Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

Going with your theory that PR was innocent, how in the world can you explain her NOT reading the entire RN? That is the part that is just so unbelievable to me! I can't imagine not reading the entire thing, probably more than once! It just doesn't ring true to me.

Had I been in their situation, presuming of course that one or both were innocent, why not read it several times? Discuss it? Wake BR & grill him about what he might have heard? At least have a few minutes of debate about the best course of action to take considering the threats to JB's life?

Of course one, or both IMO, were guilty so they didn't need to worry about JB at that point. They only people they were worried about were the two of them.

As far as them not treating the RN threats as real, I think that was 1. unimportant to them as they knew she was already dead, and 2. they had to invite half of Boulder in to contaminate the crime scene.

If JR alone is guilty, why didn't HE treat the threats as real? Why didn't HE make sure PR told them not to show up in marked cars & uniforms? Why didn't HE tell PR that no one else was to be invited over? Fact is, JR didn't treat the RN threats as any more real than PR did!

A little OT but if PR was innocent, why did she agree to let BR be shuttled over to the W's house? What happened to "keep your babies close!"? Wouldn't she have been worried that they might nab BR too? I wouldn't have let him out of my sight for years! For that matter, why didn't she insist on him having an armed guard when he went back to school?

Sorry Chrishope, I just can't see any way to exclude PR from at minimum, the knowledge of what had happened. That's what led me away from DocG's theory. Her behavior, and choices, were not that of an innocent woman.

Nom de plume,
ITA. Also DocG's theory is more a prediction than a theory since it cannot be tested. Its all about something that might have taken place if something else had not intervened!

.

 

[BOESP]

No, I'm not assuming she didn't read it, I'm assuming an either/or situation. Either she didn't read it fully, or she did read it fully and chose to ignore the warnings. If she's innocent, as Scarlet believes, why would she ignore the warnings altogether -even if she thought they were a bit exaggerated? If the kidnapping were real there would be a good reason to be concerned about what the kidnappers might do to JB.

As you note, if she wrote it she didn't need to read it, or believe the warnings, but she'd still have to pretend that it was a real RN left by real kidnappers. So, not heeding the warnings, at all -in fact flagrantly violating the instructions - she seems to treat the note as if it's not real, or at least as if the threats are not real.

If it's an RDI case and the RN is staged, wouldn't it be more believable if "they" pretended to take it very seriously? That suggests to me that there is no "team effort" between JR/PR. If "they" want to run with the kidnapping story, why don't "they" treat the RN like they really think it's an actual RN?

I hear the "Help me Jesus" part of the enhanced tape, and I account for it by saying that she was simply asking Jesus to help her in a time of need. I have never heard "They're gonna arrest me".

Chrishope, I don't think they had any choice but call police. The events and stories were convoluted enough without throwing in yet another twist to explain to John's kids who would soon be heading out to Charlevoix why the Ramseys could not make the trip.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Chrishope, I don't think they had any choice but call police. The events and stories were convoluted enough without throwing in yet another twist to explain to John's kids who would soon be heading out to Charlevoix why the Ramseys could not make the trip.

Sure they did. If they were really trying to get away with something the best way to get that done is to not have the body in the house. So they could have waited to call police until they had more time to clean up.

They know when they make that call the police are coming the fbi are most likely coming..

They called the police because they needed help. Because their child was missing.

 

[Chrishope]

Sure they did. If they were really trying to get away with something the best way to get that done is to not have the body in the house. So they could have waited to call police until they had more time to clean up.

They know when they make that call the police are coming the fbi are most likely coming..

They called the police because they needed help. Because their child was missing.

No doubt about it.


They could make the 911 call anytime they wanted if they were working together. They had to tell the older kids something, but they didn't need to make a 911 call with the body in the home.

I do like Nom's theory that the body was meant to be found to quickly turn it into a murder case and keep the FBI out of it. I don't agree, but at least it makes some sense. Aside from Nom's theory, it makes no sense to have called 911 with the body in the house unless they were innocent (which is absurd) or unless they were not working together.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume,
ITA. Also DocG's theory is more a prediction than a theory since it cannot be tested. Its all about something that might have taken place if something else had not intervened!

.

Nobody's theories can be tested! DocG's theory makes a lot of sense, in a lot of ways. It just doesn't take into account PR's knowledge of, or participation in the murder or cover up.

 

[Chrishope]

Going with your theory that PR was innocent, how in the world can you explain her NOT reading the entire RN? That is the part that is just so unbelievable to me! I can't imagine not reading the entire thing, probably more than once! It just doesn't ring true to me.

I can appreciate that. Maybe it helps to look at it this way - if PR wrote the note, then she knows very well what it says, word by word. So it that were the case, why call 911 with the body in the house - thus destroying the plausibility of the kidnap scenario (*) and why violate every instruction in the note making it obvious that one has either not read it, or doesn't take it seriously?

(*) They/he/she were running a kidnap scenario to cover up a murder. They were not running a sex murder "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario, because none of the evidence of sexual activity can be discerned before the body is on the autopsy table.

Between the those two choices - Reading only far enough to think there is a kidnapping, or not taking one's own staged RN seriously thereby making it impossible for authorities to take it seriously, I opt for the former.

Had I been in their situation, presuming of course that one or both were innocent, why not read it several times? Discuss it? Wake BR & grill him about what he might have heard? At least have a few minutes of debate about the best course of action to take considering the threats to JB's life?

That's probably what I would have done. But it makes sense to call the police as soon as possible. If your daughter has been kidnapped how much time do you want to spend reading a RN, debating the pros and cons of different courses of action, and so on?

"IF" PR thought it was really a kidnapping she would not know if JBR had been taken 7 hours ago, or 7 minutes. She might have felt time was of the essence.

Of course one, or both IMO, were guilty so they didn't need to worry about JB at that point. They only people they were worried about were the two of them.

I certainly agree at least one of them were guilty.

As far as them not treating the RN threats as real, I think that was 1. unimportant to them as they knew she was already dead, and 2. they had to invite half of Boulder in to contaminate the crime scene.

It had to be important because they would want to appear to actually believe the RN was real. They'd want to act in a way they thought was consistent with the note being real. I have my doubts that friends were called to contaminate the crime scene.

If JR alone is guilty, why didn't HE treat the threats as real? Why didn't HE make sure PR told them not to show up in marked cars & uniforms? Why didn't HE tell PR that no one else was to be invited over? Fact is, JR didn't treat the RN threats as any more real than PR did!

That's a very reasonable point. In all theories there will be these kind of -Why? - questions. I ask the same question about both PR/JR if they are working together, why not treat the note seriously? "They" don't treat the note seriously, so they must not be working together. Why didn't JR make sure? It could be as simple as PR deciding to make the call and making it before JR could do anything about it. Three little numbers 9-1-1. Once they are dialed it's too late. If the phone is hung up, the cops are coming. If the person on the phone assures the operator that everything is ok, and the 911 call was a mistake, then ok, but if PR was actually innocent, and felt they needed the cops, she isn't going to tell the operator everything is ok.

I agree it's really hard not to see PR as being involved, at least in the cover up. For me it comes down to the RN/body issue. If PR were involved there would have been no 911 call until the body were disposed of. The only exception that makes a modicum of sense is your idea that turning a kidnap into a murder case gets the FBI and all their expertise and resources, off the case pronto.

A little OT but if PR was innocent, why did she agree to let BR be shuttled over to the W's house? What happened to "keep your babies close!"? Wouldn't she have been worried that they might nab BR too? I wouldn't have let him out of my sight for years! For that matter, why didn't she insist on him having an armed guard when he went back to school?

I've never thought there was anything wrong with sending BR off to the whites. First, if PR is actually innocent, why would she assume BR would be the target of a future abduction? If the "kidnappers" wanted BR too, they'd have taken him when they took JB. Second, it's unlikely the kidnapper is going to attempt to take BR during the day, with police on the case. He's nearby, at the W's, and perfectly safe.

I do think sending him off to the W's indicates they weren't the least bit concerned with what he might say. So either they had ensured his cooperation, or there was nothing BR knew that he could repeat that would make trouble for the Rs.

Sorry Chrishope, I just can't see any way to exclude PR from at minimum, the knowledge of what had happened. That's what led me away from DocG's theory. Her behavior, and choices, were not that of an innocent woman.

Well I respect your POV. I don't insist others agree with me. Your take seems perfectly reasonable to me. I just don't think "they" called 911 with the body in the house.

 

[BOESP]

No doubt about it.


They could make the 911 call anytime they wanted if they were working together. They had to tell the older kids something, but they didn't need to make a 911 call with the body in the home.

I do like Nom's theory that the body was meant to be found to quickly turn it into a murder case and keep the FBI out of it. I don't agree, but at least it makes some sense. Aside from Nom's theory, it makes no sense to have called 911 with the body in the house unless they were innocent (which is absurd) or unless they were not working together.

I disagree. :snooty:

If Steve Thomas's theory is correct, then the early morning of the 26th, John knew nothing about what happened. Thomas, iirc, compared John's actions to a "deer in the headlights." Not knowing explains John's strange comments to the police that morning (such as pointing out Patsy's pad and pen; saying it was an "inside job" and so forth). I think as the morning progressed John figured it out.

If Patsy did it then it seems logical that she was tired and worn out and knew the police would have to be called and had a "let's get it over with and call the police" attitude and "It will make me/us look more guilty if we don't call."

The above does not mean I don't think there possibly was some form of incest going on or abuse. It just means it looked less guilty to call the police than to not call them.

I've picked apart everything I can about Thomas's theory and I can't find anything that does not fit, including the part about how he thought Burke was just a mixed-up little kid.

 

[Chrishope]

I disagree. :snooty:

If Steve Thomas's theory is correct, then the early morning of the 26th, John knew nothing about what happened. Thomas, iirc, compared John's actions to a "deer in the headlights." Not knowing explains John's strange comments to the police that morning (such as pointing out Patsy's pad and pen; saying it was an "inside job" and so forth). I think as the morning progressed John figured it out.

If Patsy did it then it seems logical that she was tired and worn out and knew the police would have to be called and had a "let's get it over with and call the police" attitude and "It will make me/us look more guilty if we don't call."

The above does not mean I don't think there possibly was some form of incest going on or abuse. It just means it looked less guilty to call the police than to not call them.

I've picked apart everything I can about Thomas's theory and I can't find anything that does not fit, including the part about how he thought Burke was just a mixed-up little kid.

The part that doesn't fit is a RN and a body in the same house at the same time. If PR just wanted to get it over with, why the RN? Why not tear it up?


If JR was a deer in the headlights why did he make sure to say all the doors and windows were locked, then tell the lie about him breaking the basement window?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Sure they did. If they were really trying to get away with something the best way to get that done is to not have the body in the house. So they could have waited to call police until they had more time to clean up.

They know when they make that call the police are coming the fbi are most likely coming..

They called the police because they needed help. Because their child was missing.

Isn't this especially for your IDI arguments?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221732&highlight=idi

:seeya:

 

[Chrishope]

Isn't this especially for your IDI arguments?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221732&highlight=idi

:seeya:

No, because it applies to a JDI theory as well.

 

[Venom]

Highly unlikely here....could it be that PR made the 911 call too early, maybe she thought that JR had gotten the body out of the house. This is assuming that they both know what happened and are both trying to cover it up. Again, not really banking on that being what happened, just a possibility.

 

[Chrishope]

Highly unlikely here....could it be that PR made the 911 call too early, maybe she thought that JR had gotten the body out of the house. This is assuming that they both know what happened and are both trying to cover it up. Again, not really banking on that being what happened, just a possibility.

WATN (I think it was him) advanced a theory that a 3rd person was involved, and was supposed to have taken care of the body but didn't. PR made the call thinking the body had been dealt with.

It's hard to see how, if it was just JR/PR, that she wouldn't know whether or not the body had been taken care of.

 

[BOESP]

The part that doesn't fit is a RN and a body in the same house at the same time. If PR just wanted to get it over with, why the RN? Why not tear it up?


If JR was a deer in the headlights why did he make sure to say all the doors and windows were locked, then tell the lie about him breaking the basement window?

BBM. I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that Patsy only wanted to get on with calling the police and get that phone call over with. Calling the police was a big step that had to be taken without overt help from lawyers. It was her best hyperventilating performance.

In Thomas's theory (and I agree), the ransom note was a stage prop used by a person inexperienced in how real criminals behave and how real cases are investigated. She did what she thought would point to an outsider, not realizing that what she did pointed to staging instead.

BBM #2. Like I said, John's first few comments were likely the truth because he had no clue at that point about what his wife had done. As things progressed that morning, he figured it out and started back-peddling. I don't think he wanted Patsy to go to prison. Why would he if what happened was accidental and, perhaps, involved some prior event with Burke? That would be a lot of dirty linen to air in public, imo.

Family dynamics are not always what they seem. Men will also stand-by-their-women, so to speak. This isn't about having a mistress on the side. This is about keeping the status quo, as much as possible. I think he probably loved Patsy but I also think he wanted to maintain the trophy-wife image.

Frankly, I think John and Patsy both knew she was not going to make it for much longer because of the ovarian cancer. I think that played a big part in the decisions that were made that morning. You might also find it helpful (if you haven't already) to find information on "chemo brain."

 

[SapphireSteel]

I honestly don't know why people find it so hard to believe folks kill and torture their own kids.

We have a new example in the courts nearly every day, almost.

God alone knows the ones who aren't caught, but I'd guess it's the ones who can afford privacy. The wealthy can do what they like.

:twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I honestly don't know why people find it so hard to believe folks kill and torture their own kids.

We have a new example in the courts nearly every day, almost.

God alone knows the ones who aren't caught, but I'd guess it's the ones who can afford privacy. The wealthy can do what they like.

:twocents:

It is not hard to imagine people doing this, But there are ways they do it and ways they do not..

Further more DNA points away from the R's.

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties.\

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

 

[2 percent]

It is not hard to imagine people doing this, But there are ways they do it and ways they do not..

Further more DNA points away from the R's.

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties.\

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

Why is it that touch dna, which is pretty much skin cells rubbed off, is found in such odd places and not in others?

This intruder had to touch a pen for a very long time...no touch DNA

This intruder had to touch the pad of paper and/or table where the ransom note was written...no touch DNA

This intruder had to climb in/out of a window where vigorous rubbing of the hands would take place...no touch DNA

This intruder had to handle a rough rope, tie it and tighten it at regular intervals for a long time...no touch DNA

Up to this point you may say "he wore gloves!" (although why there are no fibers or other evidence of this, who knows)

Okay. But it's obvious you believe this intruder didn't wear gloves to take down JB's longjohns or touch her panties.
So why is there no touch DNA in her vaginal and labial area where obvious contact had to take place, enough to make her bleed? Why is there no touch DNA mingled with her blood in the vaginal and labial area?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why is it that touch dna, which is pretty much skin cells rubbed off, is found in such odd places and not in others?

This intruder had to touch a pen for a very long time...no touch DNA

This intruder had to touch the pad of paper and/or table where the ransom note was written...no touch DNA

This intruder had to climb in/out of a window where vigorous rubbing of the hands would take place...no touch DNA

This intruder had to handle a rough rope, tie it and tighten it at regular intervals for a long time...no touch DNA

Up to this point you may say "he wore gloves!" (although why there are no fibers or other evidence of this, who knows)

Okay. But it's obvious you believe this intruder didn't wear gloves to take down JB's longjohns or touch her panties.
So why is there no touch DNA in her vaginal and labial area where obvious contact had to take place, enough to make her bleed? Why is there no touch DNA mingled with her blood in the vaginal and labial area?

It is not just touch DNA but touch DNA that matches DNA found earlier.
This evidence is not disputable. It is what it is, That it does not fit in the box you would like it to? I cannot explain that. That it is there and 2 sources match each other but not any of the ramseys, is evidence it was not them.

 

[2 percent]

It is not just touch DNA but touch DNA that matches DNA found earlier.

If the fingernail DNA, the longjohn DNA and panty DNA all match, how did you rule out JB as the source of contamination?

This evidence is not disputable. It is what it is, That it does not fit in the box you would like it to? I cannot explain that. That it is there and 2 sources match each other but not any of the ramseys, is evidence it was not them.

DNA evidence is not perfect.
My questions are valid, please answer them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the fingernail DNA, the longjohn DNA and panty DNA all match, how did you rule out JB as the source of contamination?



DNA evidence is not perfect.
My questions are valid, please answer them.

No it is not perfect but when you have Touch DNA that matches Blood DNA that is an end game. That is not a supposed could be might be.

IT is real evidence. Not a made up scenario. That DNA has to be sourced and once it is most likely there is the killer. That is not evidence that can be tossed away.

 

[2 percent]

No it is not perfect but when you have Touch DNA that matches Blood DNA that is an end game. That is not a supposed could be might be.

Wait. One of us is not understanding the DNA findings.
All of the blood found is JBs, there was never any unknown blood DNA. What was found was a co-mingling of faint DNA that was theorized to come from either saliva or skin cells.

JBs blood in her panties co mingled with the touch or saliva DNA, which was not able to be tested at the time. Now it has and that co mingled DNA was shown to be touch DNA or skin cells which code as male DNA. That doesn't necessarily mean the male DNA was deposited at the time of the murder/sexual assault. If the fingernail DNA is the same as the co mingled panty DNA then the most likely source of contamination is JB herself by touching her underwear sometime during the day with dirty hands/fingernails.

IT is real evidence. Not a made up scenario. That DNA has to be sourced and once it is most likely there is the killer. That is not evidence that can be tossed away.

I'm not tossing it away. I'm categorizing it under "Incidental Contact" until further notice. Why? Because any foreign attacker during the brutal sexual assault would have left much more DNA behind than faint skin cell traces.