Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They got off because, though there is evidence pointing to them, there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law, particularly when forensics could not conclusively establish what happened (murder weapon etc.)

The grand jury sought to indict. That's what trials are for. They could have gone to trial and let the jury decide based on the overwhwelming evidence that it wasn't an intruder. Who knows if they would have convicted. Even OJ got off. Doesn't make him innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They got off because, though there is evidence pointing to them, there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law, particularly when forensics could not conclusively establish what happened (murder weapon etc.)

They got off because the crime scene was so badly handled by the police. So many people in and out of it. As soon as Patsy got off the phone with 911 they were calling friends to come over to the house. John and his friend were asked by a detective to look around the house to see if anything was out of place and of course no police officer went with them, they were alone. Patsy's sister was even allowed to come into the house and remove a car full of belongings - clothes, dolls, a painting hanging in JonBenet's bathroom, a trophy etc. - no questions asked.

With the crime scene compromised like that there was no way that any of the evidence would hold up in court. If that went to trial heads were going to roll....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

[Anonymous]

I think John is the total sicko and his wife covered for him with the ransom note. Maybe he dictated and she wrote it. He seems like an arrogant control freak.

[Anonymous]

It was an intruder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

Guess we will never know that for sure since that scenario will never be investigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents didn't cooperate with the police. That is huge to me. They also lied about random things when they were finally interviewed. They got off because John was rich and had access to a very good legal team.

Because the police were idiots who messed up the crime scene and only focused on the parents.

[Anonymous]

Stop with this thread already!

A child was murdered. Stop using her death for your amusement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

The autopsy showed that the head injury occurred first, prior to the strangulation. So I have to believe that anything else in the video you mention is not reliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop with this thread already!

A child was murdered. Stop using her death for your amusement.

Yeah, and the person (people) responsible for her death has never been held accountable. Maybe you are good with that. Others are still trying to figure out what the heck happened and who did this to an innocent little child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

The autopsy showed that the head injury occurred first, prior to the strangulation. So I have to believe that anything else in the video you mention is not reliable.

Yes, bizarre how people want to believe some random detective rather than the denver police who were convinced it was someone in the family, even if the da wasn't wild about prosecuting.

[Anonymous]

It was an intruder. Another girl in the neighborhood was attacked during the night in her house but the parents woke up and chased them away. That girl also had danced at the same studio as JB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

The autopsy showed that the head injury occurred first, prior to the strangulation. So I have to believe that anything else in the video you mention is not reliable.

Did you watch the video? The theory was that the killer first put the noose around her neck without killing her - there were marks lower on her neck and fingernail marks. And then later struck her head and then strangled her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because the intruder theory really makes no sense, as has been reviewed ad nauseam on this site. The layout of the house, the timeline (*hours* spent in the house while the family was sleeping?), the lack of any evidence of entry, the Patsy-scribed ransom note collectively, details such as the child's favorite blanket retrieved from the dryer, really do rule out the logic of an intruder.

Did you watch the Smit video? Enough clues to warrant an investigation IMO.

I have to agree that it's at least possible. Smit's theory that the strangling came first and was sexually motivated (ugh, so awful) makes a lot of sense. Also, what sort of normal person knows how to make a strangulation device like that? And could a parent, even a panicked one, truly violate her daughter with a paintbrush? Also, the stun gun theory seems plausible -- especially since the marks and blue line match perfectly. But the ransom note? The pineapple? The clothing and blanket that seemingly only the parents could know about? Those don't support the intruder theory at all.

The autopsy showed that the head injury occurred first, prior to the strangulation. So I have to believe that anything else in the video you mention is not reliable.

Yes, bizarre how people want to believe some random detective rather than the denver police who were convinced it was someone in the family, even if the da wasn't wild about prosecuting.

Bizarre that the police wouldn't investigate all options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was an intruder. Another girl in the neighborhood was attacked during the night in her house but the parents woke up and chased them away. That girl also had danced at the same studio as JB.

The girl was sexually assaulted and the parents stopped him and he fled. The parents believed that he had been lurking in the home for hours before they went to bed. The police refused to believe there could be any connection between the 2 cases. JB and this girls home were only 2 miles apart.