2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always been stuck on the ransom note and the assumption that Patsy wrote it. I'd like to see an updated analysis of that piece of evidence. Because if she didn't write the note, I don't think there is any meaningful evidence of a coverup.

For a long time, I thought Burke accidentally killed her followed by a coverup. But I don't think a skinny 9 year old boy could have crushed her skull like that. I think a lot was pinned on him because of untrue or unsubstantiated rumors (feces) and his unusual affect (on autism spectrum). When I look at clips of him now, I just think sweet, clueless little boy who doesn't really grasp what's going on.

Hard to imagine an intruder coming with no equipment, navigating that house in the dark, and leaving no real DNA or fiber evidence (presuming the trace DNA is from the manufacturing process) either.

So, I don't know. And I doubt we ever will.

We have no idea if an intruder left DNA or fiber evidence, or even fingerprints, because the crime scene wasn’t tested. Or very little of it was tested.

[Anonymous]

This article has some really good points pointing to an intruder.

https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/70-points-burke-ramsey-says-prove-his-innocence-

What gets me is things like the rope left in the guest room next to her bedroom. Would Patsy really have had the wherewithal to stage something like that in the hours after her daughter’s death?

The ducttape and other things found in the house, never matched anything in the Ramsey‘s house. The footprint on the suitcase was a hi tech boot that didn’t match any boots found in the house.

But the real kicker is, JonBenét was clearly brutally murdered, and struggled mightily with her attacker. I just don’t see the brother being able to inflict that kind of torture, and there’s no way the parents could stage that. The autopsy detected a lot of things that could not be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always been stuck on the ransom note and the assumption that Patsy wrote it. I'd like to see an updated analysis of that piece of evidence. Because if she didn't write the note, I don't think there is any meaningful evidence of a coverup.

For a long time, I thought Burke accidentally killed her followed by a coverup. But I don't think a skinny 9 year old boy could have crushed her skull like that. I think a lot was pinned on him because of untrue or unsubstantiated rumors (feces) and his unusual affect (on autism spectrum). When I look at clips of him now, I just think sweet, clueless little boy who doesn't really grasp what's going on.

Hard to imagine an intruder coming with no equipment, navigating that house in the dark, and leaving no real DNA or fiber evidence (presuming the trace DNA is from the manufacturing process) either.

So, I don't know. And I doubt we ever will.

No credible person thinks the DNA is from the manufacturing process. It might not be from the murderer, but it’s DNA from a Caucasian male. The underwear were made at a factory in China. The Boulder police just said it was from the manufacturing process when they were trying to massage the facts to make them line up with it being the family.

Yes… There was even a deep investigation into the manufacturing plants where the clothes were made, and there were no Caucasian males working there. again, points to the deep incompetence and or corruption of the boulder police. I really think a cop might’ve been involved.

Something never sat right with me with that Steve Thomas guy. I don’t think he did it, but he really seemed so vindictive against the family in a way that was incredibly unprofessional at best, something more disturbing at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always been stuck on the ransom note and the assumption that Patsy wrote it. I'd like to see an updated analysis of that piece of evidence. Because if she didn't write the note, I don't think there is any meaningful evidence of a coverup.

For a long time, I thought Burke accidentally killed her followed by a coverup. But I don't think a skinny 9 year old boy could have crushed her skull like that. I think a lot was pinned on him because of untrue or unsubstantiated rumors (feces) and his unusual affect (on autism spectrum). When I look at clips of him now, I just think sweet, clueless little boy who doesn't really grasp what's going on.

Hard to imagine an intruder coming with no equipment, navigating that house in the dark, and leaving no real DNA or fiber evidence (presuming the trace DNA is from the manufacturing process) either.

So, I don't know. And I doubt we ever will.

No credible person thinks the DNA is from the manufacturing process. It might not be from the murderer, but it’s DNA from a Caucasian male. The underwear were made at a factory in China. The Boulder police just said it was from the manufacturing process when they were trying to massage the facts to make them line up with it being the family.

Yes… There was even a deep investigation into the manufacturing plants where the clothes were made, and there were no Caucasian males working there. again, points to the deep incompetence and or corruption of the boulder police. I really think a cop might’ve been involved.

Something never sat right with me with that Steve Thomas guy. I don’t think he did it, but he really seemed so vindictive against the family in a way that was incredibly unprofessional at best, something more disturbing at worst.

Well, I've also read the DNA was Hispanic or Asian. And I've read multiple times it could have been transferred in the manufacturing process through a sneeze then transferred by JonBenet to her waistband if they hadn't been washed (apparently they hadn't).

The Netflix doc sounds like a waste of time, like they didn't go into any of this with fresh eyes or even sufficient detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always been stuck on the ransom note and the assumption that Patsy wrote it. I'd like to see an updated analysis of that piece of evidence. Because if she didn't write the note, I don't think there is any meaningful evidence of a coverup.

For a long time, I thought Burke accidentally killed her followed by a coverup. But I don't think a skinny 9 year old boy could have crushed her skull like that. I think a lot was pinned on him because of untrue or unsubstantiated rumors (feces) and his unusual affect (on autism spectrum). When I look at clips of him now, I just think sweet, clueless little boy who doesn't really grasp what's going on.

Hard to imagine an intruder coming with no equipment, navigating that house in the dark, and leaving no real DNA or fiber evidence (presuming the trace DNA is from the manufacturing process) either.

So, I don't know. And I doubt we ever will.

No credible person thinks the DNA is from the manufacturing process. It might not be from the murderer, but it’s DNA from a Caucasian male. The underwear were made at a factory in China. The Boulder police just said it was from the manufacturing process when they were trying to massage the facts to make them line up with it being the family.

Yes… There was even a deep investigation into the manufacturing plants where the clothes were made, and there were no Caucasian males working there. again, points to the deep incompetence and or corruption of the boulder police. I really think a cop might’ve been involved.

Something never sat right with me with that Steve Thomas guy. I don’t think he did it, but he really seemed so vindictive against the family in a way that was incredibly unprofessional at best, something more disturbing at worst.

Well, I've also read the DNA was Hispanic or Asian. And I've read multiple times it could have been transferred in the manufacturing process through a sneeze then transferred by JonBenet to her waistband if they hadn't been washed (apparently they hadn't).

The Netflix doc sounds like a waste of time, like they didn't go into any of this with fresh eyes or even sufficient detail.

This case is just a mess. So much unclear or inaccurate information swirling, so much contamination due to the sloppy handling of the crime scene, problems with evidence chain of custody. Even if they eventually figure out a likely killer, successful prosecution is unlikely in light of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always been stuck on the ransom note and the assumption that Patsy wrote it. I'd like to see an updated analysis of that piece of evidence. Because if she didn't write the note, I don't think there is any meaningful evidence of a coverup.

For a long time, I thought Burke accidentally killed her followed by a coverup. But I don't think a skinny 9 year old boy could have crushed her skull like that. I think a lot was pinned on him because of untrue or unsubstantiated rumors (feces) and his unusual affect (on autism spectrum). When I look at clips of him now, I just think sweet, clueless little boy who doesn't really grasp what's going on.

Hard to imagine an intruder coming with no equipment, navigating that house in the dark, and leaving no real DNA or fiber evidence (presuming the trace DNA is from the manufacturing process) either.

So, I don't know. And I doubt we ever will.

No credible person thinks the DNA is from the manufacturing process. It might not be from the murderer, but it’s DNA from a Caucasian male. The underwear were made at a factory in China. The Boulder police just said it was from the manufacturing process when they were trying to massage the facts to make them line up with it being the family.

Yes… There was even a deep investigation into the manufacturing plants where the clothes were made, and there were no Caucasian males working there. again, points to the deep incompetence and or corruption of the boulder police. I really think a cop might’ve been involved.

Something never sat right with me with that Steve Thomas guy. I don’t think he did it, but he really seemed so vindictive against the family in a way that was incredibly unprofessional at best, something more disturbing at worst.

Well, I've also read the DNA was Hispanic or Asian. And I've read multiple times it could have been transferred in the manufacturing process through a sneeze then transferred by JonBenet to her waistband if they hadn't been washed (apparently they hadn't).

The Netflix doc sounds like a waste of time, like they didn't go into any of this with fresh eyes or even sufficient detail.

This case is just a mess. So much unclear or inaccurate information swirling, so much contamination due to the sloppy handling of the crime scene, problems with evidence chain of custody. Even if they eventually figure out a likely killer, successful prosecution is unlikely in light of this.

It was always believed one of the three people inside the home killed her. Yes, the crime scene wasn't secured, and John made sure to make it harder for them. This is a smart man whose PR machine still tries to point a new generation in a different direction.

[Anonymous]

I didn't see anything weird about the parents' behavior. My only question is the ransom note, which apparently is up for debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok thanks to whoever recommended The Consult podcast . They are pretty convinced it was a sadistic intruder.

The 30 keys given out to various contractors and the fact that not all doors and windows were locked shows plenty of opportunity for an intruder.

Yet no evidence of an intruder in the house, and strong evidence of a coverup by the family.

No evidence? Multiple people were in and of that house over those days. There’s no way they did a clean sweep and identified every finger print, hair, clothing fiber, etc. There’s no evidence because they didn’t even look.

Of course they looked! And the evidence just wasn’t there. Everything points towards it being a family member. Everything. Except it can’t be proven which one, so, it will never be solved.

The podcast goes into extensive detail as to why that theory of the crime makes no sense.

And other documentaries push different theories. You can spin it any way you want to get viewers and listeners!

The facts alone tell someone in that home did it. It was a staged scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok thanks to whoever recommended The Consult podcast . They are pretty convinced it was a sadistic intruder.

The 30 keys given out to various contractors and the fact that not all doors and windows were locked shows plenty of opportunity for an intruder.

Yet no evidence of an intruder in the house, and strong evidence of a coverup by the family.

No evidence? Multiple people were in and of that house over those days. There’s no way they did a clean sweep and identified every finger print, hair, clothing fiber, etc. There’s no evidence because they didn’t even look.

Of course they looked! And the evidence just wasn’t there. Everything points towards it being a family member. Everything. Except it can’t be proven which one, so, it will never be solved.

The podcast goes into extensive detail as to why that theory of the crime makes no sense.

And other documentaries push different theories. You can spin it any way you want to get viewers and listeners!

The facts alone tell someone in that home did it. It was a staged scene.

But an intruder also could have staged it? The blanket from the dryer is odd though.

[Anonymous]

https://sites.gsu.edu/moyasfinalproject/support-1/

I like the part where she includes the exact number from his bonus, if you read that entire note. They had a short amount of time to cover their tracks, so many mistakes on their part which told one of them did it.

[Anonymous]

The ransom note was clearly written by Patsy for many reasons. Look at the two samples, plus men don't babble like this. Or use complementary terms. Its absurd she wasn't a little smarter about the cover up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/188slcd/the_ransom_note_comparison_original_vs_patsy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ransom note was clearly written by Patsy for many reasons. Look at the two samples, plus men don't babble like this. Or use complementary terms. Its absurd she wasn't a little smarter about the cover up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/188slcd/the_ransom_note_comparison_original_vs_patsy/

I agree, seems clear she wrote it with her left hand and deliberately hid certain characteristics eg the way she wrote her 'a's.

[Anonymous]

John Ramsey never seemed genuinely distraught to me. I know you can't base much on demeanor, but his always struck me as weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Ramsey never seemed genuinely distraught to me. I know you can't base much on demeanor, but his always struck me as weird.

I’ve never understood this as a reason he may have done it. Unless people are implying he was a cold-blooded killer that plotted to murder his daughter in advance.

That would explain a weird demeanor. But if they were covering up for Burke, doesn’t it stand to reason they would still be incredibly distraught over the loss of their daughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John Ramsey never seemed genuinely distraught to me. I know you can't base much on demeanor, but his always struck me as weird.

I’ve never understood this as a reason he may have done it. Unless people are implying he was a cold-blooded killer that plotted to murder his daughter in advance.

That would explain a weird demeanor. But if they were covering up for Burke, doesn’t it stand to reason they would still be incredibly distraught over the loss of their daughter?

Patsy seemed to be, but John always seemed cool and collected.