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

[Styngyn]

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.

Every theory regarding this case (IDI, PDI, BDI, JDI, other other other) has one or two giant factors supporting it and at the same time one big giant hole that works against it and swallows it up for the discard. I suppose that's why it's so addictive of a case to follow

 

[FMB]

@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.

There is no evidence that Medical experts would look at the autopsy report, tissue samples and photographs in 2024 and come to a different conclusion as to the sexual abuse. I guess i am just not ready to trash bin the opinions of these Doctors. What sticks out to me in their comments is the " acute injury" to her genitals. The conclusion of the experts, chronic bed wetting, 30+ visits to the pediatrician in a 3 year period seem to point to SA

The SA component of this case is the reason why they could not pass Jonbenet's death off as an accident if anyone else in the house had accidentally killed her. I believe the SA is what they were trying to hide with the staging of the crime scene.

 

[Tower]

There is no evidence that Medical experts would look at the autopsy report, tissue samples and photographs in 2024 and come to a different conclusion as to the sexual abuse. I guess i am just not ready to trash bin the opinions of these Doctors. What sticks out to me in their comments is the " acute injury" to her genitals. The conclusion of the experts, chronic bed wetting, 30+ visits to the pediatrician in a 3 year period seem to point to SA

The SA component of this case is the reason why they could not pass Jonbenet's death off as an accident if anyone else in the house had accidentally killed her. I believe the SA is what they were trying to hide with the staging of the crime scene.

So you’re saying they murdered, tortured and desecrated this child’s body to hide evidence of chronic SA but also took her to the doctor 30+ times to treat symptoms of SA?

Her symptoms could point to SA, but that is speculation and her pediatrician said there were no signs. The evidence that could prove one way or another is lost forever.

I am not ruling out chronic or acute SA, but experts do not agree on the interpretation of these findings or many others in this case. If evidence were preserved and analyzed properly, this case would be solved.

 

[FMB]

So you’re saying they murdered, tortured and desecrated this child’s body to hide evidence of chronic SA but also took her to the doctor 30+ times to treat symptoms of SA?

Her symptoms could point to SA, but that is speculation and her pediatrician said there were no signs. The evidence that could prove one way or another is lost forever.

I am not ruling out chronic or acute SA, but experts do not agree on the interpretation of these findings or many others in this case. If evidence were preserved and analyzed properly, this case would be solved.

No, and I dont think i said that they took her to her pediatrician 30+ times to specifically treat SA. The 30+ doctor visits over a 3 year period, chronic bed wetting and Medical experts conclusions of SA are all consistent with ongoing SA...IMHO.

Why would the evidence be lost forever? They still have the tissue samples, autopsy report and photographs. I dont believe the medical experts opinions to be speculation .

Yes, I am saying someone in the house killed Jonbenet and they staged the crime scene to appear to be a sexual assault in an attempt to cover for ongoing SA.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

There is no evidence that Medical experts would look at the autopsy report, tissue samples and photographs in 2024 and come to a different conclusion as to the sexual abuse. I guess i am just not ready to trash bin the opinions of these Doctors. What sticks out to me in their comments is the " acute injury" to her genitals. The conclusion of the experts, chronic bed wetting, 30+ visits to the pediatrician in a 3 year period seem to point to SA

The SA component of this case is the reason why they could not pass Jonbenet's death off as an accident if anyone else in the house had accidentally killed her. I believe the SA is what they were trying to hide with the staging of the crime scene.

IMO, this is the most plausible explanation for a cover up.
I also think there are a lot of clues pointing to one person but imagine another would have been blamed. This would have destroyed the persons reputation and income stream and perhaps put him in jail.

 

[Trebor5591]

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

who is DP?

 

[Gerrymd8]

Not the parents. Not the son. Why? Sorry. It wasn't the Ramseys who killed JonBenet. JMO.

 

[KCENDERBY]

The Ramseys found a ransom note around 5.30 am in the stairs inside their house......logically after reading the note any normal individual would have looked around the house for the child and also to see if the person who wrote that note is still in the house and/or from where that person may have entered the house to make sure the house is now secure because they have another child in the house with them to protect.

I would have personally searched the house relentlessly from top to bottom looking for my precious child before or while my wife would be calling 911. If they would have done that they would have found Jonbenet in the house right then. The fact that Jonbenet was in the house all this time and they failed to locate her is illogical. They never looked for her because if they would have they would have found her...even if it was a big house SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE!! She could have been easily found....they never looked for her because they knew where she was all along. All this case was about her been kidnapped which was not true to later been found in the house.....

At this point to know exactly what happened and who did it is not as important as to simply figure out if it's an inside job or if it's something done by someone from outside. We all know that if Burke was responsible for what happened to Jonbenet either by accident or done intentionally it was impossible for Burke to write that ransom note by himself he was too young to write that and trying to cover it up by himself unbeknownst to the parents is impossible....the parents would have to be involved in this either way.

On the 911 call Patsy sounded/acted out of breath desperate her daughter was kidnapped but she was surely not out of breath searching desperately for Jonbenet in the house because she would have found her....she was in the house.

I will spare you Ramseys strange behavior following the 911 call and the manner in which John Ramsey found Jonbenet later in the house full of guests up to not wanting to speak with the authorities to interviews on TV....illogical again.

To me 1 minute into this case my logic tells me the Ramseys are the ones responsible for Jonbenet's death.

I think there was a darker side and I bet you there's a connection to Epstein yes ? that's what I believe

 

[Styngyn]

who is DP?

Don Paugh. Patsy's father

 

[Styngyn]

Everything related to any potential SA of JB in this saga can be tied to, among other things, the mysterious repetitive Dec 7 or 17th calls to her pediatrician (whatever they were for and whoever made them), the Dec 23rd Xmas party (in which both DP and FW were present) and the mysterious 911 call from the house (that they said was made in error, yah right!), DP's mysterious last minute stand-by flight back to ATL instead of having booked ahead of time (during the holiday season no less!), the rumored gun pulling on FW by DP on the 23rd party as well. That is some intriguing stuff that you cannot ignore. No, no hard evidence, just gut instincts

 

[ninvestigate]

I don’t know why this sticks out so much to me, but inviting over friends simultaneously with the police has always bothered me. They weren’t from there, and hadn’t been there too long, so how well could they have known these friends anyway? Setting aside contamination of a crime scene, giving all the benefit of the doubt that they might not even know these things, why involve non-family members so immediately? What does that say about the culture of those involved? I’m surprised they wouldn’t want to have their full attention on the police?

 

[CloudedTruth]

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

I'm not convinced that it was DP and surely we do not know that as a fact. His actions surrounding the timeframe of the murder are questionable, for sure. But my question is why would John or Patsy be inclined to protect him? And the cover up to me is an indication that they felt the need to cover the fact that she was being SA'd. Which means at least one of them knew about that.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

C

Everything related to any potential SA of JB in this saga can be tied to, among other things, the mysterious repetitive Dec 7 or 17th calls to her pediatrician (whatever they were for and whoever made them), the Dec 23rd Xmas party (in which both DP and FW were present) and the mysterious 911 call from the house (that they said was made in error, yah right!), DP's mysterious last minute stand-by flight back to ATL instead of having booked ahead of time (during the holiday season no less!), the rumored gun pulling on FW by DP on the 23rd party as well. That is some intriguing stuff that you cannot ignore. No, no hard evidence, just gut instincts

Can I pose another scenerio.
Patsy had been given some child rearing books from family memembers. One was Why Johnny Cant Tell Right From Wrong. Thats a bold move to give to someone.
DPs lack of involvement could have come from being upset over BRs behavior . If BR indeed was responsible, maybe DPs lack of posturing was due to knowing there was escalating behavior problems. He may not have agreed to how everything played out.
Also, could this explain JRs life long quest to clear Burke.
If any of the BR scenerio is true, which we may never know, can you imagine the guilt? Giilt regarding JB but also BR may have needed more intervention than he received.
Just a scenerio. Not fact other than the book.

 

[Styngyn]

C

Can I pose another scenerio.
Patsy had been given some child rearing books from family memembers. One was Why Johnny Cant Tell Right From Wrong. Thats a bold move to give to someone.
DPs lack of involvement could have come from being upset over BRs behavior . If BR indeed was responsible, maybe DPs lack of posturing was due to knowing there was escalating behavior problems. He may not have agreed to how everything played out.
Also, could this explain JRs life long quest to clear Burke.
If any of the BR scenerio is true, which we may never know, can you imagine the guilt? Giilt regarding JB but also BR may have needed more intervention than he received.
Just a scenerio. Not fact other than the book.

Yeah anything goes here

 

[Styngyn]

I don’t know why this sticks out so much to me, but inviting over friends simultaneously with the police has always bothered me. They weren’t from there, and hadn’t been there too long, so how well could they have known these friends anyway? Setting aside contamination of a crime scene, giving all the benefit of the doubt that they might not even know these things, why involve non-family members so immediately? What does that say about the culture of those involved? I’m surprised they wouldn’t want to have their full attention on the police?

I know. I would think they would want to keep it a more private matter at least until more was known

 

[FergusMcDuck]

C

Can I pose another scenerio.
Patsy had been given some child rearing books from family memembers. One was Why Johnny Cant Tell Right From Wrong. Thats a bold move to give to someone..

Those books weren't about "bad seeds", they were religious tripe about not letting the secular world corrupt children from good, conservative Christian morality. Best use as kindling in my opinion.

 

[Mr.Dandy]

The doctor cleared her of SA. You’re saying he’s in on it too? Willing to risk it all for a random child?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Those books weren't about "bad seeds", they were religious tripe about not letting the secular world corrupt children from good, conservative Christian morality. Best use as kindling in my opinion.

Maybe so but someone thought they needed a book on values and morals.
There was another book also
Given to them.maybe another poster has that title.

 

[PoppyDoyle]

Can we not rule out the Ramseys when there is unknown male DNA on this girls underwear? Also, have they not used genealogy sources of DNA yet to try to find a match?

 

[Slebby]

Can we not rule out the Ramseys when there is unknown male DNA on this girls underwear? Also, have they not used genealogy sources of DNA yet to try to find a match?

It will be interesting to see what comes of this DNA once it is tested. My belief is that dna gets transferred innocently all the time, such as every time we sit on a toilet seat, we pick up the dna of the previous users of that toilet (and leave our dna behind as well)
JBR had been to Christmas dinner, and the family had also socialized in and out of their home with lots of folks in the days leading up to the murder. So much dna to innocently transfer.
I would find it compelling if it was dna from semen.

All in my own opinion…