2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Burke an IVF baby?

Were you? What does it matter?

High likelihood of autism, especially in the 80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Burke's boot print in the basement next to the body? Was it determined whether it was fresh?

Then there is the 911 call. Parents said Burke was asleep, but on the tape: John says "we're not talking to you" then Patsy says "what have you done, god help us"
Burke replies "what did you find"

I had forgotten about the call. Makes no sense they would lie he was asleep when he wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Aerospace enhanced that 911 call. This to is very damming to the Ramseys:

Here is what the Aerospace Corporation found in their analysis of that 911 call, “Enhancement of the tape reveals Burke’s voice in the background, asking his parents ‘What did you find?’,” the paper writes. “John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, ‘We are not talking to you,’ and Patsy shouts ‘Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus.'”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aerospace enhanced that 911 call. This to is very damming to the Ramseys:

Here is what the Aerospace Corporation found in their analysis of that 911 call, “Enhancement of the tape reveals Burke’s voice in the background, asking his parents ‘What did you find?’,” the paper writes. “John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, ‘We are not talking to you,’ and Patsy shouts ‘Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus.'”

There's a little but of debate about what Patsy is saying, but agreement about John and Burke. This is another area where modern tech should be able to clear it up. Patsy and John continued to lie about Burke being present when they made the 911 call, damning indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aerospace enhanced that 911 call. This to is very damming to the Ramseys:

Here is what the Aerospace Corporation found in their analysis of that 911 call, “Enhancement of the tape reveals Burke’s voice in the background, asking his parents ‘What did you find?’,” the paper writes. “John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, ‘We are not talking to you,’ and Patsy shouts ‘Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus.'”

There's a little but of debate about what Patsy is saying, but agreement about John and Burke. This is another area where modern tech should be able to clear it up. Patsy and John continued to lie about Burke being present when they made the 911 call, damning indeed.

Yeah, I'd like to know if she's actually saying "what have you done?" Though I suppose that could be directed to John or Burke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

This is fantastic information. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

This is fantastic information. Thank you.

That thread was hard to understand but it seems like the dna strongly suggests there was an intruder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

This is fantastic information. Thank you.

That thread was hard to understand but it seems like the dna strongly suggests there was an intruder?

It's honestly hard to say. For example it's not at all clear the DNA from her fingernails matched that from her clothing:

"There were not enough markers identified in the panties to conclude with any degree of certainty that they were a match. In fact there was only 1 allele out of a possible 12 that was identified in the panties profile. That allele WAS a match but with 11 other unknown alleles to conclude they were a match. Yet that is exactly what BPD did."


Glad to read that they're doing additional DNA testing with more sensitive current tech. Fingers crossed they get some answers. Still don't understand how there would be no evidence of an intruder though, if the DNA does end up going in that direction. Plus the bizarre behavior of the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

This is fantastic information. Thank you.

That thread was hard to understand but it seems like the dna strongly suggests there was an intruder?

It's honestly hard to say. For example it's not at all clear the DNA from her fingernails matched that from her clothing:

"There were not enough markers identified in the panties to conclude with any degree of certainty that they were a match. In fact there was only 1 allele out of a possible 12 that was identified in the panties profile. That allele WAS a match but with 11 other unknown alleles to conclude they were a match. Yet that is exactly what BPD did."


Glad to read that they're doing additional DNA testing with more sensitive current tech. Fingers crossed they get some answers. Still don't understand how there would be no evidence of an intruder though, if the DNA does end up going in that direction. Plus the bizarre behavior of the parents.

I read somewhere else an expert insisted the DNA under her fingernails was old.

[Anonymous]

For those interested in the Aerosoace Copr assessment of the last part of the 911 call:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/171et6x/facts_about_the_enhanced_911_call/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

This is fantastic information. Thank you.

That thread was hard to understand but it seems like the dna strongly suggests there was an intruder?

It's honestly hard to say. For example it's not at all clear the DNA from her fingernails matched that from her clothing:

"There were not enough markers identified in the panties to conclude with any degree of certainty that they were a match. In fact there was only 1 allele out of a possible 12 that was identified in the panties profile. That allele WAS a match but with 11 other unknown alleles to conclude they were a match. Yet that is exactly what BPD did."


Glad to read that they're doing additional DNA testing with more sensitive current tech. Fingers crossed they get some answers. Still don't understand how there would be no evidence of an intruder though, if the DNA does end up going in that direction. Plus the bizarre behavior of the parents.

I read somewhere else an expert insisted the DNA under her fingernails was old.

The problem is that even the DNA is not conclusive, can and has been read very differently by "both sides." Hopefully a more complete and updated DNA analysis will provide further answers. I agree all the RDI (Ramseys did it) evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive, but also looks very bad in totality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John's story just doesn't add up. He broke the basement window himself weeks or months ago. He thought someone repaired it. So is that how the intruder entered the house?

I don't get how the kids were using the room as a toy train room and play room with a broken window. Did the parents never go to the room? Patsy supposedly had paint supplies nearby.

Wouldn't it be cold with a broken window?

No intruder. Cobwebs across the window and no DNA/fiber evidence of anyone entering. Boot print was Burke's not an intruder's. Don't think it was used as a play room; that was in the finished part of the basement. But someone mentioned Christmas presents being stored there.

Anyone could have entered the house. There is no definitive evidence of no intruder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Burke's boot print in the basement next to the body? Was it determined whether it was fresh?

Then there is the 911 call. Parents said Burke was asleep, but on the tape: John says "we're not talking to you" then Patsy says "what have you done, god help us"
Burke replies "what did you find"

I keep reading this online but the only audio I’ve heard is patsy saying help me Jesus. I hear no other voices. Do you have the audio where you can hear this? I haven’t been able to find it online and I’m starting to think it’s more made up crap like the police ruling out an intruder because there were no footprints in the snow and then finding out there was no snow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aerospace enhanced that 911 call. This to is very damming to the Ramseys:

Here is what the Aerospace Corporation found in their analysis of that 911 call, “Enhancement of the tape reveals Burke’s voice in the background, asking his parents ‘What did you find?’,” the paper writes. “John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, ‘We are not talking to you,’ and Patsy shouts ‘Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus.'”

I don't believe any of this. You're telling me Patsy discovered the body, cleaned her child up and/or desecrated her by performing heinous acts on her dead body, staged the scene in the basement, then wrote a long ransom note, then waited until morning to call 911, and at that very instant when she's on the phone with 911, she and/or John confronted Burke about what they "found"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who did it?

The most plausible theory is that Burke whacked her on the back of her head (had hit her before), maybe while she was eating his pineapple. She was dead or half-dead, Burke played doctor with her body. Patty found JB and staged the body to look like an intruder had taken her to the basement, to protect Burke and the family reputation. Then wrote the ransom note and called the police. John may or may not have been involved.

It's the only scenario that makes some kind of sense, not that any of it makes any kind of sense. But there is no evidence of an intruder, and the tiny amount of DNA is probably from the manufacturing of the underwear. So all points to the family.

Also the fact that the ransom note said a call would come at x time and both parents were oblivious when x time came and went.

I wouldn't believe any police officer who talked about how John and Patsy were acting that day. The police had already decided they were guilty and were seeing everything through that lens. We don't actually know that the parents were "oblivious" when the time on the ransom note came, because the only people reporting that are the Boulder police, and everything they say is tainted.