2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re right, I don’t think they ever found out where the duct tape and rope came from one way or another. The other items were sourced from the ramseys home though. And the only evidence found on the duct tape and rope, if I recall correctly, was the mother’s clothing fibers. But the house was an absolute mess, and the crime scene was so contaminated, that that isn’t exactly a silver bullet. But the fact that the duct tape was put on her mouth post Mortem is just weird. And the ransom note (with drafts!) despite her not being kidnapped is, again, just weird. It’s probably either the family or someone known to the family and I think it’s clear that the family (most likely the mother based on the clothing fibers found on the body and the handwriting experts being torn on whether or not it’s her handwriting) helped cover it up for some reason or another.

The charges brought seemed to point towards the investigators thinking it was Burke and the parents helped conceal his guilt. But the investigators clearly messed up in so many ways that it would have been impossible to prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

[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.

I keep hearing this reported, but her pediatrician during her whole time at Boulder from age 3 to age 6 is interviewed on video saying there was no signs of sexual abuse. I’m not saying that she wasn’t sexually abused, but I just don’t see how people can say that she definitively was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

OK, different poster but this one fact has always bothered the crap out of me. Patsy putting on the same clothes the night after. I’m sorry, but I do that all the freaking time. And I’m not unhygienic or weird. But let’s think about Patsy‘s day. It was Christmas the day before and the family probably got up and went to church and opened presents. They went to dinner at a friends that evening. She probably put on a fresh outfit before they went to dinner. They were at dinner around three or four hours. Went home and went to bed. It is completely in the realm of possibility that if I go out to a friends for dinner for three or four hours in the sweater and the top or whatever, that I would then get up the next morning and head to the airport in the same sweater or top.

Sorry, I know that is a small detail, but it really bothers me that think this is such strange behavior.

There was a Twitter thread on this phenomenon a few years ago, I believe the actress Mindy Kaling started it - she called on people to share pictures of their “clothes chair.” The chair that you throw clothes on that you wore that are not dirty enough to be laundered, but you don’t want to put away cause you need to wear them again so you can wash them. I remember it so well because I shared it with my husband because I have the same damn thing and it drives him crazy. And I showed him all of the pictures of the women who were sharing their clothes chair.

So maybe some people think it’s gross and maybe you don’t do this and maybe you think it’s a bad habit, but I will say is very common for women to do this.

[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”? Like, white well off and nice and had friends? Kind of like Chris Watts was?

Nope. They aren’t even in the same category. Chris Watts, deep in debt, lower class, having an affair. The Ramseys, married happily, church going but not extreme. High earners, loving home, no prior abuse according to pediatrician and friends, family. Executive dad, southern mom, nice house. It doesn’t for the profile. Sorry to burst your bubble but a pedophile got in, sexually abused her and killed her probably accidentally while fulfilling his sick fantasy. Boulder police had no homicide experience. Lou Smit and other FBI profilers agree this was an intruder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

OK, different poster but this one fact has always bothered the crap out of me. Patsy putting on the same clothes the night after. I’m sorry, but I do that all the freaking time. And I’m not unhygienic or weird. But let’s think about Patsy‘s day. It was Christmas the day before and the family probably got up and went to church and opened presents. They went to dinner at a friends that evening. She probably put on a fresh outfit before they went to dinner. They were at dinner around three or four hours. Went home and went to bed. It is completely in the realm of possibility that if I go out to a friends for dinner for three or four hours in the sweater and the top or whatever, that I would then get up the next morning and head to the airport in the same sweater or top.

Sorry, I know that is a small detail, but it really bothers me that think this is such strange behavior.

There was a Twitter thread on this phenomenon a few years ago, I believe the actress Mindy Kaling started it - she called on people to share pictures of their “clothes chair.” The chair that you throw clothes on that you wore that are not dirty enough to be laundered, but you don’t want to put away cause you need to wear them again so you can wash them. I remember it so well because I shared it with my husband because I have the same damn thing and it drives him crazy. And I showed him all of the pictures of the women who were sharing their clothes chair.

So maybe some people think it’s gross and maybe you don’t do this and maybe you think it’s a bad habit, but I will say is very common for women to do this.

She said she got up and went down the stairs to make coffee. They were planning to travel that day. It doesn’t seem odd that she threw on whatever (from the clothes chair of which I have one too), to get the coffee going before heading back up to get ready for the day. I don’t appear in the kitchen fully showered, dressed, coiffed, with full makeup and ready for the day and I bet most people don’t either. It is a weird detail to get hung up on. But people are so desperate to blame the parents they either make up their own facts or make weird pronouncements like this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

OK, different poster but this one fact has always bothered the crap out of me. Patsy putting on the same clothes the night after. I’m sorry, but I do that all the freaking time. And I’m not unhygienic or weird. But let’s think about Patsy‘s day. It was Christmas the day before and the family probably got up and went to church and opened presents. They went to dinner at a friends that evening. She probably put on a fresh outfit before they went to dinner. They were at dinner around three or four hours. Went home and went to bed. It is completely in the realm of possibility that if I go out to a friends for dinner for three or four hours in the sweater and the top or whatever, that I would then get up the next morning and head to the airport in the same sweater or top.

Sorry, I know that is a small detail, but it really bothers me that think this is such strange behavior.

There was a Twitter thread on this phenomenon a few years ago, I believe the actress Mindy Kaling started it - she called on people to share pictures of their “clothes chair.” The chair that you throw clothes on that you wore that are not dirty enough to be laundered, but you don’t want to put away cause you need to wear them again so you can wash them. I remember it so well because I shared it with my husband because I have the same damn thing and it drives him crazy. And I showed him all of the pictures of the women who were sharing their clothes chair.

So maybe some people think it’s gross and maybe you don’t do this and maybe you think it’s a bad habit, but I will say is very common for women to do this.

She said she got up and went down the stairs to make coffee. They were planning to travel that day. It doesn’t seem odd that she threw on whatever (from the clothes chair of which I have one too), to get the coffee going before heading back up to get ready for the day. I don’t appear in the kitchen fully showered, dressed, coiffed, with full makeup and ready for the day and I bet most people don’t either. It is a weird detail to get hung up on. But people are so desperate to blame the parents they either make up their own facts or make weird pronouncements like this one.

Agree with you, on a normal day, but reports were that they had to leave for the airport at seven. She came down at 5:52, and she still needed to pack more since they were open suitcases still in the rooms. Not beyond the realm of possibility that she actually got up, threw on clothes, put on some make up before going to start the day, get the kids up, finish last-minute packing and run out the door.

[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”? Like, white well off and nice and had friends? Kind of like Chris Watts was?

Nope. They aren’t even in the same category. Chris Watts, deep in debt, lower class, having an affair. The Ramseys, married happily, church going but not extreme. High earners, loving home, no prior abuse according to pediatrician and friends, family. Executive dad, southern mom, nice house. It doesn’t for the profile. Sorry to burst your bubble but a pedophile got in, sexually abused her and killed her probably accidentally while fulfilling his sick fantasy. Boulder police had no homicide experience. Lou Smit and other FBI profilers agree this was an intruder.

Yes, one of the details that stuck out to me was that the Ramseys did cooperate with things like letting the police see their full financial records. It did not appear that there was anything funny going on financially with them. Which would’ve been a huge red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

OK, different poster but this one fact has always bothered the crap out of me. Patsy putting on the same clothes the night after. I’m sorry, but I do that all the freaking time. And I’m not unhygienic or weird. But let’s think about Patsy‘s day. It was Christmas the day before and the family probably got up and went to church and opened presents. They went to dinner at a friends that evening. She probably put on a fresh outfit before they went to dinner. They were at dinner around three or four hours. Went home and went to bed. It is completely in the realm of possibility that if I go out to a friends for dinner for three or four hours in the sweater and the top or whatever, that I would then get up the next morning and head to the airport in the same sweater or top.

Sorry, I know that is a small detail, but it really bothers me that think this is such strange behavior.

There was a Twitter thread on this phenomenon a few years ago, I believe the actress Mindy Kaling started it - she called on people to share pictures of their “clothes chair.” The chair that you throw clothes on that you wore that are not dirty enough to be laundered, but you don’t want to put away cause you need to wear them again so you can wash them. I remember it so well because I shared it with my husband because I have the same damn thing and it drives him crazy. And I showed him all of the pictures of the women who were sharing their clothes chair.

So maybe some people think it’s gross and maybe you don’t do this and maybe you think it’s a bad habit, but I will say is very common for women to do this.

She said she got up and went down the stairs to make coffee. They were planning to travel that day. It doesn’t seem odd that she threw on whatever (from the clothes chair of which I have one too), to get the coffee going before heading back up to get ready for the day. I don’t appear in the kitchen fully showered, dressed, coiffed, with full makeup and ready for the day and I bet most people don’t either. It is a weird detail to get hung up on. But people are so desperate to blame the parents they either make up their own facts or make weird pronouncements like this one.

Agree with you, on a normal day, but reports were that they had to leave for the airport at seven. She came down at 5:52, and she still needed to pack more since they were open suitcases still in the rooms. Not beyond the realm of possibility that she actually got up, threw on clothes, put on some make up before going to start the day, get the kids up, finish last-minute packing and run out the door.

Have you met people who can’t function without coffee? They are lots of them.

[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.

I keep hearing this reported, but her pediatrician during her whole time at Boulder from age 3 to age 6 is interviewed on video saying there was no signs of sexual abuse. I’m not saying that she wasn’t sexually abused, but I just don’t see how people can say that she definitively was.

I think it’s because a bunch of experts studied the coroners report and the autopsy was suspicious for past sexual abuse. I think the coroner declined to say definitively. Basically, just like the rest of the evidence, it’s open to so much speculation. But , semi related, I’m a pediatrician and you definitely can’t always tell if a child is being sexually abused by a simple external exam during a well check or during a visit for vaginitis complaints (of which she had a few, apparently). Vaginitis goes hand in hand with constipation/ encopresis and there is speculation she had issues with that , so, who knows. What I do know is the pediatrician coming out in interviews saying so definitively that there were no signs of abuse and she was a happy child because he can “tell if a child is happy” was irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

OK, different poster but this one fact has always bothered the crap out of me. Patsy putting on the same clothes the night after. I’m sorry, but I do that all the freaking time. And I’m not unhygienic or weird. But let’s think about Patsy‘s day. It was Christmas the day before and the family probably got up and went to church and opened presents. They went to dinner at a friends that evening. She probably put on a fresh outfit before they went to dinner. They were at dinner around three or four hours. Went home and went to bed. It is completely in the realm of possibility that if I go out to a friends for dinner for three or four hours in the sweater and the top or whatever, that I would then get up the next morning and head to the airport in the same sweater or top.

Sorry, I know that is a small detail, but it really bothers me that think this is such strange behavior.

There was a Twitter thread on this phenomenon a few years ago, I believe the actress Mindy Kaling started it - she called on people to share pictures of their “clothes chair.” The chair that you throw clothes on that you wore that are not dirty enough to be laundered, but you don’t want to put away cause you need to wear them again so you can wash them. I remember it so well because I shared it with my husband because I have the same damn thing and it drives him crazy. And I showed him all of the pictures of the women who were sharing their clothes chair.

So maybe some people think it’s gross and maybe you don’t do this and maybe you think it’s a bad habit, but I will say is very common for women to do this.

This is true (I have a clothes chair too!!). I don’t know if I’d wear my Christmas party attire on a plane ride the following morning though and that’s what makes it odd to me personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re right, I don’t think they ever found out where the duct tape and rope came from one way or another. The other items were sourced from the ramseys home though. And the only evidence found on the duct tape and rope, if I recall correctly, was the mother’s clothing fibers. But the house was an absolute mess, and the crime scene was so contaminated, that that isn’t exactly a silver bullet. But the fact that the duct tape was put on her mouth post Mortem is just weird. And the ransom note (with drafts!) despite her not being kidnapped is, again, just weird. It’s probably either the family or someone known to the family and I think it’s clear that the family (most likely the mother based on the clothing fibers found on the body and the handwriting experts being torn on whether or not it’s her handwriting) helped cover it up for some reason or another.

The charges brought seemed to point towards the investigators thinking it was Burke and the parents helped conceal his guilt. But the investigators clearly messed up in so many ways that it would have been impossible to prove.

I’m not sure if the duct tape was sourced to the house, but the rope was. Investigators determined the following may that patsy had purchased the nylon cord from a hardware store in boulder on December 2nd. The store had a receipt from her for one item the same price as the nylon cord. However by the time they had made the determination, the stores surveillance footage had already been taped over so there is no video proof, just the receipt.

The duct tape, which the coroner confirmed was applied after jonbenet was deceased, had patsy’s red sweater fibers on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re right, I don’t think they ever found out where the duct tape and rope came from one way or another. The other items were sourced from the ramseys home though. And the only evidence found on the duct tape and rope, if I recall correctly, was the mother’s clothing fibers. But the house was an absolute mess, and the crime scene was so contaminated, that that isn’t exactly a silver bullet. But the fact that the duct tape was put on her mouth post Mortem is just weird. And the ransom note (with drafts!) despite her not being kidnapped is, again, just weird. It’s probably either the family or someone known to the family and I think it’s clear that the family (most likely the mother based on the clothing fibers found on the body and the handwriting experts being torn on whether or not it’s her handwriting) helped cover it up for some reason or another.

The charges brought seemed to point towards the investigators thinking it was Burke and the parents helped conceal his guilt. But the investigators clearly messed up in so many ways that it would have been impossible to prove.

I’m not sure if the duct tape was sourced to the house, but the rope was. Investigators determined the following may that patsy had purchased the nylon cord from a hardware store in boulder on December 2nd. The store had a receipt from her for one item the same price as the nylon cord. However by the time they had made the determination, the stores surveillance footage had already been taped over so there is no video proof, just the receipt.

The duct tape, which the coroner confirmed was applied after jonbenet was deceased, had patsy’s red sweater fibers on it.

It wasn’t a sweater. It was her jacket. She was wearing a jacket in the house to stage this crime? That would be odd. Do you wear your jacket around the house? Or the tape, after it was removed by John, picked up stray fibers since she had recently worn the jacket. This is yet another detail that isn’t very conclusive.