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

[CrimeTheorist]

One thing I can never understand about the RDI theories is why, if someone in the family killed her intentionally or accidentally, why all this crazy messy confused and confusing coverup/staging/etc. had to be done right then? If it happened in the middle of the night by their hand, NO ONE else knew a thing about it - YET - and no one else would know a thing about it until they decided to start telling everyone about it, which they did, at basically sunrise that very same morning that it happened. But why did it all have to happen so fast and furiously, as I see it? I realize there's the issue of decomposition smell, etc. to consider, but there are ways to deal with that.

They would have known by the time she was dead that they wouldn't be taking their scheduled trip anymore as planned, so if they were canceling the trip anyway, seems like they would have taken a little more time to figure out what to do and not go with this impromptu bizarre, reckless, carelessly-thought-out coverup scheme that no one in their right mind would ever have purposely chosen to do if they had any other options.

Which they did. And that's my point. They could have covered this up in better ways than how people think they did it. What they supposedly did to cover it up was like things that they would do because they had no choice, because they had to get it all done by daylight. Like they were forced to go with this very risky and imo dumb fake kidnapping scenario, complete with the ludicrous ransom note, only because that was their only option if it had to be done by sunrise that morning. But they would have been under no such time constraint. They would've had to do something soon, but not necessarily by sunrise.

If they'd cancelled the plane trip by phone, they would have been free to come up with a better plan that day. No one in the world would know yet that there was anything wrong. No one at all would be dropping by or even calling, since everyone knew they'd be gone out of town. They could have made up some lie as an excuse to cancel the trip and then taken time to do what they needed to do. And I would bet it wouldn't have included writing the ludicrous ransom note if they had. They could even have LEFT THE HOUSE, pretending to do errands or whatever, and in the process, removed her body to some clandestine location where she may never have been found. They could have said she'd been playing outside and the next thing they knew, she was gone. They could have removed and dumped her body somewhere while they were pretending to search for her. Maybe before they had even called police. If my little girl suddenly seemed to have disappeared from our house or yard, I'd immediately start looking everywhere for her and if she wasn't found, only then would I call police. I wouldn't call police first, before even looking for her.

So the way they supposedly did it, according to RDI, had them calling police before they even did a search for her outside around the house, the neighborhood, or even inside their own house -- all because of the stupid ransom note. Since there was that ransom note that they supposedly found FIRST thing that morning, everything after that had to be done differently. They HAD to call police and they didn't even really search for her anywhere at first because duh, the ransom note said she wasn't there! The only reason it went the way it did was all because of that ransom note. If it hadn't been for that note, they would have immediately begun an intensive search everywhere for her around the house at least for sure.

And... sadly, they would have no doubt found her. Down there in the wine cellar basement room where someone hid her, leaving the stupid ransom note behind, hoping to delay them finding her by at least a little while, which is exactly what it did. Probably gave them even a longer delay than that person could ever have hoped for, in fact.

Certainly enough time to ensure that that person was well away from their house by then. Safe and at no risk of being caught for the crimes he committed deep down in the Ramsey basement in the middle of the night while everyone else slept. Or, if he was as crazy and reckless and delusional as that ransom note makes it sound like he was, maybe he didn't actually go too far from the house. I could see him hiding somewhere nearby, close enough to see all the chaos going on at the house, reveling in the knowledge that HE was the cause of all this activity and certain despair and anguish. Knowing what they would soon find out, what he had left for them to find.

That's what I find more believable than that they killed her, in whatever way, and thought the best path forward from this unimaginable tragedy was to have Patsy sit down and write a fanciful, movie-script style fake ransom note in the kitchen, while John was busy garroting and object-raping his 6 year old daughter in the basement. And then when all their ridiculous staging was set, to call police and report her missing and kidnapped and set the ball rolling for all the events to come from that moment on throughout the rest of their lives. Their ruined lives.

A lot of your reasons are why I think only one parent (imo PR) was involved, at least in the murder and cover-up. Then later on JR either figured it out or PR broke down and told him what she had done and he chose to stand by her.

 

[Ponytale]

One thing I can never understand about the RDI theories is why, if someone in the family killed her intentionally or accidentally, why all this crazy messy confused and confusing coverup/staging/etc. had to be done right then? If it happened in the middle of the night by their hand, NO ONE else knew a thing about it - YET - and no one else would know a thing about it until they decided to start telling everyone about it, which they did, at basically sunrise that very same morning that it happened. But why did it all have to happen so fast and furiously, as I see it? I realize there's the issue of decomposition smell, etc. to consider, but there are ways to deal with that.

Very interesting, I love this question as it is something to think about! Why that time frame?
I have three possible reasons that come to mind -
1. There was someone else in the house that did know and for who this sequence of events and timing was needed. It has been theorized that Andrew could have been in the house (as possibly seen by the neighbor); it has been theorized also about Burkes friend Doug being over for the night.
2. There was so many emotions, shock and panic going on over that night (shock of what happened, coming up with plan to cover up, do the staging, write a note, wipe the flashlight and get rid of (some) of the evidence, etc) that they just did not have the time or attention to calmly think it all through and did it all with "knowing" that they have to leave in the morning and get up early.
3. They could have thought that their friends (extended family? coworkers? housekeeper? etc) must have known that they will wake up early and need to leave. How would they have explained it to them if they did it differently?

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Very interesting, I love this question as it is something to think about! Why that time frame?
I have three possible reasons that come to mind -
1. There was someone else in the house that did know and for who this sequence of events and timing was needed. It has been theorized that Andrew could have been in the house (as possibly seen by the neighbor); it has been theorized also about Burkes friend Doug being over for the night.
2. There was so many emotions, shock and panic going on over that night (shock of what happened, coming up with plan to cover up, do the staging, write a note, wipe the flashlight and get rid of (some) of the evidence, etc) that they just did not have the time or attention to calmly think it all through and did it all with "knowing" that they have to leave in the morning and get up early.
3. They could have thought that their friends (extended family? coworkers? housekeeper? etc) must have known that they will wake up early and need to leave. How would they have explained it to them if they did it differently?

Interesting that you don't think it could have been because one parent was trying to cover it up before the other awoke. Is there something about that theory that you can't get behind?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

One thing I can never understand about the RDI theories is why, if someone in the family killed her intentionally or accidentally, why all this crazy messy confused and confusing coverup/staging/etc. had to be done right then? If it happened in the middle of the night by their hand, NO ONE else knew a thing about it - YET - and no one else would know a thing about it until they decided to start telling everyone about it, which they did, at basically sunrise that very same morning that it happened. But why did it all have to happen so fast and furiously, as I see it? I realize there's the issue of decomposition smell, etc. to consider, but there are ways to deal with that.

They would have known by the time she was dead that they wouldn't be taking their scheduled trip anymore as planned, so if they were canceling the trip anyway, seems like they would have taken a little more time to figure out what to do and not go with this impromptu bizarre, reckless, carelessly-thought-out coverup scheme that no one in their right mind would ever have purposely chosen to do if they had any other options.

Which they did. And that's my point. They could have covered this up in better ways than how people think they did it. What they supposedly did to cover it up was like things that they would do because they had no choice, because they had to get it all done by daylight. Like they were forced to go with this very risky and imo dumb fake kidnapping scenario, complete with the ludicrous ransom note, only because that was their only option if it had to be done by sunrise that morning. But they would have been under no such time constraint. They would've had to do something soon, but not necessarily by sunrise.

If they'd cancelled the plane trip by phone, they would have been free to come up with a better plan that day. No one in the world would know yet that there was anything wrong. No one at all would be dropping by or even calling, since everyone knew they'd be gone out of town. They could have made up some lie as an excuse to cancel the trip and then taken time to do what they needed to do. And I would bet it wouldn't have included writing the ludicrous ransom note if they had. They could even have LEFT THE HOUSE, pretending to do errands or whatever, and in the process, removed her body to some clandestine location where she may never have been found. They could have said she'd been playing outside and the next thing they knew, she was gone. They could have removed and dumped her body somewhere while they were pretending to search for her. Maybe before they had even called police. If my little girl suddenly seemed to have disappeared from our house or yard, I'd immediately start looking everywhere for her and if she wasn't found, only then would I call police. I wouldn't call police first, before even looking for her.

So the way they supposedly did it, according to RDI, had them calling police before they even did a search for her outside around the house, the neighborhood, or even inside their own house -- all because of the stupid ransom note. Since there was that ransom note that they supposedly found FIRST thing that morning, everything after that had to be done differently. They HAD to call police and they didn't even really search for her anywhere at first because duh, the ransom note said she wasn't there! The only reason it went the way it did was all because of that ransom note. If it hadn't been for that note, they would have immediately begun an intensive search everywhere for her around the house at least for sure.

And... sadly, they would have no doubt found her. Down there in the wine cellar basement room where someone hid her, leaving the stupid ransom note behind, hoping to delay them finding her by at least a little while, which is exactly what it did. Probably gave them even a longer delay than that person could ever have hoped for, in fact.

Certainly enough time to ensure that that person was well away from their house by then. Safe and at no risk of being caught for the crimes he committed deep down in the Ramsey basement in the middle of the night while everyone else slept. Or, if he was as crazy and reckless and delusional as that ransom note makes it sound like he was, maybe he didn't actually go too far from the house. I could see him hiding somewhere nearby, close enough to see all the chaos going on at the house, reveling in the knowledge that HE was the cause of all this activity and certain despair and anguish. Knowing what they would soon find out, what he had left for them to find.

That's what I find more believable than that they killed her, in whatever way, and thought the best path forward from this unimaginable tragedy was to have Patsy sit down and write a fanciful, movie-script style fake ransom note in the kitchen, while John was busy garroting and object-raping his 6 year old daughter in the basement. And then when all their ridiculous staging was set, to call police and report her missing and kidnapped and set the ball rolling for all the events to come from that moment on throughout the rest of their lives. Their ruined lives.

There are too many unknowns, starting with which Ramsey may have been responsible. Each possible suspect changes how or why things may have been done. If you are not the one who killed her, would you want her thrown out like unwanted garbage for all to see? It was important for the family to have a proper burial to use JRs words. If it was a family member responsible, they were not an experienced killer.
The phone records were not given to the police. Why? There should have been record of zero phone calls that night. What was there to hide? Perhaps a call to a very good lawyer who has contacts that can walk you through how destroy evidence and distort a crime scene. Let's face it, even if we knew one of them did it as fact, no one would be convicted unless someone confessed. It was a brilliant job mucking the whole thing up.

 

[Ponytale]

Interesting that you don't think it could have been because one parent was trying to cover it up before the other awoke. Is there something about that theory that you can't get behind?

Nothing more than just my own ideas - I can not see any logical reason for one of them protecting the other one.
If I think that one of them did not know about it it could only have been John, as I believe Patsy was the author of the ransom note. If John did not know about the murder, why would he lie and protect for Patsy? John was successful and had his reputation. He was a smart man. He could have easily thrown Patsy under the bus and blamed her for it all, especially after he had already gone through the trauma and grief of losing one daughter. Patsy provided nothing for him that he would not have had without her. And I don't think that their love or marriage (his love for her) was so strong that he would not leave her for killing his daughter and then secretly covering it all up behind his back. IMO
I see him, and both of them, doing it for Burke, but not for each other.

 

[FMB]

Nothing more than just my own ideas - I can not see any logical reason for one of them protecting the other one.
If I think that one of them did not know about it it could only have been John, as I believe Patsy was the author of the ransom note. If John did not know about the murder, why would he lie and protect for Patsy? John was successful and had his reputation. He was a smart man. He could have easily thrown Patsy under the bus and blamed her for it all, especially after he had already gone through the trauma and grief of losing one daughter. Patsy provided nothing for him that he would not have had without her. And I don't think that their love or marriage (his love for her) was so strong that he would not leave her for killing his daughter and then secretly covering it all up behind his back. IMO
I see him, and both of them, doing it for Burke, but not for each other.

Great post! I have always leaned toward JDI because of the SA angle, however I have also wondered what would compel one parent to cover for the other??

Steve Thomas who was very close to the case believed there was a toileting issue with Patsy and Jonbenet that caused the " explosive encounter" which lead to Jonbenet's death. Could it have been John who was responsible for the ongoing SA however it was Pasty who snapped and accidentally killed her?

 

[Ponytale]

Steve Thomas who was very close to the case believed there was a toileting issue with Patsy and Jonbenet that caused the " explosive encounter" which lead to Jonbenet's death. Could it have been John who was responsible for the ongoing SA however it was Pasty who snapped and accidentally killed her?

It could be, but then again, why protect each other? If John was responsible for the SA, why would Patsy help to hide it? Like others here have pointed out, JB was Patsy's world. She lived her dreams through her - the money, time and devotion she had invested in her and the pageantry makes it hard for me to believe that she would shut her eyes for SA that she knew about and just allowed it to happen. Sealing her medical records would suggest that she must have known there was something to hide. So I do not think that she knew about it and just went with it. IMO

Now, if she did not know about the SA, again makes it hard for me to believe that John would have protected her and stayed with her after the murder/accident. Why? Because John would have nothing to be afraid of. Patsy could not tell what she did not know about. Yes, it would have later learned about it in the autopsy, but then John could have just said that he did not know anything about it, as there is to this day no actual proof that either of them was responsible. IMO

And if Patsy knew about the ongoing abuse, why would she hide the accident from john? She did not want to kill JB, so it must have been an accident. Wouldn't it be easier to go to John for help with the cover up and include him in all of this mess with stating that "I know you SA'd JB and now you are in this mess too and have to help me". It would be easier (and logical) for Patsy to do it all with John being involved too, so that they both would share the consequences when indicted. IMO

No matter how I try to imagine it happening, In every scenario I still only see them both covering for Burke...

 

[Swirlz]

For many years, in fact, almost a couple of decades, most/almost all who posted in various JBR forums, including right here on sleuths, strongly believed Patsy was guilty, this opinion was backed by the opinions of most in law enforcement. And no one had any particular problem believing John would and did cover for Patsy. I remember it being a nonissue, barely mentioned, if at all. It was simply taken as a given that John felt sorry for Patsy, that he may have felt guilt, that he wanted to avoid the stigma associated with being married to a child abuser and that he was invested in preserving what was left of his family. All of the same reasons people believe the parents could and would cover for Burke.

I'm also puzzled by the insistence no parent would cover for an abusive adult. One only needs to venture outside of this particular folder and into the wider world of Websleuths to see multitudes of cases involving adults covering for adult abusers. Jenn Soto, the Aundria Bowman case, the Menendez brothers, Harmony Montgomery (this is just to name a few off of the top of my head).

When ongoing child abuse is taking place, people are already covering for each other. The gaslighting and emotional manipulations have already been in full force for some period of time. If this weren't possible there would be no cases of abuse spiraling out of control to the point of it becoming fatal.

 

[FMB]

It could be, but then again, why protect each other? If John was responsible for the SA, why would Patsy help to hide it? Like others here have pointed out, JB was Patsy's world. She lived her dreams through her - the money, time and devotion she had invested in her and the pageantry makes it hard for me to believe that she would shut her eyes for SA that she knew about and just allowed it to happen. Sealing her medical records would suggest that she must have known there was something to hide. So I do not think that she knew about it and just went with it. IMO

Why protect each other?? Because one parent killed her ( accidentally) and the other had been abusing her....

Now, if she did not know about the SA, again makes it hard for me to believe that John would have protected her and stayed with her after the murder/accident. Why? Because John would have nothing to be afraid of. Patsy could not tell what she did not know about. Yes, it would have later learned about it in the autopsy, but then John could have just said that he did not know anything about it, as there is to this day no actual proof that either of them was responsible. IMO

IMHO....looking at the evidence Jonebenet had suffered chronic sexual abuse. There is no actual proof that they were responsible however its highly probable that it was somebody in the household and the nuclear family.
I believe it was most probably John and not the 9 year old kid. There is just no evidence to support anyone outside of the family.

And if Patsy knew about the ongoing abuse, why would she hide the accident from john? She did not want to kill JB, so it must have been an accident. Wouldn't it be easier to go to John for help with the cover up and include him in all of this mess with stating that "I know you SA'd JB and now you are in this mess too and have to help me". It would be easier (and logical) for Patsy to do it all with John being involved too, so that they both would share the consequences when indicted. IMO

No matter how I try to imagine it happening, In every scenario I still only see them both covering for Burke...

I am not suggesting Patsy hid the accident from John, nor I am suggesting Patsy was not aware of the ongoing abuse. It would not be the first time a mother looked the other way while her children were being sexually abused.
I believe they are complicit in the cover up and staging because one had something on the other.

 

[Ponytale]

Because one parent killed her ( accidentally) and the other had been abusing her....

And it just might be the case. I wish we knew...

 

[CloudedTruth]

For many years, in fact, almost a couple of decades, most/almost all who posted in various JBR forums, including right here on sleuths, strongly believed Patsy was guilty, this opinion was backed by the opinions of most in law enforcement. And no one had any particular problem believing John would and did cover for Patsy. I remember it being a nonissue, barely mentioned, if at all. It was simply taken as a given that John felt sorry for Patsy, that he may have felt guilt, that he wanted to avoid the stigma associated with being married to a child abuser and that he was invested in preserving what was left of his family. All of the same reasons people believe the parents could and would cover for Burke.

I'm also puzzled by the insistence no parent would cover for an abusive adult. One only needs to venture outside of this particular folder and into the wider world of Websleuths to see multitudes of cases involving adults covering for adult abusers. Jenn Soto, the Aundria Bowman case, the Menendez brothers, Harmony Montgomery (this is just to name a few off of the top of my head).

When ongoing child abuse is taking place, people are already covering for each other. The gaslighting and emotional manipulations have already been in full force for some period of time. If this weren't possible there would be no cases of abuse spiraling out of control to the point of it becoming fatal.

I will start off by saying that through all the years of following this case I have at different points been swayed towards each one of the family members, the only theory I have never been able to embrace is the IDI. For awhile now I am of the mindset that PDI.

And you're absolutely right that people cover for each other, and for many reasons. I think to believe that is far fetched is sadly naive. People can do terrible things and there will always be those who find a reason to excuse, to ignore, sweep it under the rug or to engage in covering.

And IMO the Ramseys not only were no different in that regard, they had more than a few reasons to justify covering for each other. John's business and reputation, their place in society, financial, and of course their obvious need to be seen as this perfect family who had it all. That was extremely important to both of them. We can see how that manifested in more than a few ways. They had the habit of downplaying anything that was revealed that could possibly be seen in a negative light. JonBenet's bed wetting, the pageant scenario and all that it entailed, Burke's perceived "weirdness".

There was a lot at stake and I think it's been quite evident that John & Patsy circled the wagons from day one to protect themselves. They pointed fingers outward which admittedly would not be unusual, but everyone cooperated, everyone sat for interviews and readily gave whatever was asked of them, and in that context it stands out that the only ones who were not cooperating were the Ramseys themselves. Their spin of course was that they were cooperating or as they declared in the CNN interview, that they absolutely intended to. And we all know how that turned out. They continued to spin, misrepresent and hide behind their legal teams for years, and John is still doing it to this day. The cover up is ongoing.

 

[CloudedTruth]

@CloudedTruth

If Rapp could get the Rs cell phone records and credit card bills, then LE must have them too. Kolar said that the R file is 60,000 pages.

I have read recently that radio host Peter Boyles said that he saw the phone records that Rapp had obtained and that there was indeed a call made prior to the 911 call.

I have also read that the police do indeed have the records, but they are sealed. They could not be used because they were illegally obtained.

Not sure if either of these details can be verified in any way.

 

[Ponytale]

I have read recently that radio host Peter Boyles said that he saw the phone records that Rapp had obtained and that there was indeed a call made prior to the 911 call.

I have also read that the police do indeed have the records, but they are sealed. They could not be used because they were illegally obtained.

Not sure if either of these details can be verified in any way.

Wow, that would sure be something that we'd love to know for sure, wouldn't it! And if it is indeed the truth and a call was made before 911... I wonder who could it have been made to? A lawyer? Dr. Beuf? The Stines? And how long before the 911 call was the other call made? Knowing that all could change so much.

I just can feel the exhaust of the BPD if it is true that those records are indeed known for them and are not usable in any way because they were obtained illegally. It could possibly be something that could finally give the authorities a chance of real action and could possibly lead to an arrest. If so, knowing that it could but not being able to do anything with it... wow. How frustrating...

Let's hope that all this info will be verified and more details about it made known for public.

 

[jjleroche]

Why protect each other?? Because one parent killed her ( accidentally) and the other had been abusing her....

IMHO....looking at the evidence Jonebenet had suffered chronic sexual abuse. There is no actual proof that they were responsible however its highly probable that it was somebody in the household and the nuclear family.
I believe it was most probably John and not the 9 year old kid. There is just no evidence to support anyone outside of the family.



I am not suggesting Patsy hid the accident from John, nor I am suggesting Patsy was not aware of the ongoing abuse. It would not be the first time a mother looked the other way while her children were being sexually abused.
I believe they are complicit in the cover up and staging because one had something on the other.

The autopsy revealed that Jonbenet had been sexually assaulted during the murderous attack.

However, there have been false reports indicating that she had suffered chronic sexual abuse. This is not so.
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

I have included below my response (today) to a question in "The intruder as a friend" thread, as to why the "ransom note" was on the stairs:

The staircase was the place where Patsy and the housekeeper always communicated by leaving notes.

When Boulder PD visited the housekeeper's home, they asked her husband if he had any black tape (similar to that) (used in the attack on Jonbenet). He produced three rolls, only one was unopened.) Boulder PD asked about notepads. They produced one identical to that used in the ransom note. The one they produced came from the Ramsey house.
When the housekeeper was asked to produce her key to the Ramsey house, she couldn't. She stated that the upset of learning that Jonbenet had been murdered caused her to forget where it was.

A few weeks prior to the murder of Jonbenet, several of the housekeeper's family members (including in-laws) went to the Ramsey house and brought Christmas decorations from the storage/basement area to the main area, so had some
first-hand idea of the house's (apparently confusing) layout.
The housekeeper's family was in need of money, and the housekeeper had requested (in a note to Patsy) a loan of $2,000 (or $2,500 - whichever article one reads). She stated that her landlord (also her sister) was threatening eviction for non-payment of rent. She also needed money for her husband's proposed dental work. Patsy agreed in a responding note to the request, and said she'd leave a check out for the housekeeper to collect on her next work day.

The housekeeper had spoken glowingly about the Ramsey's in some quarters - in others she was allegedly viciously spiteful about them and their wealth (and Patsy's failings as a homemaker.) She wrote a book about the Ramsey's including salacious details which she stated Patsy had shared with her about the Ramsey's sex life.

The garrotte used to torture and strangle Jonbenet was fashioned in part from a paintbrush from Patsy's art caddy. It had apparently been broken into three parts - one part was used to sexually assault Jonbenet. One part has never been found.
The strangling with the garrotte was so intense that the garrotte was completely embedded in Jonbenet's neck.
Her skull had been split apart with the force of the blow. (IMO Burke, being just nine at the time, and quite small, would not have had the strength to inflict such a blow, let alone use a garrotte with such force. He was in Scouts, but apparently tying of such complex knots was not something which was taught.)
Only someone with knowledge of knot-tying could fashion such a garrotte. JR had served in the navy, so would likely have had such knowledge. AFAIK questions have never been asked regarding the housekeeper's family's knowledge of knot-tying.

I think it is possible that the murder of Jonbenet may have been an extortion attempt gone wrong. If so, if a struggle ensued, or Jonbenet saw who was attacking her, things may have escalated.
The dna on Jonbenet's underwear and under her fingernails IIRC was tested and ruled out as belonging to any Ramsey family member. At that time, when dna testing was in its infancy, investigators were unable to identify it.
All MOO

Adding to the above, if an extortion attempt/murder did occur, with one (or some) of the housekeeper's family members being involved, she may well have been under pressure to agree, and I don't believe she would have necessarily been present, IMO.
All JMO MOO

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

extras.denverpost.com

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I have read recently that radio host Peter Boyles said that he saw the phone records that Rapp had obtained and that there was indeed a call made prior to the 911 call.

Source?

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

IMHO, JR does seem sincere in the pursuit of finding his daughter’s murder and getting her justice. I also felt like PR’s reactions in her taped police interviews were genuine and with the idea that she was not involved in JBR’s murder, I can empathize towards her anger or frustration with LE. From my perspective it is not that they are asking me questions but if I know and already repeatedly stated that I’m innocent I am going back to focusing on my priority, which is getting the scum that raped and murdered my daughter and making him answer for what he done. I think many parents would have little patience for anything else.

Additionally, if JR is responsible for his daughter’s murder or he is covering for a family member it would be odd in my opinion that he keeps bringing the case to the public’s attention. If anything you would think a murderer and their accomplices would want everyone to just forget and move on as they attempt to avoid any and all attention from LE or any risks of slipping up something while on TB or speaking to a journalist that could get you caught. Even if it came at the expense of the public having a low opinion of you and your family since your freedom or avoiding prison time or worse would be priority.


Also, no offense Boulder PD, but the fact that PR could counter their argument that finding the fibers from her coat as significant by pointing out that they could have been transferred when she hugged her daughter, JR had to find and bring his beloved daughter’s body up from the basement when LE shouldn’t have isolated them to secure the house and any evidence while they conducted any and all searches, that they let PR hug her and they tried to use the fact PR’s fingerprints on the bowl would be a good tipping to antagonize or goad her into confessing could also possibly explain why the Ramsey’s didn’t trust or put their confidence in the original investigators’ abilities to help catch their daughter’s killer and get them family answers when they learned of the accusations later.

It also just hard to picture any parent, even one faking a ransom letter, writing the word kill multiple times in reference to their daughter knowing that she has just been been murdered and is gone forever now even when she is right there at home. Psychologically, seeing the words dead or kill could break any mother or father who literally just lost a child.

JMO

I am not ruling the Ramseys out but if an intruder did do it perhaps the decision to do so was born out the criminal bring impulsiveness, poor judgement, immature development and disorganized or a child predator. Perhaps, for example, the intruder was someone close to them or at least one degree removed from them personally, even stalked the house and decided to burglarize it while they were gone? He could have seen JR’s paystub or some record of it in regards to his bonus amount and came up with the plan, albeit a horrific one, write the ransom letter, kidnap JBR, hold her hostage, and if he is a predator unfortunately commit sexual assault, until he get JR to pay up? However, in this case if the criminal is a poor planner and thinker he probably doesn’t expect that JBR to fight back or scream. Nor does he know how he will get them both out through the basement window if they can’t fit together. Or perhaps he couldn’t control his sick impulses and sexually assaults after he knocks her out and as isolates her in the basement? Sadly JBR is severely injured, he can’t take her with him now and as his plan falls apart he realizes he has to leave her behind but he can’t leave her alive since she can ID him later. As a result decides to brutally murder with the garrote, further hide her body deeper in the basement and then escape from the same window he came in. Just one theory or scenario I thought as I consider IDI

Again JMO/JMT

Can the murder of JonBenét Ramsey be solved by 7 items of evidence?

Her father John Ramsey said DNA testing on items like a blanket and a rope could point to the killer.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I was reading up on the theory that Burke did it and I came across the mention of Burke's friend, Doug Stine. Who was Burke's age. Some theorized that Doug Stein was over that night and participated with Burke in the crime. And I came across this Reddit thread. Which I think is pretty interesting.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

The autopsy revealed that Jonbenet had been sexually assaulted during the murderous attack.

However, there have been false reports indicating that she had suffered chronic sexual abuse. This is not so.
In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse."I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother." Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

I have included below my response (today) to a question in "The intruder as a friend" thread, as to why the "ransom note" was on the stairs:

The staircase was the place where Patsy and the housekeeper always communicated by leaving notes.

When Boulder PD visited the housekeeper's home, they asked her husband if he had any black tape (similar to that) (used in the attack on Jonbenet). He produced three rolls, only one was unopened.) Boulder PD asked about notepads. They produced one identical to that used in the ransom note. The one they produced came from the Ramsey house.
When the housekeeper was asked to produce her key to the Ramsey house, she couldn't. She stated that the upset of learning that Jonbenet had been murdered caused her to forget where it was.

A few weeks prior to the murder of Jonbenet, several of the housekeeper's family members (including in-laws) went to the Ramsey house and brought Christmas decorations from the storage/basement area to the main area, so had some
first-hand idea of the house's (apparently confusing) layout.
The housekeeper's family was in need of money, and the housekeeper had requested (in a note to Patsy) a loan of $2,000 (or $2,500 - whichever article one reads). She stated that her landlord (also her sister) was threatening eviction for non-payment of rent. She also needed money for her husband's proposed dental work. Patsy agreed in a responding note to the request, and said she'd leave a check out for the housekeeper to collect on her next work day.

The housekeeper had spoken glowingly about the Ramsey's in some quarters - in others she was allegedly viciously spiteful about them and their wealth (and Patsy's failings as a homemaker.) She wrote a book about the Ramsey's including salacious details which she stated Patsy had shared with her about the Ramsey's sex life.

The garrotte used to torture and strangle Jonbenet was fashioned in part from a paintbrush from Patsy's art caddy. It had apparently been broken into three parts - one part was used to sexually assault Jonbenet. One part has never been found.
The strangling with the garrotte was so intense that the garrotte was completely embedded in Jonbenet's neck.
Her skull had been split apart with the force of the blow. (IMO Burke, being just nine at the time, and quite small, would not have had the strength to inflict such a blow, let alone use a garrotte with such force. He was in Scouts, but apparently tying of such complex knots was not something which was taught.)
Only someone with knowledge of knot-tying could fashion such a garrotte. JR had served in the navy, so would likely have had such knowledge. AFAIK questions have never been asked regarding the housekeeper's family's knowledge of knot-tying.

I think it is possible that the murder of Jonbenet may have been an extortion attempt gone wrong. If so, if a struggle ensued, or Jonbenet saw who was attacking her, things may have escalated.
The dna on Jonbenet's underwear and under her fingernails IIRC was tested and ruled out as belonging to any Ramsey family member. At that time, when dna testing was in its infancy, investigators were unable to identify it.
All MOO

Adding to the above, if an extortion attempt/murder did occur, with one (or some) of the housekeeper's family members being involved, she may well have been under pressure to agree, and I don't believe she would have necessarily been present, IMO.
All JMO MOO

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation: The Denver Post Online

extras.denverpost.com

You can't get over the fact that the Ramsey's told multiple very different stories for what happened that morning, what happened that evening, what happened that night. If they were innocent, they would have stuck with the same story.

I'm kind of getting on board more now with Burke did it. However if he did it, I still can't understand why the parents would cover it up like that, considering all the privacy that juveniles have in criminal cases.

I'm thinking the only way that the parents would cover it up like that, would be to cover up their own sexual abuse of their daughter. Which would mean that the hymen of JBR was not intact. So that's why they had to do the whole paintbrush staging asap. Also if they admitted that Burke did it, then they would lose more control over Burke, and then he would talk to LE too. Maybe he was also sexually abused. And or had knowledge of JonBenet being abused. So that's why they tried to keep Burke out of it. That would be the only thing that would make sense, because if Burke, and maybe his friend, just did it on his own, and there was no other factors, it would make no sense for the parents to cover it up.

I don't believe the doctor would know whether Jbr was sexually abused or not. Did he actually examine the hymen beforehand? I don't know if he did or didn't. However the assault could have taken place shortly before her death. So his opinion is only an opinion.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

You can't get over the fact that the Ramsey's told multiple very different stories for what happened that morning, what happened that evening, what happened that night. If they were innocent, they would have stuck with the same story.

Did they?

The ones I've seen the most are these:

First: JonBenet was awake when they came home and John read to her before putting her to bed. (French report)
Then: JonBenet was asleep when they came home and John (and Patsy) put her to bed, then John read a bit before going to sleep. (1997 John interview)

And

First: JonBenet was put to bed wearing a red turtleneck, not the white top she wore to the Whites and was found dead in. (French report)
Then: JonBenet was put to bed wearing the white top that she had worn during the day and was found dead in. (1997 Patsy interview)

Bear in mind, before the interviews, the Ramseys had requested and received their earlier statements given to the police. This was complained about now and then as deference to the Ramseys that would allow them not to contradict their earlier statements.

So why did they?

John even acknowledges it in his interview: "Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct." The Ramseys are changing the narrative from the French report. For what purpose?

If what they told French was true, they would have no reason to change it. It's true, after all, and they have the transcripts to make sure they remembered correctly.

If what they told French was false, they have no reason to change it either. None of the changes affect the murder - JonBenet gets put to bed at the end of each story, hours before she died. And by sticking to their earlier statement, they prevent any suspicion that they're changing their story.

In fact, that they change - or rather correct - the story here speaks to their truthfulness. If they are guilty, and they had been granted the boon of being able to check what they had told the cops earlier, then why on earth would they not stick with it? But if they are innocent, they would want the actual events and circumstances to be known, even if it might not affect the actual outcome.

So the obvious option here is that French got it wrong. It's not hard to see why when you compare the Ramseys' stories to his account. John said he put JonBenet to bed and then read a bit - French misunderstands it as "read to her". Patsy talks about the red turtleneck that JonBenet was supposed to wear to the Whites and French misunderstands it as what she wore to bed (and knowing that JonBenet wore the white top to the Whites makes the notion that she was put to bed in the red turtleneck utterly preposterous - putting your child to bed in the top she already wore makes sense, exchanging it for a turtleneck over say a pajama top doesn't).

I've also seen whether Burke was awake as an issue where they changed the story:

FIrst they said Burke was asleep
Then they say he was awake but pretending to be asleep and didn't tell them that at first

This was supposedly as a reaction to the National Enquirer printing the leaked info about the silly EVP phenomena that the police thought were voices at the end of the 911 call. If you think about it for more than five seconds, you realize that the NE is full of it. If they changed the story to explain why Burke was "heard" on the 911 call, why did they still have him in bed, saying nothing? The change would affect exactly nothing, and they would gain nothing from changing it. And how can they possibly be criticized for changing a story when the whole point of it is that Burke was pretending to be asleep - it would be exactly the same story from their perspective. It just adds Burke's as well.

So many of the supposed lies the Ramseys told come down to things like these when I dig deeper. It's not that their words never contradict earlier ones - especially when years begin to pass and memories get fuzzier - but all the big ones just end up being "the Ramseys say this, but this other person claims they said that". And I require a bit more than that.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Did they?

The ones I've seen the most are these:

First: JonBenet was awake when they came home and John read to her before putting her to bed. (French report)
Then: JonBenet was asleep when they came home and John (and Patsy) put her to bed, then John read a bit before going to sleep. (1997 John interview)

And

First: JonBenet was put to bed wearing a red turtleneck, not the white top she wore to the Whites and was found dead in. (French report)
Then: JonBenet was put to bed wearing the white top that she had worn during the day and was found dead in. (1997 Patsy interview)

Bear in mind, before the interviews, the Ramseys had requested and received their earlier statements given to the police. This was complained about now and then as deference to the Ramseys that would allow them not to contradict their earlier statements.

So why did they?

John even acknowledges it in his interview: "Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct." The Ramseys are changing the narrative from the French report. For what purpose?

If what they told French was true, they would have no reason to change it. It's true, after all, and they have the transcripts to make sure they remembered correctly.

If what they told French was false, they have no reason to change it either. None of the changes affect the murder - JonBenet gets put to bed at the end of each story, hours before she died. And by sticking to their earlier statement, they prevent any suspicion that they're changing their story.

In fact, that they change - or rather correct - the story here speaks to their truthfulness. If they are guilty, and they had been granted the boon of being able to check what they had told the cops earlier, then why on earth would they not stick with it? But if they are innocent, they would want the actual events and circumstances to be known, even if it might not affect the actual outcome.

So the obvious option here is that French got it wrong. It's not hard to see why when you compare the Ramseys' stories to his account. John said he put JonBenet to bed and then read a bit - French misunderstands it as "read to her". Patsy talks about the red turtleneck that JonBenet was supposed to wear to the Whites and French misunderstands it as what she wore to bed (and knowing that JonBenet wore the white top to the Whites makes the notion that she was put to bed in the red turtleneck utterly preposterous - putting your child to bed in the top she already wore makes sense, exchanging it for a turtleneck over say a pajama top doesn't).

I've also seen whether Burke was awake as an issue where they changed the story:

FIrst they said Burke was asleep
Then they say he was awake but pretending to be asleep and didn't tell them that at first

This was supposedly as a reaction to the National Enquirer printing the leaked info about the silly EVP phenomena that the police thought were voices at the end of the 911 call. If you think about it for more than five seconds, you realize that the NE is full of it. If they changed the story to explain why Burke was "heard" on the 911 call, why did they still have him in bed, saying nothing? The change would affect exactly nothing, and they would gain nothing from changing it. And how can they possibly be criticized for changing a story when the whole point of it is that Burke was pretending to be asleep - it would be exactly the same story from their perspective. It just adds Burke's as well.

So many of the supposed lies the Ramseys told come down to things like these when I dig deeper. It's not that their words never contradict earlier ones - especially when years begin to pass and memories get fuzzier - but all the big ones just end up being "the Ramseys say this, but this other person claims they said that". And I require a bit more than that.

Nah. That doesn't explain it.