Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They also mentioned that the parents stopped speaking to each other and then after the funeral there was the CNN interview while refusing to speak with police they did a televised interview.

Once JonBenet was found dead the worst had already happened. Cooperating with the police at that point wasn't going to bring their daughter back and if they were under a veil of suspicion themselves then cooperating could easily have been to their detriment.

At that point their main focus was on protecting themselves, each other and Burke. I think that's understandable. But going on news shows was weird. It was like a PR move - wanting to look good in the public eye. You are either focused on finding your daughter's killer or you aren't but don't fail to cooperate with the police and then do news interviews.

+1

BINGO. As if they were guilty and trying to deflect.

I don't see why people think the Ramsey's actions were so suspicious after the murder. They did cooperate with police at first and then when realizing they were suspects, hired a criminal defense attorney, at the advice of their attorney friend, Bynum. Anyone, innocent or guilty, accused of a crime should hire an attorney right away. Look at the Steven Avery case or West Memphis Three case to see what can happen when you don't. Here's the timeline for the Ramsey's shortly after the murder-

12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting. These include John Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Burke Ramsey; "'Patsy' Ramsey was too distraught to submit to the evidence collection, authorities said"
12-28-96 Ramseys Hired Criminal Attorneys. "Shortly after noon that Saturday, without consulting John or Patsy, Bynum told Detective Arndt that the Ramseys would not give any more testimonial evidence without a criminal attorney present, and they would no longer share privileged information with the police. Since he was no longer a criminal attorney, Bynum called Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, one of Colorado's top firms. By Saturday evening the Ramseys had retained Morgan."
1-1-97 Ramseys CNN Appearance. Ramseys appear on CNN, confirming that John and Patsy each have hired an attorney and that John also hired a private investigator

I do not think the CNN appearance was a PR move in order to look good. I think these were distraught people who had buried their daughter the day before, the media was hounding them like crazy, the whole nation was wondering who these people were and what they had to say for themselves, and so they went on TV to try and clear things up. All of this is understandable. I think the Boulder Police, the media and the public were ready to convict these people before they ever had a chance of getting the facts out.

I think a lot of poster see themselves in Patsy -white women with money and children, not the type ( in their minds) that would kill her child that' something other people do.


You don't think that Patsy not submitting samples (when the other Ramseys did); and the Ramseys each hiring their own lawyer looks odd?

Ummm. No. I think most people on here think Patsy did it. I am one of the few that doesn't.

I don't think most people here think Patsy did it. I just think the few who do are very vocal.

Then it's hard to say. We'd have to take a poll, I suppose. But if you're looking at the court of public opinion, I would say most people think someone in the Ramsey family did it. The intruder theory is not a popular one. I believe it's what really happened though but most people have already made up their minds.

It's one of those things where it strikes me as an inside job - meaning someone in the family killed JonBenet. None of them seem like the "type" to do something like this (they aren't mean/abusive people) but the intruder theory just does not seem at all plausible. So of the 3 family members, Patsy seems to be the one who would have had the most hands on physical contact with JonBenet. Getting her ready for bed, helping her with a potty accident, giving her bath, etc. And there is the writing on the ransom note that really does look a lot like Patsy's left handed writing sample - I am actually shocked that anyone would deny the resemblance between her sample and the actual ransom letter.

It doesn't make sense that Patsy would have killed JonBenet. She loved her daughter very much. I think it was a tragic accident - didn't know her own strength sort of scenario.

I didn't see the Dateline Special but did watch the A & E one earlier in the week. I also saw the special on Investigator Smit's interview. For years I thought there is no way an intruder did this. It had to be the family. But I now believe it is very possible and was most likely an intruder. The pictures of JB's body show she was strangled then blungeoned. This doesn't fall in line with the family theory. That is just one of the many bits of evidence pointing to an intruder.

I got the impression that they were trying to make the intruder theory fit. The claw marks on JonBenet's neck for instance - they were saying that those marks indicate that JonBenet was alive and struggling as she was being strangled. But - as far as I am aware those marks on her neck were not described as defense wounds at all and where was the skin under her fingernails?

I think the marks were just from the garrot used to strangle her - the rope marks were slipping up/down her neck and not stationary in one spot. She was strangled after the blow to her head.

The A&E panel of experts were looking at pictures of the wounds and coming up with different theories based on their interpretation of the pictures. But you would think that there would be some sign of a struggle on that child somewhere beyond those scratches on her neck. She would have been fighting the intruder and no one heard a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dateline presented the story differently than A&E -- you need to see both to catch the parts the other ignored or skipped over.

What was Dateline's theory? Was this an inside job or the work of an intruder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dateline presented the story differently than A&E -- you need to see both to catch the parts the other ignored or skipped over.

What was Dateline's theory? Was this an inside job or the work of an intruder?

Haven't seen it yet but I assume family, if they're different, since A&E focused on intruder.

[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:They also mentioned that the parents stopped speaking to each other and then after the funeral there was the CNN interview while refusing to speak with police they did a televised interview.

Once JonBenet was found dead the worst had already happened. Cooperating with the police at that point wasn't going to bring their daughter back and if they were under a veil of suspicion themselves then cooperating could easily have been to their detriment.

At that point their main focus was on protecting themselves, each other and Burke. I think that's understandable. But going on news shows was weird. It was like a PR move - wanting to look good in the public eye. You are either focused on finding your daughter's killer or you aren't but don't fail to cooperate with the police and then do news interviews.

+1

BINGO. As if they were guilty and trying to deflect.

I don't see why people think the Ramsey's actions were so suspicious after the murder. They did cooperate with police at first and then when realizing they were suspects, hired a criminal defense attorney, at the advice of their attorney friend, Bynum. Anyone, innocent or guilty, accused of a crime should hire an attorney right away. Look at the Steven Avery case or West Memphis Three case to see what can happen when you don't. Here's the timeline for the Ramsey's shortly after the murder-

12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting. These include John Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Burke Ramsey; "'Patsy' Ramsey was too distraught to submit to the evidence collection, authorities said"
12-28-96 Ramseys Hired Criminal Attorneys. "Shortly after noon that Saturday, without consulting John or Patsy, Bynum told Detective Arndt that the Ramseys would not give any more testimonial evidence without a criminal attorney present, and they would no longer share privileged information with the police. Since he was no longer a criminal attorney, Bynum called Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, one of Colorado's top firms. By Saturday evening the Ramseys had retained Morgan."
1-1-97 Ramseys CNN Appearance. Ramseys appear on CNN, confirming that John and Patsy each have hired an attorney and that John also hired a private investigator

I do not think the CNN appearance was a PR move in order to look good. I think these were distraught people who had buried their daughter the day before, the media was hounding them like crazy, the whole nation was wondering who these people were and what they had to say for themselves, and so they went on TV to try and clear things up. All of this is understandable. I think the Boulder Police, the media and the public were ready to convict these people before they ever had a chance of getting the facts out.

I think a lot of poster see themselves in Patsy -white women with money and children, not the type ( in their minds) that would kill her child that' something other people do.


You don't think that Patsy not submitting samples (when the other Ramseys did); and the Ramseys each hiring their own lawyer looks odd?

Ummm. No. I think most people on here think Patsy did it. I am one of the few that doesn't.

I don't think most people here think Patsy did it. I just think the few who do are very vocal.

Then it's hard to say. We'd have to take a poll, I suppose. But if you're looking at the court of public opinion, I would say most people think someone in the Ramsey family did it. The intruder theory is not a popular one. I believe it's what really happened though but most people have already made up their minds.

It's one of those things where it strikes me as an inside job - meaning someone in the family killed JonBenet. None of them seem like the "type" to do something like this (they aren't mean/abusive people) but the intruder theory just does not seem at all plausible. So of the 3 family members, Patsy seems to be the one who would have had the most hands on physical contact with JonBenet. Getting her ready for bed, helping her with a potty accident, giving her bath, etc. And there is the writing on the ransom note that really does look a lot like Patsy's left handed writing sample - I am actually shocked that anyone would deny the resemblance between her sample and the actual ransom letter.

It doesn't make sense that Patsy would have killed JonBenet. She loved her daughter very much. I think it was a tragic accident - didn't know her own strength sort of scenario.

I didn't see the Dateline Special but did watch the A & E one earlier in the week. I also saw the special on Investigator Smit's interview. For years I thought there is no way an intruder did this. It had to be the family. But I now believe it is very possible and was most likely an intruder. The pictures of JB's body show she was strangled then blungeoned. This doesn't fall in line with the family theory. That is just one of the many bits of evidence pointing to an intruder.

I got the impression that they were trying to make the intruder theory fit. The claw marks on JonBenet's neck for instance - they were saying that those marks indicate that JonBenet was alive and struggling as she was being strangled. But - as far as I am aware those marks on her neck were not described as defense wounds at all and where was the skin under her fingernails?

I think the marks were just from the garrot used to strangle her - the rope marks were slipping up/down her neck and not stationary in one spot. She was strangled after the blow to her head.

The A&E panel of experts were looking at pictures of the wounds and coming up with different theories based on their interpretation of the pictures. But you would think that there would be some sign of a struggle on that child somewhere beyond those scratches on her neck. She would have been fighting the intruder and no one heard a thing.

Why would the garrot slip up and down her neck if she weren't struggling? It would be pretty easy to lay someone that is dead down and strangle them. The rope wouldn't slide up and down the neck if the person was lying there dead. The movement came from JB struggling with the garrote. It also explains the half moon shapes of her fingernails found on her neck. And there was DNA found from someone other than a family member under her fingernails. There were also two separate bootprints found in JB's room not matching any family members. So there could possibly have been 2 assailants. There was also a rope found in the bedroom next to JB's. A blue van was spotted near her house the night before and after the murder. And one last thing, a neighbor heard a blood curdling child's scream come from the basement area the night JB died.

[Anonymous]

If it were an intruder why did they miss/ forget about the ransom phone call that would get them their daughter back-- the mom said there was a kidnapping on the 911 call -- how could you forget the people who have your child were going to call you at a certain time and you let that time pass without notice. How?

[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:They also mentioned that the parents stopped speaking to each other and then after the funeral there was the CNN interview while refusing to speak with police they did a televised interview.

Once JonBenet was found dead the worst had already happened. Cooperating with the police at that point wasn't going to bring their daughter back and if they were under a veil of suspicion themselves then cooperating could easily have been to their detriment.

At that point their main focus was on protecting themselves, each other and Burke. I think that's understandable. But going on news shows was weird. It was like a PR move - wanting to look good in the public eye. You are either focused on finding your daughter's killer or you aren't but don't fail to cooperate with the police and then do news interviews.

+1

BINGO. As if they were guilty and trying to deflect.

I don't see why people think the Ramsey's actions were so suspicious after the murder. They did cooperate with police at first and then when realizing they were suspects, hired a criminal defense attorney, at the advice of their attorney friend, Bynum. Anyone, innocent or guilty, accused of a crime should hire an attorney right away. Look at the Steven Avery case or West Memphis Three case to see what can happen when you don't. Here's the timeline for the Ramsey's shortly after the murder-

12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting. These include John Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Burke Ramsey; "'Patsy' Ramsey was too distraught to submit to the evidence collection, authorities said"
12-28-96 Ramseys Hired Criminal Attorneys. "Shortly after noon that Saturday, without consulting John or Patsy, Bynum told Detective Arndt that the Ramseys would not give any more testimonial evidence without a criminal attorney present, and they would no longer share privileged information with the police. Since he was no longer a criminal attorney, Bynum called Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, one of Colorado's top firms. By Saturday evening the Ramseys had retained Morgan."
1-1-97 Ramseys CNN Appearance. Ramseys appear on CNN, confirming that John and Patsy each have hired an attorney and that John also hired a private investigator

I do not think the CNN appearance was a PR move in order to look good. I think these were distraught people who had buried their daughter the day before, the media was hounding them like crazy, the whole nation was wondering who these people were and what they had to say for themselves, and so they went on TV to try and clear things up. All of this is understandable. I think the Boulder Police, the media and the public were ready to convict these people before they ever had a chance of getting the facts out.

I think a lot of poster see themselves in Patsy -white women with money and children, not the type ( in their minds) that would kill her child that' something other people do.


You don't think that Patsy not submitting samples (when the other Ramseys did); and the Ramseys each hiring their own lawyer looks odd?

Ummm. No. I think most people on here think Patsy did it. I am one of the few that doesn't.

I don't think most people here think Patsy did it. I just think the few who do are very vocal.

Then it's hard to say. We'd have to take a poll, I suppose. But if you're looking at the court of public opinion, I would say most people think someone in the Ramsey family did it. The intruder theory is not a popular one. I believe it's what really happened though but most people have already made up their minds.

It's one of those things where it strikes me as an inside job - meaning someone in the family killed JonBenet. None of them seem like the "type" to do something like this (they aren't mean/abusive people) but the intruder theory just does not seem at all plausible. So of the 3 family members, Patsy seems to be the one who would have had the most hands on physical contact with JonBenet. Getting her ready for bed, helping her with a potty accident, giving her bath, etc. And there is the writing on the ransom note that really does look a lot like Patsy's left handed writing sample - I am actually shocked that anyone would deny the resemblance between her sample and the actual ransom letter.

It doesn't make sense that Patsy would have killed JonBenet. She loved her daughter very much. I think it was a tragic accident - didn't know her own strength sort of scenario.

I didn't see the Dateline Special but did watch the A & E one earlier in the week. I also saw the special on Investigator Smit's interview. For years I thought there is no way an intruder did this. It had to be the family. But I now believe it is very possible and was most likely an intruder. The pictures of JB's body show she was strangled then blungeoned. This doesn't fall in line with the family theory. That is just one of the many bits of evidence pointing to an intruder.

I got the impression that they were trying to make the intruder theory fit. The claw marks on JonBenet's neck for instance - they were saying that those marks indicate that JonBenet was alive and struggling as she was being strangled. But - as far as I am aware those marks on her neck were not described as defense wounds at all and where was the skin under her fingernails?

I think the marks were just from the garrot used to strangle her - the rope marks were slipping up/down her neck and not stationary in one spot. She was strangled after the blow to her head.

The A&E panel of experts were looking at pictures of the wounds and coming up with different theories based on their interpretation of the pictures. But you would think that there would be some sign of a struggle on that child somewhere beyond those scratches on her neck. She would have been fighting the intruder and no one heard a thing.

Why would the garrot slip up and down her neck if she weren't struggling? It would be pretty easy to lay someone that is dead down and strangle them. The rope wouldn't slide up and down the neck if the person was lying there dead. The movement came from JB struggling with the garrote. It also explains the half moon shapes of her fingernails found on her neck. And there was DNA found from someone other than a family member under her fingernails. There were also two separate bootprints found in JB's room not matching any family members. So there could possibly have been 2 assailants. There was also a rope found in the bedroom next to JB's. A blue van was spotted near her house the night before and after the murder. And one last thing, a neighbor heard a blood curdling child's scream come from the basement area the night JB died.

I guess it was pulled tight and released multiple times, making different marks on her neck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

I was 10 when she died and honestly this is the first I'm reading or seeing any coverage. My parents didn't let me watch stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it were an intruder why did they miss/ forget about the ransom phone call that would get them their daughter back-- the mom said there was a kidnapping on the 911 call -- how could you forget the people who have your child were going to call you at a certain time and you let that time pass without notice. How?

The note said I will call between 8-10 tomorrow. Was tomorrow the 27th or the 28th ? If I got the note at 5:45 am I would assume tomorrow meant tomorrow not today .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an intruder why did they miss/ forget about the ransom phone call that would get them their daughter back-- the mom said there was a kidnapping on the 911 call -- how could you forget the people who have your child were going to call you at a certain time and you let that time pass without notice. How?

The note said I will call between 8-10 tomorrow. Was tomorrow the 27th or the 28th ? If I got the note at 5:45 am I would assume tomorrow meant tomorrow not today .

Sorry I meant is tomorrow the 26th or the 27th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an intruder why did they miss/ forget about the ransom phone call that would get them their daughter back-- the mom said there was a kidnapping on the 911 call -- how could you forget the people who have your child were going to call you at a certain time and you let that time pass without notice. How?

The note said I will call between 8-10 tomorrow. Was tomorrow the 27th or the 28th ? If I got the note at 5:45 am I would assume tomorrow meant tomorrow not today .

That is a very good point. JonBenet was last seen alive on Christmas night when she supposedly went to bed.

Early the next morning Dec 26 Patsy found the ransom note lying on the stairs. When the police got there Patsy was dressed in the clothes she had worn to the Christmas party and she had a full face of makeup on....

So much simply does not add up.

[Anonymous]

Question for everyone. What if the injury happened on the car ride home from the party? And that she was fed pineapple to keep her awake - this her fingerprints not being on the bowl. Remember back then head injuries you were told to keep your child awake and not let them sleep. No one would know whether she was awake or unconscious after the ride home, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Burke, the brother seems to be doing a Dr Phil interview and some suspected it was him? How was that possible wasn't he a young child at the time?

I always thought it was the brother and that the parents knew (hence the coverup).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for everyone. What if the injury happened on the car ride home from the party? And that she was fed pineapple to keep her awake - this her fingerprints not being on the bowl. Remember back then head injuries you were told to keep your child awake and not let them sleep. No one would know whether she was awake or unconscious after the ride home, right?

Could JonBenet have remained conscious after such an horrific skull fracture? Or would she have lost consciousness immediately? The pineapple is significant because it wasn't served at the party but there was a bowl of it sitting on the Ramsey household table. She must have eaten the pineapple once she got home which means that she was conscious inside that house after they got home.

[Anonymous]

I found Burke's demeanor unnerving but difficult to interpret. As Dr. Phil (not that he's a great source, but whatever) noted, he's basically been in hiding since he was 9 years old. On top of that, I believe he already had some developmental or social disorders before that. It's hard to tell what's going on there. I actually thought the interrogation tapes that have been released so far were pretty revealing and that his demeanor was much more normal in those. After watching those, it made me kind of sad to think about the turn his life took. I don't believe a 9 year likely carried out any aspect of this crime, although I realize some do. I think he's another victim of that night and he will never have anything resembling a normal life.

[Anonymous]

Nobody knows how they'd really react as a parent in that scenario. Plus, I'd imagine they were still in shock and maybe not thinking straight. I thinking putting the guilt on the family just because they were "acting weird" is BS.