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

[Gigiky]

why don't they just test the DNA. I don't understand when these decade old cases have DNA why its such an issue to get the testing done.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

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.

Well that does sound pretty extreme. But I don't know, I could go either way. It's possible one or both of the parents, had sado masochistic fantasies. I don't know that that excludes the parents.

 

[Styngyn]

Personally, I think it's hard to say. There are certainly enough still unanswered questions regarding DP that raise suspicion IMO. I do find it odd that throughout the history of this case, we have heard from so many people that were involved with or close to the R family, with the exception of DP. To my knowledge, he has not spoken at all, although he was questioned by LE on 1/9 while they were interviewing employees of Access Graphics. But I have never heard an explanation of why he flew standby back to Atlanta on 12/24, or why he and Nedra did not rush to Boulder to support PR after the murder as others in the family did.

By accounts, DP was a larger than life figure, a big talker who liked to boast. Then after the murder, he went rather silent and started keeping a very low profile. It's just another element of this case that raises more questions that we have never gotten answers to.

That's because the purported SA on JB was indeed DP. He was obviously afraid this could be linked back to him during more thorough investigations. Lucky for him, that never happened

 

[Styngyn]

I've only recently begun deep dives into this case after years of having little interest. But then I saw the Netflix documentary and it's rekindled my interest. Earlier today I did a lot of reading on DP. And holy cow, his purported antics cannot be ignored, He could very well be at the core of Patsy's Dec 17th repeated calls to the pediatrician. The mysterious Dec 23rd 911 call at their Xmas party in which he was present! What exactly happened there? The oddball standby flight from Denver to Atlanta on Xmas eve. Who does that? Especially when you are a seasoned business executive. The fact that he remained so silent in the aftermath of the murder, a man that was supposedly much more boisterous. DP definitely a key figure in this entire saga especially when looking at the SA angle. For some reason I never thought it was JR.

But of course, little to nothing can be proven. The R's had that embarrassing detail covered up a long time ago and he passed away in 2020.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Who is DP? I can't think of who that is.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Patsy Ramsey's father.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

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

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way?

I think you answered your own question.
"Stage" being the key word.
Saying "Only if they were into it" only serves your sexual sadist narrative. The ramsom note, wrapping the body in her favorite blanket, having her in his control and NOT taking her somewhere to continue his perverse fantasy makes zero sense for this sexual psychopath you describe.
Are you going to ignore the erosion at the 7 o'clock position of her vagina? What could have been occurring to that little girls vagina before that night to cause erosion?
Erosion happens over time. It's not a one and done.
I find it concentrated on one spot concerning. That isn't a one time assault from a frenzied sexual sadist. It's a recurrent occurrence that bares a level of a consistent act.
IMO, there's more that points to covering past bad acts than a kidnapper, sexual psychopath intruder, who left all the prizes behind.
JMHO

 

[Styngyn]

Who is DP? I can't think of who that is.

Don Paugh. Patsy Ramsey's father

 

[Styngyn]

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way?

I think you answered your own question.
"Stage" being the key word.
Saying "Only if they were into it" only serves your sexual sadist narrative. The ramsom note, wrapping the body in her favorite blanket, having her in his control and NOT taking her somewhere to continue his perverse fantasy makes zero sense for this sexual psychopath you describe.
Are you going to ignore the erosion at the 7 o'clock position of her vagina? What could have been occurring to that little girls vagina before that night to cause erosion?
Erosion happens over time. It's not a one and done.
I find it concentrated on one spot concerning. That isn't a one time assault from a frenzied sexual sadist. It's a recurrent occurrence that bares a level of a consistent act.
IMO, there's more that points to covering past bad acts than a kidnapper, sexual psychopath intruder, who left all the prizes behind.
JMHO

Precisely

 

[Tower]

Why on earth "stage" an accident that way?

I think you answered your own question.
"Stage" being the key word.
Saying "Only if they were into it" only serves your sexual sadist narrative. The ramsom note, wrapping the body in her favorite blanket, having her in his control and NOT taking her somewhere to continue his perverse fantasy makes zero sense for this sexual psychopath you describe.
Are you going to ignore the erosion at the 7 o'clock position of her vagina? What could have been occurring to that little girls vagina before that night to cause erosion?
Erosion happens over time. It's not a one and done.
I find it concentrated on one spot concerning. That isn't a one time assault from a frenzied sexual sadist. It's a recurrent occurrence that bares a level of a consistent act.
IMO, there's more that points to covering past bad acts than a kidnapper, sexual psychopath intruder, who left all the prizes behind.
JMHO

“Cervical erosion” is a medical diagnosis which in itself does not indicate SA. Small children who have frequent infections could have this finding in the absence of any SA. I’m not opining she was or was not chronically abused, just that any medical provider who stated cervical erosion proved prior sexual contact is simply wrong.

What Is Cervical Ectropion?

Cervical ectropion a common but usually harmless condition for women of childbearing age. Learn the signs and what you can do about them.

www.webmd.com

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

“Cervical erosion” is a medical diagnosis which in itself does not indicate SA. Small children who have frequent infections could have this finding in the absence of any SA. I’m not opining she was or was not chronically abused, just that any medical provider who stated cervical erosion proved prior sexual contact is simply wrong.

What Is Cervical Ectropion?

Cervical ectropion a common but usually harmless condition for women of childbearing age. Learn the signs and what you can do about them.

www.webmd.com

From your article.
It’s fairly common in women who are in their childbearing years, and it’s usually nothing to worry about.
Vaginal issues in 6 year old are not all that common and I would put my money on external issues far more than internal.
They happen but not to the degree sexually active women have.

 

[Tower]

From your article.
It’s fairly common in women who are in their childbearing years, and it’s usually nothing to worry about.
Vaginal issues in 6 year old are not all that common and I would put my money on external issues far more than internal.
They happen but not to the degree sexually active women have.

The article does not go into detail, but it also states a child can be born with it. I am specifically speaking to your previous statement that “erosion happens over time. It's not a one and done. I find it concentrated on one spot concerning.” Cervical erosion by definition is a spot of tissue damage and can happen fairly quickly, so it can be “one and done.”

This has been an ongoing debate in this case and whatever side one wishes to believe, this cervical finding can fit either narrative, so it is inconclusive.

I think it’s important, in my opinion, to remain objective about all evidence. This finding could be completely innocent. Chronic SA in a young child would typically cause more widespread damage than a single, small cervical erosion.

In conjunction with other evidence, assumptions may be made, but cervical erosion can and does exist both at birth and more often in young children who have vaginal infections, as JBR is documented to have had. I am a medical professional, but not verified, so my own opinion. This one finding is not a clear indicator of SA given her documented medical history.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

The article does not go into detail, but it also states a child can be born with it. I am specifically speaking to your previous statement that “erosion happens over time. It's not a one and done. I find it concentrated on one spot concerning.” Cervical erosion by definition is a spot of tissue damage and can happen fairly quickly, so it can be “one and done.”

This has been an ongoing debate in this case and whatever side one wishes to believe, this cervical finding can fit either narrative, so it is inconclusive.

I think it’s important, in my opinion, to remain objective about all evidence. This finding could be completely innocent. Chronic SA in a young child would typically cause more widespread damage than a single, small cervical erosion.

In conjunction with other evidence, assumptions may be made, but cervical erosion can and does exist both at birth and more often in young children who have vaginal infections, as JBR is documented to have had. I am a medical professional, but not verified, so my own opinion. This one finding is not a clear indicator of SA given her documented medical history.

A lot of members post without having the knowledge on these subs. The features found in JBR vaginal examination are interesting for a number of reasons.

The first is there was no inflammatory exudate associated with the erosions. This largely confirms that the erosions were not chronic and not associated with SA. My interpretation as a qualified pathologist (not confirmed on this website) is that it most likely occurred after death. Inflammatory cells enter tissues rapidly after injury and should have been present if she was alive.

The evidence for chronic sexual assault. The JBR Hymen actually shows normal changes with age. The only proven feature of SA is notching of the posterior hymen which was not shown in the autopsy. Back in the 1990's there was a lot of soul searching over the changes typical of sexual assault in pre-pubescent girls. A lot of the so called 'evidence' has since been revised and discarded. I see people on these subs say that JBR was sexually assaulted because of 'x' report in the 1990's. Unfortunately a lot of this is unproven. Many people were prosecuted on 'dodgy' medical findings.

We have been told that she was assaulted with a paint brush. What evidence is there for this. I have not seen any. It may exist but I have never found it. Is there an official report. It has become an article of fact. The real evidence: There was chronic vaginitis and birefringent material. I showed the autopsy results to my partner who is considered an expert. Cellulose in toilet paper is birefringent. The changes described could easily be a result from wiping the wrong way and contaminating the vagina. Apparently really common in non sexually assaulted girls of this age.

The autopsy results need to be looked at with a a more up to date eyes. What was an article of faith in the 1990's is no longer accepted as evidence.

 

[FMB]

A lot of members post without having the knowledge on these subs. The features found in JBR vaginal examination are interesting for a number of reasons.

The first is there was no inflammatory exudate associated with the erosions. This largely confirms that the erosions were not chronic and not associated with SA. My interpretation as a qualified pathologist (not confirmed on this website) is that it most likely occurred after death. Inflammatory cells enter tissues rapidly after injury and should have been present if she was alive.

The evidence for chronic sexual assault. The JBR Hymen actually shows normal changes with age. The only proven feature of SA is notching of the posterior hymen which was not shown in the autopsy. Back in the 1990's there was a lot of soul searching over the changes typical of sexual assault in pre-pubescent girls. A lot of the so called 'evidence' has since been revised and discarded. I see people on these subs say that JBR was sexually assaulted because of 'x' report in the 1990's. Unfortunately a lot of this is unproven. Many people were prosecuted on 'dodgy' medical findings.

We have been told that she was assaulted with a paint brush. What evidence is there for this. I have not seen any. It may exist but I have never found it. Is there an official report. It has become an article of fact. The real evidence: There was chronic vaginitis and birefringent material. I showed the autopsy results to my partner who is considered an expert. Cellulose in toilet paper is birefringent. The changes described could easily be a result from wiping the wrong way and contaminating the vagina. Apparently really common in non sexually assaulted girls of this age.

The autopsy results need to be looked at with a a more up to date eyes. What was an article of faith in the 1990's is no longer accepted as evidence.

A lot of members post without having the knowledge on these subs. The features found in JBR vaginal examination are interesting for a number of reasons.

The first is there was no inflammatory exudate associated with the erosions. This largely confirms that the erosions were not chronic and not associated with SA. My interpretation as a qualified pathologist (not confirmed on this website) is that it most likely occurred after death. Inflammatory cells enter tissues rapidly after injury and should have been present if she was alive.

The evidence for chronic sexual assault. The JBR Hymen actually shows normal changes with age. The only proven feature of SA is notching of the posterior hymen which was not shown in the autopsy. Back in the 1990's there was a lot of soul searching over the changes typical of sexual assault in pre-pubescent girls. A lot of the so called 'evidence' has since been revised and discarded. I see people on these subs say that JBR was sexually assaulted because of 'x' report in the 1990's. Unfortunately a lot of this is unproven. Many people were prosecuted on 'dodgy' medical findings.

We have been told that she was assaulted with a paint brush. What evidence is there for this. I have not seen any. It may exist but I have never found it. Is there an official report. It has become an article of fact. The real evidence: There was chronic vaginitis and birefringent material. I showed the autopsy results to my partner who is considered an expert. Cellulose in toilet paper is birefringent. The changes described could easily be a result from wiping the wrong way and contaminating the vagina. Apparently really common in non sexually assaulted girls of this age.

The autopsy results need to be looked at with a a more up to date eyes. What was an article of faith in the 1990's is no longer accepted as evidence.

Long time lurker on this forum and first time poster. I have followed this case since the late 90s.

I am convinced there was definitely chronic sexual abuse. A panel of 5 or more medical experts were shown the autopsy report, photos and tissue samples and all concluded that there had been ongoing sexual abuse. They mention in their report that the Hymen was shriveled and retracted and not normal for her age. Additionally they found that her vaginal opening was twice normal size for a six year old girl. All concluded there was evidence of not just acute injury to Jonbenet but chronic sexual abuse. Factor in the chronic bedwetting issues and the almost 30 visits to her pediatrician over a 3 year period leads me to believe something was really wrong.

As a qualified pathologist help me understand what an updated set of eyes on the autopsy report means? Why does your view of the autopsy report differ from the panel of 5 medical experts? And after you and your colleague viewed the report....what would you need to see that was absent in the report to convince you there was ongoing abuse??

Thanks!!

 

[butterfly69]

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.

How does this explain the unidentified male DNA found in JonBenet's panties? The DNA evidence clears the Ramseys.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Long time lurker on this forum and first time poster. I have followed this case since the late 90s.

I am convinced there was definitely chronic sexual abuse. A panel of 5 or more medical experts were shown the autopsy report, photos and tissue samples and all concluded that there had been ongoing sexual abuse. They mention in their report that the Hymen was shriveled and retracted and not normal for her age. Additionally they found that her vaginal opening was twice normal size for a six year old girl. All concluded there was evidence of not just acute injury to Jonbenet but chronic sexual abuse. Factor in the chronic bedwetting issues and the almost 30 visits to her pediatrician over a 3 year period leads me to believe something was really wrong.

As a qualified pathologist help me understand what an updated set of eyes on the autopsy report means? Why does your view of the autopsy report differ from the panel of 5 medical experts? And after you and your colleague viewed the report....what would you need to see that was absent in the report to convince you there was ongoing abuse??

Thanks!!

Notching in the posterior Hymen. None described in autopsy.

The anterior atrophy of the Hymen is considered normal now in a 6 year old (10 to 2 in autopsy). This is discussed in this article. When was that panel, 1990's or later. That's the problem. What was considered abnormal in 90's was not based on good evidence. In fact notching in the posterior Hymen is the only solid evidence of penetration accepted by courts. Here is the problem, JBR did not have it.

The article below has images and discussion about all this. Warning to those not wanting to look at anatomy. You will notice the diameter of the vaginal opening is not discussed at all.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083318817305429

Here is a cut down list of accepted evidence of Sexual Assault. A quick note, an abrasion is not a Laceration.

1)​ Acute trauma to genital/anal tissues 29.​ Acute laceration(s) or bruising of labia, penis, scrotum, or perineum 30.​ Acute laceration of the posterior fourchette or vestibule, not involving the hymen 31.​ Bruising, petechiae, or abrasions on the hymen 32.​ Acute laceration of the hymen, of any depth; partial or complete 33.​ Vaginal laceration 34.​ Perianal laceration with exposure of tissues below the dermis

2)​ Residual (healing) injuries to genital/anal tissues 35.​ Perianal scar (a very rare finding that is difficult to diagnose unless an acute injury was previously documented at the same location) 36.​ Scar of posterior fourchette or fossa (a very rare finding that is difficult to diagnose unless an acute injury was previously documented at the same location) 37.​ Healed hymenal transection/complete hymen cleft—a defect in the hymen below the 3-9 o'clock location that extends to or through the base of the hymen, with no hymenal tissue discernible at that location 38.​ Signs of FGM or cutting, such as loss of part or all of the prepuce (clitoral hood), clitoris, labia minora or labia majora, or vertical linear scar adjacent to the clitoris (type 4 FGM)

 

[themonk]

The new Netflix thing was terrible.

That said, I haven't ever posted regarding this case but well, here I go.

I just read a bit about the ransom note and yes, it is odd for many, many reasons.

What occurs to me at the moment is the supposed placement of the RN on the stairs.

I mean, really, was the alleged kidnapper worried PR and JR wouldn't find it so they placed it where PR and JR would trip over it?

Why would the kidnapper want to alert the Ramseys that their daughter was gone any sooner than would have eventually been discovered when JR or PR went to wake up JBR?

Alternative scenario: Everyone wakes up but JBR hasn't come out of her room. Finally, someone checks her room and she is gone. Everyone freaks out and looks everywhere for her and after some time someone finds the RN in some non-obvious place.

If it's a kidnapping why not buy some time to get away? Make the Ramseys LOOK for the note.

Apologies if this is obvious and has been said before.

It's a fascinating case.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

On my last reply I made a small mistake because John Ramsey wanted to leave on an airplane after Jonbenet was found dead in the house so I should have written the following....
....also John wanted to leave on a plane right away after Jonbenet was found dead in the house?!?! Makes no logical sense to me.....you want to stay home and find your child's killers right? You want to cooperate with the police right? They really never did!

I think you would not want to be away from your child even in death, you would cling to her things, her smell, the feel of her presence.... But I could see maybe not staying in the home but very near.

 

[Tower]

Long time lurker on this forum and first time poster. I have followed this case since the late 90s.

I am convinced there was definitely chronic sexual abuse. A panel of 5 or more medical experts were shown the autopsy report, photos and tissue samples and all concluded that there had been ongoing sexual abuse. They mention in their report that the Hymen was shriveled and retracted and not normal for her age. Additionally they found that her vaginal opening was twice normal size for a six year old girl. All concluded there was evidence of not just acute injury to Jonbenet but chronic sexual abuse. Factor in the chronic bedwetting issues and the almost 30 visits to her pediatrician over a 3 year period leads me to believe something was really wrong.

As a qualified pathologist help me understand what an updated set of eyes on the autopsy report means? Why does your view of the autopsy report differ from the panel of 5 medical experts? And after you and your colleague viewed the report....what would you need to see that was absent in the report to convince you there was ongoing abuse??

Thanks!!

@australianwebsleuth gives a really good answer, but I would like to add an analogy. Well-meaning forensic experts used to believe blood splatter evidence and burn pattern evidence in homicide and arson were scientific and infallible. With further study and understanding, we come to realize this “evidence” does not mean what we thought it meant.

It’s the same with “evidence” believed in the 90s to indicate SA of a young child. We know now that children can have certain anatomy that is totally normal with no history at all of SA. Our understanding of what is normal changes over time.

 

[Mr.Dandy]

I just want to say I personally don’t believe anyone in the house did it. But….I completely understand how you might think they did. If or when your child goes missing, you absolutely have to find them and you go completely insane until they are found. But, to miss a room in the house is not a direct sign of guilt. And anyone can say you are sure you would check every single inch in that house, but honestly, who knows what you would actually do if you were placed in that situation. And that IS being completely honest. The police searched the house too and missed her, don’t forget.
Here are some valid points of evidence I have that I can’t quite get my head around. There were what appears to be drag marks on her blankets. Lou Smit points it out and he does appear to be correct. If Burke dragged her from her bed, a fight would have ensued up stairs. She wasn’t attacked in her room with the blunt object or there would have been blood. The garrote being used upstairs doesn’t make sense because whoever attacked her with it would have had to be behind her. She would have had to have gotten up, then there would be a chance for her to see her attacker and scream.
There was the window, the luggage and the glass that the police didn’t pay attention to. Ok, if I’m going to stage a crime scene, I won’t put a speck of glass on the suitcase. I might open the window and move the suitcase. Oh and the plants were smashed under the grate on the outside. It had definitely been opened.
Apparently there was a freezer in the basement near where she was found. Why didn’t they put her inside? Did they really predict the cops would be so incompetent? I do wonder why her killer didn’t put her in the freezer….
But the ransom is my biggest why.
Ok, let’s play some scenarios. One man that breaks in with the intent of taking their child and demanding a ransom. Maybe he was hired by others, who knows. He writes the note, he goes to Jon Benet and zaps her with a taser, takes her downstairs, decides to molest and murder her in a torturous fashion and beats her over the head, killing her and effectively destroying his ransom plan. He could have taken her dead body and pretended she was alive to collect the ransom. And let’s not forget a second note was starting to be written. Was that one meant to replace the original?
Let’s change the scenario a bit. Say he was just a pedophile that meant to simply assault her and killed her on accident. Was he in the middle of the assault and heard something, freaked out and killed her? Was the fake ransom note a cover for her death? Seems obvious enough. Then just leave her on the floor visible? Again, he didn’t know the cops would be so incompetent. I find the ransom note so odd no matter who wrote it when her body was in the basement the whole time. On top of that, no matter who killed her had no idea they actually left no trace evidence.
So let’s take Burke or Patsy. I agree with the Netflix doc when JR said why would she kill her daughter when she just overcame cancer? If she was a good person or bad person, why risk it all when you have a second chance at life? And if Burke did it? He as so socially awkward. I’m supposed to believe he’s going to keep his sisters murder a secret? My niece is 11 and pretty socially awkward…and she lies a lot. She’s very obvious though. You know right away. On top of all that, a garrote is very cruel. Who comes up with that as a cover up? If she was hit in the head, why not toss her down the stairs and say she fell? Why garrote her and molest her? Makes no sense.