2024 JonBenet Documentary

[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:

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.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Sounds like a lucky guess. She wasn’t stabbed either, but again, we ignore the parts that do’t fit and hone in on the ones that do.

Perhaps the "stabbing" he was talking about would account for the 2 dots that the corner attributed to her lying on a piece of train track. The same dots that the investigator who was brought in attributed to a stun gun.

I get the vibe that Burke was the cast aside sibling once JonBenet came along. She was the daughter that Patsy had always secretly wanted to follow in her footsteps. I can imagine there was some extreme jealously going on there.

[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:

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.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Sounds like a lucky guess. She wasn’t stabbed either, but again, we ignore the parts that do’t fit and hone in on the ones that do.

Perhaps the "stabbing" he was talking about would account for the 2 dots that the corner attributed to her lying on a piece of train track. The same dots that the investigator who was brought in attributed to a stun gun.

I get the vibe that Burke was the cast aside sibling once JonBenet came along. She was the daughter that Patsy had always secretly wanted to follow in her footsteps. I can imagine there was some extreme jealously going on there.

Entirely implausible.

He was not a toddler. Everyone knows stabbings entail bleeding.

[Anonymous]

Hand writing experts concluded the ambidextrous mom wrote the letter.

Case. Closed.

All this other nonsense is podcast and documentary conspiracy bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know it "makes sense" that Burke did it, but I'll never be convinced. He was a child. I don't understand the ransom note. Up until her death, did Patsy maintain that she didn't write it?

I could actually see it being the case that she did write it, not because she was covering anything up, but because she thought it would "encourage" the police to act faster / take the case more seriously or something. But if that was the case, I imagine she would've come clean at some point.

You are lost in the sauce here. She wrote the letter because she was trying to cover a crime up. Stop with this Q-anon tier nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it "makes sense" that Burke did it, but I'll never be convinced. He was a child. I don't understand the ransom note. Up until her death, did Patsy maintain that she didn't write it?

I could actually see it being the case that she did write it, not because she was covering anything up, but because she thought it would "encourage" the police to act faster / take the case more seriously or something. But if that was the case, I imagine she would've come clean at some point.

You are lost in the sauce here. She wrote the letter because she was trying to cover a crime up. Stop with this Q-anon tier nonsense.

A crime completely either out of character for a parent or far too sophisticated for a boy? Not convincing at all.

[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.

If not for the Elizabeth Smart case, I would have scoffed at the absurdity of the idea that a random vagrant did this to JonBenet. But it just goes to show that there is true evil in the world and it definitely could have been this guy.
(But why don’t we hear about him? Did they clear him completely?)

[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.

If not for the Elizabeth Smart case, I would have scoffed at the absurdity of the idea that a random vagrant did this to JonBenet. But it just goes to show that there is true evil in the world and it definitely could have been this guy.
(But why don’t we hear about him? Did they clear him completely?)

His DNA did not match.

[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.

If not for the Elizabeth Smart case, I would have scoffed at the absurdity of the idea that a random vagrant did this to JonBenet. But it just goes to show that there is true evil in the world and it definitely could have been this guy.
(But why don’t we hear about him? Did they clear him completely?)

The police did clear him and he was in poor health.

The difference between this and the Elizabeth Smart case was that Elizabeth smart was actually abducted and her sister in the room was a witness. There wasnt a murder, staged intrusion, and a body found in the home all done with supplies from the house containing fibers from her mothers jacket.

[Anonymous]

I watched the Netflix show and the podcast suggested here. I used to think parents did it but now I’m convinced an intruder and possibly the creeper caught in Thailand. The way he described what he did actually put all the pieces together. Strangling first and then hitting over the head because he wanted to make sure she died since he accidentally applied too much pressure in his torture device. He intended to kidnap her he said but then he didn’t and used the basement to enter and exit. Appears he probably stalked her from pagents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the Netflix show and the podcast suggested here. I used to think parents did it but now I’m convinced an intruder and possibly the creeper caught in Thailand. The way he described what he did actually put all the pieces together. Strangling first and then hitting over the head because he wanted to make sure she died since he accidentally applied too much pressure in his torture device. He intended to kidnap her he said but then he didn’t and used the basement to enter and exit. Appears he probably stalked her from pagents.

The guy from Thailand wasn’t even in boulder the night the crime was committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the Netflix show and the podcast suggested here. I used to think parents did it but now I’m convinced an intruder and possibly the creeper caught in Thailand. The way he described what he did actually put all the pieces together. Strangling first and then hitting over the head because he wanted to make sure she died since he accidentally applied too much pressure in his torture device. He intended to kidnap her he said but then he didn’t and used the basement to enter and exit. Appears he probably stalked her from pagents.

If you have actually ever read anything about the case or done any research about the case whatsoever, you’d know that there was no intruder. The Netflix documentary is extremely biased in favor of the Ramseys. It was 100% someone in the family. Whether it was John, Patsy, Burke or a combination of the 3 is the only remaining mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the Netflix show and the podcast suggested here. I used to think parents did it but now I’m convinced an intruder and possibly the creeper caught in Thailand. The way he described what he did actually put all the pieces together. Strangling first and then hitting over the head because he wanted to make sure she died since he accidentally applied too much pressure in his torture device. He intended to kidnap her he said but then he didn’t and used the basement to enter and exit. Appears he probably stalked her from pagents.

If you have actually ever read anything about the case or done any research about the case whatsoever, you’d know that there was no intruder. The Netflix documentary is extremely biased in favor of the Ramseys. It was 100% someone in the family. Whether it was John, Patsy, Burke or a combination of the 3 is the only remaining mystery.

Just stop. The unknown male DNA on two pieces of her clothing is impossible to ignore. Stop with your 100%, clown.

[Anonymous]

In 30 years, someone will submit an ancestry DNA kit, and this case will be solved by familial DNA.

But aside from that, let's be truthful on this anonymous board: I'm a parent and I have a favorite kid. I love them both the same, but I have one kid (my oldest) that I like more than the other because we are similar and share similar interests. If my youngest came to me and said they'd accidentally killed their sibling, my favorite, I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd help cover up the murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If not for the Elizabeth Smart case, I would have scoffed at the absurdity of the idea that a random vagrant did this to JonBenet. But it just goes to show that there is true evil in the world and it definitely could have been this guy.
(But why don’t we hear about him? Did they clear him completely?)

The police did clear him and he was in poor health.

The difference between this and the Elizabeth Smart case was that Elizabeth smart was actually abducted and her sister in the room was a witness. There wasnt a murder, staged intrusion, and a body found in the home all done with supplies from the house containing fibers from her mothers jacket.

The police cleared everybody, including the family. I’m just not convinced that the police clearing people means they’re not guilty.

As for Gary Olivia‘s health, it could not have been that bad. You can read an update on him, 28 years later, he is still alive and required to check in with Colorado police once a month. Given that he is still up and walking around and supporting himself, he was clearly not on death’s door 28 years ago. Not saying that he did it but poor health is not a good excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If not for the Elizabeth Smart case, I would have scoffed at the absurdity of the idea that a random vagrant did this to JonBenet. But it just goes to show that there is true evil in the world and it definitely could have been this guy.
(But why don’t we hear about him? Did they clear him completely?)

The police did clear him and he was in poor health.

The difference between this and the Elizabeth Smart case was that Elizabeth smart was actually abducted and her sister in the room was a witness. There wasnt a murder, staged intrusion, and a body found in the home all done with supplies from the house containing fibers from her mothers jacket.

The police cleared everybody, including the family. I’m just not convinced that the police clearing people means they’re not guilty.

As for Gary Olivia‘s health, it could not have been that bad. You can read an update on him, 28 years later, he is still alive and required to check in with Colorado police once a month. Given that he is still up and walking around and supporting himself, he was clearly not on death’s door 28 years ago. Not saying that he did it but poor health is not a good excuse.

The Santa was in poor health (and has since died), not Oliva