Questions to make sense of IDI theory

[Mr.Dandy]

I’ve questioned that same thing myself… about the suspect being away from home on Christmas. And also about why he didn’t just take JBR if he wanted a ransom? I mean, even if she was dead, he still could have tried to get some money out of it.Only he knew she was dead. But was he afraid to take her body? No where to put her? No car? Was he on foot? Ok, maybe the ransom was fake. Why spend so much time on it? Was this guy manic? Just rambling on? And the start of the other ransom note. What was that all about? I think it’s possible he was startled. Maybe someone got up so he had to leave in a hurry. Maybe he did plan to take her body but his time was cut short. I have considered that the basement was only used as a get away location, not an entrance. That could back up the idea that someone had woken up and interrupted him. More questions than answers in the case. It always circles back around to the same unanswered questions. I enjoy the discussion but it’s absolutely frustrating!

 

[INfisherman]

But he does risk writing a 3 page ransom note? He also risks feeding her a bowl of pineapple? He's not worried about JBR screaming when he snatches her out of her bedroom>? Is he using night vision goggles the whole time while moving up and down three levels of the home in the dark or does he risk turning lights on?

IMHO

Simply answering the OP - not supporting one theory or another. Hard for me to debate, as facts seem to get twisted/questioned over the years & urban legend also tends to become fact in this case, IMO

I agree with your questions, if that makes sense.

 

[Jink3]

There's a lot to unpack in the original post, but I'll try and keep it simple.

I'm fairly certain the killer, as you said, a loner drifter who wouldn't be missed on christmas day, had been stalking JB for quite some time, and saw the family leave together. He entered through the unfixed basement window that he already knew about, poked around for a while, wrote a ransom note, and eventually hid under the spare bed when the family returned.
At some point after the pineapple snack, he stun gunned her and carried her to the basement, dropping the note on the way. The kidnapping became botched and he elected to SA and silence her there and then. He escapes through the same window.
No ransom phonecall came because she was dead, so that plan was scrapped

Thats the short version, and there's no holes in this version of events.

There’s nothing BUT holes in this version of events…

The theory of an intruder creeping into the Ramsey home that night quickly unravels when you examine the evidence. The supposed entry point—the broken basement window—was untouched. Cobwebs stretched across its frame, undisturbed, and a thick layer of dust on the sill remained intact. Outside, the dew on the ground showed no footprints and near the window showed no signs of disturbance. It’s hard to imagine an intruder slinking through that window without leaving a single trace.

Then there’s the ransom note, a bizarre and lengthy letter that defies logic. If an intruder planned to kidnap JonBenét, why waste time penning a two-and-a-half-page note inside the home, with the family nearby? Stranger still, the note referenced specific details about the Ramseys, like the $118,000 ransom—a figure matching John Ramsey’s bonus—suggesting intimate knowledge of the family. A “loner drifter” wouldn’t have access to that information, nor would they risk lingering long enough to write what reads more like a screenplay than a genuine demand.

The theory of a stun gun is equally weak. Experts have shown the marks on JonBenét’s body are inconsistent with stun gun burns and better match objects like train tracks, possibly implicating something or someone within the house. Meanwhile, the claim that the intruder hid under a spare bed waiting for the family’s return also strains credibility. A thorough search of the home revealed no evidence of anyone lingering unnoticed—no stray belongings, no signs of movement, nothing.

The timeline doesn’t support a frenzied intruder either. After the blow to her head, JonBenét suffered a prolonged gap of 45 minutes to 2 hours before the garrote was used. This doesn’t fit with the idea of a botched kidnapping escalating to murder in the heat of the moment. Add to this the fact that JonBenét’s last meal—pineapple—was served in a bowl with Burke’s fingerprints, further tying the events of the evening to the family, not an outsider.

Finally, there’s the escape—or lack thereof. The intruder supposedly left through the same basement window, but again, the physical evidence tells a different story. Nothing was disturbed, no footprints were left behind, and no signs of an exit were ever found. When you piece it all together, the idea of a lone drifter stalking JonBenét collapses under the weight of the facts. The crime scene, the evidence, and the inconsistencies all point back inside the Ramsey home.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Ano, the stun gun has not 'been off the list'. Whats your explanation for these parallel marks that appeard on JB then?

True. Other coroners like Dobersen, who had worked with stun gun cases became convinced it was a stun gun (1 2 3 4). Meyer, who had conducted the autopsy, ended up agreeing as well:

After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenét’s face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

- Schiller, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", p453

If IDI & came & went through same window, how was the door in the basement, to the room in which JBR was discovered (that I can recall), latched from up top on the outside of the door?

The latched door was to the wine cellar, where JonBenet was found. There were no windows there, so it was never an entrance or exit.

If I were an intruder, I wouldn’t be risking going back upstairs & potentially running into someone who may be up & wandering around for any number of reasons in the middle of the night (bathroom, snacks, drinks, heard a noise, etc.), especially if I’ve just murdered their little girl, allegedly amongst having done other things.

Now, I believe the intruder came in via the train room window (in the crime scene video, the spiderweb isn't that big). There's evidence to support it (from the Carnes ruling):

There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF ¶ 132; PSMF ¶ 132.) In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF ¶ 135; PSMF ¶ 135.)[32] Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF ¶ 131; PSMF ¶ 131.) [...] Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF ¶ 136; PSMF ¶ 136.) Likewise, a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF ¶ 134; PSMF ¶ 134.)

But I don't believe that was the exit. Immediately upon coming up the basement stairs, you can enter the butler kitchen where there is a door to the outside. That side of the house is dark and shadowy, especially at night, and two witnesses saw that door slightly open on the morning of the 26th.

When John’s friend arrived at the Ramsey home at 6: 01 a.m., he “found the butler kitchen door standing open about one foot while it was still dark outside and before the evidence team or Det. Arndt arrived.” (BPD Report #1-1490, BPD Report # 1-1315.) The time noted was 6 a.m., so it was one of the first things the friend noticed. At 8 a.m., a neighbor whose home was just to the north of the Ramsey home “got up and observed a basement door leading into a kitchen area was standing wide open.” (BPD Report 1-100, Source.) In another report, the same neighbor “said that this door was approximately 1/ 3 of the way open when he saw it.”

Paula Woodward, "We Have Your Daughter" p254

Exiting via the butler door would mean little risk, but even so, there is another hint that this was the exit. Along the northern wall, there was a baseball bat found on a ledge. The bat had fibers attached that were consistent with the carpet on the basement, where JonBenet died, and it got the bill for bring one of the murder weapons.

Fibers from the basement carpet, but no fingerprints, were found on a baseball bat found just outside the Ramsey home. The bat was considered a possible weapon that could have been used to fracture JonBenet's skull.

Woodward, p402

The north side was not a place the kids played (it was a narrow and shadowy passage) and certainly not baseball. The bat was also found just when someone moving easy would leave the shadows and come into the open. So it looks to me like the killer took the bat with him as a precaution in case he was confronted by a parent, and then left it at the moment he could be seen by someone in the neighborhood.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The supposed entry point—the broken basement window—was untouched. Cobwebs stretched across its frame, undisturbed, and a thick layer of dust on the sill remained intact. Outside, the dew on the ground showed no footprints and near the window showed no signs of disturbance. It’s hard to imagine an intruder slinking through that window without leaving a single trace.

According to the Carnes ruling there were multiple traces:

There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF ¶ 132; PSMF ¶ 132.) In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF ¶ 135; PSMF ¶ 135.)[32] Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF ¶ 131; PSMF ¶ 131.) [...] Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF ¶ 136; PSMF ¶ 136.) Likewise, a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF ¶ 134; PSMF ¶ 134.)

Then there’s the ransom note, a bizarre and lengthy letter that defies logic. If an intruder planned to kidnap JonBenét, why waste time penning a two-and-a-half-page note inside the home, with the family nearby?

The easy answer is that it was never intended to be a kidnapping. An assault and a murder, more like. The ransom aspect, if it was ever intended to be serious, would be secondary at best.

You can tell by the garrotte, that's where the effort was made. That was the centerpiece.

Stranger still, the note referenced specific details about the Ramseys, like the $118,000 ransom—a figure matching John Ramsey’s bonus—suggesting intimate knowledge of the family.

The note suggests surface knowledge of the family. It referred to John as Southern, which he wasn't, but could be gleaned from a surface look at objects in the house - much like the figure 118,000 which was printed on all of John's paystubs.

A “loner drifter” wouldn’t have access to that information, nor would they risk lingering long enough to write what reads more like a screenplay than a genuine demand.

Based on the cigarette butts and the comments from Barbara Kostanick, this does not appear to have been a whim. And the flip side of "risk" is "thrill". He had committed the ultimate transgression, assaulted and murdered a child in her home, and no one had woken up. I think at that point he was very confident.

The theory of a stun gun is equally weak. Experts have shown the marks on JonBenét’s body are inconsistent with stun gun burns and better match objects like train tracks, possibly implicating something or someone within the house.

Experts like Dobersen thought it was a stun gun, and Meyer became convinced it was. Other experts who had worked similar cases agreed. I'm unaware of any expert backing the train track theory.

Meanwhile, the claim that the intruder hid under a spare bed waiting for the family’s return also strains credibility. A thorough search of the home revealed no evidence of anyone lingering unnoticed—no stray belongings, no signs of movement, nothing.

Rope was found in a brown paper bag in the room next to JonBenet's - rope that didn't belong to the Ramsey's (Woodward WHYD p401)

The timeline doesn’t support a frenzied intruder either. After the blow to her head, JonBenét suffered a prolonged gap of 45 minutes to 2 hours before the garrote was used.

This is not a fact. The autopsy doesn't place any time between them, and other pathologists like Wecht and Dobersen said the blow occurred just before or at death. The 45 min to 2 hours comes from an unreleased report by expert Rorke, and the excerpts we've seen does give a good description of what would happen at that point - the problem is that it contradicts the autopsy report.

This doesn’t fit with the idea of a botched kidnapping escalating to murder in the heat of the moment. Add to this the fact that JonBenét’s last meal—pineapple—was served in a bowl with Burke’s fingerprints, further tying the events of the evening to the family, not an outsider.

The pineapple on the bowl wasn't identified as the thing JonBenet ate. For one, as per the DAO's index, her duodenum also contained grapes and cherries, not present in the bowl.

The exact material in JonBenét's stomach and intestines was first discussed with experts at the University of Colorado on October 15, 1997 (BPD Report # 1-1156), more than ten months after JonBenét was killed. Their reports about the contents of her stomach/ proximal area were given to the Boulder Police Department more than a year later in January of 1998, (BPD Report #1-1349) one year after JonBenét's death. And that's when the mystery deepened and the misconception about what JonBenét actually ate was discovered. According to previously unreleased BPD reports, laboratory testing revealed that JonBenét also ate cherries and grapes as well as pineapple. Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/ proximal area of her small intestine. "Another item besides pineapple was cherries." (BPD Report #1-1348.) In that same report: "Another item besides pineapple was grapes." (BPD Report #1-1348.) Another report expands on the grapes, saying "grapes including skin and pulp." (BPD Report #1-349.)

Woodward, WHYD, p206

Thomas admits in his deposition that his claim of "consistent down to the rind" just means that the forensic botanists reported both sets of pineapple (bowl and duodenum) were from fresh pineapple - i.e. it had a rind.

24 Q. The pineapple, we know the autopsy

25 statement about the findings. Were there any


417


1 tests performed beyond the autopsy on those

2 contents?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Tell me about that.

5 A. What I know about that is

6 Detective Weinheimer received that assignment

7 during the course of the investigation,

8 employed the help of I think a biological --

9 or a botanist or somebody of some expertise

10 at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The

11 name Dr. Bach jumps out at me, as well as

12 others, and he completed a series of reports

13 concerning the pineapple and I think to save

14 time one of those conclusions I think I put

15 in the book.

16 Q. About the rinds being identical?

17 A. That it was a fresh pineapple

18 consistent -- fresh pineapple with a rind.

19 Q. Rind being consistent -- oh, with

20 a rind but consistent with pineapple found in

21 the house or in the bowl?

22 A. Yeah, and let me clarify that,

23 pineapple consistent down to the rind with

24 pineapple found in the bowl in the kitchen.

25 Q. Consistent down to the rind. It


418


1 seems to me pineapple with rind is pineapple

2 with rind. Was there something unique about

3 this particular rind?

4 A. I think they were able to

5 determine -- well, in fact, I know that

6 fellow Officer Weinheimer disclosed to us that

7 they were able to characterize it as a fresh

8 pineapple rather than a canned pineapple.

9 Q. Okay.

The bowl was set up with a serving spoon, not one used for eating. We also know that the victim advocates went out that morning and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone.

As the morning wore on, the victim advocates, Jedamus and Morlock, decided to go out and get bagels and fruit for everyone.

Schiller, PMPT, p34

The bagels can be seen on crime scene videos on the kitchen counter, untouched and plated on Ramsey plates (note the glass, same type as the one with the tea bag in it).

And on the breakfast table, opposite the pineapple bowl, is another glass and a butter knife.

So it looks to me like the pineapple bowl was part of the breakfast offering from the victim advocates, which explains the serving spoon, the bagels and why none of the Ramseys recognised it or why no one there that morning reacted to it.

Finally, there’s the escape—or lack thereof. The intruder supposedly left through the same basement window, but again, the physical evidence tells a different story.

Or he supposedly left through the butler door, which two witnesses said stood open that morning. The bat, the likely murder weapon, was found outside it.

When John’s friend arrived at the Ramsey home at 6: 01 a.m., he “found the butler kitchen door standing open about one foot while it was still dark outside and before the evidence team or Det. Arndt arrived.” (BPD Report #1-1490, BPD Report # 1-1315.) The time noted was 6 a.m., so it was one of the first things the friend noticed. At 8 a.m., a neighbor whose home was just to the north of the Ramsey home “got up and observed a basement door leading into a kitchen area was standing wide open.” (BPD Report 1-100, Source.) In another report, the same neighbor “said that this door was approximately 1/ 3 of the way open when he saw it.”

Woodward, WHYD, p254

 

[FMB]

True. Other coroners like Dobersen, who had worked with stun gun cases became convinced it was a stun gun (1 2 3 4). Meyer, who had conducted the autopsy, ended up agreeing as well:



- Schiller, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", p453



The latched door was to the wine cellar, where JonBenet was found. There were no windows there, so it was never an entrance or exit.



Now, I believe the intruder came in via the train room window (in the crime scene video, the spiderweb isn't that big). There's evidence to support it (from the Carnes ruling):



But I don't believe that was the exit. Immediately upon coming up the basement stairs, you can enter the butler kitchen where there is a door to the outside. That side of the house is dark and shadowy, especially at night, and two witnesses saw that door slightly open on the morning of the 26th.



Paula Woodward, "We Have Your Daughter" p254

Exiting via the butler door would mean little risk, but even so, there is another hint that this was the exit. Along the northern wall, there was a baseball bat found on a ledge. The bat had fibers attached that were consistent with the carpet on the basement, where JonBenet died, and it got the bill for bring one of the murder weapons.



Woodward, p402

The north side was not a place the kids played (it was a narrow and shadowy passage) and certainly not baseball. The bat was also found just when someone moving easy would leave the shadows and come into the open. So it looks to me like the killer took the bat with him as a precaution in case he was confronted by a parent, and then left it at the moment he could be seen by someone in the neighborhood.

Its speculation the marks left on Jonbenet could have been from stun gun. The manufacturer of the Air Taser has already stated on record that the stun gun does not leave marks like the ones left on Jonebenet. Additionally had a stun gun been used it does prove that an intruder was in the house as the gun could have been used by one of the Ramseys.

The marks left on Jonebenet were described as a close match but not an exact match to the Stun gun. You can speculate all day as to what caused those marks on Jonebenet and all can be attributed to the Ramseys.

Please explain how/why Jonbenet was snatched out of her bed without screaming and willingly went downstairs with this intruder and ate pineapple before she was smashed over her head and SAd by him and on top of that was tasered?

Yes the coroner did find undigested pineapple in her system and in the Bonita papers they confirm this fact. Your post above quoting Woodward's book leaves out the part that the experts who tested the pineapple determined there was no distinct difference between the pineapple found in her intestines and that found in the bowl in the kitchen.

 

[887sMtreme]

True. Other coroners like Dobersen, who had worked with stun gun cases became convinced it was a stun gun (1 2 3 4). Meyer, who had conducted the autopsy, ended up agreeing as well:



- Schiller, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", p453



The latched door was to the wine cellar, where JonBenet was found. There were no windows there, so it was never an entrance or exit.



Now, I believe the intruder came in via the train room window (in the crime scene video, the spiderweb isn't that big). There's evidence to support it (from the Carnes ruling):



But I don't believe that was the exit. Immediately upon coming up the basement stairs, you can enter the butler kitchen where there is a door to the outside. That side of the house is dark and shadowy, especially at night, and two witnesses saw that door slightly open on the morning of the 26th.



Paula Woodward, "We Have Your Daughter" p254

Exiting via the butler door would mean little risk, but even so, there is another hint that this was the exit. Along the northern wall, there was a baseball bat found on a ledge. The bat had fibers attached that were consistent with the carpet on the basement, where JonBenet died, and it got the bill for bring one of the murder weapons.



Woodward, p402

The north side was not a place the kids played (it was a narrow and shadowy passage) and certainly not baseball. The bat was also found just when someone moving easy would leave the shadows and come into the open. So it looks to me like the killer took the bat with him as a precaution in case he was confronted by a parent, and then left it at the moment he could be seen by someone in the neighborhood.

Woodward is not a reliable source.

 

[887sMtreme]

The family house was an easy target being next to that alleyway. Furthermore JB's bedroom directly looked onto the alley. We can't prove it (but the cigarette butts potentially point towards it)

He didn't need to breach the window or cobweb. Watch the forensic house tour video again. It was easy as pie to simply reach in through the gap.

And no, the stun gun has not 'been off the list'. Whats your explanation for these parallel marks that appeard on JB then?

The marks were abrasions, not burns, which in and of itself rules out the taser theory. No known manufacturer of tasers/“stun guns” available at that time made marks of that distance apart.

 

[887sMtreme]

This post contains many actual errors. You might want to expand your sources

According to the Carnes ruling there were multiple traces:





The easy answer is that it was never intended to be a kidnapping. An assault and a murder, more like. The ransom aspect, if it was ever intended to be serious, would be secondary at best.

You can tell by the garrotte, that's where the effort was made. That was the centerpiece.



The note suggests surface knowledge of the family. It referred to John as Southern, which he wasn't, but could be gleaned from a surface look at objects in the house - much like the figure 118,000 which was printed on all of John's paystubs.



Based on the cigarette butts and the comments from Barbara Kostanick, this does not appear to have been a whim. And the flip side of "risk" is "thrill". He had committed the ultimate transgression, assaulted and murdered a child in her home, and no one had woken up. I think at that point he was very confident.



Experts like Dobersen thought it was a stun gun, and Meyer became convinced it was. Other experts who had worked similar cases agreed. I'm unaware of any expert backing the train track theory.



Rope was found in a brown paper bag in the room next to JonBenet's - rope that didn't belong to the Ramsey's (Woodward WHYD p401)



This is not a fact. The autopsy doesn't place any time between them, and other pathologists like Wecht and Dobersen said the blow occurred just before or at death. The 45 min to 2 hours comes from an unreleased report by expert Rorke, and the excerpts we've seen does give a good description of what would happen at that point - the problem is that it contradicts the autopsy report.



The pineapple on the bowl wasn't identified as the thing JonBenet ate. For one, as per the DAO's index, her duodenum also contained grapes and cherries, not present in the bowl.



Woodward, WHYD, p206

Thomas admits in his deposition that his claim of "consistent down to the rind" just means that the forensic botanists reported both sets of pineapple (bowl and duodenum) were from fresh pineapple - i.e. it had a rind.



The bowl was set up with a serving spoon, not one used for eating. We also know that the victim advocates went out that morning and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone.



Schiller, PMPT, p34

The bagels can be seen on crime scene videos on the kitchen counter, untouched and plated on Ramsey plates (note the glass, same type as the one with the tea bag in it).

View attachment 551817
And on the breakfast table, opposite the pineapple bowl, is another glass and a butter knife.

View attachment 551818

So it looks to me like the pineapple bowl was part of the breakfast offering from the victim advocates, which explains the serving spoon, the bagels and why none of the Ramseys recognised it or why no one there that morning reacted to it.



Or he supposedly left through the butler door, which two witnesses said stood open that morning. The bat, the likely murder weapon, was found outside it.



Woodward, WHYD, p254

Your post contains a startling number of errors. I note your sources are a civil trial, the narrative of which itself contains errors, Paula Woodward — a known Ramsey acolyte — and even a crime scene photo of the kitchen counter to support a claim about the pineapple evidence that was located in a completely different room. I applaud your eagerness to dig for truth, but it’s hard to take you seriously with so many obvious gaffes threaded through your theory. Keep digging!

 

[CloudedTruth]

If I were an intruder, I wouldn’t be risking going back upstairs & potentially running into someone who may be up & wandering around for any number of reasons in the middle of the night (bathroom, snacks, drinks, heard a noise, etc.), especially if I’ve just murdered their little girl, allegedly amongst having done other things.

MOO

And yet this person was comfortable enough to literally spend hours in the house, seemingly not too concerned about being discovered. Supposedly boldly snatching her from her bed, feeding her pineapple......

There was also a time period of 40 minutes to 2 hours between the blow to the head and her TOD by strangulation. Neighbors heard a scream sometime between midnight and 2AM. This person didn't seem to be too concerned that anyone in the house heard that.

 

[CloudedTruth]

This post contains many actual errors. You might want to expand your sources

Your post contains a startling number of errors. I note your sources are a civil trial, the narrative of which itself contains errors, Paula Woodward — a known Ramsey acolyte — and even a crime scene photo of the kitchen counter to support a claim about the pineapple evidence that was located in a completely different room. I applaud your eagerness to dig for truth, but it’s hard to take you seriously with so many obvious gaffes threaded through your theory. Keep digging!

Pretty much all of this poster's sources are Ramsey acolytes.

 

[TizerisT]

Thank you Fergus, for pointing out these things, important thing which the majority ignore. I'm open to the idea of leaving through the front door, its entirely plausible

 

[INfisherman]

And yet this person was comfortable enough to literally spend hours in the house, seemingly not too concerned about being discovered. Supposedly boldly snatching her from her bed, feeding her pineapple......

There was also a time period of 40 minutes to 2 hours between the blow to the head and her TOD by strangulation. Neighbors heard a scream sometime between midnight and 2AM. This person didn't seem to be too concerned that anyone in the house heard that.

Yes, quite a few difficult if not impossible scenarios/events to explain, if all are indeed facts. No reason to bring me into the forefront of discussion, as I lack knowledge of the facts of the case & just my observation is they’re in dispute amongst members here. Not pointing the finger at anyone, just noting what it reads like to me. I only bring what I feel are logical questions based on what another proposes as theory. I was a tad bit incorrect previously regarding details of where body was found vs "escape" window but the point was - how did the door get latched on the outside.

The above which you quoted is more of the same - I wouldn’t take certain risks. You add to that with your input of illogical alleged occurrences.

I was in my early to mid 20’s when the murder occurred. I never liked the way the case was handled nor how the family behaved afterwards. LE was too worried about appearances, it seemed. With that said, I’m not one who’s researched much of the case to give any valued input Just following along & playing devil’s advocate in a sense.

Amazing this crap, for lack of better words, has been ongoing for almost 30 years. LE should get their act together, but DA seems intent on getting in the way from time to time. Too much politics intertwined in all of it.

JMO

 

[Jink3]

Its speculation the marks left on Jonbenet could have been from stun gun. The manufacturer of the Air Taser has already stated on record that the stun gun does not leave marks like the ones left on Jonebenet. Additionally had a stun gun been used it does prove that an intruder was in the house as the gun could have been used by one of the Ramseys.

The marks left on Jonebenet were described as a close match but not an exact match to the Stun gun. You can speculate all day as to what caused those marks on Jonebenet and all can be attributed to the Ramseys.

Please explain how/why Jonbenet was snatched out of her bed without screaming and willingly went downstairs with this intruder and ate pineapple before she was smashed over her head and SAd by him and on top of that was tasered?

Yes the coroner did find undigested pineapple in her system and in the Bonita papers they confirm this fact. Your post above quoting Woodward's book leaves out the part that the experts who tested the pineapple determined there was no distinct difference between the pineapple found in her intestines and that found in the bowl in the kitchen.

According to the Carnes ruling there were multiple traces:





The easy answer is that it was never intended to be a kidnapping. An assault and a murder, more like. The ransom aspect, if it was ever intended to be serious, would be secondary at best.

You can tell by the garrotte, that's where the effort was made. That was the centerpiece.



The note suggests surface knowledge of the family. It referred to John as Southern, which he wasn't, but could be gleaned from a surface look at objects in the house - much like the figure 118,000 which was printed on all of John's paystubs.



Based on the cigarette butts and the comments from Barbara Kostanick, this does not appear to have been a whim. And the flip side of "risk" is "thrill". He had committed the ultimate transgression, assaulted and murdered a child in her home, and no one had woken up. I think at that point he was very confident.



Experts like Dobersen thought it was a stun gun, and Meyer became convinced it was. Other experts who had worked similar cases agreed. I'm unaware of any expert backing the train track theory.



Rope was found in a brown paper bag in the room next to JonBenet's - rope that didn't belong to the Ramsey's (Woodward WHYD p401)



This is not a fact. The autopsy doesn't place any time between them, and other pathologists like Wecht and Dobersen said the blow occurred just before or at death. The 45 min to 2 hours comes from an unreleased report by expert Rorke, and the excerpts we've seen does give a good description of what would happen at that point - the problem is that it contradicts the autopsy report.



The pineapple on the bowl wasn't identified as the thing JonBenet ate. For one, as per the DAO's index, her duodenum also contained grapes and cherries, not present in the bowl.



Woodward, WHYD, p206

Thomas admits in his deposition that his claim of "consistent down to the rind" just means that the forensic botanists reported both sets of pineapple (bowl and duodenum) were from fresh pineapple - i.e. it had a rind.



The bowl was set up with a serving spoon, not one used for eating. We also know that the victim advocates went out that morning and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone.



Schiller, PMPT, p34

The bagels can be seen on crime scene videos on the kitchen counter, untouched and plated on Ramsey plates (note the glass, same type as the one with the tea bag in it).

View attachment 551817
And on the breakfast table, opposite the pineapple bowl, is another glass and a butter knife.

View attachment 551818

So it looks to me like the pineapple bowl was part of the breakfast offering from the victim advocates, which explains the serving spoon, the bagels and why none of the Ramseys recognised it or why no one there that morning reacted to it.



Or he supposedly left through the butler door, which two witnesses said stood open that morning. The bat, the likely murder weapon, was found outside it.



Woodward, WHYD, p254

According to the Carnes ruling there were multiple traces:





The easy answer is that it was never intended to be a kidnapping. An assault and a murder, more like. The ransom aspect, if it was ever intended to be serious, would be secondary at best.

You can tell by the garrotte, that's where the effort was made. That was the centerpiece.



The note suggests surface knowledge of the family. It referred to John as Southern, which he wasn't, but could be gleaned from a surface look at objects in the house - much like the figure 118,000 which was printed on all of John's paystubs.



Based on the cigarette butts and the comments from Barbara Kostanick, this does not appear to have been a whim. And the flip side of "risk" is "thrill". He had committed the ultimate transgression, assaulted and murdered a child in her home, and no one had woken up. I think at that point he was very confident.



Experts like Dobersen thought it was a stun gun, and Meyer became convinced it was. Other experts who had worked similar cases agreed. I'm unaware of any expert backing the train track theory.



Rope was found in a brown paper bag in the room next to JonBenet's - rope that didn't belong to the Ramsey's (Woodward WHYD p401)



This is not a fact. The autopsy doesn't place any time between them, and other pathologists like Wecht and Dobersen said the blow occurred just before or at death. The 45 min to 2 hours comes from an unreleased report by expert Rorke, and the excerpts we've seen does give a good description of what would happen at that point - the problem is that it contradicts the autopsy report.



The pineapple on the bowl wasn't identified as the thing JonBenet ate. For one, as per the DAO's index, her duodenum also contained grapes and cherries, not present in the bowl.



Woodward, WHYD, p206

Thomas admits in his deposition that his claim of "consistent down to the rind" just means that the forensic botanists reported both sets of pineapple (bowl and duodenum) were from fresh pineapple - i.e. it had a rind.



The bowl was set up with a serving spoon, not one used for eating. We also know that the victim advocates went out that morning and bought "bagels and fruit" for everyone.



Schiller, PMPT, p34

The bagels can be seen on crime scene videos on the kitchen counter, untouched and plated on Ramsey plates (note the glass, same type as the one with the tea bag in it).

View attachment 551817
And on the breakfast table, opposite the pineapple bowl, is another glass and a butter knife.

View attachment 551818

So it looks to me like the pineapple bowl was part of the breakfast offering from the victim advocates, which explains the serving spoon, the bagels and why none of the Ramseys recognised it or why no one there that morning reacted to it.



Or he supposedly left through the butler door, which two witnesses said stood open that morning. The bat, the likely murder weapon, was found outside it.



Woodward, WHYD, p254

1. You cannot use District Judge Julie Carnes as rulings in a civil suit as evidence of an intruder. It’s important to understand that Judge Carnes’ observations were based on the information presented during the civil proceedings, which primarily included arguments and evidence from both sides without the comprehensive investigative findings available to law enforcement. Her comments were made in the context of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the defamation case, not to establish the definitive facts of the criminal investigation.

Subsequent analyses and expert evaluations have cast doubt on the intruder theory, particularly concerning the basement window. Investigators noted undisturbed cobwebs and debris around the window area, suggesting it had not been used as an entry point. Additionally, John Ramsey admitted to breaking the window himself during the previous summer, providing an alternative explanation for its condition.

2. The argument that the ransom note was a diversion and the garrotte proves an intruder intended to kill JonBenét is purely speculative and contradicts the evidence. The ransom note was unnecessarily long, written using Patsy Ramsey’s notepad and pen, and included details like the exact amount of John Ramsey’s bonus, and its absurd to think that the intruder saw a random paystub in the dark and decided to use that figure as a way of drawing attention back to the Ramsey’s. Writing such a note would have required significant time and risk, making no sense for an outsider intent on murder.

The garrotte, described as the “centerpiece,” was improvised from items in the home, which contradicts the idea of a premeditated attack by a prepared intruder. Furthermore, no forced entry or physical evidence supports the presence of an intruder. Instead, the ransom note and garrotte align with staging efforts to create a misleading narrative, pointing to someone with access to the house rather than an outside assailant. The intruder theory relies on conjecture and ignores the lack of evidence supporting it.

3. The idea that an intruder wanted to frame the Ramseys by using the $118,000 figure from a nearby pay stub is absurd and unsupported speculation (again.) This would require the intruder not only to find and read John Ramsey’s pay stub during a supposed break-in but also to assume this specific amount would implicate the family—a leap of logic that defies any reason at all. If the intruder’s goal was to stage the crime and deflect suspicion onto the Ramseys, they could have used a more generic or random amount to make it appear unrelated. Instead, the $118,000 figure, which precisely matches John’s bonus, suggests the ransom note was written by someone with personal knowledge of the family’s finances (we all know who I’m talking about, which also is the same person many experts believe DID write the note based solely off handwriting analysis and verbiage…) The notion that an intruder would go to such lengths while committing a violent crime is not only speculative but completely implausible.

4. The claim that cigarette butts somehow prove an intruder was stalking JonBenét or scouting the house is completely ridiculous. Finding a couple of old cigarette butts in a back alley or nearby area—if they even existed—is by no means evidence of someone targeting the Ramseys. Cigarette butts are ubiquitous in public spaces, and there’s no indication they were connected to the crime or even left around the time of the murder. To suggest this as proof of an intruder is a massive leap in logic, relying on circumstantial, unverified details that have no bearing on the case. It’s an attempt to fabricate a narrative where no evidence exists, highlighting the speculative and implausible nature of the intruder theory.

5. Your speculation as to why the pineapple was in her stomach is laughable. The claim that the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach came from a breakfast offering brought by victim advocates is completely absurd and unsupported by the facts. First, the autopsy clearly showed that the pineapple was consumed before her death, as it was undigested in her stomach. Victim advocates arrived the morning after the murder, long after JonBenét’s time of death, making it impossible for them to have served her the pineapple. Furthermore, the pineapple bowl found on the table had Patsy and Burke Ramsey’s fingerprints on it—strongly indicating it was prepared by someone in the household, not an outsider or a third party arriving after the fact. Suggesting victim advocates randomly brought pineapple and served it with bagels is not only speculative but blatantly ignores the forensic evidence and the timeline of events. This argument is a desperate attempt to explain away critical evidence that directly undermines the intruder theory.

6. The assertion that an intruder exited through the butler door, found open on the morning of December 26, is speculative again speculative. While two witnesses reported the door was open, this observation doesn’t even begin to confirm it was used by an intruder. The door could have been inadvertently left open by household members or first responders during the initial investigation, as numerous individuals were at the house contaminating the crime scene. The Ramsey’s make no mention of the open door and the reports aren’t made until long after others had been stomping around the house.

The claim that the bat found outside the Ramsey home was the murder weapon is baseless and completely speculative. There is no blood, tissue, or DNA linking the bat to JonBenét’s injuries, and the only so-called “evidence” is carpet fibers that could have transferred from innocent handling or unrelated movement. Even its presence outside doesn’t prove anything—there’s no indication when or how it got there, and its connection to the crime is pure conjecture. If the bat were truly the weapon, it would carry forensic evidence, which it categorically does not. This theory ignores the lack of physical evidence and relies entirely on unfounded assumptions to fit the intruder narrative.

You need to stop using speculation as a substitute for evidence and deliberately twisting unfounded claims to prop up your intruder theory. Your arguments rely entirely on conjecture—misinterpreting facts, inventing connections where none exist, and ignoring the overwhelming lack of physical evidence. From the baseless claim about cigarette butts, to the absurd suggestion that victim advocates served the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, to pretending a bat with no forensic ties to the crime is the murder weapon, your attempts to inject credibility into this theory are not only weak but actively misleading. Others need to be aware of what you are trying to do. Happy to have a real conversation, but I cannot allow you to present misinformation as fact.

 

[Jink3]

1. You cannot use District Judge Julie Carnes as rulings in a civil suit as evidence of an intruder. It’s important to understand that Judge Carnes’ observations were based on the information presented during the civil proceedings, which primarily included arguments and evidence from both sides without the comprehensive investigative findings available to law enforcement. Her comments were made in the context of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the defamation case, not to establish the definitive facts of the criminal investigation.

Subsequent analyses and expert evaluations have cast doubt on the intruder theory, particularly concerning the basement window. Investigators noted undisturbed cobwebs and debris around the window area, suggesting it had not been used as an entry point. Additionally, John Ramsey admitted to breaking the window himself during the previous summer, providing an alternative explanation for its condition.

2. The argument that the ransom note was a diversion and the garrotte proves an intruder intended to kill JonBenét is purely speculative and contradicts the evidence. The ransom note was unnecessarily long, written using Patsy Ramsey’s notepad and pen, and included details like the exact amount of John Ramsey’s bonus, and its absurd to think that the intruder saw a random paystub in the dark and decided to use that figure as a way of drawing attention back to the Ramsey’s. Writing such a note would have required significant time and risk, making no sense for an outsider intent on murder.

The garrotte, described as the “centerpiece,” was improvised from items in the home, which contradicts the idea of a premeditated attack by a prepared intruder. Furthermore, no forced entry or physical evidence supports the presence of an intruder. Instead, the ransom note and garrotte align with staging efforts to create a misleading narrative, pointing to someone with access to the house rather than an outside assailant. The intruder theory relies on conjecture and ignores the lack of evidence supporting it.

3. The idea that an intruder wanted to frame the Ramseys by using the $118,000 figure from a nearby pay stub is absurd and unsupported speculation (again.) This would require the intruder not only to find and read John Ramsey’s pay stub during a supposed break-in but also to assume this specific amount would implicate the family—a leap of logic that defies any reason at all. If the intruder’s goal was to stage the crime and deflect suspicion onto the Ramseys, they could have used a more generic or random amount to make it appear unrelated. Instead, the $118,000 figure, which precisely matches John’s bonus, suggests the ransom note was written by someone with personal knowledge of the family’s finances (we all know who I’m talking about, which also is the same person many experts believe DID write the note based solely off handwriting analysis and verbiage…) The notion that an intruder would go to such lengths while committing a violent crime is not only speculative but completely implausible.

4. The claim that cigarette butts somehow prove an intruder was stalking JonBenét or scouting the house is completely ridiculous. Finding a couple of old cigarette butts in a back alley or nearby area—if they even existed—is by no means evidence of someone targeting the Ramseys. Cigarette butts are ubiquitous in public spaces, and there’s no indication they were connected to the crime or even left around the time of the murder. To suggest this as proof of an intruder is a massive leap in logic, relying on circumstantial, unverified details that have no bearing on the case. It’s an attempt to fabricate a narrative where no evidence exists, highlighting the speculative and implausible nature of the intruder theory.

5. Your speculation as to why the pineapple was in her stomach is laughable. The claim that the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach came from a breakfast offering brought by victim advocates is completely absurd and unsupported by the facts. First, the autopsy clearly showed that the pineapple was consumed before her death, as it was undigested in her stomach. Victim advocates arrived the morning after the murder, long after JonBenét’s time of death, making it impossible for them to have served her the pineapple. Furthermore, the pineapple bowl found on the table had Patsy and Burke Ramsey’s fingerprints on it—strongly indicating it was prepared by someone in the household, not an outsider or a third party arriving after the fact. Suggesting victim advocates randomly brought pineapple and served it with bagels is not only speculative but blatantly ignores the forensic evidence and the timeline of events. This argument is a desperate attempt to explain away critical evidence that directly undermines the intruder theory.

6. The assertion that an intruder exited through the butler door, found open on the morning of December 26, is speculative again speculative. While two witnesses reported the door was open, this observation doesn’t even begin to confirm it was used by an intruder. The door could have been inadvertently left open by household members or first responders during the initial investigation, as numerous individuals were at the house contaminating the crime scene. The Ramsey’s make no mention of the open door and the reports aren’t made until long after others had been stomping around the house.

The claim that the bat found outside the Ramsey home was the murder weapon is baseless and completely speculative. There is no blood, tissue, or DNA linking the bat to JonBenét’s injuries, and the only so-called “evidence” is carpet fibers that could have transferred from innocent handling or unrelated movement. Even its presence outside doesn’t prove anything—there’s no indication when or how it got there, and its connection to the crime is pure conjecture. If the bat were truly the weapon, it would carry forensic evidence, which it categorically does not. This theory ignores the lack of physical evidence and relies entirely on unfounded assumptions to fit the intruder narrative.

You need to stop using speculation as a substitute for evidence and deliberately twisting unfounded claims to prop up your intruder theory. Your arguments rely entirely on conjecture—misinterpreting facts, inventing connections where none exist, and ignoring the overwhelming lack of physical evidence. From the baseless claim about cigarette butts, to the absurd suggestion that victim advocates served the pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, to pretending a bat with no forensic ties to the crime is the murder weapon, your attempts to inject credibility into this theory are not only weak but actively misleading. Others need to be aware of what you are trying to do. Happy to have a real conversation, but I cannot allow you to present misinformation as fact

Thank you Fergus, for pointing out these things, important thing which the majority ignore. I'm open to the idea of leaving through the front door, its entirely plausible

Thank you Fergus, for pointing out these things, important thing which the majority ignore. I'm open to the idea of leaving through the front door, its entirely plausible

There are no facts pointed out here. See my reply addressing every single point made.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Yes, quite a few difficult if not impossible scenarios/events to explain, if all are indeed facts. No reason to bring me into the forefront of discussion, as I lack knowledge of the facts of the case & just my observation is they’re in dispute amongst members here. Not pointing the finger at anyone, just noting what it reads like to me. I only bring what I feel are logical questions based on what another proposes as theory. I was a tad bit incorrect previously regarding details of where body was found vs "escape" window but the point was - how did the door get latched on the outside.

The above which you quoted is more of the same - I wouldn’t take certain risks. You add to that with your input of illogical alleged occurrences.

I was in my early to mid 20’s when the murder occurred. I never liked the way the case was handled nor how the family behaved afterwards. LE was too worried about appearances, it seemed. With that said, I’m not one who’s researched much of the case to give any valued input Just following along & playing devil’s advocate in a sense.

Amazing this crap, for lack of better words, has been ongoing for almost 30 years. LE should get their act together, but DA seems intent on getting in the way from time to time. Too much politics intertwined in all of it.

JMO

I wouldn't take certain risks either. I doubt that most people would, certainly not a criminal who was trying to remain undetected.

It has been suggested that the mystery intruder was a risk taker who got off on the thrill of it all. I think the contents of the ransom note are in direct contradiction to that theory.

I have never liked the way this case was handled either. From the initial mistakes made by the Boulder PD, to the very questionable antics of the DA. And of course the behavior of the Ramseys themselves.

Most of the main players who were involved in this case from the beginning are still around. There still seems to be something or someone that is being protected. And yes, a lot of politics were and still are intertwined.

 

[Jink3]

Woodward is not a reliable source.

No sources he has been using are reliable. It’s the deliberate spread of misinformation.

 

[CloudedTruth]

No sources he has been using are reliable. It’s the deliberate spread of misinformation.

The sources are the same sources used by the Ramseys to spread misinformation.

 

[Jink3]

Pretty much all of this poster's sources are Ramsey acolytes.

In one post, he makes the claim that victim advocates brought bagels that morning so it’s completely plausible to think that they may also have brought a bowl of pineapple and milk - backed up by the presence of the serving spoon (so everyone could serve themselves some fresh pineapple in milk while grieving.)

We are dealing with absurdities. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.

 

[CloudedTruth]

In one post, he makes the claim that victim advocates brought bagels that morning so it’s completely plausible to think that they may also have brought a bowl of pineapple and milk - backed up by the presence of the serving spoon (so everyone could serve themselves some fresh pineapple in milk while grieving.)

We are dealing with absurdities. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.

I stopped interacting with this poster awhile ago. It's pointless.

Oh, but according to this poster there was no milk! The white stuff was mold. The insistence that there was no milk was because most of those who spoke or wrote about the bowl of pineapple referred to it that way, "a bowl of pineapple" and the milk was not mentioned. Kind of like when most people refer to having a "bowl of cereal" and they don't mention the milk part. I guess the victim advocates were also fans of the book "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" as Patsy was. What a coincidence that they would randomly choose to serve Burke's favorite snack to the gathered friends! Absurdities is a perfect description.......