2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not when the victim is dead

Her body would have told the tale.

It did, it showed prior sexual abuse.

No it did not. That’s reddit nonsense. It’s clear where your “facts” are coming from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

[Anonymous]

The only reason the parents weren’t brought to trial in this case (and they were indicted by the grand jury, which people forget), is because they were rich and white without prior criminal history. If this was a black family on welfare in Baltimore, with this amount of circumstantial evidence, the parents would have been in jail before the end of the week. And it’s because there are so many people out there like one of the PPs on this thread who truly believe that UMC white people don’t ever kill their wives or kids, when in reality, they probably just get away with it much more frequently because, as the PP says, “they don’t fit the profile”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking forward to finding out the truth about this murder.

UMC/wealthy white people don’t murder their kids. Really, they don’t. Some lower MC white men kill their spouses, but even that is rare and they end up on the national news.

People who commit crimes also typically have a criminal history. Wherever there is smoke there is fire. No way that this family would be so successful without any family history or criminal activity and then one day they murder their only daughter.

This case garnered a lot of interest because it’s a wealthy family and people like to eat the rich.

First of all, if you watch any crime stuff on Netflix etc. UMC/wealthy people absolutely do murder their family.

Second of all, abuse certainly occurs within wealthy families as well.

Thirdly, wealthy people are certainly not immune to psychiatric problems and developmental disorders.

Lastly, the most plausible theory in this case is not that one of her parents killed her. It’s that her brother, who very likely had an untreated psychiatric disorder, is the one who attacked and ultimately killed her - whether it was intentional or premeditated or not. The parents (primarily the mother) covered it up and they got away with it because they were wealthy enough to hire top lawyers and publicists and interfere with the DA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking forward to finding out the truth about this murder.

UMC/wealthy white people don’t murder their kids. Really, they don’t. Some lower MC white men kill their spouses, but even that is rare and they end up on the national news.

People who commit crimes also typically have a criminal history. Wherever there is smoke there is fire. No way that this family would be so successful without any family history or criminal activity and then one day they murder their only daughter.

This case garnered a lot of interest because it’s a wealthy family and people like to eat the rich.

First of all, if you watch any crime stuff on Netflix etc. UMC/wealthy people absolutely do murder their family.

Second of all, abuse certainly occurs within wealthy families as well.

Thirdly, wealthy people are certainly not immune to psychiatric problems and developmental disorders.

Lastly, the most plausible theory in this case is not that one of her parents killed her. It’s that her brother, who very likely had an untreated psychiatric disorder, is the one who attacked and ultimately killed her - whether it was intentional or premeditated or not. The parents (primarily the mother) covered it up and they got away with it because they were wealthy enough to hire top lawyers and publicists and interfere with the DA.

I know you think you have it all figured out but there are too many holes in that theory to make it so obvious to many which is why the parents have never been arrested nor the boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking forward to finding out the truth about this murder.

UMC/wealthy white people don’t murder their kids. Really, they don’t. Some lower MC white men kill their spouses, but even that is rare and they end up on the national news.

People who commit crimes also typically have a criminal history. Wherever there is smoke there is fire. No way that this family would be so successful without any family history or criminal activity and then one day they murder their only daughter.

This case garnered a lot of interest because it’s a wealthy family and people like to eat the rich.

First of all, if you watch any crime stuff on Netflix etc. UMC/wealthy people absolutely do murder their family.

Second of all, abuse certainly occurs within wealthy families as well.

Thirdly, wealthy people are certainly not immune to psychiatric problems and developmental disorders.

Lastly, the most plausible theory in this case is not that one of her parents killed her. It’s that her brother, who very likely had an untreated psychiatric disorder, is the one who attacked and ultimately killed her - whether it was intentional or premeditated or not. The parents (primarily the mother) covered it up and they got away with it because they were wealthy enough to hire top lawyers and publicists and interfere with the DA.

I know you think you have it all figured out but there are too many holes in that theory to make it so obvious to many which is why the parents have never been arrested nor the boy.

I don’t think I have it all figured out. It’s just a lot more rational than thinking an intruder did it and lingered in the house for hours while JB hemorrhaged to death, taking their time to defile her body with toys and paintbrushes from the basement and other materials that patsy had purchased from stores, and ultimately write several drafts of a long ransom note with materials in the kitchen. Not to mention feeding jonbenet pineapple shortly before all of this, staging an abduction after she was already dead, the fact that patsy was still in her clothes and makeup from the night before and that Burke was heard on the 911 call despite the parents claiming he was asleep.

The most logical explanation is that the family was involved. We will never know exactly what happened unless Burke talks someday, which he won’t. Burke also likely does not know exactly what his mother did to cover it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible, since John had taken a sleeping pill, that he didn't even know exactly what happened? If Burke hit JB or she they were tussling and she fell and bashed her head, then he messed with her body, it's possible Patsy did just a slight staging of the body (wrist ties and tape) before writing the ransom note and only after that waking John up?

Yes. That is more or less James kolar’s theory of what happened - he was the lead detective on the case in boulder in the early 2000s, years after it occurred. John took a sleeping pill on Christmas night and woke up the next morning to whatever Burke had done and how patsy had covered it up, and by that point patsy was calling the police. He knew something was off. Patsy was still in her clothes and makeup from the night prior when the police arrived.

I believe based on a previous Reddit AMA that kolar still thinks John doesn’t know exactly what transpired that night. Burke and patsy were the most involved, and his theory was that John didn’t discover Jonbenet until after the time for the AM ransom call had passed, and he disappeared for about an hour. During that time he discovered her body and felt he had no choice but to participate in the coverup.

Maybe. I also think the most likely thing is that it was an accident of one kind or another, then covered up out of fear and embarrassment (especially if Burke had played doctor with the body and used the garrote-like thing to drag her).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m looking forward to finding out the truth about this murder.

UMC/wealthy white people don’t murder their kids. Really, they don’t. Some lower MC white men kill their spouses, but even that is rare and they end up on the national news.

People who commit crimes also typically have a criminal history. Wherever there is smoke there is fire. No way that this family would be so successful without any family history or criminal activity and then one day they murder their only daughter.

This case garnered a lot of interest because it’s a wealthy family and people like to eat the rich.

First of all, if you watch any crime stuff on Netflix etc. UMC/wealthy people absolutely do murder their family.

Second of all, abuse certainly occurs within wealthy families as well.

Thirdly, wealthy people are certainly not immune to psychiatric problems and developmental disorders.

Lastly, the most plausible theory in this case is not that one of her parents killed her. It’s that her brother, who very likely had an untreated psychiatric disorder, is the one who attacked and ultimately killed her - whether it was intentional or premeditated or not. The parents (primarily the mother) covered it up and they got away with it because they were wealthy enough to hire top lawyers and publicists and interfere with the DA.

I know you think you have it all figured out but there are too many holes in that theory to make it so obvious to many which is why the parents have never been arrested nor the boy.

I don’t think I have it all figured out. It’s just a lot more rational than thinking an intruder did it and lingered in the house for hours while JB hemorrhaged to death, taking their time to defile her body with toys and paintbrushes from the basement and other materials that patsy had purchased from stores, and ultimately write several drafts of a long ransom note with materials in the kitchen. Not to mention feeding jonbenet pineapple shortly before all of this, staging an abduction after she was already dead, the fact that patsy was still in her clothes and makeup from the night before and that Burke was heard on the 911 call despite the parents claiming he was asleep.

The most logical explanation is that the family was involved. We will never know exactly what happened unless Burke talks someday, which he won’t. Burke also likely does not know exactly what his mother did to cover it up.

I agree with you. There is just too much circumstantial evidence against the family. If it was an intruder it would have to be such a convoluted story with so much coincidence. Like she was up eating pineapple in the middle of the night with her brother coincidentally , and the intruder was able to find all these murder and ransom note supplies around the house without leaving any fingerprints or hairs or other touch DNA, and Patsy happened to just put on the same clothes as last night when she woke up? Like it could have happened this way- no one knows!- but man that’s a lot of coincidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not when the victim is dead

Her body would have told the tale.

It did, it showed prior sexual abuse.

No it did not. That’s reddit nonsense. It’s clear where your “facts” are coming from.

This is not Reddit nonsense. Here is one link, there are many others. The coroner said she had sustained both recent and past abuse.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1999/916rams.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

[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.

Some of what you were saying is misinformation though. The duct tape used to keep her mouth taped and the rope that was found in the guestroom next to her room were never sourced to the family‘s house.

I don’t believe it was a random intruder. But one of the problems with this case is that it was clear the family was exposed to a lot of questionable people. The pageant photographer pedophile, the town Santa who would come to the family parties in the home who had a very questionable past and other stalkers that noticed her because of the pageants. And the family history of leaving the doors unlocked, not fixing a broken window and having contractors in and out of the house constantly, etc. doesn’t help either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.