Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Annapurna]

AK, I saw the bruise comment in his AMA.

 

[Ringfinger]

I believe I read there were no fingerprints on the inside or outside of the flashlight. Didn't JAR say he had bought that light? Is it possible that BPD were really bad at trying to lift prints? Had it been wiped clean including the batteries?

 

[Ellie9]

I believe I read there were no fingerprints on the inside or outside of the flashlight. Didn't JAR say he had bought that light? Is it possible that BPD were really bad at trying to lift prints? Had it been wiped clean including the batteries?

It seems to me the most likely that there would be normal family use prints on the flashlight. So I find it suspicious that it had no prints. An intruder would wear gloves probably. A wiped down flashlight to me means it was the weapon, and not from an intruder. This is because I still feel this was not at all premeditated, especially not on Christmas, and not with an early flight the next day and expectations from family and the pilot.

Even if Ramsey's did it, wiping the batteries seems unnecessary to me! However, as is pretty apparent, they aren't expert criminals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

1)So, you think Mr Ramsey was/is essentially innocent and only clued into his wife’s evil deeds after the fact – around 11:00; and, therefore, his participation in the night’s events, the murder, the cover-up, etc was nonexistent? You realize, of course, that many RDI disagree with this. In fact, some RDI think the opposite is true (which demonstrates how nebulous evidence for RDI really is).

2)Yes, Smit did push the window theory. I don’t doubt his sincerity.
…

AK

There isn't some weekly RDI community meeting where we decide to agree on every detail. The main thing that draws us into one camp is just the broad idea of an inside job and a cover up. I don't expect every IDI to agree either on every detail. It's a complicated case and I think generally, not always, both groups feel the police didn't do their finest work that morning. At the very least I think it's obvious to everyone that the scene was compromised, no matter whose fault, and that this becomes a problem for any detailed theory to go without questioning.

If any group completely agreed with a detailed timeline and theory, the case would have went to court and been solved.

I don't think it's fair to try to use the idea of a lack of consensus against any persons argument, whether one agrees with the argument or doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

No to everything. This child was struck a massive blow. Somebody hit her with something; intentionally. Somebody didn’t care about this child, and they wanted her dead. They wanted her dead so bad that they killed her twice: head blow and asphyxiation. Occam’s razor. Shave, shave, shave…
…

AK

Quite a lot of snark with trying to make me sound as though my thoughts are stupid. (ETA) I should explain this. I was the first one to bring up Occam's Razor in our discussions and since then anytime I ask anything new you say it goes against it. I think it's a rude debate technique used to belittle someone. And your use of it is wrong, especially in this case, which makes it clear you're more in the business of throwing insults at people than you are actually discussing the case itself. I've seen you sarcastically mimic other posters words as well. If you had a good argument of your own you wouldn't have to be this snarky.

Now back to the actual case.

Anyway, I am doing something called trying to look at the case from different angles. That was my final foray into the idea an intruder could have been responsible, dropping his kidnapping victim down from a high point. Thank you for ruling it out, I can now avoid senseless ideas and focus on working out what I feel is the best RDI theory.

With all the lies from the Ramsey's it is honestly nearly impossible to still attempt to picture this crime as an outside job.

One final thought I had. Did anyone else notice that the Ramsey's never disagree with each other, even on minor points? Maybe I'm missing something. But they always agree.

I bring this up because I just watched a documentary on Elizabeth smart, and her parents are in an interview on tv, and one parent corrects the other on a detail of timing or something along these lines. To me this showed two parents desperate to get every fact out in the open so that people could help them find their daughter. I just don't see this behaviour with Ramsey's. They constantly look like two people with something to hide, and didn't help the police nearly as much as you'd expect if innocent.

Have they ever worked out a fact on camera from memory and shared experience? Did I miss this?

The last interview I recently saw was their one in Hawaii I think. Some Christian tv show. They both played up their religion so much it was sickening to watch. Barely talked about the case and then talked about religion for the whole time, working the audience. It was quite an act they put on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

IMO, if IDI, the note was prepared in advance, possibly on a different paper and then copied to the notepad on-site. Some IDI think he actually removed the notepad from the house on a previous occasion, drafted the RN at leisure and then returned the pad with note on the night of the crime.

I don’t know that he removed any cord or tape from the house, He may have used up all the cord and tape that he brought with him.
…

AK

This is really hard to understand here. There were rough drafts done, one small draft left in the tablet itself. With so much planning ahead and time, why did the intruder bother? Also, he broke in twice (at least), both times leaving no mark or evidence? The only part of this I can say could work is that I guess it's possible people wouldn't notice one tablet and pen missing for a while. Otherwise, this is kind of a messy theory imo.

Also, why would a kidnapper write a ransom note if he wanted the girl dead anyway (according to your other post). If the person was doing this to hurt the parents, or one parent, they would have left the body on display and wouldn't have done anything to cover the child in a blanket, re-dress her, etc. I can only see cleaning the body as something he would have done to erase evidence. However, he then hides the body in one of the best/most remote hiding places in the house honestly... and still leaves a note.... it just doesn't really add up.

What is your theory exactly? He planned a murder so wrote a note in advance?

And how could one go walking around with a small strip of duct tape? I don't get this. He managed to climb into a tiny basement window through a tiny window grate cover thing, all while not making this tape unsticky or folded up into itself? And then doesn't even need the tape?

What exactly is the main idea behind your theory? I'm getting very confused by it to be honest.

 

[Ringfinger]

Things never seem to clearly add up for anything in this case. Sometimes it's maddening, but I supposed that saw hat keeps me so addicted.

If the flashlight has no prints on the outside, no prints on the batteries, and is foreign to the Ramsey's, why didn't they go off about that ?
"Hey, wtf is that giant murder light doing there? Investigate that"

then again, they were there all day watching people dust for prints. It would seem to me they would know what something that had been dusted looked like. I recall that JR later described the light as a "dirty flashlight" and said that's why he didn't recognize it as being theirs.

Another strange thing to me to me is why wouldn't JR just go ahead and say some of the doors were unlocked, or even just one? I get so confused at times as he clearly behaves so suspiciously at some times and so honestly at others. (For the record, I try to stay open minded when reviewing information, but I do lean RDI)

 

[Ellie9]

Things never seem to clearly add up for anything in this case. Sometimes it's maddening, but I supposed that saw hat keeps me so addicted.

If the flashlight has no prints on the outside, no prints on the batteries, and is foreign to the Ramsey's, why didn't they go off about that ?
"Hey, wtf is that giant murder light doing there? Investigate that"

then again, they were there all day watching people dust for prints. It would seem to me they would know what something that had been dusted looked like. I recall that JR later described the light as a "dirty flashlight" and said that's why he didn't recognize it as being theirs.

Another strange thing to me to me is why wouldn't JR just go ahead and say some of the doors were unlocked, or even just one? I get so confused at times as he clearly behaves so suspiciously at some times and so honestly at others. (For the record, I try to stay open minded when reviewing information, but I do lean RDI)

I agree that at times John acts fairly like I'd expect, and other times not. One idea is from Andreww, who thinks John wasn't a part of the murder OR coverup until he made a conscious choice to join in later. Another idea with the things brought up about saying doors were closed/locked, etc, is that they both might have been in on it, and trying to blame the housekeeper, who would have a key. The note was left where the housekeeper left notes, for one. (Or, I should say, it was claimed it was left there.) Also the Ramsey's were quick to bring her name up, and bring up the fact that she asked for money.

Housekeeper doesn't make good sense though as suspect and was ruled out anyway. If i didn't know she was ruled out, I would have ruled her out. As the housekeeper she would have been privy to a lot of inside information about when the Ramsey's were leaving for the night, etc. Christmas Day was probably the most dangerous time for some kidnapping plan, especially because she would have known the Ramsey's would be up at the crack of dawn for an early flight. And with money as her main possible motive, she would have at least removed the body from the house in an attempt to get some money. Lastly, JBR would have recognized her, and with a kidnapping plan the idea is to exchange for money and then never get caught. If she traded JBR in, it would take about 2 seconds before JBR said exactly who took her.

Another note, I think JR claiming the flashlight was 'dirty' was an attempt to distance himself from it. I think he may have even been implying an intruder brought it and it wasn't theirs. They said this about a Santa bear, and something else IIRC. The bear was a pageant prize, though.

Similar to your idea with JR seeming to be pretty honest early on, I felt like the main detail that made me wonder about IDI in recent days was Patsy basically pointing out all the dumbest things in the ransom note. In PMPT she was reported to have said things like, "But John isn't even from the south!" The main way I can explain her need to point things out is because, it's a good way to lie, or it was a good way to suggest the intruder didn't even know John very well. Also she could have been realizing some of her own mistakes when writing it, and pointing them out as someone else's mistakes to make herself appear innocent.

But I do know what you mean, this case is so complicated. It's also what draws me to it so much, like you. Personally I'm to the point where I'm 99.999% sure RDI, but I am still trying to figure out the events that occurred that night, and which Ramsey's were involved in what actions.

 

[andreww]

Yes, there was an unlocked door upstairs, but there was also at least one door unlocked downstairs: the door leading from the garage to the house; and, possibly a second door – the butler door. Which door this quote refers to is not known.
…

AK

Well John didn't check very well did he? Or he's lying? Again, he said he checked all the main floor doors and they were locked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

1)So, you think Mr Ramsey was/is essentially innocent and only clued into his wife’s evil deeds after the fact – around 11:00; and, therefore, his participation in the night’s events, the murder, the cover-up, etc was nonexistent? You realize, of course, that many RDI disagree with this. In fact, some RDI think the opposite is true (which demonstrates how nebulous evidence for RDI really is).

2)Yes, Smit did push the window theory. I don’t doubt his sincerity.
…

AK

What do I care what other people think? Some are dumb enough to still believe an intruder did it for crying out loud


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

This is really hard to understand here. There were rough drafts done, one small draft left in the tablet itself. With so much planning ahead and time, why did the intruder bother? Also, he broke in twice (at least), both times leaving no mark or evidence? The only part of this I can say could work is that I guess it's possible people wouldn't notice one tablet and pen missing for a while. Otherwise, this is kind of a messy theory imo.

Also, why would a kidnapper write a ransom note if he wanted the girl dead anyway (according to your other post). If the person was doing this to hurt the parents, or one parent, they would have left the body on display and wouldn't have done anything to cover the child in a blanket, re-dress her, etc. I can only see cleaning the body as something he would have done to erase evidence. However, he then hides the body in one of the best/most remote hiding places in the house honestly... and still leaves a note.... it just doesn't really add up.

What is your theory exactly? He planned a murder so wrote a note in advance?

And how could one go walking around with a small strip of duct tape? I don't get this. He managed to climb into a tiny basement window through a tiny window grate cover thing, all while not making this tape unsticky or folded up into itself? And then doesn't even need the tape?

What exactly is the main idea behind your theory? I'm getting very confused by it to be honest.

Believe me, he doesn't have a theory. He pretends to, but it's a weird "murder mystery" scenario than lacks any detail. He prefers it that way so he can pick apart RDI theories piece by piece without having to worry that what he proposes doesn't make sense as a whole. He'll argue one point based on it being a sexual deviant, the next will be argued from the pretext of a foreign terrorist, and the next will be based on the idea of it being a neighborhood Santa. Sure, he adequately debates each point rationally, but when you look at all three points together, it makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Things never seem to clearly add up for anything in this case. Sometimes it's maddening, but I supposed that saw hat keeps me so addicted.

If the flashlight has no prints on the outside, no prints on the batteries, and is foreign to the Ramsey's, why didn't they go off about that ?
"Hey, wtf is that giant murder light doing there? Investigate that"

then again, they were there all day watching people dust for prints. It would seem to me they would know what something that had been dusted looked like. I recall that JR later described the light as a "dirty flashlight" and said that's why he didn't recognize it as being theirs.

Another strange thing to me to me is why wouldn't JR just go ahead and say some of the doors were unlocked, or even just one? I get so confused at times as he clearly behaves so suspiciously at some times and so honestly at others. (For the record, I try to stay open minded when reviewing information, but I do lean RDI)

Ringfinger, the Magritte flashlights have knurled surfaces as I recall. This might explain why there were no prints. As for the batteries, the light wasn't that old and the battery life is excellent in those things, so there is nothing to say that the Rs ever changed the batteries. Also, we don't know if partial or smudged prints were found, just that no usable prints were found.

That said, there is a reason why that flashlight wasn't in its drawer. There is a reason why the Ramsey's tried to deny ownership, despite the fact that the couldn't produce their own flashlight to prove that the one in the kitchen wasn't theirs right? Their should have been two of them if this were left by an intruder.

So the question is why did it end up in the kitchen? Some think it was the murder weapon and was wiped down and forgotten. The way I look at it is to ask why it would be out of its drawer in the first place? If JBRs death was the result of a sudden rage, the murderer would have grabbed something handy. They wouldn't have gone to the drawer and grabbed the heavy flashlight. I believe Patsy likely uses the light while staging so as not to awaken John and not draw attention to the house in the middle of the night. She would have been wearing gloves at this point and inadvertently wiped any prints that were on the exterior. After replacing the pen and pad she simply forgot about it, which would have been easy to do in a now dark house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

Just wanted to add that a current police flashlight with batteries usually weighs between 3-4 pounds. I seriously doubt if the Ramseys had a full duty flashlight, imo.

I just can not see how even a police flashlight could create all the trauma seen on JonBenet's skull, especially if her brother supposedly did it. Little boys can be quite strong but I have doubts about the flashlight being a weapon in this case. It makes more sense to me that an adult did it and in a different manner (such as using a pushing force in a surge of reckless adrenaline rage).

 

[Ringfinger]

It makes a lot of sense that the light would be used during the night. We can guess that whoever was responsible for everything that happened in an attempt to cover this murder would need to happen under a blanket of secrecy. One wouldn't want the neighbors to see a chorus of room lights coming on and off while a family is "sleeping". If someone were to see a flashlight through the windows that would only strengthen the theory of a break-in. So this all works well with RDI

 

[andreww]

Just wanted to add that a current police flashlight with batteries usually weighs between 3-4 pounds. I seriously doubt if the Ramseys had a full duty flashlight, imo.

I just can not see how even a police flashlight could create all the trauma seen on JonBenet's skull, especially if her brother supposedly did it. Little boys can be quite strong but I have doubts about the flashlight being a weapon in this case. It makes more sense to me that an adult did it and in a different manner (such as using a pushing force in a surge of reckless adrenaline rage).

A test was done on a child cadaver with the same flashlight as the Ramseys and the damage to the skull was similar.

 

[andreww]

It makes a lot of sense that the light would be used during the night. We can guess that whoever was responsible for everything that happened in an attempt to cover this murder would need to happen under a blanket of secrecy. One wouldn't want the neighbors to see a chorus of room lights coming on and off while a family is "sleeping". If someone were to see a flashlight through the windows that would only strengthen the theory of a break-in. So this all works well with RDI

Exactly. The Ramsey alibi was going to be based on the Ramseys all going to bed immediately upon returning home. If one neighbour saw lights coming on or off, the jig would be up.

 

[InstantProof]

They couldn't remove JB for fear of neighbors seeing, either.

 

[Ellie9]

They couldn't remove JB for fear of neighbors seeing, either.

Completely agree. That and timing with an early flight, and the hard frozen ground (if planning on burying).

 

[InstantProof]

1) So, you think Mr Ramsey was/is essentially innocent and only clued into his wife’s evil deeds after the fact – around 11:00; and, therefore, his participation in the night’s events, the murder, the cover-up, etc was nonexistent? You realize, of course, that many RDI disagree with this. In fact, some RDI think the opposite is true (which demonstrates how nebulous evidence for RDI really is).


AK

I'm open to any RDI theory. My instincts tell me (or maybe it's just obvious) the R's are lying/covering/manipulating so I know they are involved. Beyond that it's difficult to say as they stick to one story.

 

[InstantProof]

Completely agree. That and timing with an early flight, and the hard frozen ground (if planning on burying).

The letter may have tried to give them a way around any neighbors reports; it tells them to contact no one and tells John to carry an "adequate size attaché".