2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like she wrote the note with her off hand. She was ambidextrous.

A lot of the lines on the note and the concept of the note itself came from a play called The Prime of Miss Jane Brodie, which Patsy had recited as part of her pageant performances. Including the concept of a fake note, intentional masking of handwriting, intentional misspelling of "possession" in the exact same way, and "attache case." It's a pretty obscure thing to reference and be a coincidence.

Honestly, at this point, the picture you all paint of Patsy is insane and completely unbelievable. She is either an otherwise normal mother who one night decides to intentionally kill, torture, and SA her daughter with everyone in the house before a big family trip OR she discovered her other child had hurt her daughter and then stages a disturbing crime scene even it would be more logical and less suspicious to just call for an ambulance. AND now you want me to believe that in either scenario above, she took the time to write a 3 page ransom note and included a whole bunch of obscure references that only she would know. And put down the exact amount of her husband's bonus. All this from a woman who clearly otherwise could hide her mental depravity pretty well (if you assume she is guilty). But I guess she just couldn't control herself with that ransom note. Seriously it all makes no sense. I'm feeling more convinced it was someone who knew the family well and tried to divert suspicion to the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like she wrote the note with her off hand. She was ambidextrous.

A lot of the lines on the note and the concept of the note itself came from a play called The Prime of Miss Jane Brodie, which Patsy had recited as part of her pageant performances. Including the concept of a fake note, intentional masking of handwriting, intentional misspelling of "possession" in the exact same way, and "attache case." It's a pretty obscure thing to reference and be a coincidence.

Honestly, at this point, the picture you all paint of Patsy is insane and completely unbelievable. She is either an otherwise normal mother who one night decides to intentionally kill, torture, and SA her daughter with everyone in the house before a big family trip OR she discovered her other child had hurt her daughter and then stages a disturbing crime scene even it would be more logical and less suspicious to just call for an ambulance. AND now you want me to believe that in either scenario above, she took the time to write a 3 page ransom note and included a whole bunch of obscure references that only she would know. And put down the exact amount of her husband's bonus. All this from a woman who clearly otherwise could hide her mental depravity pretty well (if you assume she is guilty). But I guess she just couldn't control herself with that ransom note. Seriously it all makes no sense. I'm feeling more convinced it was someone who knew the family well and tried to divert suspicion to the family.

Obviously. It was not the family. Maybe a pedo stalking JB from the pageants or a worker etc. There were papers around the house and a document with the bonus number on it that the person who was probably in the house for several hours likely saw.

It was clearly an intruder and the PO screwed up royally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

But why would you take paper from their home and sit in the house and write it?? And risk being caught? That's just crazy.

He doesn’t seem to be a stranger, knowing the bonus amount. Maybe he was in the house previously and grabbed the paper as he planned his crime.

And wrote drafts on the notepad while at their house? No.

There were not all these prior drafts left. There was one other paper that had Mr + Mrs or something like that.

And yes, a crazy person who murders is probably someone who would do other things that are… crazy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The intruder theory is hard to buy because of the extended timeline. JB was alive for 45 mins to 2 hours after the blow to the head, then the garrote was used. And an intruder hung around to write a long "ransom" note when the child was dead and the body still in the house? With three other people in the house? Thought to retrieve a blanket from the drier to wrap up the body? Why would an intruder even look in the drier? It makes zero sense. Only Patsy would have thought to do that, likely after finding the body.

The CBS special showing how exactly the toy train track pins lined up with the marks on JB's body (which did not fit with taser marks) first made me believe it was not an intruder. The brother accidentally killing her then not understanding what he'd done is what makes the most sense to me. But there is not enough conclusive evidence to try this case successfully. Nothing adds up perfectly.

I think the garrote has always been the biggest question. Because it was made with materials in the house, and again would have taken time. Burke in his interview said something about one of his Swiss army knives having a hook that "helped tied knots." So maybe he could have tied the knots but it is very hard to believe a 9 year old boy would have thought to fashion a garrote. And JB was alive until the garrote was used. It's all just so weird.

Supposedly it wasn't really a garrote. That Burke might have fashioned to drag the body to hide it because he was afraid of getting in trouble. Thinking she was dead after he poked her with the train tracks and "played doctor" with the paint brush. It was made with a simple slip knot, which he would have learned in sailing if not Scouts. This theory is that it wasn't meant as a torture or killing instrument.

There was a theory that she was hit on the head with a large flashlight. Was there one in the house, and was it tested?

Yea and a bat. Nothing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

[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:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

[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:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.