2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have always thought intruder. It would be very odd for a biological parent to abuse the child in that way. That woman had her issues (see child beauty pageants), but must have been tortured by people thinking she murdered the child had loved, while dying of breast cancer! 😔

Correction: ovarian cancer.

Sad family (John had another daughter die at the age of 22 in a car crash 😧)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the “Burke did it” camp for a while but the new documentary certainly makes the Karr guy seem like the one. The DNA, from previous documentaries, is so minuscule that it’s irrelevant, and likely contaminated, so I don’t see how “the DNA doesn’t match him” matters at all. There is no DNA evidence at all as far as I’m concerned. Until the police test more things!!!

Didn’t watch the new documentary but I 100% think Burke did it, patsy covered it up and wrote the ransom note, and then when John figured out what had gone down, he felt he had no choice but to also cover it up.

Considering that every single aspect of the violence abduction staging and ransom note was executed with materials from the home, that jonbenet was ultimately found in a remote part of the house only the family really would know, and burkes disturbing behavior (including his feces found all over jonbenets room) Burke being responsible and family covering up is a lot more plausible to me than an intruder fumbling around the house and hanging out for hours knocking a child envious with a flashlight, assaulting her, strangling her violently to death with a garrote fashioned out of a paint stick and string that patsy had purchased from a hardware store weeks prior, staging an abduction with duct tape and loose string applied post mortem, hiding jonbenet in a blanket from the dryer in a remote cellar (containing Christmas gifts), hanging out in the kitchen to find a pad and paper and a sharpie to write a 3 page ransom note containing information about John’s bonus, and then gingerly laying the ransom note on the back staircase before letting himself out - all unnoticed.

Once you get over the mental hurdle that a mentally ill and probably unmedicated nearly ten year old would be capable of harming and likely accidentally killing a sibling, the commonly held theory around Burke doing it and parents covering makes the most rational sense given the evidence.

What happened to jonbenet is an unthinkable tragedy. I hope she is resting in peace.

Agree with this 100%

[Anonymous]

I honestly feel terrible for the Ramseys if this is truly one of the most unique and odd break ins to have occurred and they have been wrongly accused but I just can’t wrap my mind over the intruder theory.

To me, it is more believable that her brother or parent was abusing her, killed her, and they covered it up than an intruder breaking in and doing this.

The intruder broke in with no plan, had some pineapple with her, got her downstairs to a room that would be difficult to even notice, assaulted her in this weird tentative/experimental way but didn’t go further, killed her over hours; first with the hits to her head and then with with this clumsily tied garrote, went back upstairs risking detection and wrote a 3 page letter (being sure to put the paper and pen where it belonged) and went over to the back staircase and put it there? I’m not saying it’s impossible but, to me, it is hard to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would have the parents or brother done this to the little girl?

From what I understand the argument for the brother being involved is due to

1. Him previously hitting her over the head w a golf club (parents do say this was accidental)
2. Mental issues; he was still wetting and soiling his bed and had had incidents of smearing feces
3. Report he had been caught “playing doctor” with her previously (parallels to the way she was SA’d with the paintbrush)
4. He admitted to being downstairs alone that night
5. He was on the morning 911 call in the background but parents say they left him sleeping all morning (people say it’s odd that they didn’t wake him up)
6. It would explain both parents involvement in a cover up

I’m not entirely convinced it was him but I do think all of the above don’t make the thought as ridiculous as some say it is.

All of this is why I am and always have been on the team "Burke did it."

+1
And the pineapple.
I think Burke gave her pineapple at some point when they were downstairs.
And it’s not uncommon for kids who are being molested to replicate what is happening to them onto their siblings.

I think, sadly, that it was the father and I think there was significant, ongoing psychopathology in that family. I agree with profilers who suspect the father was sexually abusing her. I'll try to find the article I read that made this argument. I think the mother covered for her belief it was the son. The letter had Patsy's identifiers all over it. Couldn't wearing gloves keep identifiable DNA from being detected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly feel terrible for the Ramseys if this is truly one of the most unique and odd break ins to have occurred and they have been wrongly accused but I just can’t wrap my mind over the intruder theory.

To me, it is more believable that her brother or parent was abusing her, killed her, and they covered it up than an intruder breaking in and doing this.

The intruder broke in with no plan, had some pineapple with her, got her downstairs to a room that would be difficult to even notice, assaulted her in this weird tentative/experimental way but didn’t go further, killed her over hours; first with the hits to her head and then with with this clumsily tied garrote, went back upstairs risking detection and wrote a 3 page letter (being sure to put the paper and pen where it belonged) and went over to the back staircase and put it there? I’m not saying it’s impossible but, to me, it is hard to believe.

THIS!!! AND leave the body that is easy to remove? Otherwise why even leave a demand letter? Means nothing once the body is found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would have the parents or brother done this to the little girl?

From what I understand the argument for the brother being involved is due to

1. Him previously hitting her over the head w a golf club (parents do say this was accidental)
2. Mental issues; he was still wetting and soiling his bed and had had incidents of smearing feces
3. Report he had been caught “playing doctor” with her previously (parallels to the way she was SA’d with the paintbrush)
4. He admitted to being downstairs alone that night
5. He was on the morning 911 call in the background but parents say they left him sleeping all morning (people say it’s odd that they didn’t wake him up)
6. It would explain both parents involvement in a cover up

I’m not entirely convinced it was him but I do think all of the above don’t make the thought as ridiculous as some say it is.

All of this is why I am and always have been on the team "Burke did it."

+1
And the pineapple.
I think Burke gave her pineapple at some point when they were downstairs.
And it’s not uncommon for kids who are being molested to replicate what is happening to them onto their siblings.

I think, sadly, that it was the father and I think there was significant, ongoing psychopathology in that family. I agree with profilers who suspect the father was sexually abusing her. I'll try to find the article I read that made this argument. I think the mother covered for her belief it was the son. The letter had Patsy's identifiers all over it. Couldn't wearing gloves keep identifiable DNA from being detected?

But the Father, presumably, has a working d*ck. Why use an object?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the “Burke did it” camp for a while but the new documentary certainly makes the Karr guy seem like the one. The DNA, from previous documentaries, is so minuscule that it’s irrelevant, and likely contaminated, so I don’t see how “the DNA doesn’t match him” matters at all. There is no DNA evidence at all as far as I’m concerned. Until the police test more things!!!

Didn’t watch the new documentary but I 100% think Burke did it, patsy covered it up and wrote the ransom note, and then when John figured out what had gone down, he felt he had no choice but to also cover it up.

Considering that every single aspect of the violence abduction staging and ransom note was executed with materials from the home, that jonbenet was ultimately found in a remote part of the house only the family really would know, and burkes disturbing behavior (including his feces found all over jonbenets room) Burke being responsible and family covering up is a lot more plausible to me than an intruder fumbling around the house and hanging out for hours knocking a child envious with a flashlight, assaulting her, strangling her violently to death with a garrote fashioned out of a paint stick and string that patsy had purchased from a hardware store weeks prior, staging an abduction with duct tape and loose string applied post mortem, hiding jonbenet in a blanket from the dryer in a remote cellar (containing Christmas gifts), hanging out in the kitchen to find a pad and paper and a sharpie to write a 3 page ransom note containing information about John’s bonus, and then gingerly laying the ransom note on the back staircase before letting himself out - all unnoticed.

Once you get over the mental hurdle that a mentally ill and probably unmedicated nearly ten year old would be capable of harming and likely accidentally killing a sibling, the commonly held theory around Burke doing it and parents covering makes the most rational sense given the evidence.

What happened to jonbenet is an unthinkable tragedy. I hope she is resting in peace.

I highly doubt a 9 year old could do all that. No way. An intruder could have easily gotten her out of bed and gone to the basement to find an area least likely to wake up the rest of the house. There was DNA under Jon Benets fingers yet Burke didn’t have a scratch on him. Impossible.

I think what PP is saying (and what I also believe to be true) is that Burke didn’t do ALL of that. I think Burke had been molesting his sister using the paintbrush and she told him to stop or screamed or said she would tell on him or something along those lines so Burke then hit her in the head w either a golf club, flashlight, baseball bat and then panicked, thought she was dead and attempted to cover it up by adding a weakly/sloppily made garrote that he had learned how to create in Boy Scouts (not that they’d teach him to make a garrote specifically but I think he has learned how to make knots and/or tourniquets in Boy Scouts and used that knowledge to make something like the “garrote” in this case) and only then did the parents or maybe just Patsy discover what was going on. By that point she was already dead and w the paintbrush and garrote Patsy/both parents knew how horrible it would look if they called police then and tried to say it was an accident between siblings so they/Patsy made the decision to stage it as an intruder murder/attemped kidnapping and it was then Patsy/both parents who wrote the ransom note, bound JBR’s wrists and duct taped her mouth and wrapped her in the blanket/hid her in that room.

I think Patsy alone wrote the note and did the cover up and John wasn’t involved until the morning and the 9-1-1 call and that he figured out what had happened then and put the pieces together while police were already at the Ramseys house and then had an idea to look in the wine cellar once he figured out on his mind roughly what had transpired.

I have a 10 year old son and a younger daughter while I do NOT in a million years think my son could do this to his sister I know enough kids that age to know that someone that age who is very disturbed, possibly has autism, and is possibly also being sexually abused themselves could absolutely be responsible for sexually assaulting their sibling. The paintbrush assault was a very childish and immature way to assault someone. I think if an adult was the one sexually assaulting a child, they likely wouldn’t use a paintbrush to do so. I also think a very disturbed kid who resents their younger sibling could absolutely cause a bad head injury, in this case it’s not that hard to imagine this happening especially given that we know Burke had already hit JBR in the head causing her to have to go to the ER previously.

This reads like fan fiction and is not supported by the few facts. My 9 year old has also done cub scouts and could barely make a paper airplane after getting a badge for it. Again this is not remotely 9 year old behavior.

NP. But that actually reads like a very plausible explanation of what happened. What aspect of it is not supported by the “few facts?” And also, just because your 9 year old isn’t capable of this crime doesn’t mean another 9 year old isn’t. Burke comes across as a very different sort of person, a very disturbed kid who had harmed his sister in the past and exhibited strange behavior. He was not a typical 9 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ransom note seems super fake and so I gotta believe it was the parents either doing it or covering it up.

This is the single hardest sell for me. I find it so hard to believe Patsy didn’t write it.

Yet they had not one or two, but SIX(6!) different handwriting experts, including from the FBI, police, etc, attesting it was NOT Patsy or the father’s writing.

[Anonymous]

If the father did it, or the son and the father helped cover it up, why would he now be advocating for the case to be resolved using DNA evidence that he thinks will solve it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would have the parents or brother done this to the little girl?

From what I understand the argument for the brother being involved is due to

1. Him previously hitting her over the head w a golf club (parents do say this was accidental)
2. Mental issues; he was still wetting and soiling his bed and had had incidents of smearing feces
3. Report he had been caught “playing doctor” with her previously (parallels to the way she was SA’d with the paintbrush)
4. He admitted to being downstairs alone that night
5. He was on the morning 911 call in the background but parents say they left him sleeping all morning (people say it’s odd that they didn’t wake him up)
6. It would explain both parents involvement in a cover up

I’m not entirely convinced it was him but I do think all of the above don’t make the thought as ridiculous as some say it is.

All of this is why I am and always have been on the team "Burke did it."

+1
And the pineapple.
I think Burke gave her pineapple at some point when they were downstairs.
And it’s not uncommon for kids who are being molested to replicate what is happening to them onto their siblings.

I think, sadly, that it was the father and I think there was significant, ongoing psychopathology in that family. I agree with profilers who suspect the father was sexually abusing her. I'll try to find the article I read that made this argument. I think the mother covered for her belief it was the son. The letter had Patsy's identifiers all over it. Couldn't wearing gloves keep identifiable DNA from being detected?

But the Father, presumably, has a working d*ck. Why use an object?

We don’t actually know that it was working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a deep dive into the DNA for anyone interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/

I did look for a quick skim and found the following comment right away. The writer goes by the handle " SistersAndBoggs" . This was written 7 months ago. This comment states that DNA found on JonBenet's clothing matched the DNA found on her underpants. The DNA belongs to an unknown male:


"... Forensic scientist Dr. Angela Williamson, who performed some of the forensic testing, told CNN that early DNA testing was done of the crotch of JonBenet’s panties, where her blood had been found. The result was a very strong profile, she says, of an unknown male that could not be matched to anyone who had been near the scene or who had handled her body. It was also not a match to John Ramsey.

Williamson noted how thorough the DNA testing was. “They even compared this DNA profile with the man whose autopsy had been performed right before JonBenet’s.”

Also in 2006, a significant forensic finding was made by Williamson, who was employed by Bode Laboratories at the time.

She was approached by Boulder law enforcement to do touch DNA testing on some of the clothing JonBenet was wearing the night she was killed.

“Touch DNA are skin cells that you shed when you come into contact with anything,” Williamson explained.

Williamson personally selected both sides of the waistband of the child’s long johns “so logically where would someone’s hands be if they were pulling down someone’s pants. So that’s where we targeted, where we thought someone would’ve contacted the long johns.”

The results caught everyone off guard. Williamson told CNN the unknown male DNA originally found in the crotch of JonBenet’s underpants matched or “was consistent” with the unknown male DNA that was found on the waistband of the long johns.

“We were, like, this is pretty big. This gives more weight to the theory that this is from the perpetrator and not from manufacturing contamination.” (2016 CNN article)"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the “Burke did it” camp for a while but the new documentary certainly makes the Karr guy seem like the one. The DNA, from previous documentaries, is so minuscule that it’s irrelevant, and likely contaminated, so I don’t see how “the DNA doesn’t match him” matters at all. There is no DNA evidence at all as far as I’m concerned. Until the police test more things!!!

Didn’t watch the new documentary but I 100% think Burke did it, patsy covered it up and wrote the ransom note, and then when John figured out what had gone down, he felt he had no choice but to also cover it up.

Considering that every single aspect of the violence abduction staging and ransom note was executed with materials from the home, that jonbenet was ultimately found in a remote part of the house only the family really would know, and burkes disturbing behavior (including his feces found all over jonbenets room) Burke being responsible and family covering up is a lot more plausible to me than an intruder fumbling around the house and hanging out for hours knocking a child envious with a flashlight, assaulting her, strangling her violently to death with a garrote fashioned out of a paint stick and string that patsy had purchased from a hardware store weeks prior, staging an abduction with duct tape and loose string applied post mortem, hiding jonbenet in a blanket from the dryer in a remote cellar (containing Christmas gifts), hanging out in the kitchen to find a pad and paper and a sharpie to write a 3 page ransom note containing information about John’s bonus, and then gingerly laying the ransom note on the back staircase before letting himself out - all unnoticed.

Once you get over the mental hurdle that a mentally ill and probably unmedicated nearly ten year old would be capable of harming and likely accidentally killing a sibling, the commonly held theory around Burke doing it and parents covering makes the most rational sense given the evidence.

What happened to jonbenet is an unthinkable tragedy. I hope she is resting in peace.

I highly doubt a 9 year old could do all that. No way. An intruder could have easily gotten her out of bed and gone to the basement to find an area least likely to wake up the rest of the house. There was DNA under Jon Benets fingers yet Burke didn’t have a scratch on him. Impossible.

I think what PP is saying (and what I also believe to be true) is that Burke didn’t do ALL of that. I think Burke had been molesting his sister using the paintbrush and she told him to stop or screamed or said she would tell on him or something along those lines so Burke then hit her in the head w either a golf club, flashlight, baseball bat and then panicked, thought she was dead and attempted to cover it up by adding a weakly/sloppily made garrote that he had learned how to create in Boy Scouts (not that they’d teach him to make a garrote specifically but I think he has learned how to make knots and/or tourniquets in Boy Scouts and used that knowledge to make something like the “garrote” in this case) and only then did the parents or maybe just Patsy discover what was going on. By that point she was already dead and w the paintbrush and garrote Patsy/both parents knew how horrible it would look if they called police then and tried to say it was an accident between siblings so they/Patsy made the decision to stage it as an intruder murder/attemped kidnapping and it was then Patsy/both parents who wrote the ransom note, bound JBR’s wrists and duct taped her mouth and wrapped her in the blanket/hid her in that room.

I think Patsy alone wrote the note and did the cover up and John wasn’t involved until the morning and the 9-1-1 call and that he figured out what had happened then and put the pieces together while police were already at the Ramseys house and then had an idea to look in the wine cellar once he figured out on his mind roughly what had transpired.

I have a 10 year old son and a younger daughter while I do NOT in a million years think my son could do this to his sister I know enough kids that age to know that someone that age who is very disturbed, possibly has autism, and is possibly also being sexually abused themselves could absolutely be responsible for sexually assaulting their sibling. The paintbrush assault was a very childish and immature way to assault someone. I think if an adult was the one sexually assaulting a child, they likely wouldn’t use a paintbrush to do so. I also think a very disturbed kid who resents their younger sibling could absolutely cause a bad head injury, in this case it’s not that hard to imagine this happening especially given that we know Burke had already hit JBR in the head causing her to have to go to the ER previously.

This reads like fan fiction and is not supported by the few facts. My 9 year old has also done cub scouts and could barely make a paper airplane after getting a badge for it. Again this is not remotely 9 year old behavior.

NP. But that actually reads like a very plausible explanation of what happened. What aspect of it is not supported by the “few facts?” And also, just because your 9 year old isn’t capable of this crime doesn’t mean another 9 year old isn’t. Burke comes across as a very different sort of person, a very disturbed kid who had harmed his sister in the past and exhibited strange behavior. He was not a typical 9 year old.

.

No dna is a huge problem for this theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the father did it, or the son and the father helped cover it up, why would he now be advocating for the case to be resolved using DNA evidence that he thinks will solve it?

Exactly. OJ wasn’t exactly pushing anyone to keep looking for Nicoles killer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly feel terrible for the Ramseys if this is truly one of the most unique and odd break ins to have occurred and they have been wrongly accused but I just can’t wrap my mind over the intruder theory.

To me, it is more believable that her brother or parent was abusing her, killed her, and they covered it up than an intruder breaking in and doing this.

The intruder broke in with no plan, had some pineapple with her, got her downstairs to a room that would be difficult to even notice, assaulted her in this weird tentative/experimental way but didn’t go further, killed her over hours; first with the hits to her head and then with with this clumsily tied garrote, went back upstairs risking detection and wrote a 3 page letter (being sure to put the paper and pen where it belonged) and went over to the back staircase and put it there? I’m not saying it’s impossible but, to me, it is hard to believe.

You keep posting but your facts aren’t exactly right, which is annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father did it, or the son and the father helped cover it up, why would he now be advocating for the case to be resolved using DNA evidence that he thinks will solve it?

Exactly. OJ wasn’t exactly pushing anyone to keep looking for Nicoles killer.

DNA is actually a great path for the family to head down. If they find the family’s DNA, it doesn’t implicate the family (and they wont find anything new on the family because patsy cleaned JB up after finding her, and they’ve already been down the DNA road with the family) but if they trace fragments of DNA found on the new, unwashed underwear JB was found wearing (that patsy had bought for a relative and stored in the basement…) from say, a sweatshop in China, it’s a dead end that keeps the case open and focus off the Ramseys.