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

[Skully]

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.

Agreed!

 

[Cedars]

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.

Many people do that hand waving "oh, people are capable of anything". Actually, they're not. Jon Benet was killed by someone who knew all about sexually sadistic/pedophilic fantasies and porn: duct tape on the mouth and hands bound behind her back, penetration, etc. Stuff most people don't even know exists, especially back then, before the internet.

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way? Only if you were into it and it was your fantasy. In which case, if it really is your fantasy to subject a young girl to a sexually sadistic ritual, why would you wait until an 'accident', to enact that? You'd just go ahead and do it. And if you're driven by wanting to enact that fantasy, you're certainly capable of getting into a poorly secured home to act out your fantasy on a little beauty queen and then writing an equally sadistic note to John Ramsey enacting your kidnapping-movie fantasies.

We know all about Patsy's fantasies: beauty pageants. And John Ramsey's fantasies clearly centred around being rich and successful, having mutiple homes and private jets.

JMO

 

[Angeline]

Many people do that hand waving "oh, people are capable of anything". Actually, they're not. Jon Benet was killed by someone who knew all about sexually sadistic/pedophilic fantasies and *advertiser censored*: duct tape on the mouth and hands bound behind her back, penetration, etc. Stuff most people don't even know exists, especially back then, before the internet.

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way? Only if you were into it and it was your fantasy. In which case, if it really is your fantasy to subject a young girl to a sexually sadistic ritual, why would you wait until an 'accident', to enact that? You'd just go ahead and do it. And if you're driven by wanting to enact that fantasy, you're certainly capable of getting into a poorly secured home to act out your fantasy on a little beauty queen and then writing an equally sadistic note to John Ramsey enacting your kidnapping-movie fantasies.

We know all about Patsy's fantasies: beauty pageants. And John Ramsey's fantasies clearly centred around being rich and successful, having mutiple homes and private jets.

JMO

For me, the timing is totally weird. Why would a parent or sibling murder a child on Christmas night, after returning home from visiting friends? Surely everyone was tired at that point.

A psychopath/loner/pedophile is someone I can imagine would choose Christmas Day.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

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.

But someone who lived in the house was a movie buff. I dont understand why you think they must have a poster to match the quotes . A movie buff watches lots of movies and usually takes note of points of interest or highlights certain scenes. I dont think they necessarily buy a poster for every movie they watch.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

For me, the timing is totally weird. Why would a parent or sibling murder a child on Christmas night, after returning home from visiting friends? Surely everyone was tired at that point.

A psychopath/loner/pedophile is someone I can imagine would choose Christmas Day.

Rage doesnt follow a calender or holidays but holidays can be very stressful though. They are busy with a lot if demands and a lot of expectactions. You mention everyone being tired. Isnt that when adults and children alike have the least amount of patience?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

But someone who lived in the house was a movie buff. I dont understand why you think they must have a poster to match the quotes . A movie buff watches lots of movies and usually takes note of points of interest or highlights certain scenes. I dont think they necessarily buy a poster for every movie they watch.

6 framed posters does not a movie buff make, at least not one who watches every genre (rare) or takes notes (very rare). The six posters do show a limited taste, favoring lush adventures and dramas over gritty or action packed thrillers. Had some of the posters been of, say, Die Hard or Seven, I might say differently.

The note references movies largely targeted to a young, male audience. The demographic for the posters skew older, some of them female.

 

[Cedars]

But someone who lived in the house was a movie buff. I dont understand why you think they must have a poster to match the quotes . A movie buff watches lots of movies and usually takes note of points of interest or highlights certain scenes. I dont think they necessarily buy a poster for every movie they watch.

I disagree that owning posters from classic movies has anything to do with a deep obsession with any type of movie. Some signed posters are collectibles. They are just an item of decoration, attractive as cultural objects, purchased to be seen by others as fashionable. At the same time, college kids had posters of Che Guevera but didn't care a whit about Cuba and had no intention of ever using a machine gun. I had a poster of bare trees in winter in Scandanavia, I had no intention of going there and actually hated winter, it just was an attractive image.

Crime solving requires much deeper psychological insight than that ragged old argument that's been doing the rounds of the internet for years.

JMO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

6 framed posters does not a movie buff make, at least not one who watches every genre (rare) or takes notes (very rare). The six posters do show a limited taste, favoring lush adventures and dramas over gritty or action packed thrillers. Had some of the posters been of, say, Die Hard or Seven, I might say differently.

The note references movies largely targeted to a young, male audience. The demographic for the posters skew older, some of them female.

I respectfully disagree. People do not use movie posters to decorate their home unless they have some attachment to the movie they are displaying unless the poster is visually attractive to them
Our homes reflect a lot about us. You won't find a movie poster as part of my decor. My son who is 22 is a serious movie buff. His favorite genre is horror yet none of the four movie posters in his room reflect this. If you went into his room, you could make one assumption and that is he likes anime movies. What you could not tell by the posters is what his Favorite genre is or how many different genres he frequently enjoys nor would you know at what age he was when he purchased them.

 

[Cedars]

I never stated anything about
' deep obsessions'. Those would be your words.
Unlike others, I don't take liberty and try to pin down who likes or obsesses over what type of movie. Crime solving requires letting evidence show itself and not create fictional people to fit a narrative. The child was dead in their home, there were movie references in the ransom note. There were movie posters and crime novels stacked up in the bedroom. What is tired, is those who discount the blaring obvious and try to direct the case to a unknown person who keeps changing with the narrative of the week. We have the Housekeeper, Santa, Mark Karr, Gary Oliba, can't forget Fleet White, the disgruntled employee, beyond these people I've lost track. Good Lord. How many have emphatically been accused by JR?
The fact that the ransom note takes from movies only means that a person has likely seen the movie. I have seen many many action films in my life but yet I don't like action films at all. Not my genre.
A husband can like one genre, the wife another type.
One night it's Die Hard the next night may be When Harry Met Sally. I specifically stated one can't determine what genre a person may favor by looking at a movie poster in their home but that they must have had a fondness for the movies(There are 6 movie posters VS your one tree poster btw) . These are 2 very different things. I make the observation that someone in the home was into movies.
Why does that trigger a debate? Because I pointed out several movie posters in the Ramsey home?
I'll save some time typing and direct you to Cottonstars video who can better connect the posters to the person in the home and why they may have chosen them.

If you have watched a movie once, would you be able to quote or mimic large parts of the dialogue? The ability to do that, under intense stress, is where a deep obsession comes in.

If a prosecutor introduced that kind of evidence in a court case against the Ramsey's - here's these generic posters as evidence they wrote the note - they would be laughed out of court.

If novels with the particular theme of kidnappings and language of kidnapping, similar to the note, were found in the home, that could be evidence.

In one case I followed, the perp who murdered an older woman (and then kidnapped/murdered and said he cannibalized a young child), had a copy of Silence of the Lambs on his coffee table. That was introduced as evidence, though not conclusive.

JMO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

If you have watched a movie once, would you be able to quote or mimic large parts of the dialogue? The ability to do that, under intense stress, is where a deep obsession comes in.

If a prosecutor introduced that kind of evidence in a court case against the Ramsey's - here's these generic posters as evidence they wrote the note - they would be laughed out of court.

If novels with the particular theme of kidnappings and language of kidnapping, similar to the note, were found in the home, that could be evidence.

In one case I followed, the perp who murdered an older woman (and then kidnapped/murdered and said he cannibalized a young child), had a copy of Silence of the Lambs on his coffee table. That was introduced as evidence, though not conclusive.

JMO

 

[concernedcitizen706]

A couple things that stuck out to me for the jbr case. One, the ransom note was written, printed actually, with the unusual letter a. Printed like a typewriter a. Like you see here in the screen. Whereas most people print the letter a, with the circle and the bar. And interestingly, Patsy Ramsey wrote her letter A's like that. And also, the guy from Thailand who was a suspect for a while, I forget his name, also wrote his letter A's the same way. Is that just something they do out in the midwest or something? Because I don't know anybody who prints their A's like that.

Second of all, they say that the exacto knife that was used to cut some of the ropes and such, was from the upstairs hallway closet. And the only two people who knew where that knife was located, was Patsy Ramsey and the maid, because they put it there at the back of the closet to hide it from the little boy, so that he would not use it. So that is pretty damning for Patsy Ramsey.

My theory is Patsy Ramsey hit jbr on the head with a flashlight when she was frustrated with her after JonBenet wet the bed at night. So she brought jbr down to eat some pineapple, got frustrated, hit her on the head with a flashlight. Put her in bed. Then the girl probably kind of went into a coma later in the night. Patsy and John panicked because they did not want Patsy to go away for murder. I was just thinking about it, and I'm thinking Patsy probably discovered it first, and then strangled the little girl to death, before she told John. Because she wanted to make sure there was no chance that the little girl could be brought to the hospital, because she didn't want to go away for attempted murder. So she told John that she "accidentally" hit jbr on the head, and then they both staged the break-in sexual predator type murder. Which was probably Patsy's idea of course. Patsy went over the top with her imagination in staging it.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

You are joking right?
If you are an investigater, don't things like when the movie was released, how many times it was watched on a rental tape, how popular the movie was at the time bare any weight?
Let me start with " Go ahead. Make my day. " Movies are intentionally made with memorable taglines and dialog that that people remember.

Yet the movies identified weren't having their most memorable lines paraphrased. That's why it took a while to discover them. Speed's famous line is "Pop quiz, hotshot!" or maybe one of Keanu's lines about how they can't let the bus go below x speed. "Don't try to grow a brain" isn't one of them. For Dirty Harry, it's the "Do you feel lucky, punk?" line (yes, I'm aware it's slightly misquoted). Not "If you talk to anyone, even if it's a Pekinese pissing on a lamppost..."

These were never catchprases, taglines or quotes that were traded in the wild.

You are forcing a narrative where there may not be one. I'm sure posters on this forum could throw taglines and dialog at you for days from movies they have watched. It is part of movie making formula..
Who is stupid enough to try to take your scenerio to win a case in court? A good investigated looks at the culminating evidence not one isolated piece. But your aware of that right?
My original statement was in disagreement with that the movie posters didn't mean anything because the movie quotes in the ransom note didn't correspond with the posters. I say they show someone who was into movies.

You said it showed someone in the household was a movie buff, and then said movie buffs "watches lots of movies and usually takes note of points of interest or highlights certain scenes." With that definition, I don't think a handful of movie posters as wall art shows they were movie buffs, more likely that they enjoyed those movies and/or the aesthetics of the posters.

In the end pretty much everyone watches movies. A prosecutor might try to bolster their (inevitably weak) case by claiming the quotes in the note were by the Ramseys because the posters showed they watched movies, but I doubt it would help.

Now would that prove anything in court? I hope you were joking. But should an investigate ignore that fact? I say no.
And by the way, my Dad ways 30 year LE. He thinks it was a family member. There isn't a single piece of evidence that puts someone in the home besides an absurd ransom note in PRs pen. There isn't a single piece of evidence you could tie to an intruder and get a court conviction as of today. Talk about laughing out of court.

Of course there is. The DNA. If they identify UM1 and take him to court I'd say the odds are very good he'll be convicted. There's no way the Ramseys would be on any of the evidence they have against them.

 

[ekardh]

Many people do that hand waving "oh, people are capable of anything". Actually, they're not. Jon Benet was killed by someone who knew all about sexually sadistic/pedophilic fantasies and *advertiser censored*: duct tape on the mouth and hands bound behind her back, penetration, etc. Stuff most people don't even know exists, especially back then, before the internet.

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way? Only if you were into it and it was your fantasy. In which case, if it really is your fantasy to subject a young girl to a sexually sadistic ritual, why would you wait until an 'accident', to enact that? You'd just go ahead and do it. And if you're driven by wanting to enact that fantasy, you're certainly capable of getting into a poorly secured home to act out your fantasy on a little beauty queen and then writing an equally sadistic note to John Ramsey enacting your kidnapping-movie fantasies.

We know all about Patsy's fantasies: beauty pageants. And John Ramsey's fantasies clearly centred around being rich and successful, having mutiple homes and private jets.

JMO

I agree. I've always criticised the "cover up" angle, because there were so many other routes they could've taken.
They could have said that JonBenet fell down the stairs, slipped in the bath tub, anything... But instead they stage a sadosexual crime scene and garrotte their daughter while her body is still warm? Nah, not buying it.

The problem for me is that the murder screams intruder, while the ransom note screams inside job.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I agree. I've always criticised the "cover up" angle, because there were so many other routes they could've taken.
They could have said that JonBenet fell down the stairs, slipped in the bath tub, anything... But instead they stage a sadosexual crime scene and garrotte their daughter while her body is still warm? Nah, not buying it.

The problem for me is that the murder screams intruder, while the ransom note screams inside job.

No not really, because apparently that was a very huge linear crack on the back of jbrs head. Actually I think it was more on the top of her head. You don't get that by just falling down the steps. You get that by somebody hitting you hard on the back of your head with something. So they had to come up with a murder scenario. And then Patsy's imagination ran away with her, and she came up with the whole sophisticated sex predator scenario.

 

[Cedars]

I agree. I've always criticised the "cover up" angle, because there were so many other routes they could've taken.
They could have said that JonBenet fell down the stairs, slipped in the bath tub, anything... But instead they stage a sadosexual crime scene and garrotte their daughter while her body is still warm? Nah, not buying it.

The problem for me is that the murder screams intruder, while the ransom note screams inside job.

It would point to someone who 1. knew John Ramsey and about his bonus 2. loathed and despised him.

While his wife fulfilled point 1., I'm not understanding how or why 2. They never got divorced in spite of the insults and tone 'don't try to grow a brain, John' 'fat cat' and 'southern charm' (Patsy was a Southerner too), and the repeated vicious threats that any mistake and JBR will "die!" or be beheaded. That is really sick.

JMO

 

[KristopherKolumbo]

We know all about Patsy's fantasies: beauty pageants. And John Ramsey's fantasies clearly centred around being rich and successful, having mutiple homes and private jets.

JMO

These are generalizations about people we don't know. As true as this may be, being a businessman and a mom doesn't exclude them from having a motive that may not be clear to others, and being involved on some level. This case is pushing 30 years on. IMO it's clear that thinking outside one's own box will be required to solve this.

 

[ekardh]

No not really, because apparently that was a very huge linear crack on the back of jbrs head. Actually I think it was more on the top of her head. You don't get that by just falling down the steps. You get that by somebody hitting you hard on the back of your head with something. So they had to come up with a murder scenario. And then Patsy's imagination ran away with her, and she came up with the whole sophisticated sex predator scenario.

The wire was so wound so tightly and deeply around JonBenet's throat that it was barely visible. I can't see the Ramseys creating that torture device on the fly to stage a murder scene. Someone did that for their own sadosexual gratification.

 

[FairyWrenBlue]

Hello. I have just joined this site to be able to participate in the JBR discussions.
I have just watched the Netflix documentary and I'm in two minds. As soon as I saw it was made by Joe Berlinger, I expected it to be biased and one sided.

It certainly is one-sided - I'm just not sure which side I fall on.

It shows the report that states the DNA found under JBR fingernails and in her underwear did not match any Ramsey family members.

It shows photos of the lack of snow around the windows, which would explain why there were no footprints.

It shows Lou Smit easily able to climb in the basement window.

It shows JBR paediatrician stating there was no evidence while he was JBR doctor that she was ever abused.

A lot of what JR says to the camera makes sense. The attempted assault on a teen girl nearby around the same time. The police said it was different, the girl wasn't killed, but only because the mother woke up and disturbed the attacker.

I guess I am having trouble accepting that PR did anything to her daughter. If you're going to cover for another child, if you believe BDI, why would you torture your child? Not forgetting that if she had claw marks on her neck, and DNA under her fingernails, she was alive when she was garotted. Do people think BR did that?

Also, I've seen comments that there's no way the Ramseys wouldn't hear the murder taking place. I can see how, in a house that was such a rabbit warren, and three storeys, that could happen without anyone hearing anything. That ransom note is certainly a head scratcher.

I know parents kill their children all the time, for all sorts of reasons, but I just never got that sense from PR. I was a fairly young girl, just out of my teens, when this happened and I've always been stunned that nobody has been found, considering there was DNA evidence. How is it that the perpetrator never had their DNA captured and put into the CODIS database? It's not the kind of crime you only commit once. Unless they've been so ridiculously lucky to have never been caught for anything in the past or since.

I've read about people talking about issues with JBR and her vagina. My six-year-old daughter occasionally gets thrush because girls that age don't always wipe their bottoms properly when they go to the toilet. My pharmacist made me feel bad when my daughter was 4, telling me my daughter shouldn't have thrush. Our GP said it's very common, and gave the reason of not wiping properly (which my girl certainly doesn't a lot of the time. It's a process. Sigh).

I guess I haven't seen anything to convince me the family was involved, but it looks like the majority think they did.

I just wish that DNA would match up with somebody so they can get closer to solving this awful murder.

 

[Gigiky]

Hello. I have just joined this site to be able to participate in the JBR discussions.
I have just watched the Netflix documentary and I'm in two minds. As soon as I saw it was made by Joe Berlinger, I expected it to be biased and one sided.

It certainly is one-sided - I'm just not sure which side I fall on.

It shows the report that states the DNA found under JBR fingernails and in her underwear did not match any Ramsey family members.

It shows photos of the lack of snow around the windows, which would explain why there were no footprints.

It shows Lou Smit easily able to climb in the basement window.

It shows JBR paediatrician stating there was no evidence while he was JBR doctor that she was ever abused.

A lot of what JR says to the camera makes sense. The attempted assault on a teen girl nearby around the same time. The police said it was different, the girl wasn't killed, but only because the mother woke up and disturbed the attacker.

I guess I am having trouble accepting that PR did anything to her daughter. If you're going to cover for another child, if you believe BDI, why would you torture your child? Not forgetting that if she had claw marks on her neck, and DNA under her fingernails, she was alive when she was garotted. Do people think BR did that?

Also, I've seen comments that there's no way the Ramseys wouldn't hear the murder taking place. I can see how, in a house that was such a rabbit warren, and three storeys, that could happen without anyone hearing anything. That ransom note is certainly a head scratcher.

I know parents kill their children all the time, for all sorts of reasons, but I just never got that sense from PR. I was a fairly young girl, just out of my teens, when this happened and I've always been stunned that nobody has been found, considering there was DNA evidence. How is it that the perpetrator never had their DNA captured and put into the CODIS database? It's not the kind of crime you only commit once. Unless they've been so ridiculously lucky to have never been caught for anything in the past or since.

I've read about people talking about issues with JBR and her vagina. My six-year-old daughter occasionally gets thrush because girls that age don't always wipe their bottoms properly when they go to the toilet. My pharmacist made me feel bad when my daughter was 4, telling me my daughter shouldn't have thrush. Our GP said it's very common, and gave the reason of not wiping properly (which my girl certainly doesn't a lot of the time. It's a process. Sigh).

I guess I haven't seen anything to convince me the family was involved, but it looks like the majority think they did.

I just wish that DNA would match up with somebody so they can get closer to solving this awful murder.

I just watched the Netflix DOC last night and agree with everything you said in your post.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Hello. I have just joined this site to be able to participate in the JBR discussions.
I have just watched the Netflix documentary and I'm in two minds. As soon as I saw it was made by Joe Berlinger, I expected it to be biased and one sided.

It certainly is one-sided - I'm just not sure which side I fall on.

It shows the report that states the DNA found under JBR fingernails and in her underwear did not match any Ramsey family members.

It shows photos of the lack of snow around the windows, which would explain why there were no footprints.

It shows Lou Smit easily able to climb in the basement window.

It shows JBR paediatrician stating there was no evidence while he was JBR doctor that she was ever abused.

A lot of what JR says to the camera makes sense. The attempted assault on a teen girl nearby around the same time. The police said it was different, the girl wasn't killed, but only because the mother woke up and disturbed the attacker.

I guess I am having trouble accepting that PR did anything to her daughter. If you're going to cover for another child, if you believe BDI, why would you torture your child? Not forgetting that if she had claw marks on her neck, and DNA under her fingernails, she was alive when she was garotted. Do people think BR did that?

Also, I've seen comments that there's no way the Ramseys wouldn't hear the murder taking place. I can see how, in a house that was such a rabbit warren, and three storeys, that could happen without anyone hearing anything. That ransom note is certainly a head scratcher.

I know parents kill their children all the time, for all sorts of reasons, but I just never got that sense from PR. I was a fairly young girl, just out of my teens, when this happened and I've always been stunned that nobody has been found, considering there was DNA evidence. How is it that the perpetrator never had their DNA captured and put into the CODIS database? It's not the kind of crime you only commit once. Unless they've been so ridiculously lucky to have never been caught for anything in the past or since.

I've read about people talking about issues with JBR and her vagina. My six-year-old daughter occasionally gets thrush because girls that age don't always wipe their bottoms properly when they go to the toilet. My pharmacist made me feel bad when my daughter was 4, telling me my daughter shouldn't have thrush. Our GP said it's very common, and gave the reason of not wiping properly (which my girl certainly doesn't a lot of the time. It's a process. Sigh).

I guess I haven't seen anything to convince me the family was involved, but it looks like the majority think they did.

I just wish that DNA would match up with somebody so they can get closer to solving this awful murder.

In todays medicine, any child that had as many UTIs as this child did needed conclusive follow up to figure out why they were occurring. I'm not aware that that was done. I'm not sure I would take this Drs word as gospel. Chronic UTIs
Need to be worked up and explained as to why they are occuring