2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an important detail involving a bonus check and how that was significant? I don't quite recall.

JR’s Christmas bonus ($118k or something) was the exact amount demanded in the “ransom note.”

That bonus was paid to him in January 1996, nearly a year prior to the murder. It was written on his paper pay statements throughout 1996, so it only would have taken someone seeing one of those to know the number.

Oh, that's interesting about the timing of the bonus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, anyone could guess that nickname for the grandmother.

I think it’s not Burke because the parents would never have let the police interview Burke alone if he were the murderer. The documentary had several clips of Burke in interviews without his parents. They would have insisted on being present (which they have a right to do).

I mean, not really. He seemed to know a lot of specific details. He had been stalking the family for years and had a serious child porn problem.

He knew a lot of details because of all of the reporting about the case. Everyone on this DCUM thread knows a lot of details of the crime! We didn't all commit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

People might come after Burke if his DNA showed up on Jon Benet in places that a brother's DNA should not be. If I had any suspicion that my child committed this crime, I would not push for further testing. But I have no idea what John's mindset is or what he knows. Or what actually happened, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are different readings of what Patsy is saying at the end of the 911 call. I think the one above came from the CBS interview, but others think she said "Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Well, the Boulder police department pursued the DNA evidence halfway around the globe in an effort to try to prove that the family could still be the culprits, even though the DNA fragments excluded the entire family. What John is saying is that they didn't pursue the DNA evidence in a way that would find the real killer, if the killer was someone outside the family. (I feel like that's fairly obvious and you're being kind of dense, but ok.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

John claims that there additional items that weren't tested, but I have no idea what he's referring to.

Did they test the ransom letter? Obviously it will have Patsy's DNA and fingerprints on it, but it would be interesting to see if it has the same DNA as was found on JB.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.[/quote]


Yes. And we'll never know how or why. [/quote]

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?[/quote]

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.[/quote]

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”. [/quote]

People might come after Burke if his DNA showed up on Jon Benet in places that a brother's DNA should not be. If I had any suspicion that my child committed this crime, I would not push for further testing. But I have no idea what John's mindset is or what he knows. Or what actually happened, obviously.[/quote]

Weird that it hasn’t before. Makes your theory pretty far fetched with no evidence. But the police don’t seem to have any interest in solving this.

[Anonymous]

Former BFFs of the Ramseys wrote a long letter attributing the "failure of justice" to the corruption of the Boulder PD and the AG's office, but most of all to the Ramseys' failure to cooperate with authorities.

https://extras.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would have the parents or brother done this to the little girl?

From what I understand the argument for the brother being involved is due to

1. Him previously hitting her over the head w a golf club (parents do say this was accidental)
2. Mental issues; he was still wetting and soiling his bed and had had incidents of smearing feces
3. Report he had been caught “playing doctor” with her previously (parallels to the way she was SA’d with the paintbrush)
4. He admitted to being downstairs alone that night
5. He was on the morning 911 call in the background but parents say they left him sleeping all morning (people say it’s odd that they didn’t wake him up)
6. It would explain both parents involvement in a cover up

I’m not entirely convinced it was him but I do think all of the above don’t make the thought as ridiculous as some say it is.

All of this is why I am and always have been on the team "Burke did it."

+1
And the pineapple.
I think Burke gave her pineapple at some point when they were downstairs.
And it’s not uncommon for kids who are being molested to replicate what is happening to them onto their siblings.

I think, sadly, that it was the father and I think there was significant, ongoing psychopathology in that family. I agree with profilers who suspect the father was sexually abusing her. I'll try to find the article I read that made this argument. I think the mother covered for her belief it was the son. The letter had Patsy's identifiers all over it. Couldn't wearing gloves keep identifiable DNA from being detected?

But the Father, presumably, has a working d*ck. Why use an object?

We don’t actually know that it was working.

All of this speculation is beyond disturbing.

But you people also have a fair amount to learn about anatomy.

[Anonymous]

I always figured the special needs boy did it and the parents got wrapped up in a cover up.

Dipshit local cops immediately botched the entire scene.

The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always figured the special needs boy did it and the parents got wrapped up in a cover up.

Dipshit local cops immediately botched the entire scene.

The end.

But the masses are gullible and clamor for more, for some sexy sensational angle — so that’s what podcasts, sleuths, documentaries, authors, and “experts” FEED YOU. You’re being duped into believing pure nonsense so people can make a buck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former BFFs of the Ramseys wrote a long letter attributing the "failure of justice" to the corruption of the Boulder PD and the AG's office, but most of all to the Ramseys' failure to cooperate with authorities.

https://extras.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr.htm

They called for the Ramsey indictment to be unsealed, clearly think their former friends did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, anyone could guess that nickname for the grandmother.

I think it’s not Burke because the parents would never have let the police interview Burke alone if he were the murderer. The documentary had several clips of Burke in interviews without his parents. They would have insisted on being present (which they have a right to do).

I mean, not really. He seemed to know a lot of specific details. He had been stalking the family for years and had a serious child porn problem.

He knew a lot of details because of all of the reporting about the case. Everyone on this DCUM thread knows a lot of details of the crime! We didn't all commit it.

Obviously, I mean that I read at least that he knew details that were not publicly reported. I’m not talking about the details that we all know. I could be wrong, but I read that he knew some details that were not out there in the public doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the central problem with the case. The Boulder police were so deeply biased to the point where it seems unhinged. That guy Steve Thomas actually wrote a book a few years after saying Patsy did it. One of his reasons was that she was upset about her recent 40th birthday and she was and I quote “frazzled@ from the holidays.

The misogyny and cluelessness of that statement. Patsy had recovered from stage four ovarian cancer with two young kids - she knew she didn’t probably have a lot of time left. The audacity of saying she was so upset over turning 40 and the dress of the holidays that she killed and then staged a sadistic sex assault is bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former BFFs of the Ramseys wrote a long letter attributing the "failure of justice" to the corruption of the Boulder PD and the AG's office, but most of all to the Ramseys' failure to cooperate with authorities.

https://extras.denverpost.com/news/whiteltr.htm


They called for the Ramsey indictment to be unsealed, clearly think their former friends did it.

Eye opening letter. It's dry and hard to follow, but accuses the well-connected Ramsey legal team of using their influence and connections to throw up road blocks in the murder investigation. The authors even use the term "malfeasance" when outlining how the political establishment up to the Governor of Colorado and the prosecutors worked together to muddy the waters. The authors are careful to state how law enforcement worked hard to solve the case, but political machinations hampered their efforts.