2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Burke did do this, which is the most plausible theory if you believe a family member did it, why would the father be directing so much media attention toward the case? That doesn't make sense.

Again with the Burke theory, the assumption is that Patsy wrote the note and staged the cover up. In interviews she comes across as a hysterical woman. If she wanted to stage a cover up I assume she would want her husband's help. Why would a sharp executive like John Ramsey dictate to her a ransom note that has his exact bonus amount? On the other hand the note totally sounds like a woman wrote it and I remember being impressed with the range of her vocabulary when watching the interviews with her. I just don't think there are any good answers to this case.

Bc he gets paid for these specials.....!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Burke did do this, which is the most plausible theory if you believe a family member did it, why would the father be directing so much media attention toward the case? That doesn't make sense.

Again with the Burke theory, the assumption is that Patsy wrote the note and staged the cover up. In interviews she comes across as a hysterical woman. If she wanted to stage a cover up I assume she would want her husband's help. Why would a sharp executive like John Ramsey dictate to her a ransom note that has his exact bonus amount? On the other hand the note totally sounds like a woman wrote it and I remember being impressed with the range of her vocabulary when watching the interviews with her. I just don't think there are any good answers to this case.

The father hired a PR firm. The media strategy was their directive to control the narrative and paint the ramseys in a sympathetic light, get ahead of the evidence.

I do find it strange that John Ramsey went on to write a book about their innocence (which I have not read) but in the grand scheme of things, the whole case is strange and tragic.

John also attends “crime-con” type gatherings and has , like , a booth for JonBenets murder and talks to people about it. Which, when I heard that, it struck me as incredibly odd and like the behavior of someone who had a hand in the crime. Like how police always say that the person who committed the crime tends to show up to press conferences and vigils and helps search efforts because they want to remain involved. It’s some psychological thing that I’m sure others can explain better than me. But I can’t imagine most normal men attending true crime conventions where people (let’s face it) excitedly discuss his daughters brutal murder and their theories on it with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Burke did do this, which is the most plausible theory if you believe a family member did it, why would the father be directing so much media attention toward the case? That doesn't make sense.

Again with the Burke theory, the assumption is that Patsy wrote the note and staged the cover up. In interviews she comes across as a hysterical woman. If she wanted to stage a cover up I assume she would want her husband's help. Why would a sharp executive like John Ramsey dictate to her a ransom note that has his exact bonus amount? On the other hand the note totally sounds like a woman wrote it and I remember being impressed with the range of her vocabulary when watching the interviews with her. I just don't think there are any good answers to this case.

That is a poor assumption. Her daughter was dead. He son did it. She wasn't thinking clearly. Who knows if Patsy thought John would hurt Burke for killing JB or if he would tell the truth and she feared theyd lose him too.

[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:

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.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was clearly the Gary Oliva guy, who frequently entered the house to sleep when it was cold. He went in on Christmas and was hanging around the house. When the family went out to dinner, he explored the house, drafted the letter because he actually planned to kidnap her. Late that night, he went to get her, left the letter and carried her downstairs. But he wasn't strong enough to get her out the window. Maybe he dropped her or she woke up so he killed her and left.

The key is in the wording of the letter. It is very similar to the type of language he uses in his letters and poems.

he was likely SA both kids.

[Anonymous]

I haven't finished it yet, but why won't the police test the DNA they have? Is it because they still have their minds made up that it was a family member?

I used to be Team Burke did it. I was the victim of SA when I was almost 8 by my best friend's older brother, who was 9. What he did to me was very violent and involved an object, like how a paintbrush was used on her.

I just don't know now. If the DNA in her underpants didn't belong to Burke or any other family member, then it had to be an intruder/family friend.

Also, as someone who lives in a very large house (7200 sqft), I can easily believe someone entered and exited that house via the basement window multiple times stalking JBR without anyone knowing. My college-aged DD told her brother she was coming home for the weekend to celebrate a friend's bday who goes to GMU. She figured he'd tell us. As a typical teen boy, he did not. She'd been coming and going for 2 days before either my wife or I saw her and realized she was home. Our house has an au pair wing with its own entrance/exit that's closest to the garage, so the kids tend to use it instead of going in through the garage or front door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was clearly the Gary Oliva guy, who frequently entered the house to sleep when it was cold. He went in on Christmas and was hanging around the house. When the family went out to dinner, he explored the house, drafted the letter because he actually planned to kidnap her. Late that night, he went to get her, left the letter and carried her downstairs. But he wasn't strong enough to get her out the window. Maybe he dropped her or she woke up so he killed her and left.

The key is in the wording of the letter. It is very similar to the type of language he uses in his letters and poems.

Is that the Santa? I thought they cleared him? Or was he cleared because he didn’t match the DNA , which I personally think was useless dna to start with

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was clearly the Gary Oliva guy, who frequently entered the house to sleep when it was cold. He went in on Christmas and was hanging around the house. When the family went out to dinner, he explored the house, drafted the letter because he actually planned to kidnap her. Late that night, he went to get her, left the letter and carried her downstairs. But he wasn't strong enough to get her out the window. Maybe he dropped her or she woke up so he killed her and left.

The key is in the wording of the letter. It is very similar to the type of language he uses in his letters and poems.

Is that the Santa? I thought they cleared him? Or was he cleared because he didn’t match the DNA , which I personally think was useless dna to start with

I agree that WAY too much has hinged on that DNA sample.

[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:

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.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

[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:

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.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

And you are ignoring the analysis indicating it might have nothing to do with the crime.

[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:

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.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

[Anonymous]

I completely think it’s possible that the nine-year-old accidentally killed her by a head injury and the Mom staged a cover up.

But just thinking of true crimes like the staircase murders, where the husband staged the death, why not do something like she fell down the stairs or something less sadistic and crazy like a torture rape scene? Seems a lot for Patsy to take on or even think about.

Not to mention that the autopsy revealed that she was alive when she was strangled, so the brother accidentally hit her with a baseball bat theory falls apart when the strangulation comes into it, but then I guess people think he was sadistic and playing and strangling her… Either way seems like such a freaking stretch.

What strikes me is so odd is the police on the documentary saying that they thought it was a kidnapping so they allowed a bunch of people to come into the house and contaminate the scene. But isn’t a kidnapping still a crime scene? If the child was taken from her house, why would they not want to clear the house immediately, get the son out, and do an investigation to see if there is an intruder? Wait with the Ramseys for the 8 am call?

I get the standard explanation has been incompetence, but that seems like police work 101. I just don’t buy that the police totally wanted to solve this crime in a real way from the start.

[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:

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.

Not PP but you’re right, it’s not conclusive. But the only fibers found on it were Patsys. And everything about this crime is odd. I mean just this morning I was wearing my jacket in our basement because the utility room is cold and I was trying to fix the pilot light on our old water heater. If her jacket fibers got onto it just from her husband ripping it off (not even her, in her jacket, ripping it off!) then I myself would think the intruder must have gotten some clothing fibers on it when he or she applied it?! I am no detective , but again, it doesn’t make sense why her clothing fibers were there but not “the killers”. It makes one think, well, what if she is the killer.

So how does that implicate Burke if Patsy was only doing cover up? It’s a huge stretch to think Patsy did this all herself for no real reason.

The argument would be that she staged the cover up to protect her son.

But nothing connects him to any crime. No fingerprints, DNA, fibers, etc. Patsy has zero motive here.

I think some people believe they were up together in the middle of the night (Burke admits in police interviews etc that he was up that night looking at presents), they made some pineapple (she had it undigested in her stomach and there was some in a bowl on the counter, apparently prepared in a childlike way, with a much too large spoon etc), and he for some reason hit her over the head. I don’t think anyone has ever determined what object hit her over the head, but a baseball bat in the basement or a large heavy flashlight were 2 theories from 2 objects found in the house. Then people theorize that he saw she was unconscious and then poked her with his train tracks and then went to tell his mother, who was still awake packing, what happened. And his mother then, in a panic, staged the rest of it, wrote the note etc. Which is why Burkes dna wasn’t found on the garrote or the paintbrush because he did not do that part. And why his mother’s fibers were found all over that stuff.

It’s not a perfect explanation by any means but it would fit. It would also explain why Burke was clearly awake and talking in the background of the 911 call despite his parents claiming he was asleep and why his parents wouldn’t let the police talk to him that morning.

I don’t know if I truly believe this theory but I see why people do.

I don’t believe this theory at all. There is no reason why a woman like Patsy would do this to her daughter. Even if her son accidentally killed his sister, I just don’t think this is a normal reaction. Nothing in Patsy‘s past or any interaction suggest she would be a sadistic weirdo like this to stage the body in such a way. In past accidents with Burke, the parents had taken her to get medical care right away. Isn’t that what any normal sane person would do? It appears to me from the past living experiences and no prior history that they behave like normal people. So no, the theory makes no sense. Also, an 8 inch fracture on her school would be very hard for nine-year-old boy to inflict. I don’t think that anyone would’ve kept quiet this long if Brooke had actually done this. He sued and his family has sued for CBS his interpretation of him doing it and by all means he should. I don’t believe that he did this or could have inflicted that much damage to his sisters body. The police have ruled him out completely. It’s time for other people to do so.

[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:

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.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Burke did do this, which is the most plausible theory if you believe a family member did it, why would the father be directing so much media attention toward the case? That doesn't make sense.

Again with the Burke theory, the assumption is that Patsy wrote the note and staged the cover up. In interviews she comes across as a hysterical woman. If she wanted to stage a cover up I assume she would want her husband's help. Why would a sharp executive like John Ramsey dictate to her a ransom note that has his exact bonus amount? On the other hand the note totally sounds like a woman wrote it and I remember being impressed with the range of her vocabulary when watching the interviews with her. I just don't think there are any good answers to this case.

Bc he gets paid for these specials.....!

He doesn’t need the money fool.