Det. Schuler that pineapple was his favorite snack.

Untrue. He said pudding and yogurt were his favorite snacks.

One of Patsy Ramsey's favorite books was The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, in which the character Jenny Gray is invited to tea at her friend Sandy Stranger's house where Pineapple cubes with cream is served. They gobbled it up with spoons. This book also contains a character discussing how to spell possession.

So a. nowhere have I seen Patsy or anyone else claim The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie was her favorite book. She did a reading from the stageplay version at one of her pageants, that's the extent we've been told.

And b. it is a considerable difference between "JonBenet's favorite snack was pineapple with milk" and "JonBenet's mother quoted from a stageplay version of a book where a character ate pineapple with cream".

The pineapple was found in JonBenet's duodenum indicating it had been consumed not too long before her death. The contents of the duodenum were confirmed specifically by scientists at UOC.

Yes, and they found pineapple, grapes and cherries.

There was other matter found in other parts of her digestive system farther along in the digestive tract that were consistent with grapes, etc. The presence in a different part of the system meant they were not consumed together as Paula Woodward liked to promote. Paula was wrong and chose to word it in a way that was inconsistent with the facts of what was found during the autopsy and subsequent tests.

Untrue. The reports quoted in the index clearly state that a single test tube of duodenum contents was taken to UOC. It is this test that the continued reports refer to, and give updates on their findings. The only other thing in her system was some feces in her colon, and they didn't mix that with the duodenum contents before going to UOC. The whole point of the UOC trip was to identify the fruit material beyond the autopsy's tentative declaration of pineapple. They confirmed the presence of pineapple (fresh) and further discovered grapes and cherries.

That the grapes and cherries were further along is a recent myth, and appears to derive from a reddit post that pretty egregiously misread the evidence.

What always stands out to me is the way in which the Ramseys reacted to things whenever asked for explanations. Instead of admitting the possibility that JonBenet and possibly Burke prepared a snack for themselves, the denials seem to be highly defensive.

Or, you know, true. They knew their kids and they would know if their kids did or didn't prepare snacks like that. And no evidence to the contrary has emerged.

Patsy's OTT exclamations that she would never, ever place that kind of a spoon in that kind of bowl and that it simply was not possible that her children might have done so seem rather unreasonable.

Why, if she knew that neither she nor the kids would have done so? Furthermore, wouldn't it be in her interest to claim JonBenet would do that, if she was involved in her death?

John tells police he can "guarantee" that JonBenet did not have pineapple after arriving home. By his own admission, he took a Melatonin and was sound asleep. How is it then possible to "guarantee" neither JonBenet or Burke got up on their own and went downstairs and had pineapple?

Because he put her to bed, asleep?

We know Burke was downstairs by his own admission. Again, the fact that neither John or Patsy will even consider the possibility is unreasonable.

Regardless of the opinion that it was okay for the DA to turn over investigative evidence to the defense during an ongoing investigation, it was unprecedented and highly questionable. It showed a clear bias from the DA to ensure that the defense had advantages they were not entitled to under any circumstances.

The indictments returned by the Grand Jury that we do know about make it clear that they found the Ramseys to be responsible for JonBenet's death. Using the amount of time that Lou Smit had to present his theories to the Grand Jury as an excuse for the jurors not to buy those theories is inconsequential. What is of consequence is that it is not at all common for the defense to present a case to a Grand Jury at all.

The defense didn't present a case here either. Smit had been part of the prosecution.

If his theories were so compelling the time with which to present them would not have mattered. The facts remain that the Grand Jury did not find them compelling at all. They were readily dismissed and they went ahead and returned indictments against the Ramsey parents.

The weak indictments handed down after an 18 month panel is a clear sign that the case had no business going to trial. It baffles me that people think Hunter should have taken those to trial. He would have lost, and it wouldn't have been close.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I think it shows a young man, inexperienced in criminal matters, likely socially isolated - and the fact that he knows less well known lines from popular movies well enough to paraphrase them tells me he's likely compensating for lack of a social life with movies.

The purpose of the note, I've spoken of earlier in this thread. It could have one of many purposes, or many at once. Delaying discovery. Tormenting the family. A pipe dream of actually getting the ransom money.

You are aware of the many movie posters down in the train room I suppose?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

You are aware of the many movie posters down in the train room I suppose?

I certainly do. The six framed posters in the basement were for very different movies than the ones referenced in the note. The posters were of grand spectacles like "Gone With the Wind" and "Death on the Nile" (an Agatha Christie whodunnit with all the grit of Midsomer Murders), whereas the note's paraphrases came from crime/action/thrillers like Speed or Dirty Harry. These movies were paraphrased, using non-ubiquitous quotes - not "Pop quiz, hotshot" or "Do you feel lucky, punk?" - to an extent where I believe the killer either watched the movies recently (and paid attention) or had watched them multiple times.

 

[thefragile7393]

It's always seemed peculiar to me how many people find it hard to believe that an intruder sat down in their house and took the time to write the longest ransom note anyone's ever seen, but they somehow find it easy to believe that a mother, whose adored 6 year old baby girl has JUST been brutally murdered in her own home, sat down at her kitchen table and took the time to compose a lengthy, action-movie-reference-filled, over-the-top virtual manifesto of a fake ransom note, all the while knowing that her beloved child lay dead on the floor of their dark, damp basement alone and, again, dead. Dead. Her child.

No matter how she came to be dead, by whose hand, even if it's by the mother's hand herself, I would think it would be next to impossible for anyone to believe that mother would be able to write this thing at that moment, in that style. But it seems many people have no problem believing that somehow. But they have a big problem with the also-unlikely act of an intruder waiting til he's in the home of the victim to write it.

Well, to me, both of these stories are hard to believe, but I know I personally find it easier to believe that an intruder wrote it in the home than to believe that a devastated mother wrote it at all. Especially when that mother has no outrageous, awful acts in her known past, when to all who knew her, she seemed always to be nothing but a loving, law-abiding, relatively mentally stable person... Contrast that to an intruder who by definition is a person of criminal tendencies, who has committed a depraved and inhuman act against a defenseless little girl, who we might safely assume has all kinds of shocking and bizarre things always going through his mind and who probably regularly does things that would seem to a normal person to be illogical, irrational, nonsensical etc., one of which that night may have been his decision to sit down and write a crazy-long ransom note which was obviously the product of a disturbed and unconventional mind, either before or after brutally murdering a sweet child in her own home. I'm certain that this hypothetical person has done many things that would shock you more than him being the one who wrote that note would. We can't understand why a person like that does whatever they might do. They probably do a lot of things that don't seem normal or expected, things that don't make sense to us. Because we thankfully aren't like them, and our minds don't work like the mind of someone who would murder a child. We shouldn't be surprised to find out something they did in the course of a murder seems to us to have no reason, no motive, goes against what any normal person would decide to do. Because this person is not normal! They do abnormal things! Things you can't believe.

Because you're not like that. If you can relate to anyone in this scenario, I would assume you relate to the mother more than the intruder. She may not be you, but she's more like you than the intruder. I hope. And just like I think we shouldn't be so surprised to learn that an intruder would do something so abnormal like writing this note right there in their house, I also think we should be appalled to think of any mother writing it right after having to face the fact of her baby's death. There was never a time in Patsy's life until this happened when anyone ever suspected her of being capable of murdering a child or even of covering up the murder of her child by her husband or her son.

How can it be easier to believe she did this than to believe some deranged person with a sick, disordered, abnormal mind did?

And this is coming from a person (me!) who has long believed it was done by someone in the family too young to be prosecuted for it and covered up by his parents, including writing of the note by the mother herself. I can't say what changed my mind, but once I started thinking of it in the way that I TRIED to explain (probably not very well) above, I found it impossible to believe that anymore. No explanation is easy to believe in this case, but some things are easier than others, and this is one of them. To think Patsy went from her child's dead body to immediately sit and write this crazy ransom note... I just can't believe that anymore.

No different than Darlie Routier or any other person who is capable of harming their children. Whether it was her or not is hard to say but people harm, or allow harm, to their children all the times. It isn’t hard to fathom. Some people have to keep up appearances at all costs

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Untrue. It was photographed on December 29th, per the interview with Patsy in 1998. In Woodward's latest book is a scan of the DAO's index that says the bowl was received into property on December 30th 10:17. You are misinterpreting the search warrants. They were signed on December 26th, but that is not when the inventories were all written. You can even see later dates noted on some of the pages.



No, it wasn't. Whenever I see people make this claim, I ask for a source, and no one ever has one. No Ramsey has ever claimed JonBenet liked pineapple with milk. Neither has any of their friends or extended family.



It's not clearly a white liquid. The photos are nowhere near as good as to make that claim.



It seems reasonable to me. It was very clear that the police were pursuing the Ramseys as suspects, not as witnesses. At that point, a defense lawyer would tell his client to keep quiet as their earlier statements could be used against them, regardless of their guilt or innocence. This way, the police got their interview and the Ramseys didn't have to worry about the police twisting their statements against them.



But not for murder.



Likely because the rest were no-bills. Why else would they not be released?



Of course he wouldn't sign the indictments. The incompetence of the BPD had given him a case he couldn't win. He would be wasting time and money just to save the prestige of Boulder's less-than-finest.



I base my beliefs on facts and evidence. And the evidence for an intruder is far stronger than that against the Ramseys.

Respectfully, are there links and references for these given claims? It will help one to assess the applicability of them. Thank you. MOO

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Respectfully, are there links and references for these given claims? It will help one to assess the applicability of them. Thank you. MOO

Certainly.

Here is the 1998 interview with Patsy. From page 0471 and onwards the pineapple is discussed, and Haney and Burke remark that the photos came off a roll marked "12/29" by the Boulder police.

The page from the DAO's index was reproduced in Paula Woodward's book Unsolved, page 101, and the text reads as follows:

December 30 1996 10:17 The following items were received into property: pineapple-70KKY; bowl found on north dining room table-71KKY; roll of film-72KKY. [2-42]

The search warrant is here with the bowl noted (with the same reference as in the index) on page 11. You can see several items marked by different dates on the pages up to December 31st.

As for there not being milk in the bowl, that is proving a negative, but we can see both in the interview linked above that Patsy is asked at length about the bowl and its contents and whether it was something the kids would eat. No milk mentioned. Neither is any milk mentioned in the index. Furthermore, here's a site with extensive quotes from Steve Thomas, who saw the bowl, mentioning only pineapple, never milk.

Arguably, all this could be disproven by a quote from someone who saw or handled or tested the bowl, but I have asked for references for years now - including in this very thread - and no one ever delivers.

That the case couldn't be won is my own judgement, though I've never seen anyone of any credibility claim otherwise.

 

[Skully]

It's always seemed peculiar to me how many people find it hard to believe that an intruder sat down in their house and took the time to write the longest ransom note anyone's ever seen, but they somehow find it easy to believe that a mother, whose adored 6 year old baby girl has JUST been brutally murdered in her own home, sat down at her kitchen table and took the time to compose a lengthy, action-movie-reference-filled, over-the-top virtual manifesto of a fake ransom note, all the while knowing that her beloved child lay dead on the floor of their dark, damp basement alone and, again, dead. Dead. Her child.

No matter how she came to be dead, by whose hand, even if it's by the mother's hand herself, I would think it would be next to impossible for anyone to believe that mother would be able to write this thing at that moment, in that style. But it seems many people have no problem believing that somehow. But they have a big problem with the also-unlikely act of an intruder waiting til he's in the home of the victim to write it.

Well, to me, both of these stories are hard to believe, but I know I personally find it easier to believe that an intruder wrote it in the home than to believe that a devastated mother wrote it at all. Especially when that mother has no outrageous, awful acts in her known past, when to all who knew her, she seemed always to be nothing but a loving, law-abiding, relatively mentally stable person... Contrast that to an intruder who by definition is a person of criminal tendencies, who has committed a depraved and inhuman act against a defenseless little girl, who we might safely assume has all kinds of shocking and bizarre things always going through his mind and who probably regularly does things that would seem to a normal person to be illogical, irrational, nonsensical etc., one of which that night may have been his decision to sit down and write a crazy-long ransom note which was obviously the product of a disturbed and unconventional mind, either before or after brutally murdering a sweet child in her own home. I'm certain that this hypothetical person has done many things that would shock you more than him being the one who wrote that note would. We can't understand why a person like that does whatever they might do. They probably do a lot of things that don't seem normal or expected, things that don't make sense to us. Because we thankfully aren't like them, and our minds don't work like the mind of someone who would murder a child. We shouldn't be surprised to find out something they did in the course of a murder seems to us to have no reason, no motive, goes against what any normal person would decide to do. Because this person is not normal! They do abnormal things! Things you can't believe.

Because you're not like that. If you can relate to anyone in this scenario, I would assume you relate to the mother more than the intruder. She may not be you, but she's more like you than the intruder. I hope. And just like I think we shouldn't be so surprised to learn that an intruder would do something so abnormal like writing this note right there in their house, I also think we should be appalled to think of any mother writing it right after having to face the fact of her baby's death. There was never a time in Patsy's life until this happened when anyone ever suspected her of being capable of murdering a child or even of covering up the murder of her child by her husband or her son.

How can it be easier to believe she did this than to believe some deranged person with a sick, disordered, abnormal mind did?

And this is coming from a person (me!) who has long believed it was done by someone in the family too young to be prosecuted for it and covered up by his parents, including writing of the note by the mother herself. I can't say what changed my mind, but once I started thinking of it in the way that I TRIED to explain (probably not very well) above, I found it impossible to believe that anymore. No explanation is easy to believe in this case, but some things are easier than others, and this is one of them. To think Patsy went from her child's dead body to immediately sit and write this crazy ransom note... I just can't believe that anymore.

100 % I agree. Not to mention how a mother, could then go and strangle her child, to finish her off and duct tape her mouth, wrap her in a blanket, without tears (DNA) on the note, the child, just beyond belief. JMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Certainly.

Here is the 1998 interview with Patsy. From page 0471 and onwards the pineapple is discussed, and Haney and Burke remark that the photos came off a roll marked "12/29" by the Boulder police.

The page from the DAO's index was reproduced in Paula Woodward's book Unsolved, page 101, and the text reads as follows:



The search warrant is here with the bowl noted (with the same reference as in the index) on page 11. You can see several items marked by different dates on the pages up to December 31st.

As for there not being milk in the bowl, that is proving a negative, but we can see both in the interview linked above that Patsy is asked at length about the bowl and its contents and whether it was something the kids would eat. No milk mentioned. Neither is any milk mentioned in the index. Furthermore, here's a site with extensive quotes from Steve Thomas, who saw the bowl, mentioning only pineapple, never milk.

Arguably, all this could be disproven by a quote from someone who saw or handled or tested the bowl, but I have asked for references for years now - including in this very thread - and no one ever delivers.

That the case couldn't be won is my own judgement, though I've never seen anyone of any credibility claim otherwise.

Thank you FergusMcDuck….. appreciate the reference and input! This case is an odd and unusual one certainly. IMO the early DA influence and ‘hand waving’ by that office didn’t help. And not to mention the crime scene having been compromised. Interesting IMO that the family speaks negatively of that scene, as IIRC nearly all were invited over to comfort or tend to them as things unfolded? And unfortunately some of the information supplied by the family and PR did seem a bit questionable IMO. And as I believe you noted, some things are easily proven or disproven. But much wasn’t checked. Isn’t there an old adage used……. ‘If you don’t want to know, don’t look or ask?’ SMH. MOO

 

[Moonstrawbs]

100 % I agree. Not to mention how a mother, could then go and strangle her child, to finish her off and duct tape her mouth, wrap her in a blanket, without tears (DNA) on the note, the child, just beyond belief. JMO

I can instantly think of so many cases where mothers have done the most heinous things so again for me, it isn't surprising or unbelievable. That isn't to say I think Patsy did it. I'm just saying. Jmo.