JonBenét Ramsey Case: My Theory & Key Questions

[jjleroche]

Exactly. Well stated.

One of the points which IU have tried to make is that there considerable information to support the IDI theory, but not on Websleuths.

My concerns about the importance of maintaining objectivity comes from observations as a teenager living I Australia during the Lindy Chamberlain trials (yes multiple). I really hope this post isn't deleted, as it is relevant to this, and any other case where very strong emotions exist.
If you were in Australia during this time, you definitely knew about it. It truly changed Australia. Most people (including my entire family, myself included) were absolutely certain that Lindy murdered her infant daughter, in the middle of the Australian Outback, despite her statements that she had seen a dingo with Baby Azaria in its mouth. The public wanted blood. Everyone "knew" she'd done it. Lindy and her husband remained stoic through several inquests and trials.
This enraged people, who saw this as proof of her guilt. (After all, "Azaria" meant "sacrifice in the wilderness...she was a member of a "weird" religion, and so on.) None of these assertions were true.
A forensic specialist testified that some matter under the car's dashboard was human infant blood. Eventually, long after Lindy was incarcerated, that evidence was proven to be flawed. It was, in fact anti-rust solution applied at manufacture.

Three years after Lindy's incarceration, incontrovertible proof was found of baby Azaria's death from a dingo attack at a dingo lair, and she was released.

My point is that investigations can go terribly awry if objectivity is not maintained, and that making assumptions based on speculation about someone's character, unless supported by psychiatric evidence, is not evidence.
Once emotional discussion starts, assumptions are more likely to be adopted as "fact" IMO. The Chamberlain case shows very clearly the dangers of character assassination. To be clear, I would really love to see the perpetrator(s) of Jonbenet put away, whomever that may be.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

One of the points which IU have tried to make is that there considerable information to support the IDI theory, but not on Websleuths.

My concerns about the importance of maintaining objectivity comes from observations as a teenager living I Australia during the Lindy Chamberlain trials (yes multiple). I really hope this post isn't deleted, as it is relevant to this, and any other case where very strong emotions exist.
If you were in Australia during this time, you definitely knew about it. It truly changed Australia. Most people (including my entire family, myself included) were absolutely certain that Lindy murdered her infant daughter, in the middle of the Australian Outback, despite her statements that she had seen a dingo with Baby Azaria in its mouth. The public wanted blood. Everyone "knew" she'd done it. Lindy and her husband remained stoic through several inquests and trials.
This enraged people, who saw this as proof of her guilt. (After all, "Azaria" meant "sacrifice in the wilderness...she was a member of a "weird" religion, and so on.) None of these assertions were true.
A forensic specialist testified that some matter under the car's dashboard was human infant blood. Eventually, long after Lindy was incarcerated, that evidence was proven to be flawed. It was, in fact anti-rust solution applied at manufacture.

Three years after Lindy's incarceration, incontrovertible proof was found of baby Azaria's death from a dingo attack at a dingo lair, and she was released.

My point is that investigations can go terribly awry if objectivity is not maintained, and that making assumptions based on speculation about someone's character, unless supported by psychiatric evidence, is not evidence.
Once emotional discussion starts, assumptions are more likely to be adopted as "fact" IMO. The Chamberlain case shows very clearly the dangers of character assassination. To be clear, I would really love to see the perpetrator(s) of Jonbenet put away, whomever that may be.

These two cases are very different. One could take your example and apply it to all the INNOCENT people the Ramseys have accused and still to this day continue to cast shadows of guilt on. Lindy Chamberlain did not do that to innocent people. The facts proved her innocence. You must not be familiar with the amount of man hours put in by LE, FBI, and private investors who have looked for an intruder for decades to no avail. The number of discrepancies in their story along with lack of cooperation put them in the sights of LE not bias.

 

[jjleroche]

These two cases are very different. One could take your example and apply it to all the INNOCENT people the Ramseys have accused and still to this day continue to cast shadows of guilt on. Lindy Chamberlain did not do that to innocent people. The facts proved her innocence. You must not be familiar with the amount of man hours put in by LE, FBI, and private investors who have looked for an intruder for decades to no avail. The number of discrepancies in their story along with lack of cooperation put them in the sights of LE not bias.

Actually, you are mistaken very much about what I am, and am not "familiar" with in this matter.

There is considerable available information in the public forum, (but not necessarily on Websleuths) which has been painstakingly analysed by global experts in the fields of forensic and criminal psychology who have concluded that IDI.

Whether or not they have greater insight than some sensationalist podcasters who have shamelessly and constantly monetised the vile murder of Jonbenet, (blatantly omitting crucial information) remains to be seen. (N.B. I do not consider Websleuths to be "sensationalist".

IMO it is useful to consider all relevant information in order to gain a clear perspective (on any matter).

I will not be responding further to condescending comments directed at me. I have better things to do.

 

[MrPoll62]

Gotta say this is farfetched . I don't think this happened

But it does make more sense.

 

[Porky1]

There was no kidnapping, no abduction. The definition of kidnapping -

Evidence points to both the kids having a late night snack of pineapple / tea at kitchen table . A large silver serving spoon & a glass - not a mug - was used for the tea bag . This snack was not served by an adult . A child got their own snack . ( maybe 3 kids - Burke's best friend/ neighbor, Doug Stine - was allegedly - spending the night , Doug rode home from Christmas party with Ramsey's & had planned on accompanying Burke early the next morning on plane travel trip to Atlanta . Burke often brought D.S on family trips to alleviate his boredom . (He was the ignored child . Got no attention . Was not put high up on pedestal like his little sister. )
IF Doug S has been there that night - the 3 kids were running amok throughout the house staying up late - eating snacks, playing with new toys . While the Ramsey parents were either upstairs sleeping ? ( Not likely - since Patsy was wearing same exact outfit the next am/ day that she wore all evening at Xmas party). They might of left to go have a nightcap - somewhere - maybe returning to the party they just left .
The 3 kids - unattended. ( Although they may very well of been out to bed, tucked in - & were assumed to be asleep when John / Patsy left house for their nightcap at party . ). Thinking the kids will be fine for an hour or so . Locked doors, left for a half hour / or longer .? In the mean time the kids get up ( after faking they were asleep) & had a fun home alone time....until it wasn't fun anymore . Jon Benet could of angered Burke & Doug just doing annoying antagonizing little sister stuff. . They might of ran downstairs to basement to play with Burke's train set & Jon Benet followed the boys. Explains why the train tracks marks were found on her neck . Burke has a long time history of sibling abuse - he was known ( & yes, there are hospital records ) proving his progressive physical & mental abuse he unleashed upon his sis. He routinely smeared his own feces all over Jon Benets bedroom walls ! ( stated by housekeeper) The phycological aspect explaining mental abuse . Burke also habitually attached his sister - & that summer he chased her down across yard , caught up with her then whacked her upside her head with his baseball bat . ( as witnessed by next door.neighbor ) Jon Benets head was hit so hard she was bleeding - & rushed to hospital.

A very good synopsis. Iam in the BDI camp, I hadn’t considered that it could have been both boys. It sounds plausible. Does anyone know where Doug ended up? Was he ever interviewed or has he released a statement as an adult?

 

[CloudedTruth]

A very good synopsis. Iam in the BDI camp, I hadn’t considered that it could have been both boys. It sounds plausible. Does anyone know where Doug ended up? Was he ever interviewed or has he released a statement as an adult?

There is zero evidence that Doug Stine was there that night. Neither he or his parents were at the Christmas party that night. There was no room for him on the plane, it only carried a total of 8 which includes the pilot. The Ramseys were 4, and they were picking up 3 more people in Minneapolis, Mike Archuleta was piloting. That's 8. Add to that it was going to be a very quick trip, they had to be back in Colorado by the 28th to catch a commercial flight to Florida for the Disney cruise. Their flight on the 26th was scheduled to depart at 7AM, which is why they had to get up early. The "Doug Stine was there" theory makes no sense and again, there is no evidence of his being there that night. He testified to the GJ, so yes he was interviewed.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Actually, you are mistaken very much about what I am, and am not "familiar" with in this matter.

There is considerable available information in the public forum, (but not necessarily on Websleuths) which has been painstakingly analysed by global experts in the fields of forensic and criminal psychology who have concluded that IDI

IMO it is useful to consider all relevant information in order to gain a clear perspective (on any matter).

I do agree that all relevant information should be considered. That said, analyzation of personalities by forensic and criminal psychologists is not hard evidence. Testimony of such experts who have personally interviewed accused persons is helpful in determining their potential danger to society and potential risk of re-offending in order to assist a court in deciding appropriate sentencing.

Concluding who might or might not be guilty of an accused or alleged crime is another matter, and would be based upon the opinion of the examiner as to perceived personality traits that may be determined to be present. Would a person be convicted of a crime based solely on this testimony without hard evidence presented? Highly unlikely. Given that the global experts mentioned yet not named did not interview any of the Ramseys to my knowledge, and are basing their opinions solely on whatever is available in the public domain, IMO their conclusions need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Just as former FBI criminal profiler James Douglas came to his conclusions without following the professional protocol expected, and by his own admission came to his conclusion by "following his heart", it leaves the door wide open for human error. His reputation prior to the Ramsey case was fairly undisputed and he was very respected. And yet here he is not following the necessary protocol, not examining the evidence available in the case files, and just following his heart. It puts his conclusions in the realm of questionable, at best.

The fact remains that there is no hard evidence of an intruder and there has not been any hard evidence uncovered in almost 30 years despite PI's hired by the Ramseys to do so outside of the police investigation. If the BPD was incompetent as still being claimed by JR, then what does that say about his high priced PI's who have also come up empty handed?

I like to keep an open mind, but I have never seen a convincing argument or convincing evidence that proves an intruder.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Actually, you are mistaken very much about what I am, and am not "familiar" with in this matter.

There is considerable available information in the public forum, (but not necessarily on Websleuths) which has been painstakingly analysed by global experts in the fields of forensic and criminal psychology who have concluded that IDI.

Whether or not they have greater insight than some sensationalist podcasters who have shamelessly and constantly monetised the vile murder of Jonbenet, (blatantly omitting crucial information) remains to be seen. (N.B-. I do not consider Websleuths to be "sensationalist".

IMO it is useful to consider all relevant information in order to gain a clear perspective (on any matter).

I will not be responding further to condescending comments directed at me. I have better things to do.

Are you referencing JBs family?-

Whether or not they have greater insight than some sensationalist podcasters who have shamelessly and constantly monetised the vile murder of Jonbenet, (blatantly omitting crucial information)

 

[CloudedTruth]

Are you referencing JBs family?-

Whether or not they have greater insight than some sensationalist podcasters who have shamelessly and constantly monetised the vile murder of Jonbenet, (blatantly omitting crucial information)

I think the OP may have been referring to the "global experts in forensic and criminal psychology", but that question is for the OP to answer. That was my interpretation though.

But since we're on the subject of monetizing the murder of JB while blatantly omitting crucial information, a most recent example of that is the Netflix show that calls itself a documentary, which included the participation of JR and blatantly left out a lot of crucial information. A shameful example of a biased presentation that failed to present key evidence. It must be noted that historically, any and all programs that include Ramsey participation do not present the whole picture. Information and evidence that is not flattering to the Ramsey's narrative is ignored and left out. It's the definition of propaganda, plain and simple.

 

[Aquapretzel]

Actually, when they went down into the cellar, they didn't go straight to the wine cellar, they went to the train room first.

Plus Linda Arndt is crazy as a crackhouse rat

 

[Porky1]

One of the points which IU have tried to make is that there considerable information to support the IDI theory, but not on Websleuths.

My concerns about the importance of maintaining objectivity comes from observations as a teenager living I Australia during the Lindy Chamberlain trials (yes multiple).

Three years after Lindy's incarceration, incontrovertible proof was found of baby Azaria's death from a dingo attack at a dingo lair, and she was released.

My point is that investigations can go terribly awry if objectivity is not maintained, and that making assumptions based on speculation about someone's character, unless supported by psychiatric evidence, is not evidence.

(Edited)
The Chamberlain case was significant at the time. Sadly, the unusual circumstance seemed impossible to believe if you weren’t from the area and NT Police quickly pursued her. Very poor police investigation at the time. Much was missed as they weren’t objective. The media reports and their character assassination was disgraceful,

For the JBR case, it seemed they weren’t open to a family member committing the horrid crime and missed significant critical early evidence. Iam not sure how much was moved to higher ranked police officers but I don’t think the local police were equipped to objectively handle this case.

 

[Gloria787]

Hi all, I’ve just started diving into the JonBenét Ramsey case after watching the Netflix series, so please bear with me as I’m still piecing everything together. I’m hoping someone here can clarify a few points for me that are crucial to my theory

My Key Question:
Was it ever definitively proven whether JonBenét’s body had been taken outside and then brought back into the house? Or was it confirmed that she had been in the basement the entire time?

I feel this detail could be vital in understanding what actually happened.

My Theory:
I believe more than one person was involved—likely two, but possibly more. Here’s how I think it played out:

1. Background:
- The perpetrators were possibly known pedophiles who had observed JonBenét and other children at public events, like pageants.
- They might have been part of a network that bought and sold photos, possibly involving the shady photographer connected to the case.
- One or both of them could have abused JonBenét before, either in her home (without the family knowing) or somewhere else.

2. The Night of the Crime:
- The “kidnappers” were likely under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
- One of them hid inside the Ramsey house while the family was out. During this time, they wrote the bizarre ransom note—perhaps while high—and explored the house.
- The ransom amount ($118,000) might have come from noticing John Ramsey’s work documents, or the intruders already knew about his bonus.

3. The Crime Itself:
- Once the family returned and went to bed, the intruder waited until everyone was asleep.
- Unable to resist his urges, he went to JonBenét’s room. While under the influence, he used the garrote during the assault, which may have caused her death unintentionally.
- he placed her in a suitcase, intending to carry her out through a pre-planned escape route where his accomplice was waiting.

4. Things Go Wrong:
- When they opened the suitcase outside, they realised she was dead. In a panic, they argued—one blaming the other for her death.
- At some point, her head struck a hard surface (or was struck), either because they dropped her or because of a mistaken attempt to ensure she was dead.
- Panicked, they abandoned the plan, leaving her body in the basement instead of removing it from the house.

Questions That I’m Still Stuck On:

1. If the parents hadn’t called the police right away, could the perpetrators have returned her alive?
- The ransom note threatened to kill her if law enforcement was contacted—could they have been serious about that?

2. Were the perpetrators really interested in the ransom money? The note feels like a diversion to me.

3. Is there any possibility the body was brought back into the house after the family called the police? This seems unlikely, but the note’s warning about law enforcement makes me wonder.

4. What do we know about the Ramseys’ alcohol supply? Could the intruder have consumed something while writing the note?


I’d love to hear your thoughts on this theory and whether the details I’ve questioned could change the narrative. This case has so many layers, and I’m eager to see what the community thinks?

EDIT: Another thought: the person or people involved might have come down from whatever drugs they were on and decided not to go through with taking her. They could have panicked and left her where she was or thrown her back down.

I watched another documentary where they showed a mark on her that was possibly from a taser. They also said she was alive when she was strangled, negating the theory she died and then her murder was staged. They also explained the law enforcement bias against the parents. The interviewers also were able to crawl into the house through grates and then the window to the room she was found. Patsy stated she had a huge Christmas open house type of walk through showing the house decorated, as do many communities and often wondered if the murderer came into their home that night.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I watched another documentary where they showed a mark on her that was possibly from a taser. They also said she was alive when she was strangled, negating the theory she died and then her murder was staged. They also explained the law enforcement bias against the parents. The interviewers also were able to crawl into the house through grates and then the window to the room she was found. Patsy stated she had a huge Christmas open house type of walk through showing the house decorated, as do many communities and often wondered if the murderer came into their home that night.

Wondering which documentary this was? There are some details that are incorrect.

Lou Smit came up with the taser or stun gun theory, but he didn't even come close to being able to prove that. Despite investigation and tests on stun guns that were available to the public at that time, they never found a match for the marks that LS thought were made by a stun gun. The marks were identified by the coroner as being abrasions and not burns as a stun gun would leave. Further, stun guns at that time were very loud and cause the victim a lot of pain (she likely would have been screaming), they do not render someone unconscious or incapacitated for the amount of time needed in order to pick them up and carry them somewhere. LS presented his intruder with a stun gun theory to the Grand Jury. They didn't buy it.

The majority of the medical experts in this case believe that the blow to the head came first, followed by strangulation anywhere from 45 minutes up to two hours later, so yes she was still alive when strangled. They have also stated that she would've been deeply unconscious by the head blow and it's likely she was in such a compromised state that it was thought she was dead. At some point though, it would have been realized that she was still barely alive. The murder was not staged, the scene was staged to cover what had happened and to make it look like she was assaulted.

Lou Smit was the first to climb through the window to prove that it could be done. However he could not prove that someone actually did climb through that night. There were spider webs that remained undisturbed in the sill and no debris from outside that would have been dragged in on the bottom of someone's shoes. Again, the Grand Jury did not believe that someone climbed through the window.

The Christmas parade of houses that PR participated in occurred in 1994, so two full years before the murder.

 

[Aquapretzel]

There was no kidnapping, no abduction. The definition of kidnapping - with use of a ' ransom note ' ( letter ) actually .... Is the removal of a person - taking to unknown destination - for the purpose of holding that person in attempts to exchange person for the money ( requested on ransom note ) This did not occur. Even IF your intruder theory began with an attempted kidnapping - why would a kidnapper rifle around in Ramsey's drawer to locate & use Patsy's pad of paper / pen - then sit down to pen a long rambling 3 page letter to leave for their ransom note. .. then.. .. what ? They changed their minds ? Decided instead to go hide in basement with the DEAD child .... Waiting....for ? waiting to escape - None of that makes any sense . Jon Benets body was never removed from that house . Evidence points to both the kids having a late night snack of pineapple / tea at kitchen table . A large silver serving spoon & a glass - not a mug - was used for the tea bag . This snack was not served by an adult . A child got their own snack . ( maybe 3 kids - Burke's best friend/ neighbor, Doug Stine - was allegedly - spending the night , Doug rode home from Christmas party with Ramsey's & had planned on accompanying Burke early the next morning on plane travel trip to Atlanta . Burke often brought D.S on family trips to alleviate his boredom . (He was the ignored child . Got no attention . Was not put high up on pedestal like his little sister. )
IF Doug S has been there that night - the 3 kids were running amok throughout the house staying up late - eating snacks, playing with new toys . While the Ramsey parents were either upstairs sleeping ? ( Not likely - since Patsy was wearing same exact outfit the next am/ day that she wore all evening at Xmas party). They might of left to go have a nightcap - somewhere - maybe returning to the party they just left .
The 3 kids - unattended. ( Although they may very well of been out to bed, tucked in - & were assumed to be asleep when John / Patsy left house for their nightcap at party . ). Thinking the kids will be fine for an hour or so . Locked doors, left for a half hour / or longer .? In the mean time the kids get up ( after faking they were asleep) & had a fun home alone time....until it wasn't fun anymore . Jon Benet could of angered Burke & Doug just doing annoying antagonizing little sister stuff. . They might of ran downstairs to basement to play with Burke's train set & Jon Benet followed the boys. Explains why the train tracks marks were found on her neck . Burke has a long time history of sibling abuse - he was known ( & yes, there are hospital records ) proving his progressive physical & mental abuse he unleashed upon his sis. He routinely smeared his own feces all over Jon Benets bedroom walls ! ( stated by housekeeper) The phycological aspect explaining mental abuse . Burke also habitually attached his sister - & that summer he chased her down across yard , caught up with her then whacked her upside her head with his baseball bat . ( as witnessed by next door.neighbor ) Jon Benets head was hit so hard she was bleeding - & rushed to hospital.
Burke was an ignored, sad, possibly undiagnosed autistic boy who harbored a lot of jealousy of his sister . She was very much favored by his parents, friends, teachers , judges at her beauty pageants . Over the top in popularity. A kid who suffers such extreme favoritism in their childhood carries a lot of pain , anger, rage - which manifests into destructive behavior - physically abusive behavior .
Something enraged Burke that night - maybe his own buddy Doug was paying more attention to Jon Benet that Burke was able to handle . I believe both the boys chased her away from them in train room - one of the boys hit her head with mag light . Which they would of have been using to sneak down into dark basement that night ... Then the boys played Doctor with her ( she was temporarily knocked out - just enough for them to have their way with her . Remember , these boys were pre- teens . Old enough to feel hormones at play - without understanding why they were turned on . ( Patsy allowing Jon Benet to prance around in high heels , provocative costumes - portraying a sexual being ( within her childlike body ) . This does affect pre- pubescent boys . Fact. The boys started playing Dr with her, doing kid like SA , & when she began to wake up & get feisty - they looped a lasso over her neck - created a garote to use to apply intermittent pressure . . They found Burke's swiss army knife down stairs & Burke & Doug were boy scouts who were knowledgeable on tying knots & Burke was well known to habitually whittle sticks of wood with his red knife - leaving wood shavings in his path ( that housekeeper had to clean up after him ). It's not a stretch to imagine this scenario.
* There was no penis penetration - paint brush was used instead . no sperm detected - no rape . An object ( broken piece of paint brush ( same one as garote handle -( Patsys paint brush broken in half & whittled to sharp point - by pocket knife ) This crime was done by youth , not an adult . & Likely 2 youth - not typical of an adult crime . * Neighbor heard a child's shrill scream at midnight -
I highly doubt that the boys intended to end Jon Benets life . They likely had a history of SA her on other occasions ( autopsy report indicates history of previous sexual abuse ) This time it ended badly . They tightened garote too tight for too long ( which ordinarily wouldn't of killed her - but with her head injury - yes. ) She stops flailing, fighting - then stops breathing . The boys panic , . Ramsey's return home - HITS THE FAN ! TURMOIL - CHAOS- SCREAMING - CRYING - blaming - frantic discord ... Ramsey's send Doug away - have him swear never to say one word about what happened tonight . It was an accident after all - things would only get worse - much worse if he told . They sent him home on Jon Benets new sting ray bike she got for Xmas - off he goes riding bike a block away to get home . ( Her bike was indeed found at Stines home ) Then they take Burke upstairs & grill him . Tell him not to speak one word - ever - to anyone .. & they prepare him to go to a friend's house that morning ( planning on that once police were called over ) in the mean time he is to remain in his room. The crime scene staging begins. Patsy is so freaked out sobbing in grief . John dictated to her what to write for a cover up ransom note . She gets out her pad of paper , begins to write , then has to start over - crumples paper - throws in trash ( as was found later by police ) also the pad showed the almost invisible writing pressed into the remaining sheet of paper that was directly under the note Patsy wrote. They ran around doing whatever - brought back up to kitchen ( from basement ) wiped it down of ANY fingerprints . Patsy re- dressed Jon Benet , & they wrapped her up in her favorite white blanket . . Possibly did apply duct tape only to her mouth - just to give the idea of an intruder type of assault . Spent a few hours trying to to calm down & wiping down anywhere fingerprints could be . Then we know the rest . The 911 phone call .
My theory - by researching the evidence & following time line - & looking at the history of behavior of Ramsey family members. As well as understanding human nature , using common sense , following my instincts ( there's many lies being told , much info not being told ). This is not a DNA case . So none of that ' unknown male DNA ' makes any difference. Even IF a male were to be identified - that would not discount any of the Ramsey's involvement . It would be normal for any of the Ramsey's DNA to be on Jon Benets body, clothes , blanket. That is why it is not a DNA case .
No intruder - no signs of breaking into house .
** NO footprints or any activity outside of any of the houses windows, doors, yard . There was a slight skiff of snow, as well as undisturbed frost .
* No kidnapping - occurred. Not at any point in this timeline .
* The Ramsey's didn't even treat the situation as a kidnapping ! The note specifically states DO NOT call police - or your daughter will DIE , etc..etc... the note warned what would happen to.their ( abducted) daughter is the Ramsey's spoke to ANYONE . NO attempts were made by John to get the ransom money together .
They immediately called the cops. Because that was how they planned to handle the aftermath of this horrific crime . The Ramsey's knew there was no danger in calling the cops - ( it was in their plan to do just that ) .. they knew she wouldn't be " be-headed" - if they called 911 - because they KNEW she had not been taken from the house . NOT kidnapped. They KNEW she was already dead .

YES. With very few variations, this is exactly how I saw it playing out. Burke! Then Patsy in her absolute obsession to somehow preserve whatever shreds of her picture perfect family she could, perpetrated the entire insane scenario. I even wonder if she did it without John ‘s cooperation. He may not have found out anything until Patsy had already called 911…. What do you think?

 

[Ponytale]

YES. With very few variations, this is exactly how I saw it playing out. Burke! Then Patsy in her absolute obsession to somehow preserve whatever shreds of her picture perfect family she could, perpetrated the entire insane scenario. I even wonder if she did it without John ‘s cooperation. He may not have found out anything until Patsy had already called 911…. What do you think?

I think they were both involved in the cover up. I see no reason why Patsy would need to hide it from John. And as it was a very traumatic and unexpected event (the accident itself and the severity of it - JB not waking up), I think that Patsy must have been an emotional whirlwind that night after finding JonBenet - shocked, devastated, confused, in denial, panicking and hysterical - all the emotions that overwhelm you in such events. She must have needed support and guidance. Possibly even from someone outside the family (the missing phone call records).

I think they both came up with the idea that they both excepted and mutually constructed the cover up. They needed to get their stories straight for the morning.
What I don't see is Burke being around for the time of the cover up. I believe that he was sent to bed, so that he would not be in the way - see and hear and ask questions. I think that it would have been a lot harder for them to go with the cover up if Burke would have been around for all that time. The chances of him talking later about something that he saw or heard would have been much higher.

 

[magnum0710]

I'm going to be completely honest, I was a child myself when this happened. JBR would be around my age today. I remember hearing about it on the news and my mother believing it was John and Patsy which was likely because of the narrative in the media at the time. If you would've asked me before the Netflix documentary I would've said that it was probably the parents. After seeing the documentary I don't think that the Ramseys did it.

Personally my money is on John Mark Karr, he's the best suspect. I know what you're thinking "the DNA wasn't a match" and normally I'd agree with you. However, as was said in the documentary, the Ramseys weren't excluded as suspects based off the DNA so why should John Mark Karr or any other suspects be excluded solely off the DNA in this case. The DNA could possibly be contaminated. The bottom line on the DNA is it needs to be retested with modern technology.

Karr's story just made too much sense, and I don't believe he was just seeking attention. If he was seeking attention he wouldn't have bothered to use an alias when talking to Michael Tracey for 4 years. He wouldn't have covered his tracks so well either, his calls and emails to Mike Tracey were pretty much untraceable. A crackpot looking for their 15 minutes of fame just doesn't go to those lengths, covering his tracks wouldn't have been conducive to that . If Mike Tracey hadn't gained his trust over the course of 4 years and Tracey hadn't offered him the legitimate last photo of JonBenét alive I don't think we would've found out who "Daxis" really was. I could have this part mixed up but if I'm not mistaken didn't Karr live in Gerogia at the same time as the Ramseys? Not to mention when their housekeeper saw Karr's picture she told John Ramsey he was in their garage asking her questions. Sure a lot of details he had were known already but how did he know the grandmothers nickname? That's not something that would have been known by just anybody.

Another candidate is the photographer from the pagents but my money is still on Karr.

As for the Ramseys I have to say I believe John Ramsey and if you know me personally that says a lot. It's rare that I take someone at their word alone in these types of situations. Everything he said, how he said it, his mannerisms, I actually believe the man. Another reason I don't think it was the Ramseys is because Patsy was obviously impaired during the "there's a killer on the loose" interview. I probably would've been a couple sheets to the wind myself if I was in their shoes. Also, think about the gorrote, your average housewife and businessman with a family has no idea what that is. You don't just come up with the idea to tie a piece of rope to a wood handle either, an amateur would have simply used the rope. That was someone with experience in that sort of thing. I had no idea there was a word for that until I saw the documentary. I doubt the Ramseys owned so much as a run of the mill adult toy let alone something of that nature. The gorrote was made by someone with experience, someone with violent sexual tendencies.

As for the people that think Burke did it, this was way too sophisticated for it to be a child. The gorrote alone is too sophisticated for a child that age to come up with. Let's not forget the taser burns either, a child wouldn't have known exactly where to tase someone so they'd become incapacitated. Again that points to someone with experience. This wasn't the killers first rodeo. I know what you're thinking "the parents covered it up" well that just doesn't make sense. There are much easier ways to cover things up and if it was a cover job they wouldn't have left her in the basement. And yes I think she was in the basement the entire time.

This was definitely a pedophile, wether it was Karr, the Photographer, someone else or multiple someone's. There were some "unsavory" types at those pagents who obviously didnt belong there. It could also have been a family friend or possibly a neighbor. They say that killers like to return to the scene of the crime right? Boulder PD didn't treat the house as a crime scene, friends and family were allowed in that day/night for support. Who's to say it wasn't someone that the Ramseys knew? It would've been an opportunity to hide evidence without suspicion.


There are just too many what ifs in this case. First and foremost the DNA needs to be retested with modern technology including genealogy. The ball was dropped from the beginning and Boulder PD didn't even try to look at other suspects. The best chance of solving this is retesting the DNA with the technology and options we have now. That's how they got Dennis Bowman on the 1980 murder, I think it's the best chance in this case too. The bottom line is you have to look at the facts and what makes the most sense. No one in the Ramsey family really makes sense when you look at it all. No one who believes it was John and Patsy can ignore the DNA didn't match them yet exclude other suspects. There is either an issue with the DNA or the right match hasn't been found yet. Operating on the assumption that there is an issue with the DNA, Karr is the most likely suspect in my non-professional opinion. If the right match just hasn't been found then the investigators need to go back to the beginning. Boulder PD didn't look at anyone but the Ramseys during the original investigation. We know there were reports that there were some odd persons at the pagents, we also know there's at least some footage from the pagents. The question here is how much footage is there and are there enough shots of the crowd to where it can be enhanced? Is there enough to where we can try to identify people that don't belong at the pagents that weren't looked at previously? Were friends and neighbors ever looked at? Was their DNA tested? In any case I don't believe it was any of the Ramseys.

 

[Ponytale]

As for the people that think Burke did it, this was way too sophisticated for it to be a child. The gorrote alone is too sophisticated for a child that age to come up with.

Yes, but many here who believe in Burkes involvement actually believe that he was behind the accident, not the cover up.

Let's not forget the taser burns either, a child wouldn't have known exactly where to tase someone so they'd become incapacitated.

This theory has been debunked. There were no taser burns as the burn marks did not match any taser guns available at that time.

I know what you're thinking "the parents covered it up" well that just doesn't make sense.

IMO, it makes a lot more sense then that a stranger (khm, a foreign faction) actually planned to enter their house on the Christmas night to assault and kill a random 6-year-old girl. Risking in getting caught, seen or heard. Risking of leaving evidence, fingerprints and DNA behind. Taking the time to find all the needed supplies while the family slept upstairs and writing a lengthy ransom note. Just for what? All that just for a ridiculous amount of ransom... Nope. Sorry, not believing.

There are much easier ways to cover things up and if it was a cover job they wouldn't have left her in the basement. And yes I think she was in the basement the entire time.

You do not know what they would have done or would have not done, to say that they wouldn't.
I believe that they would. It was their beloved daughter after all. I see them keeping her in the house - safe and wrapped in her soft blanket, waiting to be found. Rather then thrown her out in a landfill or hide her in the woods for animals to desecrate her body. They wanted a proper burial. IMO

In any case I don't believe it was any of the Ramseys.

I would suggest keeping an open mind.

 

[CloudedTruth]

John Mark Karr was / is a troubled person who most likely suffers from a personality disorder. He became obsessed with the JBR story which fits with his personality. He dreams and obsesses about ideas, people, children. He wanted to be a rock star at one time, he wanted to be famous. He has no history of violence or killing.

At the time he was in contact with Mike Tracey (another character with questionable credibility who was stringing JMK along), Karr was in Thailand because he was wanted on charges in the US. He had fled the country and wanted to keep his identity a secret so that LE would not know where he was so that he could be held accountable.

Not only did his DNA not match the Ramsey crime scene DNA, LE were able to prove rather easily (not sure why DA Lacy did not think to look into this before she wasted taxpayer $$$$ on bringing him back from Thailand) that he was not in Colorado at the time of the murder.

His story that he told Tracey consisted of details that were already in the public domain. He added that he had drugged her, and yet there were no traces of any drugs found in her system.

There is no evidence that John Mark Karr ever lived in Boulder, or had ever even been to Colorado. He had for whatever reason, developed an obsession with the JBR story from seeing all the media coverage about her death. It has been a captivating story ever since it broke in the news. Look at all of us here still discussing it all these years later.

The story about JMK being in the garage came from the house in Michigan, not Boulder. They could not prove that he was ever in Michigan. JMK was born in Conyers, Georgia but grew up in Alabama. He married his first wife in 1989 and they lived in Alabama before moving to Petaluma, California in 2000. JB was born in 1990 and the Ramseys moved to Colorado in 1991. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ramseys and JMK ever crossed paths.

It is simply not true that BPD never looked at other suspects. Last I heard, the Ramsey case file contains over 40,000 reports totaling over 1 million pages. It includes nearly 2500 pieces of evidence. The team has investigated over 21,000 tips and interviewed over 1000 people. The database includes samples from over 200 people, which includes handwriting, DNA, fingerprints and shoeprints.

Yes BPD made some mistakes early on in the case, most notably on the first day when they were ordered by police hierarchy to treat the Ramseys like victims and with kid gloves.

Some facts to consider. The Ramsey house was large with a very confusing layout. The basement in particular was cluttered and full of stuff. Even JR himself stated that it had to be an inside job, someone that was familiar with the layout of the house. Yet he goes back and forth between that and that it was some random pedophile. The DNA that was left behind was a very small amount. Only the spot found in her panties (mixed with her blood) could be identified as possibly being from saliva. They had to work very hard to pull a full profile after testing more than once, and at that it just barely met the requirements for uploading into CODIS. There has never been a "hit" in all these years.

The other DNA found was touch. It could have come from anywhere and at anytime. PR stated that JB did not have a bath that day and she could not say when it was that JB had last taken a bath. She was riding her bike around and there were kids from the neighborhood playing in and around the house that day. Then they were at the White's house that afternoon and evening for the Christmas dinner party along with other people. JB was playing on the floor with Daphne White. Where had all the other guests been that day? There are many possibilities as to where that DNA could've come from.

The Grand Jury saw evidence and heard testimony that the public has not and it remains sealed. Lou Smit was allowed to submit his powerpoint presentation to the GJ about his intruder theory. He was not able to find a taser gun that matched the marks, the coroner identified them as abrasions. A taser leaves burn marks. The GJ didn't buy the intruder theory and voted to indict both PR and JR on two counts each.

 

[magnum0710]

Yes, but many here who believe in Burkes involvement actually believe that he was behind the accident, not the cover up.

This theory has been debunked. There were no taser burns as the burn marks did not match any taser guns available at that time.

IMO, it makes a lot more sense then that a stranger (khm, a foreign faction) actually planned to enter their house on the Christmas night to assault and kill a random 6-year-old girl. Risking in getting caught, seen or heard. Risking of leaving evidence, fingerprints and DNA behind. Taking the time to find all the needed supplies while the family slept upstairs and writing a lengthy ransom note. Just for what? All that just for a ridiculous amount of ransom... Nope. Sorry, not believing.

You do not know what they would have done or would have not done, to say that they wouldn't.
I believe that they would. It was their beloved daughter after all. I see them keeping her in the house - safe and wrapped in her soft blanket, waiting to be found. Rather then thrown her out in a landfill or hide her in the woods for animals to desecrate her body. They wanted a proper burial. IMO

I would suggest keeping an open mind.

Let's operate on the theory that there was an accident involving Burke, you still couldn't convince me that the Ramseys knew what a gorrote was or how to make one. That isn't something that the average person knows about, it's not even something really used in movies. How many movies have there been where a hitman goes behind someone with a rope or string and chokes them? Now ask yourself how many times the rope was tied to a stick? I can't recall seeing a gorrote used in movies or TV. It's not like an object or method was used that's well known, had it been made to look like she was smothered with a pillow or that it was an accident and she just fell down the steps that theory would make sense. In fact, because her skull was cracked, making it look like an accident would have been their best bet. The gorrote points to someone with experience, especially taking into account how deep it was into her neck. If it were a cover up there would have been no need to do something that extreme. We're not talking about leaving a mark here, it was loged in her neck to where you could barely see it.

Also, you can't say that it was the Ramseys or that the Ramseys covered for Burke without the acknowledgement that there's at least an equal chance it was someone else. Wether it be a stranger or a family friend. If we're not excluding the Ramseys based on the DNA then no one else on the list of suspects can be excluded either. If we exclude Karr or anyone else because their DNA didn't match then we also have to exclude the Ramseys.

On the subject of DNA, if it were the Ramseys or the Ramseys covered for Burke, I highly doubt that John Ramsey would be actively campaigning to have the DNA retested with modern technology and genealogy. Sure Patsy is gone now but operating on the theory it was the Ramseys the DNA would end up being a match to someone in the family. If that were the case John would not want the DNA to be retested, no one including the dumbest of criminals would be calling for DNA to be retested if there was even the slightest chance that it could be linked to them. That goes double for the Burke theory, if they covered for Burke there's no way John would be publicly asking for the DNA to be retested.

You're right, I can't say for sure what they would or wouldn't have done, but what I can say is that it doesn't make sense. There are a number of other ways they could have covered it up and it not look as bad as it did. Even on the assumption that they wanted her close and they wanted a proper burial it still doesn't make sense. If it were about being respectful and having her wrapped in her blanket at home they wouldn't have sexually assaulted her. They wouldn't have sexually assaulted her as part of a cover up while simultaneously having remorse and trying to be respectful. If it were about being respectful they would have found a different way to cover it up that didn't involve something so horrific. The gorrote and how deep it was goes against that theory as well. The body was beyond desecrated, saying they didn't want to desecrate it just doesn't fit.

Why would a criminal take the risk of breaking into the house, possibly getting caught by the parents, etc? Why do criminals do any of the things they do? Why do criminals break into houses in general, why do they do home invasions and how would this be different from any other home invasion? How many kids have been kidnapped right out of their bedroom windows with their parents home? How many women have been raped by a prowler in their own home? Some criminals enjoy risk taking behavior, for some it's all about the thrill. If it were someone else either they watched the Ramseys for a while and carefully planned it or it was someone close to them and knew how they operated. In any case it wouldn't have been too hard to figure out that the Ramseys were on the third floor and the kids on the second floor.

As for the odd ransom amount which makes more sense, that the Ramseys used the same number as John's bonus or that someone else saw or somehow knew how much his bonus was and used that in the letter? If I was in the midst of a cover up I'm not going to use the same amount as my bonus because that would point to me, kind of the opposite thing you'd want to do in a cover up. The ransom amount being the same as John's bonus seems more like a taunt from the killer if you ask me. We have to remember the Ramseys were gone for hours that night, if someone had been in the house waiting chances are they went through stuff and saw how much the bonus was. Alternatively if it were someone close to the Ramseys they likely knew how much John's bonus was.

I never said I believed it was KHM or some foreign faction and I never said the ransom note made sense. That was obviously used to throw off the investigation by whoever did it. Again, I don't think the Ramseys would have used the same amount as John's bonus, either someone found out how much the bonus was while waiting in the house and it was fresh in their mind or it was someone close to the Ramseys who knew about the bonus and was possibly even upset by the amount of the bonus.

How and when were the taser marks debunked? I'm not saying you're wrong just that I never seen or heard anything about them being debunked. Boulder PD said the marks weren't relevant, but Lou Smit tested various tasers on pig skin and found a match. Porcine gelatin is used in ballistics testing because pig skin is the closest to human skin so there is science behind why Smit used pork skin. I can't say wether or not other agencies have used pig skin to test for taser marks or anything else but the FBI uses 10% ballistic gel made from pork flesh to test bullet performance. I have to believe that a taser would've left identical marks on pork skin. Even if the color was different the shape would have been the same and that's what Smit was looking for.

Do I believe Karr is the most likely suspect? You bet I do, but I also believe it could have been a number of other people. The photographer, random pedophiles who went to the pagents or a close friend or family member of the Ramseys. What I don't believe is that Burke did it, wether accidentally or on purpose, nor do I believe the Ramseys had anything to do with it. Did Boulder PD drop the ball? Absolutely but they also tried any and every way they could to prove it was the Ramseys. They werent able to and it wasnt for lack of trying. Any theory that involves the Ramseys is saying that they're idiots while at the same time saying they're criminal masterminds. It's way more likely that a pedophile (wether it be Karr, the photographer, a random person, or someone close to the family) broke in with the intention of abusing JBR sexually but then took it too far. When she died they panicked, left the body and wrote that ridiculous ransom note. The Ramseys did it or Burke did it and the ramseys covered it up is just too convoluted and too contradictory. You have to remember I did believe it was the Ramseys up until recently so this is all coming from an open mind. When you look at the big picture the Ramseys being involved just doesn't make sense.

 

[Mauig’ma]

I'm going to be completely honest, I was a child myself when this happened. JBR would be around my age today. I remember hearing about it on the news and my mother believing it was John and Patsy which was likely because of the narrative in the media at the time. If you would've asked me before the Netflix documentary I would've said that it was probably the parents. After seeing the documentary I don't think that the Ramseys did it.

Personally my money is on John Mark Karr, he's the best suspect. I know what you're thinking "the DNA wasn't a match" and normally I'd agree with you. However, as was said in the documentary, the Ramseys weren't excluded as suspects based off the DNA so why should John Mark Karr or any other suspects be excluded solely off the DNA in this case. The DNA could possibly be contaminated. The bottom line on the DNA is it needs to be retested with modern technology.

Karr's story just made too much sense, and I don't believe he was just seeking attention. If he was seeking attention he wouldn't have bothered to use an alias when talking to Michael Tracey for 4 years. He wouldn't have covered his tracks so well either, his calls and emails to Mike Tracey were pretty much untraceable. A crackpot looking for their 15 minutes of fame just doesn't go to those lengths, covering his tracks wouldn't have been conducive to that . If Mike Tracey hadn't gained his trust over the course of 4 years and Tracey hadn't offered him the legitimate last photo of JonBenét alive I don't think we would've found out who "Daxis" really was. I could have this part mixed up but if I'm not mistaken didn't Karr live in Gerogia at the same time as the Ramseys? Not to mention when their housekeeper saw Karr's picture she told John Ramsey he was in their garage asking her questions. Sure a lot of details he had were known already but how did he know the grandmothers nickname? That's not something that would have been known by just anybody.

Another candidate is the photographer from the pagents but my money is still on Karr.

As for the Ramseys I have to say I believe John Ramsey and if you know me personally that says a lot. It's rare that I take someone at their word alone in these types of situations. Everything he said, how he said it, his mannerisms, I actually believe the man. Another reason I don't think it was the Ramseys is because Patsy was obviously impaired during the "there's a killer on the loose" interview. I probably would've been a couple sheets to the wind myself if I was in their shoes. Also, think about the gorrote, your average housewife and businessman with a family has no idea what that is. You don't just come up with the idea to tie a piece of rope to a wood handle either, an amateur would have simply used the rope. That was someone with experience in that sort of thing. I had no idea there was a word for that until I saw the documentary. I doubt the Ramseys owned so much as a run of the mill adult toy let alone something of that nature. The gorrote was made by someone with experience, someone with violent sexual tendencies.

As for the people that think Burke did it, this was way too sophisticated for it to be a child. The gorrote alone is too sophisticated for a child that age to come up with. Let's not forget the taser burns either, a child wouldn't have known exactly where to tase someone so they'd become incapacitated. Again that points to someone with experience. This wasn't the killers first rodeo. I know what you're thinking "the parents covered it up" well that just doesn't make sense. There are much easier ways to cover things up and if it was a cover job they wouldn't have left her in the basement. And yes I think she was in the basement the entire time.

This was definitely a pedophile, wether it was Karr, the Photographer, someone else or multiple someone's. There were some "unsavory" types at those pagents who obviously didnt belong there. It could also have been a family friend or possibly a neighbor. They say that killers like to return to the scene of the crime right? Boulder PD didn't treat the house as a crime scene, friends and family were allowed in that day/night for support. Who's to say it wasn't someone that the Ramseys knew? It would've been an opportunity to hide evidence without suspicion.


There are just too many what ifs in this case. First and foremost the DNA needs to be retested with modern technology including genealogy. The ball was dropped from the beginning and Boulder PD didn't even try to look at other suspects. The best chance of solving this is retesting the DNA with the technology and options we have now. That's how they got Dennis Bowman on the 1980 murder, I think it's the best chance in this case too. The bottom line is you have to look at the facts and what makes the most sense. No one in the Ramsey family really makes sense when you look at it all. No one who believes it was John and Patsy can ignore the DNA didn't match them yet exclude other suspects. There is either an issue with the DNA or the right match hasn't been found yet. Operating on the assumption that there is an issue with the DNA, Karr is the most likely suspect in my non-professional opinion. If the right match just hasn't been found then the investigators need to go back to the beginning. Boulder PD didn't look at anyone but the Ramseys during the original investigation. We know there were reports that there were some odd persons at the pagents, we also know there's at least some footage from the pagents. The question here is how much footage is there and are there enough shots of the crowd to where it can be enhanced? Is there enough to where we can try to identify people that don't belong at the pagents that weren't looked at previously? Were friends and neighbors ever looked at? Was their DNA tested? In any case I don't believe it was any of the Ramseys.

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for sharing the same thoughts I have