2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?

Nope, don't buy it. Hiding in the house to snatch a little girl, yes. To torture her using only stuff found in the house (didn't bring anything, including rope or duct tape?) and write a long ransom note over an extended period of time on Christmas Eve when multiple people are in the house and maybe awake? Does not hold up.

[Anonymous]

I watched the first of the three episodes and about 10 minutes of the second and got bored and quit watching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?

Nope, don't buy it. Hiding in the house to snatch a little girl, yes. To torture her using only stuff found in the house (didn't bring anything, including rope or duct tape?) and write a long ransom note over an extended period of time on Christmas Eve when multiple people are in the house and maybe awake? Does not hold up.

Yes Im sure the mother did the torture makes so much sense. Oh and found some random man to rub her underwear on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?

Nope, don't buy it. Hiding in the house to snatch a little girl, yes. To torture her using only stuff found in the house (didn't bring anything, including rope or duct tape?) and write a long ransom note over an extended period of time on Christmas Eve when multiple people are in the house and maybe awake? Does not hold up.

Yes Im sure the mother did the torture makes so much sense. Oh and found some random man to rub her underwear on.

Not the PP but this is the whole point- neither scenario makes total sense. The problem with the "Ramseys did it" theory is that there is a small amount of touch DNA on her underwear. The problem with the "intruder did it" theory is that literally all of the circumstantial evidence- the ransom note being written on the family's notepad with the family's pen which were put back in their correct spots, multiple drafts of the ransom note being found on the family's notepad in the drawer, the things used for the murder all being items from inside the house, the child being wrapped up in a blanket that was removed from the dryer, the fact that the child's stomach contents showed that she'd been eating a snack before she died and that snack was sitting on the kitchen counter in a bowl- point to it being done by someone who lived in the home. So basically, we will never know what happened.
However, if people are going to be convinced of the intruder theory based on the touch DNA, then how do they explain the mother's clothing fibers being on the duct tape and on the rope/string used to strangle her? I think , honestly, that if an intruder did it, the mother helped cover it up for some reason.

[Anonymous]

NOBODY like them does this to their child. They don’t for the profile at all. As
Hard as it is for some people, an intruder did this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY like them does this to their child. They don’t for the profile at all. As
Hard as it is for some people, an intruder did this.

“Like them”? What does that mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, what I noticed.

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them.

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room.

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?

Nope, don't buy it. Hiding in the house to snatch a little girl, yes. To torture her using only stuff found in the house (didn't bring anything, including rope or duct tape?) and write a long ransom note over an extended period of time on Christmas Eve when multiple people are in the house and maybe awake? Does not hold up.

Yes Im sure the mother did the torture makes so much sense. Oh and found some random man to rub her underwear on.

Not the PP but this is the whole point- neither scenario makes total sense. The problem with the "Ramseys did it" theory is that there is a small amount of touch DNA on her underwear. The problem with the "intruder did it" theory is that literally all of the circumstantial evidence- the ransom note being written on the family's notepad with the family's pen which were put back in their correct spots, multiple drafts of the ransom note being found on the family's notepad in the drawer, the things used for the murder all being items from inside the house, the child being wrapped up in a blanket that was removed from the dryer, the fact that the child's stomach contents showed that she'd been eating a snack before she died and that snack was sitting on the kitchen counter in a bowl- point to it being done by someone who lived in the home. So basically, we will never know what happened.
However, if people are going to be convinced of the intruder theory based on the touch DNA, then how do they explain the mother's clothing fibers being on the duct tape and on the rope/string used to strangle her? I think , honestly, that if an intruder did it, the mother helped cover it up for some reason.

Nobody has to explain anything. You can have whatever theory you want and so can others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY like them does this to their child. They don’t for the profile at all. As
Hard as it is for some people, an intruder did this.

“Like them”? What does that mean?

Maybe people who weren’t abusing their kids previously?

[Anonymous]

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."

The feces thing was told by a former maid. That maid was fired for stealing and had a grudge against the Ramseys.

It sounds like JB had toileting problems and that there is only speculation about Burke and feces. One of the original theories was that Patsy lost her temper about yet another bedwetting incident and maybe hit JB, who fell and struck her head. But I don't think the head injury ended up being consistent with that theory.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/wiki/feces_evidence/

If either kid had special needs, it’s entirely possible that they were struggling with the finer points of using the restroom - wiping, or making it in time, or struggling with constipation/encopresis. This is more commonly acknowledged these days, but would have been shamefully hidden and misunderstood in the mid 90s.

It can also be a sign of SA. Wetting the bed, playing with excrement and other issues with going to the bathroom way past potty training age are sometimes signs of being abused unfortunately.

I think Burke had been abused and then abused SB. (even in the Menendez case, the older brother abused the younger brother after being abused himself by the father)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY like them does this to their child. They don’t for the profile at all. As
Hard as it is for some people, an intruder did this.

“Like them”? What does that mean?

Maybe people who weren’t abusing their kids previously?

And what evidence do you have that abuse never happened before that night?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The intruder had time to lure her out of her room, feed her, kill her, even stage fake ransom note drafts in the mothers notepad – which means he would’ve known exactly where in the house that was – and staged all of the other items?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NOBODY like them does this to their child. They don’t for the profile at all. As
Hard as it is for some people, an intruder did this.

“Like them”? What does that mean?

Maybe people who weren’t abusing their kids previously?

And what evidence do you have that abuse never happened before that night?

Well surely that would have come to light by now.