2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

But your kid isn't on the spectrum, right? Pretty normal for a kid with HFASD.

I grew up with a severely brother autistic brother, almost non-verbal, and he never beat me with a golf club or smeared feces on the wall or on my things. It's quite likely Burke is on the spectrum from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other severe psychiatric issues that made him a danger to his little sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

But your kid isn't on the spectrum, right? Pretty normal for a kid with HFASD.

I grew up with a severely brother autistic brother, almost non-verbal, and he never beat me with a golf club or smeared feces on the wall or on my things. It's quite likely Burke is on the spectrum from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other severe psychiatric issues that made him a danger to his little sister.

The golf club seems like such an overreaction. Siblings fight and hit each other. This isn’t really that interesting if that was the one incident from a few years prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

But your kid isn't on the spectrum, right? Pretty normal for a kid with HFASD.

I grew up with a severely brother autistic brother, almost non-verbal, and he never beat me with a golf club or smeared feces on the wall or on my things. It's quite likely Burke is on the spectrum from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other severe psychiatric issues that made him a danger to his little sister.

The golf club seems like such an overreaction. Siblings fight and hit each other. This isn’t really that interesting if that was the one incident from a few years prior.

+1 Same with the feces smearing. One recorded incident, nothing else confirmed much less proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

Pat is dead. They have no qualms about reopening the case now. She was the most defensive when challenged or questioned about the ransom note.

But Burke is very much alive, presumably living off his defamation settlement.

Yes, but the cloud remains over his head. I think John believes that the trace DNA will be perceived as exculpatory, and it's his final act of protecting Burke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

Pat is dead. They have no qualms about reopening the case now. She was the most defensive when challenged or questioned about the ransom note.

But Burke is very much alive, presumably living off his defamation settlement.

Yes, but the cloud remains over his head. I think John believes that the trace DNA will be perceived as exculpatory, and it's his final act of protecting Burke.

I don’t believe that. Very far fetched like many of the other theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

Pat is dead. They have no qualms about reopening the case now. She was the most defensive when challenged or questioned about the ransom note.

But Burke is very much alive, presumably living off his defamation settlement.

Yes, but the cloud remains over his head. I think John believes that the trace DNA will be perceived as exculpatory, and it's his final act of protecting Burke.

It's also possible, as suggested upthread, that John doesn't really know the truth of what happened. He may have slept through both the death and Patsy's desperate attempt to cover it up. He might in fact believe the DNA is evidence no-one in the family was involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

The Ramseys did write a book.

[Anonymous]

Did the son graduate from high school, college, have a career?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the son graduate from high school, college, have a career?

Yes. I want to say he's working in CS?

[Anonymous]

The parents preferred JonBenet over Burke. JonBenet was Patsy’s pride and joy. Burke was jealous of the favoritism given to his sister and he lashed out when she grabbed his toys or ate his pineapples

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

But your kid isn't on the spectrum, right? Pretty normal for a kid with HFASD.

I grew up with a severely brother autistic brother, almost non-verbal, and he never beat me with a golf club or smeared feces on the wall or on my things. It's quite likely Burke is on the spectrum from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other severe psychiatric issues that made him a danger to his little sister.

I'm not sure Burke did it but I could see him being jealous of Patsy's attention to JonBenet. She obviously focused on her and the father was probably not very involved with any of them. I can see jealousy being enough of a motivation for him. Patsy clearly had a favorite; not just a favorite but more like an obsession.

I always thought it was funny how Patsy used the word "attache" and even included the accent on the "e" in the letter..Along with "foreign faction" and "use that good southern common sense, John." Like what "foreigner" would write that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents preferred JonBenet over Burke. JonBenet was Patsy’s pride and joy. Burke was jealous of the favoritism given to his sister and he lashed out when she grabbed his toys or ate his pineapples

And totally became a sadistic sexual offender? Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

The Ramseys did write a book.

But was it called “if we did it?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents preferred JonBenet over Burke. JonBenet was Patsy’s pride and joy. Burke was jealous of the favoritism given to his sister and he lashed out when she grabbed his toys or ate his pineapples

And totally became a sadistic sexual offender? Ok.

Have you seen what little boys do with dolls? Yes he could’ve been a sadistic sexual offender to his little sister, and not just on that one night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents preferred JonBenet over Burke. JonBenet was Patsy’s pride and joy. Burke was jealous of the favoritism given to his sister and he lashed out when she grabbed his toys or ate his pineapples

And totally became a sadistic sexual offender? Ok.

Have you seen what little boys do with dolls? Yes he could’ve been a sadistic sexual offender to his little sister, and not just on that one night.

Do you have a source for this claim that this is normal for little boys? And normal that its a one time thing never seen again? Because i doubt you and won’t take your word for it.