So how are the claims in Carnes less definitive than what you say right below?
Judge Carnes’ claims in the
Ramsey v. Wolf civil suit are fundamentally different from conclusions drawn by law enforcement investigators. Carnes was ruling on a defamation case, not conducting a criminal investigation. Her conclusions were based solely on the arguments and evidence presented in that courtroom, which were limited to the claims of the defamation suit. Civil cases have a much lower standard of evidence ("preponderance of the evidence") compared to criminal investigations ("beyond a reasonable doubt").
Law enforcement investigators, on the other hand, worked directly with forensic evidence, crime scene analysis, and autopsy reports, which Carnes would not have had the expertise or access to fully analyze. Investigators also operated under stricter evidentiary and procedural standards than those in a civil case. While Carnes’ observations may have been based on the evidence provided during the trial, they should not be treated as definitive conclusions about the crime itself. To suggest they hold equal weight is misleading, as her role was limited to addressing the civil claims, not solving the case. I will also address the only "evidence" that she (and you) point to as fact.
And I don't believed he ever claimed otherwise. I don't believe anyone who thinks an intruder came in there thinks the window was smashed that night. It was additional conditions - like the ones mentioned in Carnes - that raised suspicion.
In her ruling, Judge Carnes cited the broken basement window, an unidentified boot print, and the open butler door as evidence of possible forced entry by an intruder, but none of these points hold up to scrutiny. The basement window showed undisturbed cobwebs and debris, making it extremely unlikely (probably impossible) it was used. The boot print evidence fails because Burke Ramsey owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots matching the imprint. The suitcase as an aid for exiting the window is also undermined by the fact that the butler door, supposedly used by the intruder, would have eliminated any need for it—and vice versa. Fleet White told police he had moved the suitcase that morning while searching for broken glass, and its original location is unknown. The open butler door could have been opened by anyone. The butler door was only reported open by two witnesses after multiple people had stomped around the house, and it was never mentioned by the Ramseys or police during their initial search, further discrediting its importance as evidence.
AGAIN, Judge Carnes’ reliance on these points reflects the lower evidentiary standard of a civil case, where conclusions are based on the "preponderance of evidence."
It makes sense to write for someone who has gotten away with murder, and wishes to further torment the family.
It makes no sense to write as a family member. If it was an accident, it requires the Ramseys to stage two separate crimes - a murder and a kidnapping - which is absurd. And if it wasn't, it doesn't explain why the Ramseys would give themselves instructions that they didn't follow - when following them would have given them plenty of time and a reason for not calling the police.
That argument doesn’t make any sense. The idea that an intruder wrote the ransom note just to torment the family is pure speculation with nothing to back it up. Why would a killer sit in the house and take the time to write a ridiculously long note, using Patsy’s notepad and pen and mimicking her handwriting while supposedly wanting to get away? Its contents are way too specific for a random intruder to know. Not to mention the intruder wants to include a few compliments to John while he's at it!
And saying it "makes no sense" for the Ramseys to stage a kidnapping and a murder ignores all the obvious signs of staging. The garrote? The over-the-top ransom note? These aren’t the actions of a panicked intruder but of someone trying to cover their tracks. If this was a domestic accident, staging the scene to throw off suspicion makes way more sense than imagining some random killer leaving such a bizarre scene. And as for the Ramseys giving themselves “instructions they didn’t follow”—you’re missing the point. There are so many reasons why the Ramseys might have written instructions in the note but didn’t follow through. First off, if it was staging, it might not have even been about following the plan—just about creating a believable story to throw off investigators. Maybe they panicked and didn’t think through how their actions would match the note, or only one of them even knew about the plan and things got messy. Or maybe they
did intend to follow through initially but something changed, like realizing the police were already involved or deciding it was too risky. The point is, whether it was rushed, poorly planned, or deliberately inconsistent, there are endless plausible explanations for why they didn’t follow the note. None of this requires the presence of some mythical intruder.
Again, your entire argument that you structure as "proof" is pure speculation based on outlandish ideas that all have to fit perfectly and require everyone to envision we live in some outlandish movie universe in order to have one iota of plausibility. I am taking the ACTUAL physical evidence and saying - look it fits pretty easily.
Only one part - the handle - was made from what was in the house. The cord was never sourced to the house and would have been brought in.
Ah, the missing items as evidence of an intruder. No way the family could have hidden/discarded a few items they deemed important.
For the sake of argument, did the "intruder" also decide it was necessary to discard of the practice ransom pages that were removed from the pad and never discovered? Why would an intruder even care about earlier drafts of a note they left behind? That doesn’t scream “meticulous outsider,” it screams “someone in the house trying to cover their tracks.” Those missing items were almost certainly disposed of the same way as the ransom note pages! Pretending this points to an intruder is grasping at straws and ignoring the obvious.
There is DNA from an unknown, non-Ramsey individual from separate sources on two separate garments worn by JonBenet as she died. It is untrue to say there is no physical evidence that supports the presence of an intruder - the DNA is stronger evidence than anything against the Ramseys.
You really want to keep pushing the DNA narrative? We’ve already gone over the DNA, yet you keep clinging to debunked, false information. You and I both know that the DNA found on JonBenét was an incredibly small, degraded sample—insufficient to definitively point to an intruder. Multiple experts, including those involved in the investigation, have stated that this DNA could be just as likely the result of secondary transfer. Yet here you are still using it like it’s a smoking gun. It’s not, and you know it.
Now... let’s compare this to the hard, undeniable evidence tying Patsy to the crime scene. Fibers from her clothing the night of the murder found in critical locations: UNDERNEATH the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, embedded in the blanket wrapped around her body, INSIDE the knot of the garrote, and inside the paint tray used to fashion the murder weapon. This fiber evidence is consistent, abundant, and directly links Patsy to the weapon, the body, and the staging of the scene. Unlike the speculative DNA evidence, which could have come from countless unrelated sources, Patsy’s fibers were physically intertwined with key elements of the crime.
To say the DNA is stronger evidence than this overwhelming fiber evidence is completely irrational. The DNA provides no clear path to an intruder, while the fiber evidence directly implicates someone inside the house. Ignoring these facts and elevating the weak DNA findings is nothing more than an attempt to lie to other readers on this site.
The idea that it points to the family is equally speculative. And I never said anything about framing, so I don't know where you're getting that from.
LOL. Here is some speculation for you, as already noted above and in dozens of other responses you choose to ignore.
Fibers from Patsy Ramsey’s clothing the night of the murder were found underneath the tape on JonBenét’s mouth, inside the knot of the garrote, on the blanket wrapped around her body, and in the paint tray used to construct the garrote. you know, all the items involved in the scene. The ransom note written on Patsy’s notepad, using her pen, and her handwriting all but matching the the note. (How about signs she tried to disguise her handwriting sample to the police? Thats kinda strange huh.) The garrote itself was made from items in the house—Patsy’s paintbrush and a cord sourced from their home. No (reasonable) signs of forced entry.
From day one, the Ramseys' behavior raised suspicions. They refused to cooperate fully with police and avoided direct questioning for months, despite claiming they wanted to find the “killer” of their 6-year-old daughter. Patsy claimed she didn’t recognize the pineapple bowl found on the table, even though it had both her and Burke’s fingerprints on it, and JonBenét had undigested pineapple in her stomach. They insisted they had no idea how the flashlight, a suspected murder weapon, ended up in their kitchen, despite it clearly belonging to their household. Patsy contradicted herself about how JonBenét was put to bed that night, and John Ramsey’s rush to remove his daughter’s body from the basement—contaminating the crime scene—defied all logic for a grieving parent desperate for answers.
Instead of working closely with police, the Ramseys hired a legal team and a PR firm almost immediately, prioritizing their public image over cooperating in the investigation. They repeatedly pointed to an "intruder" without any credible evidence while obstructing the process meant to identify the real culprit. Their lies, refusal to cooperate, and the mountain of physical evidence inside the house all point to one undeniable conclusion.
Oh wait... that's not speculation. Intelligent thinkers take these facts and THEN speculate. You just need to get the facts first.
Not really. It's called logic and critical thinking.
Yet it was noted by the neighbor, who kept finding the butts there. It was an alleyway between rows of houses.
Good point. My neighbor found a crumpled receipt in his driveway once—clearly, it was directly tied to CIA involvement in the JFK assassination. But for some reason the police never looked into it
Cigarette butts are evidence that people occasionally smoke in alleys or near houses. They weren’t found
inside the house, near the basement window, or tied to the crime scene in any meaningful way. There’s no forensic link to a suspect and no reason to believe they’re anything but irrelevant. Grasping at cigarette butts as proof of an intruder is pure desperation. Am I getting to you?
Ehm, what? I think you need to re-read what I wrote, because this is a complete misreading of it. I'm actually a bit baffled.
Nope, we can still read it. You clearly stated that the friends called to the scene with bagels- before police could investigate - could have easily brought the incriminating bowl of pineapple (you left out the milk, not sure why) that was photographed at the crime scene. LOL. The internet is forever.
I literally never said they did?
Sorry, I didn't mean to presume. You said they brought the pineapple (and milk but you seemingly forgot to mention that) with their bagels, but it wasn't related to the pineapple that Jonbenet ate before she died. They're probably not related and just a crazy coincidence. TIn that case, we definitely don't have to speculate on how BOTH the "intruder" feeding her pineapple AND the "victim advocates" bringing a bowl of pineapple and milk with a serving spoon the next morning as part of their group breakfast. Dang... this is just making way too much sense.
Fingerprints on any surface is never a guarantee, and they don't come with a time stamp either.
Good point! Do you know what else doesn't come with a time stamp...? DNA.
The presence of grapes and cherries with the pineapple in the duodenum, as attested by the DA office's documents scanned and printed in Woodward's Unsolved, undermines the theory that the bowl is relevant to the case.
This claim you reference comes solely from Paula Woodward’s reporting and has zero support in the official autopsy report - sited below so you can read it if you want to. The autopsy clearly identifies pineapple as the food in her digestive system—grapes and cherries are never mentioned. Unless Woodward has access to some magical forensic evidence no one else does, her claim is speculative at best and completely contradicts the established findings.
As noted by many others. Woodward's Unsolved is not a credible reference. She makes all sorts of wild claims and theories based off debunked evidence, or in this case, maybe made up?
Can I ask... why do you ignore all evidence presented by investigators and experts involved in the case, (except for some of the now disproven assumptions of Lou Smit,) and only include evidence from investigative reporters that weren't involved and are universally known as biased/not credible information? Could it be that your "cherry picking" (pun intended) your evidence?
Of course it is. The murder weapon is unknown. But the bat fits the damage to her skull, and it was placed outside an open door.
So does the flashlight and the golf club. There is no evidence whatsoever (i.e speculation) that the bat was placed there that night by anyone. You choose to use this as evidence though, because it fits the narrative you choose to push. "But the bat had carpet fibers on it!" Yes, because it was probably in the basement at some point?
Finally, lets play devils advocate and say they were able to prove it was the baseball bat. Do we ignore all the evidence noted throughout this post and assume no one in that home was capable of putting a baseball bat outside? Even if they are innocent, they aren't helpless.
And yet
here you theorize that the flashlight did the headbash, when there's even less forensic evidence on that.
Yes I do theorize that, but I think it matters very little. I suspect the flashlight because it makes sense in the context of the rest of my personal theory - that it was used earlier in the night. I also find it interesting that the family denied owning it before they were caught red handed in that super weird and unnecessary lie (unless it mattered?) and later admitted it was theirs and even told police where it was kept in the house.
Could the weapon have been something else? Of course! It literally has no bearing on the overarching idea. Like... at all.
You are aware that my post is no more speculative than your post that I replied to, right? You've completely misunderstood what I wrote about the pineapple, and you've added strawmen about the figure on the note. Perhaps try for less misinformation in the future?
LOL, again, this is where we disagree. I speculate on what the facts mean. You speculate on the facts themselves.
I know that if I provide less information, it will help out your argument, but that's why I will continue to include ALL the information. That way we can all base our understanding of the case on the totality of evidence, not just on what you think will support your case.
...And no, I don't think the victim advocates brought over a bowl of pineapple and milk that morning.
