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

[CrimeTheorist]

I find it interesting that PR didn't put an accent on the "e" in attaché when writing the ransom note sample with her right hand. Does anyone know if she did for the left hand sample? Because I couldn't find the full left hand sample anywhere. To me it seems like she was trying to make it look like she didn't know about the accent.

 

[Jink3]

Just watched 20/20 & they parents & son were cleared of all wrong doing . Lou passed away but his daughter is carrying on the torch to solve the murder . Jb would be 34 years old . Wow !

The Ramseys and Burke were not definitively cleared of involvement in JonBenét’s murder, despite Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy’s 2008 public statement exonerating them based on trace DNA evidence. Lacy’s decision relied on weak and inconclusive DNA findings—small, degraded samples likely the result of secondary transfer. Many law enforcement officials, including former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, criticized the exoneration as premature and unsupported, with Beckner calling it “absurd” to clear anyone based on such inconclusive evidence. It’s widely believed that Lacy was sympathetic to the Ramseys and heavily invested in the intruder theory, which may have influenced her decision. By publicly clearing the family, she shifted focus away from the household and toward the theory of an unidentified outsider, despite the significant physical evidence pointing back to the home. Lacy’s announcement was more of a public relations move than a definitive legal or investigative conclusion.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The Ramseys and Burke were not definitively cleared of involvement in JonBenét’s murder, despite Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy’s 2008 public statement exonerating them based on trace DNA evidence. Lacy’s decision relied on weak and inconclusive DNA findings—small, degraded samples likely the result of secondary transfer. Many law enforcement officials, including former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, criticized the exoneration as premature and unsupported, with Beckner calling it “absurd” to clear anyone based on such inconclusive evidence. It’s widely believed that Lacy was sympathetic to the Ramseys and heavily invested in the intruder theory, which may have influenced her decision. By publicly clearing the family, she shifted focus away from the household and toward the theory of an unidentified outsider, despite the significant physical evidence pointing back to the home. Lacy’s announcement was more of a public relations move than a definitive legal or investigative conclusion.

Lacy’s letter of apology and “exoneration” have no legal basis. In the words of Lacy’s successor Stan Garnet, “This letter is not legally binding. It’s a good-faith opinion and has no legal importance but the opinion of the person who had the job before I did, whom I respect”. Anotherwords, it’s essentially meaningless.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Wow I have never heard this! Do you have any sources on this so I can look into it?

Just my own expertise. You can see the autopsy photos including the ligature marks online. They are not consistent with being placed while alive. Others have identified that Boulder was quite inexperienced in dealing with murders. That goes to the autopsy as well. JBR body was released quite quickly and buried within days in Georgia. I actually think this is the biggest mistake in the case and the reason we are all arguing 30 years later.

Look up 'Tardieu spots' and then look at the ligature marks carefully. This is the link below. Look at the wrist with the ligature mark. You will note the spots are visible within the ligature mark. This area should be blanched with a red cuff on each side if applied around the time of death.
https://animalia-life.club/qa/pictures/jonbenet-ramsey-autopsy-photos.

Tardieu spots are located in dependent areas. If the ligature leaves a mark on the skin like this then there should be no 'Tardieu spots' at the site of the ligature because the blood vessels get compressed. This means that the process leading to the spots on the skin was well underway when the ligature was applied. This equates to at least four hours post time of death.

What's interesting in the autopsy report is the lack of comment regarding the ligature marks. It is really important in identifying what actually happened. It would be good to look at the verified original photos. You can never trust anything on the internet.

This photo gives you an idea of what the cuff should look like.

 

[TizerisT]

By publicly clearing the family, she shifted focus away from the household and toward the theory of an unidentified outsider, despite the significant physical evidence pointing back to the home.

what physical evidence points to it being a family member?

 

[Jink3]

what physical evidence points to it being a family member?

Literally every piece of physical evidence points to the home, but their lawyers and PR team have done an unbelievable job at making many believe otherwise. The only thing anyone can logically use to point to an intruder is the microscopic DNA, and even that has millions of explanations other than an intruder. So let me clarify this once again. And yes, its long/detailed.

Patsy’s clothing fibers found in multiple key locations: under the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the knot of the garrote, on the blanket wrapped around her, and even in the paint tray used to create the garrote. The ransom note—a bizarre, rambling document—was written on Patsy’s notepad with her pen, and handwriting analysis showed a strong possibility she was the author.

JonBenét was found wrapped in a blanket, which is significant because it indicates a level of care and remorse typically seen in crimes where the perpetrator knew the victim. Wrapping a body is often a sign of guilt or emotional attachment, not something an intruder in a rushed, violent crime would do. Adding to this, JonBenét’s favorite Barbie nightgown was found next to her body, a detail that feels deeply personal and deliberate. Why would an intruder—someone supposedly breaking in to kill, assault, or kidnap—take the time to place a sentimental item near her body? These actions make no sense for a stranger, but they align perfectly with the behavior of someone who knew JonBenét, felt guilt, and wanted to comfort or care for her even after death. This is not the behavior of an outsider; it’s the behavior of someone close to her.

The garrote itself was improvised from a paintbrush taken from Patsy’s art supplies, no signs of forced entry anywhere in the home, undisturbed cobwebs around the so-called “entry point.” Add to that the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, which matches the bowl on the kitchen table bearing Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints, and the “intruder” narrative collapses under the weight of the evidence.

If an intruder had taken her from her bed, you would expect signs of a struggle—wrinkled sheets, disturbed bedding, or screams heard by her family. None of this was present, which is inconsistent with an intruder scenario. But oh wait... she was subdued by a taser?...

The stun gun (taser) theory has been thoroughly debunked and no longer holds weight. Experts, including the manufacturer of the Air Taser, have stated that stun guns do not leave marks resembling those found on JonBenét’s body. Forensic pathologists like Dr. Werner Spitz also confirmed the marks were inconsistent with stun gun burns, as electrical injuries would show distinct patterns not seen in this case. Additionally, no stun gun was ever found, and the theory relies entirely on speculation.

On the other hand, alternative explanations, such as the marks being caused by a piece of JonBenét’s toy train tracks or other household objects, have not been disproven. Investigators like James Kolar proposed that the marks align with the spacing of prongs on the train track, which was found near the body in the basement. Unlike the taser theory, these explanations fit with the available evidence and require no leap in logic to tie them to the crime scene. While not definitively proven, the train tracks and similar objects remain far more plausible than the stun gun theory, which has been thoroughly dismissed.

The autopsy revealed a 45-minute to 2-hour gap between JonBenét’s head injury and her strangulation with the garrote, meaning she was still alive—though likely unconscious—after the blow to her head. This extended timeline makes no sense if an intruder were responsible, as an outsider would not risk staying in the home for such a long period. Instead, it points to someone in the house who had time to panic, deliberate, and stage the scene.

The autopsy, along with findings from multiple forensic experts, revealed evidence of prior SA in JBR's body. Dr. John Meyer, the coroner, noted chronic irritation and injuries to her vaginal area that were consistent with repeated trauma occurring before the night of her death. Experts like Dr. Cyril Wecht and others have echoed these findings, emphasizing that this was not a one-time injury. This detail points to someone within the household, barring "jumping through hoops."

The evidence of SA from the night of the murder does not resemble the actions of a sexually motivated perpetrator in any way, but instead appears more like an act of staging to cover up prior abuse. The autopsy showed the SA was caused by the paintbrush and showed no signs of an "attack." This aligns with someone trying to mask or explain away the evidence of chronic SA discovered during the autopsy. If you want to theorize further, this could also indicate the curious/confused actions of a child, rather than a calculated assault by an outsider.

And this doesn’t even touch on the behavioral evidence—the contradictions, the bizarre refusals to cooperate with police, the outright lies and denials of evidence which was later verified... the changing timeline of the family, the attempt to fly to Atlanta within the hour of discovering the body, and the staged nature of the scene itself. Shall I continue? How about the red chair that was suddenly blocking the door top the train room?

Even more telling of deception in my opinion, Patsy Ramsey was aware of damage to the butler door months before JonBenét's murder, yet she later presented it to the media as evidence of an attempted break-in on the night of the crime. This misrepresentation strained relationships with friends who knew the truth about that door from conversations with Patsy leading up to that night.

The Basement Window -- Part 3

The Gospel According to Patsy -- 1997 Continuing with my 2005 review . From Patsy's 1997 police interview: ST: Tom has some questi...

solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com

Now we take the totality of the physical evidence and say, "ok, what does it look like happened here?" and if you don't jump through hoops or make wild assumptions, the suspect list can reasonably be narrowed to three. Assuming a family isn't capable of this and siting no prior evidence of violence is not itself a reason to dismiss everything else.

Not trying to be confrontational, but would love to see the physical evidence for an intruder... I'll either debunk it or admit that I'm wrong and be intrigued to learn more!

 

[Jink3]

Just my own expertise. You can see the autopsy photos including the ligature marks online. They are not consistent with being placed while alive. Others have identified that Boulder was quite inexperienced in dealing with murders. That goes to the autopsy as well. JBR body was released quite quickly and buried within days in Georgia. I actually think this is the biggest mistake in the case and the reason we are all arguing 30 years later.

Look up 'Tardieu spots' and then look at the ligature marks carefully. This is the link below. Look at the wrist with the ligature mark. You will note the spots are visible within the ligature mark. This area should be blanched with a red cuff on each side if applied around the time of death.
https://animalia-life.club/qa/pictures/jonbenet-ramsey-autopsy-photos.

Tardieu spots are located in dependent areas. If the ligature leaves a mark on the skin like this then there should be no 'Tardieu spots' at the site of the ligature because the blood vessels get compressed. This means that the process leading to the spots on the skin was well underway when the ligature was applied. This equates to at least four hours post time of death.

What's interesting in the autopsy report is the lack of comment regarding the ligature marks. It is really important in identifying what actually happened. It would be good to look at the verified original photos. You can never trust anything on the internet.

This photo gives you an idea of what the cuff should look like.

View attachment 552028

Wow! Thank you for this. I will definitely have to do my own research as I do not understand this kind of science, but certainly worth looking into!

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Literally every piece of physical evidence points to the home, but their lawyers and PR team have done an unbelievable job at making many believe otherwise. The only thing anyone can logically use to point to an intruder is the microscopic DNA, and even that has millions of explanations other than an intruder. So let me clarify this once again. And yes, its long/detailed.

The DNA was found on two separate garments that had never been worn together, from two different sources - bodily fluid in the underwear, touch DNA on the waistband of her longjohns. The DNA on the underwear was found mixed with JonBenet's blood, while adjacent, non-bloody parts of the underwear yielded no unknown DNA. The clear implication is the the blood and bodily fluid were mixed before they landed in the cloth. And since the underwear wasn't used prior to the afternoon of Dec 25th at the earliest, a pre-murder planting can't explain the matching touch DNA on her longjohns, not worn during the day until bedtime.

Patsy’s clothing fibers found in multiple key locations: under the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the knot of the garrote, on the blanket wrapped around her, and even in the paint tray used to create the garrote.

It wasn't Patsy's clothing fibers, it was red fibers consistent with red fibers from Patsy's red-and-black fleece "Essentials" jacket. Since clothes are mass produced, it certainly isn't a match in the sense that DNA would be. And only red fibers from the checkered coat were consistent, not the black ones.

The ransom note—a bizarre, rambling document—was written on Patsy’s notepad with her pen, and handwriting analysis showed a strong possibility she was the author.

I don't consider the evaluation by the original, certified (by ABFDE) to show a strong possibility, more like a possibility. But I also don't consider handwriting analysis to be physical evidence.

JonBenét was found wrapped in a blanket, which is significant because it indicates a level of care and remorse typically seen in crimes where the perpetrator knew the victim. Wrapping a body is often a sign of guilt or emotional attachment, not something an intruder in a rushed, violent crime would do. Adding to this, JonBenét’s favorite Barbie nightgown was found next to her body, a detail that feels deeply personal and deliberate. Why would an intruder—someone supposedly breaking in to kill, assault, or kidnap—take the time to place a sentimental item near her body?

The assumption is that he took the blanket for reasons of sentimentality, and not just swept up as he carried JonBenet downstairs. Since we don't know where the blanket - or the nightgown - was, we can't know what the intention was.

These actions make no sense for a stranger, but they align perfectly with the behavior of someone who knew JonBenét, felt guilt, and wanted to comfort or care for her even after death. This is not the behavior of an outsider; it’s the behavior of someone close to her.

It is the behaviour - usually - of someone with an emotional attachment to the victim. That in no way excludes a stranger, as the concept of parasocial relationships aptly demonstrates.

The garrote itself was improvised from a paintbrush taken from Patsy’s art supplies, no signs of forced entry anywhere in the home, undisturbed cobwebs around the so-called “entry point.”

The garrotte and the ligature were fashioned from cord that has never been sourced to the house - much like the duct tape over her mouth. No matching cord or tape were ever found in the house.

Add to that the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, which matches the bowl on the kitchen table bearing Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints, and the “intruder” narrative collapses under the weight of the evidence.

The DA's office had an index of police reports, and on the published pages we can see that the duodenum content that the medical examiner (correctly) speculated could be pineapple, was identified by forensic botanists about a year later as indeed being fresh pineapple - but that with the pineapple were also grapes and cherries, none of which were in the bowl found in the house. We don't have any witness statement of anyone seeing the bowl out before the victim advocates (summoned by the police) went out and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone to eat (naturally, no one seems to have had any appetite so nothing appears to have been touched). The bowl of pineapple (and only pineapple) had a serving spoon in it.

If an intruder had taken her from her bed, you would expect signs of a struggle—wrinkled sheets, disturbed bedding, or screams heard by her family. None of this was present, which is inconsistent with an intruder scenario. But oh wait... she was subdued by a taser?...

Unless she was either asleep or the person was someone she trusted - or she was paralyzed with fear. In no way is a struggle the only possible scenario.

The stun gun (taser) theory has been thoroughly debunked and no longer holds weight. Experts, including the manufacturer of the Air Taser, have stated that stun guns do not leave marks resembling those found on JonBenét’s body.

Multiple experts have said that they are consistent with a stun gun. I've linked to Dobersen earlier. The manufacturer (actually, their PR person) objected to it because the marks were too perfect - which assumes JonBenet wasn't restrained when it was applied.

Forensic pathologists like Dr. Werner Spitz also confirmed the marks were inconsistent with stun gun burns, as electrical injuries would show distinct patterns not seen in this case. Additionally, no stun gun was ever found, and the theory relies entirely on speculation.

On the other hand, alternative explanations, such as the marks being caused by a piece of JonBenét’s toy train tracks or other household objects, have not been disproven. Investigators like James Kolar proposed that the marks align with the spacing of prongs on the train track, which was found near the body in the basement.

Being poked with a toy train track wouldn't produce abrasions like that. And on one of the marks on her face there was a thin white film. This was in a spot that should have been covered by the tape - a stun gun would produce that effect, a train track wouldn't.

Unlike the taser theory, these explanations fit with the available evidence and require no leap in logic to tie them to the crime scene. While not definitively proven, the train tracks and similar objects remain far more plausible than the stun gun theory, which has been thoroughly dismissed.

The train track theory is more of a solution (Burke did it) in search of evidence. Kolar had to manipulate the track by removing the central prong to make it match.

The autopsy revealed a 45-minute to 2-hour gap between JonBenét’s head injury and her strangulation with the garrote, meaning she was still alive—though likely unconscious—after the blow to her head.

The timeline is not a certainty, and you will not find it in the autopsy report. Multiple medical examiner's - including the one who examined JonBenet - put the blow near death, perimortem even. The exception is Dr Rorke, whose expertise is undeniable, but we don't have her report or even a direct statement. And what we do have of her observations, contradict the autopsy report.

This extended timeline makes no sense if an intruder were responsible, as an outsider would not risk staying in the home for such a long period. Instead, it points to someone in the house who had time to panic, deliberate, and stage the scene.

The autopsy, along with findings from multiple forensic experts, revealed evidence of prior SA in JBR's body. Dr. John Meyer, the coroner, noted chronic irritation and injuries to her vaginal area that were consistent with repeated trauma occurring before the night of her death.

Except that was not Meyer's conclusion, he just mentioned chronic inflammation in the vagina. Neither his opinion nor that of Dr Sirotnak, an expert who was brought in to assist, of potential abuse prior to that night have been made public.

Experts like Dr. Cyril Wecht and others have echoed these findings, emphasizing that this was not a one-time injury. This detail points to someone within the household, barring "jumping through hoops."

I don't exclude prior SA, though I don't think the evidence is as clear as is commonly claimed. But the Ramsey's took JonBenet to the doctor on many occasions including five related to her vaginal area. If there was abuse within the family, there didn't seem to be any attempt to hide it - and the family doctor saw no sign of abuse.

The evidence of SA from the night of the murder does not resemble the actions of a sexually motivated perpetrator in any way, but instead appears more like an act of staging to cover up prior abuse.

I don't see how it resembles an act of staging to cover earlier abuse. The Oakland County Child Killer assaulted some of his victims with an object before murdering them, so I don't think this is a sign of covering abuse, just speculation.

She was SA'd that night. That is undeniable.

The autopsy showed the SA was caused by the paintbrush and showed no signs of an "attack." This aligns with someone trying to mask or explain away the evidence of chronic discovered during the autopsy.

I don't see how it does. The assault could have happened at any point during the attack, just prior to death. We don't know her condition at that point.

Then there is the bodily fluid, likely saliva due to the presence of amylase, found mixed with her blood in her underwear. The next fall, a girl who attended JonBenet's dance school was assaulted in her home by a strange man (young and blonde). Her mother interrupted the attack and the man fled, but he did attempt to assault her orally. I think that's an interesting coincidence.

And this doesn’t even touch on the behavioral evidence—the contradictions, the bizarre refusals to cooperate with police, the outright lies and denials of evidence which was later verified...

I think a lot of people don't realize that everything changes when you become the police suspect. The Ramseys had no problem giving interviews or DNA or handwriting samples, but when Bynum told them on the 27th that they were obviously targeted as suspects, that meant having to get lawyers and completely changing their relationship with the police. The next day, Eller threatened to hold JonBenet's body hostage for formal interviews.

I don't think the Ramseys handled everything perfectly. But my god, the actions of the Boulder police really scuttled the investigation.

the changing timeline of the family, the attempt to fly to Atlanta within the hour of discovering the body, and the staged nature of the scene itself. Shall I continue? How about the red chair that was suddenly blocking the door top the train room?

Even more telling of deception in my opinion, Patsy Ramsey was aware of damage to the butler door months before JonBenét's murder, yet she later presented it to the media as evidence of an attempted break-in on the night of the crime. This misrepresentation strained relationships with friends who knew the truth about that door from conversations with Patsy leading up to that night.

The Basement Window -- Part 3

The Gospel According to Patsy -- 1997 Continuing with my 2005 review . From Patsy's 1997 police interview: ST: Tom has some questi...

solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com

The old pry marks were on the kitchen door (near the grate). The fresh marks, per Schiller, Woodward and John's 1998 interview, were on the solarium door at the southeast end of the house.

 

[TizerisT]

Patsy’s clothing fibers found in multiple key locations:

She lived there

The ransom note—a bizarre, rambling document—was written on Patsy’s notepad with her pen, and handwriting analysis showed a strong possibility she was the author.

Absolutely not. If I broke into your home and used your pen and pad, does that mean you wrote it?

JonBenét was found wrapped in a blanket, which is significant because it indicates a level of care

Cobblers. It was an intruder trying to cover over his crimes.

no signs of forced entry anywhere in the home, undisturbed cobwebs around the so-called “entry point.”

This was an easy way of entering. Window was breached by JR and the cobwebs were in the upper corner. Already established

Add to that the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, which matches the bowl on the kitchen table bearing Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints, and the “intruder” narrative collapses under the weight of the evidence.

The pineapple thing is signifcant only in one way: At some point during the night , JBR woke up and grabbed a pineapple snack, I'd estimate midnight or shortly after. But killed by 5am

If an intruder had taken her from her bed, you would expect signs of a struggle—wrinkled sheets, disturbed bedding, or screams heard by her family. None of this was present, which is inconsistent with an intruder scenario. But oh wait... she was subdued by a taser?...

The stun gun (taser) theory has been thoroughly debunked and no longer holds weight.
On the other hand, alternative explanations, such as the marks being caused by a piece of JonBenét’s toy train tracks or other household objects, have not been disproven.

Laughable, really. The killer picked up a peice of toy train track?? These are the marks of what is known as a cattle prong /stun gunt.

The autopsy revealed a 45-minute to 2-hour gap between JonBenét’s head injury and her strangulation with the garrote, meaning she was still alive—though likely unconscious—after the blow to her head.

I'm open to suggestion on that. The timeline length is crucial and unfortunately not clearly defined.

The autopsy, along with findings from multiple forensic experts, revealed evidence of prior SA in JBR's body. Dr. John Meyer, the coroner, noted chronic irritation and injuries to her vaginal area that were consistent with repeated trauma occurring before the night of her death. Experts like Dr. Cyril Wecht and others have echoed these findings, emphasizing that this was not a one-time injury. This detail points to someone within the household, barring "jumping through hoops."

I don't believe this happened at all, prior to the night of the killing.

The evidence of SA from the night of the murder does not resemble the actions of a sexually motivated perpetrator in any way

Of course it does. Penetration with a paintbrush handle is a typical scenario for a SA nutcase.

And this doesn’t even touch on the behavioral evidence

I admit there was strange behaviour in the immediate aftermath from the parents, but looking at it from their point of view, everybody was pointing fingers at them and they were in a state of total distress.
They went from being the perfect family to the nightmare family instantly, and didnt know how to deal with it all. jmo.

 

[Jink3]

The DNA was found on two separate garments that had never been worn together, from two different sources - bodily fluid in the underwear, touch DNA on the waistband of her longjohns.

Could result from secondary transfer in millions of way, environmental contamination, innocent contact, its small and degraded quality makes it unreliable, and it was not found on key crime scene items like the garrote or tape that your intruder would have touched.

The DNA on the underwear was found mixed with JonBenet's blood, while adjacent, non-bloody parts of the underwear yielded no unknown DNA. The clear implication is the the blood and bodily fluid were mixed before they landed in the cloth. And since the underwear wasn't used prior to the afternoon of Dec 25th at the earliest, a pre-murder planting can't explain the matching touch DNA on her longjohns, not worn during the day until bedtime.

The amount of "unidentified male 1" DNA was incredibly small—just HALF a nanogram. For context, a single nanogram is one-billionth of a gram, and a grain of sugar weighs over 600,000 nanograms. When you touch something, you can leave behind as much as 170 nanograms of skin cells. To put it another way, about 1 nanogram of foreign DNA is typically found on clothing right after it’s been washed. Your statement seems to imply one should hear the word "saliva" and immediately imagine someone licking/drooling/spitting, but the reality is FAR less dramatic. Great sources for everyone to begin their own investigation below.

Investigation of DNA transfer onto clothing during regular daily activities - PubMed

Low levels of DNA from an unidentified human source, often referred to as trace DNA, are ubiquitous, can be transferred onto objects by either direct or indirect methods and have an unknown longevity in situ. Clothing items from crime scenes are often submitted for trace DNA analysis, usually in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

New DNA testing in JonBenét Ramsey case discussed by Boulder police, DA

Boulder police and prosecutors are planning a new round of DNA tests on key evidence in the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenétRamsey, 9NEWS and the Boulder Daily Camera have learned.

www.wcnc.com

DNA in doubt: A closer look at the JonBenét Ramsey case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear th...

www.wwltv.com

It wasn't Patsy's clothing fibers, it was red fibers consistent with red fibers from Patsy's red-and-black fleece "Essentials" jacket. Since clothes are mass produced, it certainly isn't a match in the sense that DNA would be. And only red fibers from the checkered coat were consistent, not the black ones.

While it’s true that the fibers were described as “consistent” with Patsy’s red-and-black fleece jacket (that she wore that night) and not definitively matched like DNA, the fact that those specific red fibers were found under the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the garrote knot, and on the blanket—cannot be dismissed. Mass production doesn’t explain why fibers consistent with Patsy’s jacket were intertwined with multiple key pieces of evidence tied to the crime scene.

In addition to that, fibers from the black shirt worn by JR that night was found "in the crotch
area." This detail has been discussed in various reports and analyses of the case.
2000-08-28: Patsy Ramsey Interview - Atlanta, Georgia - August 28, 2000

You can do more research into tons of different evidence here:

s-evidence-fibers.htm

JonBenet Ramsey Case Transcripts

www.acandyrose.com

I don't consider the evaluation by the original, certified (by ABFDE) to show a strong possibility, more like a possibility. But I also don't consider handwriting analysis to be physical evidence.

We agree, a possibility.

The assumption is that he took the blanket for reasons of sentimentality, and not just swept up as he carried JonBenet downstairs. Since we don't know where the blanket - or the nightgown - was, we can't know what the intention was.

Never heard of anyone assuming an intruder her did it for sentimental reasons. I assume this is your assumption, not a widely held belief. Please provide a source if I'm wrong.

I agree we can't know for sure and is speculation either way. I believe the sentimental/caring nature of her being wrapped points to the family, and that's all that needs to be said.

It is the behaviour - usually - of someone with an emotional attachment to the victim. That in no way excludes a stranger, as the concept of parasocial relationships aptly demonstrates.

We agree that behavior like this—showing care or attachment to the victim—can be seen in cases involving strangers with parasocial relationships, but we disagree on the interpretation. While it’s not physical evidence, it’s less likely to occur with an intruder committing a rushed, opportunistic crime. This type of behavior—like wrapping JonBenét in a blanket or placing her favorite nightgown nearby—is a significant hint that leans heavily toward one theory without having to imagine a violent, sexually motivated, and sentimental intruder - on top of all the other physical evidence.

The garrotte and the ligature were fashioned from cord that has never been sourced to the house - much like the duct tape over her mouth. No matching cord or tape were ever found in the house.

The absence of the remaining cord and tape in the house doesn’t prove they were brought in by an intruder; it’s far more likely they were disposed of to cover up the crime, just like other missing items tied to the staging (i.e. missing ransom note drafts.)

The DA's office had an index of police reports, and on the published pages we can see that the duodenum content that the medical examiner (correctly) speculated could be pineapple, was identified by forensic botanists about a year later as indeed being fresh pineapple - but that with the pineapple were also grapes and cherries, none of which were in the bowl found in the house.

This claim of grapes and cherries included in her duodenum comes solely from Paula Woodward’s reporting and has zero support in the official autopsy report - sited below so you can read it if you want to. The autopsy clearly identifies pineapple as the food in her digestive system—grapes and cherries are never mentioned. Unless Woodward has access to some magical forensic evidence no one else does, her claim is speculative at best and completely contradicts the established findings.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey, jonbenet_report.pdf?utm_source

In addition, the book you reference has issues on its own. In her book she states, "The results shown in the index summary clearly indicate that JonBenét’s stomach contents include pineapple, grapes, grape skins, and cherries." However, the index summary does not indicate that cherries were found in JonBenét’s small intestine. The only reference to “cherries” comes after mentions of “stomach contents” and “pineapple,” but reliable sources such as Meyer, Bock, and Norris have confirmed that no food was present in JonBenét’s stomach. This leaves the question: where exactly in her gastrointestinal tract were the cherries located?

When it comes to grapes or grape skin, the index summary only mentions they were found in the “intestine” without clarifying whether it was the small or large intestine, or specifying the precise area where they were discovered.

As noted by many others. Woodward's Unsolved is not a credible reference. She makes all sorts of claims based on misunderstood reports, while other claims seem to be completely unfounded.

We don't have any witness statement of anyone seeing the bowl out before the victim advocates (summoned by the police) went out and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone to eat (naturally, no one seems to have had any appetite so nothing appears to have been touched). The bowl of pineapple (and only pineapple) had a serving spoon in it.

This is pure speculation but for the sake of argument... No, I don't believe their friends brought a bowl of pineapple to serve to the grieving family, and then proceeded to forget about to this day, and are therefore unable to clear up this evidence, even after all these years.

I choose to believe someone made it the night before and JBR ate some - which is why it's found in her duodenum.

Unless she was either asleep or the person was someone she trusted - or she was paralyzed with fear. In no way is a struggle the only possible scenario.

Agreed, but again in this case its speculation on both sides. I choose to believe she never went to sleep because both she and PR were wearing the same shirt (Patsy same outfit) as the night before, the family's story has changed multiple times, and there was no sign of a struggle or sound made to alert anyone else.

I choose not to believe that an intruder got lucky upon waking her up because either they knew her or she was "paralyzed with fear."

I'm trying to look at the evidence and make straightforward assumptions, and I try to avoid ignoring logical answers in an attempt to add credit to an illogical outcome.

Multiple experts have said that they are consistent with a stun gun. I've linked to Dobersen earlier. The manufacturer (actually, their PR person) objected to it because the marks were too perfect - which assumes JonBenet wasn't restrained when it was applied.

Ok. Multiple experts have also stated there is no chance a stun gun was used. There’s no actual evidence supporting the stun gun theory—it was simply proposed as a way to explain the marks because it seemed “close.” That doesn’t make it fact. By no means can anyone claim it was a stun gun and use that to prove there was an intruder.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist, argued that the marks on her body did not resemble stun gun injuries, suggesting instead that they could have been caused by other means. Additionally, a representative from Air Taser, a stun gun manufacturer, stated that their devices do not produce marks like those found on JonBenét, casting further doubt on the stun gun theory.

Being poked with a toy train track wouldn't produce abrasions like that. And on one of the marks on her face there was a thin white film. This was in a spot that should have been covered by the tape - a stun gun would produce that effect, a train track wouldn't.

A stun gun used wouldn't produce abrasions like that either. While Kolar's hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the abrasions, it remains one of several theories, and definitive conclusions about the exact cause of these marks have not been universally agreed upon.

We're not going to come to the same conclusion, and we will probably never know the answer, so we can agree to disagree.

The train track theory is more of a solution (Burke did it) in search of evidence. Kolar had to manipulate the track by removing the central prong to make it match.

The stun gun theory is also the definition of a solution (Intruder did it) in search of evidence. Lou Smit and others had to manipulate the stun gun in order to make it still not quite match.

We're arguing two different speculative theories. If experts can't agree, neither will we. So let's focus on other evidence.

I' tired and can address the rest when I feel up to it. I think my rebuttal has been made clearly. Interesting thoughts though!

 

[Tower]

Could result from secondary transfer in millions of way, environmental contamination, innocent contact, its small and degraded quality makes it unreliable, and it was not found on key crime scene items like the garrote or tape that your intruder would have touched.


The amount of "unidentified male 1" DNA was incredibly small—just HALF a nanogram. For context, a single nanogram is one-billionth of a gram, and a grain of sugar weighs over 600,000 nanograms. When you touch something, you can leave behind as much as 170 nanograms of skin cells. To put it another way, about 1 nanogram of foreign DNA is typically found on clothing right after it’s been washed. Your statement seems to imply one should hear the word "saliva" and immediately imagine someone licking/drooling/spitting, but the reality is FAR less dramatic. Great sources for everyone to begin their own investigation below.

Investigation of DNA transfer onto clothing during regular daily activities - PubMed

Low levels of DNA from an unidentified human source, often referred to as trace DNA, are ubiquitous, can be transferred onto objects by either direct or indirect methods and have an unknown longevity in situ. Clothing items from crime scenes are often submitted for trace DNA analysis, usually in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

New DNA testing in JonBenét Ramsey case discussed by Boulder police, DA

Boulder police and prosecutors are planning a new round of DNA tests on key evidence in the unsolved 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenétRamsey, 9NEWS and the Boulder Daily Camera have learned.

www.wcnc.com

DNA in doubt: A closer look at the JonBenét Ramsey case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn't support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado's most vexing unsolved murder — a former Boulder prosecutor's decision to clear th...

www.wwltv.com

While it’s true that the fibers were described as “consistent” with Patsy’s red-and-black fleece jacket (that she wore that night) and not definitively matched like DNA, the fact that those specific red fibers were found under the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the garrote knot, and on the blanket—cannot be dismissed. Mass production doesn’t explain why fibers consistent with Patsy’s jacket were intertwined with multiple key pieces of evidence tied to the crime scene.

In addition to that, fibers from the black shirt worn by JR that night was found "in the crotch
area." This detail has been discussed in various reports and analyses of the case.
2000-08-28: Patsy Ramsey Interview - Atlanta, Georgia - August 28, 2000

You can do more research into tons of different evidence here:

s-evidence-fibers.htm

JonBenet Ramsey Case Transcripts

www.acandyrose.com

We agree, a possibility.


Never heard of anyone assuming an intruder her did it for sentimental reasons. I assume this is your assumption, not a widely held belief. Please provide a source if I'm wrong.

I agree we can't know for sure and is speculation either way. I believe the sentimental/caring nature of her being wrapped points to the family, and that's all that needs to be said.


We agree that behavior like this—showing care or attachment to the victim—can be seen in cases involving strangers with parasocial relationships, but we disagree on the interpretation. While it’s not physical evidence, it’s less likely to occur with an intruder committing a rushed, opportunistic crime. This type of behavior—like wrapping JonBenét in a blanket or placing her favorite nightgown nearby—is a significant hint that leans heavily toward one theory without having to imagine a violent, sexually motivated, and sentimental intruder - on top of all the other physical evidence.


The absence of the remaining cord and tape in the house doesn’t prove they were brought in by an intruder; it’s far more likely they were disposed of to cover up the crime, just like other missing items tied to the staging (i.e. missing ransom note drafts.)


This claim of grapes and cherries included in her duodenum comes solely from Paula Woodward’s reporting and has zero support in the official autopsy report - sited below so you can read it if you want to. The autopsy clearly identifies pineapple as the food in her digestive system—grapes and cherries are never mentioned. Unless Woodward has access to some magical forensic evidence no one else does, her claim is speculative at best and completely contradicts the established findings.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey, jonbenet_report.pdf?utm_source

In addition, the book you reference has issues on its own. In her book she states, "The results shown in the index summary clearly indicate that JonBenét’s stomach contents include pineapple, grapes, grape skins, and cherries." However, the index summary does not indicate that cherries were found in JonBenét’s small intestine. The only reference to “cherries” comes after mentions of “stomach contents” and “pineapple,” but reliable sources such as Meyer, Bock, and Norris have confirmed that no food was present in JonBenét’s stomach. This leaves the question: where exactly in her gastrointestinal tract were the cherries located?

When it comes to grapes or grape skin, the index summary only mentions they were found in the “intestine” without clarifying whether it was the small or large intestine, or specifying the precise area where they were discovered.

As noted by many others. Woodward's Unsolved is not a credible reference. She makes all sorts of claims based on misunderstood reports, while other claims seem to be completely unfounded.


This is pure speculation but for the sake of argument... No, I don't believe their friends brought a bowl of pineapple to serve to the grieving family, and then proceeded to forget about to this day, and are therefore unable to clear up this evidence, even after all these years.

I choose to believe someone made it the night before and JBR ate some - which is why it's found in her duodenum.


Agreed, but again in this case its speculation on both sides. I choose to believe she never went to sleep because both she and PR were wearing the same shirt (Patsy same outfit) as the night before, the family's story has changed multiple times, and there was no sign of a struggle or sound made to alert anyone else.

I choose not to believe that an intruder got lucky upon waking her up because either they knew her or she was "paralyzed with fear."

I'm trying to look at the evidence and make straightforward assumptions, and I try to avoid ignoring logical answers in an attempt to add credit to an illogical outcome.


Ok. Multiple experts have also stated there is no chance a stun gun was used. There’s no actual evidence supporting the stun gun theory—it was simply proposed as a way to explain the marks because it seemed “close.” That doesn’t make it fact. By no means can anyone claim it was a stun gun and use that to prove there was an intruder.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist, argued that the marks on her body did not resemble stun gun injuries, suggesting instead that they could have been caused by other means. Additionally, a representative from Air Taser, a stun gun manufacturer, stated that their devices do not produce marks like those found on JonBenét, casting further doubt on the stun gun theory.


A stun gun used wouldn't produce abrasions like that either. While Kolar's hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the abrasions, it remains one of several theories, and definitive conclusions about the exact cause of these marks have not been universally agreed upon.

We're not going to come to the same conclusion, and we will probably never know the answer, so we can agree to disagree.


The stun gun theory is also the definition of a solution (Intruder did it) in search of evidence. Lou Smit and others had to manipulate the stun gun in order to make it still not quite match.

We're arguing two different speculative theories. If experts can't agree, neither will we. So let's focus on other evidence.

I' tired and can address the rest when I feel up to it. I think my rebuttal has been made clearly. Interesting thoughts though!

I don’t like to clarify on others’ behalf, but my reading of @FergusMcDuck is not that they are proposing a sentimental intruder. They say just the opposite: that the blanket may have been swept up from the bed while JBR slept and ended up in the basement with her body. That it was not placed for sentimental reasons.

 

[Jink3]

I don’t like to clarify on others’ behalf, but my reading of @FergusMcDuck is not that they are proposing a sentimental intruder. They say just the opposite: that the blanket may have been swept up from the bed while JBR slept and ended up in the basement with her body. That it was not placed for sentimental reasons.

Thank you @Tower! This clarification does make more sense, I must have misunderstood! However, the blanket didn't "end up" in the basement next to her body. It was purposely wrapped around her "like a papoose." Regardless of reasoning behind it, which we can only theorize, there was intent to wrap her in that blanket.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Could result from secondary transfer in millions of way, environmental contamination, innocent contact, its small and degraded quality makes it unreliable, and it was not found on key crime scene items like the garrote or tape that your intruder would have touched.

I don't think there are millions of ways. There's a foreign bodily fluid in the inner crotch area of her underwear. It's mixed with her blood, and doesn't appear on the garment outside the blood spot. She only put on those underwear that day, so that limits potential contact to the White party (the presence of the profile on the longjohns effectively eliminated the possibility of factory pr store contamination). But how would then touch DNA from someone at the White party end up on her longjohns? Which got put on her when she went to bed?

I've seen cases with dodgy DNA evidence and likely contamination. This is not one of them.

The amount of "unidentified male 1" DNA was incredibly small—just HALF a nanogram. For context, a single nanogram is one-billionth of a gram, and a grain of sugar weighs over 600,000 nanograms. When you touch something, you can leave behind as much as 170 nanograms of skin cells. To put it another way, about 1 nanogram of foreign DNA is typically found on clothing right after it’s been washed.

That was the amount left after the early, ineffective tests had been done. The D1S80 test alone would have consumed 50-100 ng, while the final STR tests required as little as 1-2.5 ng - though they did multiple such tests. Now, given that JonBenet's contribution is obvious - the blood stain - it is interesting to note that the RFU peaks puts JonBenet and UM1 at almost equal contributors to the sample.

Your statement seems to imply one should hear the word "saliva" and immediately imagine someone licking/drooling/spitting, but the reality is FAR less dramatic. Great sources for everyone to begin their own investigation below.

Some form of leaking from the mouth. He may have wet the brush end before (or after) inserting it. Or he could have orally assaulted her like Amy's attacker did months later. But it did get there.

While it’s true that the fibers were described as “consistent” with Patsy’s red-and-black fleece jacket (that she wore that night) and not definitively matched like DNA, the fact that those specific red fibers were found under the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the garrote knot, and on the blanket—cannot be dismissed. Mass production doesn’t explain why fibers consistent with Patsy’s jacket were intertwined with multiple key pieces of evidence tied to the crime scene.

It explains it because it could be a garment made from the same material - red polyester, I believe it was. And the omnipresence of those fibers makes it strange that only red fibers from a red-and-black jacket were shed.

In addition to that, fibers from the black shirt worn by JR that night was found "in the crotch
area." This detail has been discussed in various reports and analyses of the case.
2000-08-28: Patsy Ramsey Interview - Atlanta, Georgia - August 28, 2000

To be fair, I believe this particular interview is the only place that has been discussed. No reports hor analyses ave leaked or been quoted, and the info that has leaked is contradictory, regarding the color of the fibers, and their nature - the police were looking at bathrobes. According to Schiller these fibers were never identified. (PMPT ch36) The Bonita papers, for what they're worth, says the fibers were dark blue and consistent with a towel.

I do believe they found a consistency between the found fibers and Patsy's jacket. I don't believe that's true for John's shirt.

You can do more research into tons of different evidence here:

s-evidence-fibers.htm

JonBenet Ramsey Case Transcripts

www.acandyrose.com

We agree, a possibility.


Never heard of anyone assuming an intruder her did it for sentimental reasons. I assume this is your assumption, not a widely held belief. Please provide a source if I'm wrong.

That was my description of your argument, not mine, that bringing the blanket along would be due to sentiment. Yet since we don't know where the blanket was, we don't know if he just swept it up along with JonBenet, or just picked something to carry with her - and the nightgown got swept up along with it. I don't believe sentiment had anything to do with it.

I agree we can't know for sure and is speculation either way. I believe the sentimental/caring nature of her being wrapped points to the family, and that's all that needs to be said.

I think it was a simple covering. An additional layer after placing her in a dark room, to perhaps hinder discovery slightly longer.

We agree that behavior like this—showing care or attachment to the victim—can be seen in cases involving strangers with parasocial relationships, but we disagree on the interpretation. While it’s not physical evidence, it’s less likely to occur with an intruder committing a rushed, opportunistic crime.

That depends on how opportunistic it was. I maintain that there are indications this was planned. Barbara Kostanick's account of JonBenet's words (about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas) indicates someone approaching JonBenet in the days before. The cigarette butts found in the alley, in s spot where JonBenet's room was visible, indicates someone staking out the house.

This type of behavior—like wrapping JonBenét in a blanket or placing her favorite nightgown nearby—is a significant hint that leans heavily toward one theory without having to imagine a violent, sexually motivated, and sentimental intruder - on top of all the other physical evidence.

But that's an assumption that the nightgown was picked because it was her favourite, and that it wasn't just swept up with the blanket. I don't think it makes any sense in a staging scenario. Why bring it down there?

The absence of the remaining cord and tape in the house doesn’t prove they were brought in by an intruder; it’s far more likely they were disposed of to cover up the crime, just like other missing items tied to the staging (i.e. missing ransom note drafts.)

But it's not just the absence of the sources. Nothing else had been used from the tape or the cord, anywhere in the house. And if they already had their fake killer use household objects, why couldn't he just use duct tape found in the house? Or cord? Neither are suspicious items.

It makes more sense that the sources for tape and cord were removed because the intruder had brought them in to begin with.

This claim of grapes and cherries included in her duodenum comes solely from Paula Woodward’s reporting and has zero support in the official autopsy report - sited below so you can read it if you want to.

But it wasn't his job to identify the vegetable material - that's why he says it "may represent pineapple", not that it was pineapple. Those bits were visible enough that he could make s guess, but it was the forensic botanists who made the definitive identification of the pineapple and that it was fresh. It is also from their reports that we find out that the duodenum also contained cherries and grapes.

The autopsy clearly identifies pineapple as the food in her digestive system—grapes and cherries are never mentioned. Unless Woodward has access to some magical forensic evidence no one else does, her claim is speculative at best and completely contradicts the established findings.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey, jonbenet_report.pdf?utm_source

She had the DA Office's report index, where the duodenum content was identified beyond the initial estimate of the coroner.

In addition, the book you reference has issues on its own. In her book she states, "The results shown in the index summary clearly indicate that JonBenét’s stomach contents include pineapple, grapes, grape skins, and cherries." However, the index summary does not indicate that cherries were found in JonBenét’s small intestine. The only reference to “cherries” comes after mentions of “stomach contents” and “pineapple,” but reliable sources such as Meyer, Bock, and Norris have confirmed that no food was present in JonBenét’s stomach. This leaves the question: where exactly in her gastrointestinal tract were the cherries located?

According to the report index, the tested content came from a test tube containing the duodenum content. So of cherries were found it had to be in the duodenum. It's a sad fact that many use imprecise language about where the material was found, but the autopsy report and the index make it clear - what the botanists tested was the duodenum contents.

When it comes to grapes or grape skin, the index summary only mentions they were found in the “intestine” without clarifying whether it was the small or large intestine, or specifying the precise area where they were discovered.

The only material sent to the botanists came from the duodenum, in one test tube. The only other material in her system was feces in the colon, and that would not have been kept in the same container as the duodenum content.

As noted by many others. Woodward's Unsolved is not a credible reference. She makes all sorts of claims based on misunderstood reports, while other claims seem to be completely unfounded.

I read Woodward for the report index, and the pineapple pages - scanned and reproduced in her second book, Unsolved - are very clear.

This is pure speculation but for the sake of argument... No, I don't believe their friends brought a bowl of pineapple to serve to the grieving family, and then proceeded to forget about to this day, and are therefore unable to clear up this evidence, even after all these years.

It wasn't their friends, it was the victim advocates, who did go out and buy bagels and fruit for everyone, and who did use Ramsey plates up serve the bagels - so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they did the same with the fruit - i.e. pineapple. We have no idea when the victim advocates were asked about this - or their answer - but we know that the BPD waited nearly a year to test the duodenum content, so who knows?

Agreed, but again in this case its speculation on both sides. I choose to believe she never went to sleep because both she and PR were wearing the same shirt (Patsy same outfit) as the night before,

She was changed into longjohns, so she was made ready for bed. I've never seen anything strange about Patsy putting on the same clothes the following day, given that they were going on a multi hour flight on a private plane.

the family's story has changed multiple times,

I've never seen any changes that didn't come via third parties - like officer French or detective Andy.

and there was no sign of a struggle or sound made to alert anyone else.

I don't think there's a requirement for there to have been. She could have remained asleep, she could have been put at ease, she could have been frozen in fear.

'Im trying to look at the evidence and make straightforward assumptions, and I try to avoid ignoring logical answers in an attempt to add credit to an illogical outcome.

That is what I'm trying to do as well. It has lead me to the belief that an intruder did it.

Ok. Multiple experts have also stated there is no chance a stun gun was used. There’s no actual evidence supporting the stun gun theory—it was simply proposed as a way to explain the marks because it seemed “close.” That doesn’t make it fact. By no means can anyone claim it was a stun gun and use that to prove there was an intruder.

It's a hypothesis, yes, but it has a lot going for it.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist, argued that the marks on her body did not resemble stun gun injuries, suggesting instead that they could have been caused by other means. Additionally, a representative from Air Taser, a stun gun manufacturer, stated that their devices do not produce marks like those found on JonBenét, casting further doubt on the stun gun theory.

Dr Dobersen who had worked extensively with stun guns was adamant that it was consistent with JonBenet's wounds. And the AirTaser PR guy's objection was that the marks were too perfect + which only males sense of JonBenet wasn't restrained.

A stun gun used wouldn't produce abrasions like that either.

I don't see a difference between the marks on JonBenet and those from the Tennesseean article I linked earlier,.which were unquestionably from a stun gun.

While Kolar's hypothesis offers an alternative explanation for the abrasions, it remains one of several theories, and definitive conclusions about the exact cause of these marks have not been universally agreed upon.

I'd be interested in seeing non-train track theories. I haven't come across those yet.

 

[Jink3]

I don't think there are millions of ways. There's a foreign bodily fluid in the inner crotch area of her underwear. It's mixed with her blood, and doesn't appear on the garment outside the blood spot. She only put on those underwear that day, so that limits potential contact to the White party (the presence of the profile on the longjohns effectively eliminated the possibility of factory pr store contamination). But how would then touch DNA from someone at the White party end up on her longjohns? Which got put on her when she went to bed?

I've seen cases with dodgy DNA evidence and likely contamination. This is not one of them.



That was the amount left after the early, ineffective tests had been done. The D1S80 test alone would have consumed 50-100 ng, while the final STR tests required as little as 1-2.5 ng - though they did multiple such tests. Now, given that JonBenet's contribution is obvious - the blood stain - it is interesting to note that the RFU peaks puts JonBenet and UM1 at almost equal contributors to the sample.



Some form of leaking from the mouth. He may have wet the brush end before (or after) inserting it. Or he could have orally assaulted her like Amy's attacker did months later. But it did get there.



It explains it because it could be a garment made from the same material - red polyester, I believe it was. And the omnipresence of those fibers makes it strange that only red fibers from a red-and-black jacket were shed.



To be fair, I believe this particular interview is the only place that has been discussed. No reports hor analyses ave leaked or been quoted, and the info that has leaked is contradictory, regarding the color of the fibers, and their nature - the police were looking at bathrobes. According to Schiller these fibers were never identified. (PMPT ch36) The Bonita papers, for what they're worth, says the fibers were dark blue and consistent with a towel.

I do believe they found a consistency between the found fibers and Patsy's jacket. I don't believe that's true for John's shirt.



That was my description of your argument, not mine, that bringing the blanket along would be due to sentiment. Yet since we don't know where the blanket was, we don't know if he just swept it up along with JonBenet, or just picked something to carry with her - and the nightgown got swept up along with it. I don't believe sentiment had anything to do with it.



I think it was a simple covering. An additional layer after placing her in a dark room, to perhaps hinder discovery slightly longer.



That depends on how opportunistic it was. I maintain that there are indications this was planned. Barbara Kostanick's account of JonBenet's words (about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas) indicates someone approaching JonBenet in the days before. The cigarette butts found in the alley, in s spot where JonBenet's room was visible, indicates someone staking out the house.



But that's an assumption that the nightgown was picked because it was her favourite, and that it wasn't just swept up with the blanket. I don't think it makes any sense in a staging scenario. Why bring it down there?



But it's not just the absence of the sources. Nothing else had been used from the tape or the cord, anywhere in the house. And if they already had their fake killer use household objects, why couldn't he just use duct tape found in the house? Or cord? Neither are suspicious items.

It makes more sense that the sources for tape and cord were removed because the intruder had brought them in to begin with.



But it wasn't his job to identify the vegetable material - that's why he says it "may represent pineapple", not that it was pineapple. Those bits were visible enough that he could make s guess, but it was the forensic botanists who made the definitive identification of the pineapple and that it was fresh. It is also from their reports that we find out that the duodenum also contained cherries and grapes.



She had the DA Office's report index, where the duodenum content was identified beyond the initial estimate of the coroner.



According to the report index, the tested content came from a test tube containing the duodenum content. So of cherries were found it had to be in the duodenum. It's a sad fact that many use imprecise language about where the material was found, but the autopsy report and the index make it clear - what the botanists tested was the duodenum contents.



The only material sent to the botanists came from the duodenum, in one test tube. The only other material in her system was feces in the colon, and that would not have been kept in the same container as the duodenum content.



I read Woodward for the report index, and the pineapple pages - scanned and reproduced in her second book, Unsolved - are very clear.



It wasn't their friends, it was the victim advocates, who did go out and buy bagels and fruit for everyone, and who did use Ramsey plates up serve the bagels - so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they did the same with the fruit - i.e. pineapple. We have no idea when the victim advocates were asked about this - or their answer - but we know that the BPD waited nearly a year to test the duodenum content, so who knows?



She was changed into longjohns, so she was made ready for bed. I've never seen anything strange about Patsy putting on the same clothes the following day, given that they were going on a multi hour flight on a private plane.



I've never seen any changes that didn't come via third parties - like officer French or detective Andy.



I don't think there's a requirement for there to have been. She could have remained asleep, she could have been put at ease, she could have been frozen in fear.



That is what I'm trying to do as well. It has lead me to the belief that an intruder did it.



It's a hypothesis, yes, but it has a lot going for it.



Dr Dobersen who had worked extensively with stun guns was adamant that it was consistent with JonBenet's wounds. And the AirTaser PR guy's objection was that the marks were too perfect + which only males sense of JonBenet wasn't restrained.



I don't see a difference between the marks on JonBenet and those from the Tennesseean article I linked earlier,.which were unquestionably from a stun gun.



I'd be interested in seeing non-train track theories. I haven't come across those yet.

Good responses, @FergusMcDuck. At this point we have to agree to disagree as we’ve debated so many different topics. As I’ve stated in other posts, if experts can’t agree, then neither will we. This is certainly one of the reasons why the case is unsolved.

There is so much conflicting information out there from experts, investigators, etc that the truth gets buried. All theories have to do quite a bit of speculating, which leads nowhere.

While I disagree with nearly all of your points, and (in my opinion) find various issues regarding your sources, you clearly know you’re side of the case and have formed an opinion based on that, so I respect that!

I know we can both agree that this somehow/someday this case gets resolution. Both for JBR’s sake and for my future sanity around this case!

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

I just wanted to reply to you on one point: You said it has to be an intruder because the tape and the cord had not been used at the house and couldn't be found later, so they had to be taken away by the intruder. And you also said that this was planned.
If so, you seemed to ignore all the materials that were from the house, and not brought in.
Patsy's paintbrush was used to make a garrote.
The family's notepad and pen were used to write the long ransom note that had misspelling.
None of the above indicated it was premeditated. I think it's more logical to say: a person who decided on a premeditated abduction/murder would bring their own tool and a pre-written or even a pre-typed random note (or the type of ransom note where the kidnapper cut out words from magazines and newspaper).
It's also hard to explain how an intruder could write a long letter without worrying if someone would come downstairs in the middle of it.

I don't think there are millions of ways. There's a foreign bodily fluid in the inner crotch area of her underwear. It's mixed with her blood, and doesn't appear on the garment outside the blood spot. She only put on those underwear that day, so that limits potential contact to the White party (the presence of the profile on the longjohns effectively eliminated the possibility of factory pr store contamination). But how would then touch DNA from someone at the White party end up on her longjohns? Which got put on her when she went to bed?

I've seen cases with dodgy DNA evidence and likely contamination. This is not one of them.



That was the amount left after the early, ineffective tests had been done. The D1S80 test alone would have consumed 50-100 ng, while the final STR tests required as little as 1-2.5 ng - though they did multiple such tests. Now, given that JonBenet's contribution is obvious - the blood stain - it is interesting to note that the RFU peaks puts JonBenet and UM1 at almost equal contributors to the sample.



Some form of leaking from the mouth. He may have wet the brush end before (or after) inserting it. Or he could have orally assaulted her like Amy's attacker did months later. But it did get there.



It explains it because it could be a garment made from the same material - red polyester, I believe it was. And the omnipresence of those fibers makes it strange that only red fibers from a red-and-black jacket were shed.



To be fair, I believe this particular interview is the only place that has been discussed. No reports hor analyses ave leaked or been quoted, and the info that has leaked is contradictory, regarding the color of the fibers, and their nature - the police were looking at bathrobes. According to Schiller these fibers were never identified. (PMPT ch36) The Bonita papers, for what they're worth, says the fibers were dark blue and consistent with a towel.

I do believe they found a consistency between the found fibers and Patsy's jacket. I don't believe that's true for John's shirt.



That was my description of your argument, not mine, that bringing the blanket along would be due to sentiment. Yet since we don't know where the blanket was, we don't know if he just swept it up along with JonBenet, or just picked something to carry with her - and the nightgown got swept up along with it. I don't believe sentiment had anything to do with it.



I think it was a simple covering. An additional layer after placing her in a dark room, to perhaps hinder discovery slightly longer.



That depends on how opportunistic it was. I maintain that there are indications this was planned. Barbara Kostanick's account of JonBenet's words (about a secret visit from Santa after Christmas) indicates someone approaching JonBenet in the days before. The cigarette butts found in the alley, in s spot where JonBenet's room was visible, indicates someone staking out the house.



But that's an assumption that the nightgown was picked because it was her favourite, and that it wasn't just swept up with the blanket. I don't think it makes any sense in a staging scenario. Why bring it down there?



But it's not just the absence of the sources. Nothing else had been used from the tape or the cord, anywhere in the house. And if they already had their fake killer use household objects, why couldn't he just use duct tape found in the house? Or cord? Neither are suspicious items.

It makes more sense that the sources for tape and cord were removed because the intruder had brought them in to begin with.



But it wasn't his job to identify the vegetable material - that's why he says it "may represent pineapple", not that it was pineapple. Those bits were visible enough that he could make s guess, but it was the forensic botanists who made the definitive identification of the pineapple and that it was fresh. It is also from their reports that we find out that the duodenum also contained cherries and grapes.



She had the DA Office's report index, where the duodenum content was identified beyond the initial estimate of the coroner.



According to the report index, the tested content came from a test tube containing the duodenum content. So of cherries were found it had to be in the duodenum. It's a sad fact that many use imprecise language about where the material was found, but the autopsy report and the index make it clear - what the botanists tested was the duodenum contents.



The only material sent to the botanists came from the duodenum, in one test tube. The only other material in her system was feces in the colon, and that would not have been kept in the same container as the duodenum content.



I read Woodward for the report index, and the pineapple pages - scanned and reproduced in her second book, Unsolved - are very clear.



It wasn't their friends, it was the victim advocates, who did go out and buy bagels and fruit for everyone, and who did use Ramsey plates up serve the bagels - so I don't think it's unreasonable to think they did the same with the fruit - i.e. pineapple. We have no idea when the victim advocates were asked about this - or their answer - but we know that the BPD waited nearly a year to test the duodenum content, so who knows?



She was changed into longjohns, so she was made ready for bed. I've never seen anything strange about Patsy putting on the same clothes the following day, given that they were going on a multi hour flight on a private plane.



I've never seen any changes that didn't come via third parties - like officer French or detective Andy.



I don't think there's a requirement for there to have been. She could have remained asleep, she could have been put at ease, she could have been frozen in fear.



That is what I'm trying to do as well. It has lead me to the belief that an intruder did it.



It's a hypothesis, yes, but it has a lot going for it.



Dr Dobersen who had worked extensively with stun guns was adamant that it was consistent with JonBenet's wounds. And the AirTaser PR guy's objection was that the marks were too perfect + which only males sense of JonBenet wasn't restrained.



I don't see a difference between the marks on JonBenet and those from the Tennesseean article I linked earlier,.which were unquestionably from a stun gun.



I'd be interested in seeing non-train track theories. I haven't come across those yet.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Good responses, @FergusMcDuck. At this point we have to agree to disagree as we’ve debated so many different topics. As I’ve stated in other posts, if experts can’t agree, then neither will we. This is certainly one of the reasons why the case is unsolved.

There is so much conflicting information out there from experts, investigators, etc that the truth gets buried. All theories have to do quite a bit of speculating, which leads nowhere.

While I disagree with nearly all of your points, and (in my opinion) find various issues regarding your sources, you clearly know you’re side of the case and have formed an opinion based on that, so I respect that!

I know we can both agree that this somehow/someday this case gets resolution. Both for JBR’s sake and for my future sanity around this case!

I think that's more than fair. Happy holidays and thanks for the conversation!

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I just wanted to reply to you on one point: You said it has to be an intruder because the tape and the cord had not been used at the house and couldn't be found later, so they had to be taken away by the intruder. And you also said that this was planned.
If so, you seemed to ignore all the materials that were from the house, and not brought in.
Patsy's paintbrush was used to make a garrote.
The family's notepad and pen were used to write the long ransom note that had misspelling.
None of the above indicated it was premeditated. I think it's more logical to say: a person who decided on a premeditated abduction/murder would bring their own tool and a pre-written or even a pre-typed random note (or the type of ransom note where the kidnapper cut out words from magazines and newspaper).
It's also hard to explain how an intruder could write a long letter without worrying if someone would come downstairs in the middle of it.

While I believe the crime was planned, I don't believe the ransom note was - because I don't believe this was ever intended as a kidnapping. That was something that the killer came up with in the house, I'm guessing to delay discovery and string the family along, further tormenting them.

That then leaves the paintbrush, and while I do believe that he had always intended to play the strangulation game, he may have realized there that he needed a handle - I hold it very likely that this was his first time doing anything like this.

If there was no noise, no sign of anyone having heard after JonBenet had died, I think the killer would feel pretty confident - but I do believe the reason the bat was found on the northern edge of the house, just before a person leaving the house would come into the open, indicates that the killer was carrying it in case of an unexpected confrontation.

 

[joichatterjee]

While I believe the crime was planned, I don't believe the ransom note was - because I don't believe this was ever intended as a kidnapping. That was something that the killer came up with in the house, I'm guessing to delay discovery and string the family along, further tormenting them.

That then leaves the paintbrush, and while I do believe that he had always intended to play the strangulation game, he may have realized there that he needed a handle - I hold it very likely that this was his first time doing anything like this.

If there was no noise, no sign of anyone having heard after JonBenet had died, I think the killer would feel pretty confident - but I do believe the reason the bat was found on the northern edge of the house, just before a person leaving the house would come into the open, indicates that the killer was carrying it in case of an unexpected confrontation.

Your argument highlights one of the biggest flaws in the intruder theory: it requires the perpetrator to act improbably or irrationally. A premeditated kidnapper would not waste time writing a ransom note or crafting a garrote on-site, as these actions dramatically increase the risk of being caught.





Instead, the evidence points more logically to someone who had intimate knowledge of the family, was already inside the home, and may have panicked, leading to improvisation and eventual staging of the crime scene.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Your argument highlights one of the biggest flaws in the intruder theory: it requires the perpetrator to act improbably or irrationally. A premeditated kidnapper would not waste time writing a ransom note or crafting a garrote on-site, as these actions dramatically increase the risk of being caught.

But I said that I don't believe it was a kidnapping, planned or otherwise. His goal was to assault and kill JonBenet under her own roof. When he realized he had done the deed and no one had noticed, he staged the kidnapping. There was risk, sure, but he had already taken that risk. I don't imagine he did that if the thrill wasn't part of it.

Instead, the evidence points more logically to someone who had intimate knowledge of the family, was already inside the home, and may have panicked, leading to improvisation and eventual staging of the crime scene.

I don't see the garrotte as a product of panic.

 

[TizerisT]

I don't believe this was ever intended as a kidnapping. That was something that the killer came up with in the house.

Could be, as he brought other tools along but not pen and paper