Reply to 2024 JonBenet Documentary

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "2024 JonBenet Documentary"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The ransom note was clearly written by Patsy for many reasons. Look at the two samples, plus men don't babble like this. Or use complementary terms. Its absurd she wasn't a little smarter about the cover up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/188slcd/the_ransom_note_comparison_original_vs_patsy/[/quote]

I agree, seems clear she wrote it with her left hand and deliberately hid certain characteristics eg the way she wrote her 'a's.[/quote]

Yes, what I noticed. [/quote]

There was also a practice ransom note/another started ransom note found in patsy’s pad of paper in the kitchen. This isn’t a hard one to figure out. Occams Razor - the simplest answer is usually the right one. Patsy wrote the ransom note which is one the single biggest giveaways of family involvement (of which there are many.)

I don’t believe patsy killed jonbenet and i don’t believe she’d cover for John if he killed jonbenet. Burke would have also been a lot more frightened for himself if one of the parents had killed jonbenet. And there you have it, plus the mountains of evidence implicating them. [/quote]

I tend to agree with this. The kids running around in the middle of the night, Patsy perhaps awake herself, does not support the intruder theory. Any intruder would have grabbed her and swiftly removed her from the house not carried her four flights down to a weird basement room. [/quote]

None of this is rational. Maybe the thrill of getting caught was part of the kink?[/quote]

Nope, don't buy it. Hiding in the house to snatch a little girl, yes. To torture her using only stuff found in the house (didn't bring anything, including rope or duct tape?) and write a long ransom note over an extended period of time on Christmas Eve when multiple people are in the house and maybe awake? Does not hold up.[/quote]

Yes Im sure the mother did the torture makes so much sense. Oh and found some random man to rub her underwear on.[/quote]

Not the PP but this is the whole point- neither scenario makes total sense.  The problem with the "Ramseys did it" theory is that there is a small amount of touch DNA on her underwear.  The problem with the "intruder did it" theory is that literally all of the circumstantial evidence- the ransom note being written on the family's notepad with the family's pen which were put back in their correct spots, multiple drafts of the ransom note being found on the family's notepad in the drawer, the things used for the murder all being items from inside the house, the child being wrapped up in a blanket that was removed from the dryer, the fact that the child's stomach contents showed that she'd been eating a snack before she died and that snack was sitting on the kitchen counter in a bowl- point to it being done by someone who lived in the home.  So basically, we will never know what happened. 
However, if people are going to be convinced of the intruder theory based on the touch DNA, then how do they explain the mother's clothing fibers being on the duct tape and on the rope/string used to strangle her?  I think , honestly, that if an intruder did it, the mother helped cover it up for some reason.[/quote]

Some of what you were saying is misinformation though. The duct tape used to keep her mouth taped and the rope that was found in the guestroom next to her room were never sourced to the family‘s house.

I don’t believe it was a random intruder. But one of the problems with this case is that it was clear the family was exposed to a lot of questionable people. The pageant photographer pedophile, the town Santa who would come to the family parties in the home who had a very questionable past and other stalkers that noticed her because of the pageants. And the family history of leaving the doors unlocked, not fixing a broken window and having contractors in and out of the house constantly, etc. doesn’t help either.[/quote]

You’re right, I don’t think they ever found out where the duct tape and rope came from one way or another. The other items were sourced from the ramseys home though. And the only evidence found on the duct tape and rope, if I recall correctly, was the mother’s clothing fibers. But the house was an absolute mess, and the crime scene was so contaminated, that that isn’t exactly a silver bullet. But the fact that the duct tape was put on her mouth post Mortem is just weird. And the ransom note (with drafts!) despite her not being kidnapped is, again, just weird. It’s probably either the family or someone known to the family and I think it’s clear that the family (most likely the mother based on the clothing fibers found on the body and the handwriting experts being torn on whether or not it’s her handwriting) helped cover it up for some reason or another.

The charges brought seemed to point towards the investigators thinking it was Burke and the parents helped conceal his guilt. But the investigators clearly messed up in so many ways that it would have been impossible to prove.[/quote]

I’m not sure if the duct tape was sourced to the house, but the rope was. Investigators determined the following may that patsy had purchased the nylon cord from a hardware store in boulder on December 2nd. The store had a receipt from her for one item the same price as the nylon cord. However by the time they had made the determination, the stores surveillance footage had already been taped over so there is no video proof, just the receipt.

The duct tape, which the coroner confirmed was applied after jonbenet was deceased, had patsy’s red sweater fibers on it. [/quote]

It wasn’t a sweater. It was her jacket. She was wearing a jacket in the house to stage this crime? That would be odd. Do you wear your jacket around the house? Or the tape, after it was removed by John, picked up stray fibers since she had recently worn the jacket. This is yet another detail that isn’t very conclusive.[/quote]

Not PP but you’re right, it’s not conclusive. But the only fibers found on it were Patsys. And everything about this crime is odd. I mean just this morning I was wearing my jacket in our basement because the utility room is cold and I was trying to fix the pilot light on our old water heater. If her jacket fibers got onto it just from her husband ripping it off (not even her, in her jacket, ripping it off!) then I myself would think the intruder must have gotten some clothing fibers on it when he or she applied it?! I am no detective , but again, it doesn’t make sense why her clothing fibers were there but not “the killers”. It makes one think, well, what if she is the killer. [/quote]

So how does that implicate Burke if Patsy was only doing cover up? It’s a huge stretch to think Patsy did this all herself for no real reason.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics