Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

I agree. The fact that it's so bizarre, head trauma then strangulation at a later point, suggests the lack of logic or panic a kid might experience upon realized she wasn't actually dead the first time. Even down to the curiosity about her private parts. I also believe the parents would have covered it up.

No way did a 9 year old do that.

Yeah she was garroted. No way a 9 year old a) knows what a garrot is, b) can create one and c) use it with the force it was used on JonBenet.

First PP here. I didn't say that the brother made the garrote, I actually don't think that he did. I think he hit her with the flashlight and then the parents, thinking she was already dead, made the garrote to stage the crime scene. Just my opinion.

I think the parents went to bed and then the kids went back downstairs (during which time JB ate the pineapple), got into a fight and her hit her with the flashlight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

I agree. The fact that it's so bizarre, head trauma then strangulation at a later point, suggests the lack of logic or panic a kid might experience upon realized she wasn't actually dead the first time. Even down to the curiosity about her private parts. I also believe the parents would have covered it up.

No way did a 9 year old do that.

Yeah she was garroted. No way a 9 year old a) knows what a garrot is, b) can create one and c) use it with the force it was used on JonBenet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super interesting AMA by the police chief later in charge of the Ramsey case: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

The DNA, note, sexual abuse allegations are addressed.

Thanks for linking this. Very interesting.

Anonymous wrote:Super interesting AMA by the police chief later in charge of the Ramsey case: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

The DNA, note, sexual abuse allegations are addressed.

Super interesting AMA by the police chief later in charge of the Ramsey case: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

Off topic, but remember how JB (and other pageant contestants) wore those "flippers" (fake, denture-like adult-looking teeth)? I always found that creepy. Children look weird with adult teeth.

Anonymous wrote:

However, many parents have hurt their children out of mental illness, drug addition, frustration to the point where the child dies, then lies to authorities that it was an accident:
http://www.wonderslist.com/10-mothers-who-killed-their-kids/

Or kids die in due to negligence and the adult lies to cover it up:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/world/americas/canada-snake-deaths/

Right, that's the opposite of what we're talking about. Of course people lie and say intentional crimes were accidents. But do they do the opposite? Come upon an accident and then murder the victim and stage a sexual assault/kidnapping scene?

That is the theory some people are discussing. That a child was accidentally injured (by her brother, for example). The mom upon discovering this injury (which was not fatal) did not seek medical attention but instead wrongly decided to declare her child dead, strangle her, and stage a sexual assault. She goes from a loving mother who provided her children with medical attention to murdering her injured child. I would be interested in a proven case where someone goes from discovering an accident to staging an actual murder.

Doesn't mean someone in the house - or perhaps someone connected - didn't do it. Just that of all the scenarios, accidental cover up for another child seems the most unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:There's no question it was someone in the house - either the parents or Burke. The ransom note, the pineapple, the pull-up in the hallway, the complicated rooms in the house, the lack of obvious entry/exit all point to the people inside.

Websleuths has some great entries on this case.

If it was Patsy, she did it accidentally when reprimanding JB for wetting her bed again. If it was Burke, the motive was jealousy, possibly because of some Christmas present. Parents would definitely cover for Burke.

This thread is where I read about the pull-up in the hallway.

Anonymous wrote:Was the pull up related to the bed wetting or separate as in located close to the body in the winding basement vs. bedroom, bathroom or kitchen with the pineapple?

I don't know. I thought it was in a hallway and I assumed that meant upstairs (bedroom level) somewhere but I don't know that for sure.

Was the pull up related to the bed wetting or separate as in located close to the body in the winding basement vs. bedroom, bathroom or kitchen with the pineapple?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

I agree. The fact that it's so bizarre, head trauma then strangulation at a later point, suggests the lack of logic or panic a kid might experience upon realized she wasn't actually dead the first time. Even down to the curiosity about her private parts. I also believe the parents would have covered it up.

No way did a 9 year old do that.

Anonymous wrote:I really think that Burke killed her accidentally and then the parents (or possibly just Patsy) staged the crime scene. That's the idea that makes the most sense to me when I consider all the facts we know here (which aren't that many to begin with).

I agree. The fact that it's so bizarre, head trauma then strangulation at a later point, suggests the lack of logic or panic a kid might experience upon realized she wasn't actually dead the first time. Even down to the curiosity about her private parts. I also believe the parents would have covered it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yard sale and consignment shop clothing.....can you imagine all the "touch DNA" on those items?? Yikes.

New clothes may contain material that is made, dyed, and stitched in different countries, with each containing various laws regarding acceptable levels of chemical use. Dye and formaldehyde resin, two common chemicals found in new clothing, can cause slightly inflamed, dry, itchy patches and rashes to a severe skin reaction. I'll take some touch DNA any day over formaldehyde.

No. What I was saying is that MANY of us buy and sell used clothes. If one of us put on used jogging clothes for example and went for a run and got attacked and killed. The police would find "touch DNA" on the clothes we were wearing - possibly from the person who donated the clothing, from the individuals sorting the clothing at the warehouse, from the clerks ringing the clothing up and putting it into the bag. And quite possible from the killer.

Forget even "used" clothing. If you go into a store and buy something that has been tried on 4 times and then an employee or 2 had to remove it from the fitting room/fold it just imagine the DNA on a NEW piece of clothing... The person ringing it up, every customer that may have pulled it off a rack and felt the fabric, the person who initially puts new clothes on the store-room from the stock room. SO MANY PEOPLE TOUCH YOUR CLOTHES!

Yes they do. If JonBenet had been to sleepovers at friends' houses she might have even mixed up clothes with some of her friends. Or possibly she wore her PJ's to some of these beauty pageant gigs and the clothes got mixed up or touched back stage.

That kid was going to parties, playing at friends' houses, the Ramsey's had parties at their house......and I don't think it sounds like they were great housekeepers - with a bowl of pineapple sitting out on the table from the night before, a used pull up in the hallway among other things that I've read, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they hired people to help do the laundry/clean in that house, prepare the house for parties, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The information about the new DNA was given by the prosecutor when they stated that they had cleared the Ramseys. I can't remember exactly when this was, but I believe Patsy was already deceased.

Interesting. I guess if the prosecution cleared them that's it. Right? It will always be a mystery though - that is for sure.

Read foreign faction by the lead investigator on the case, the Ramseys were never cleared.and the investigative team believed the family was responsible. There were various prosecutors involved over the years and one in particular was very sympathetic to Patsy.

Anonymous wrote:I can believe an intruder assaulted and killed her. But the ransom note.... just makes no sense.

Without leaving footprints in the snow or a single sign of forced entry? Really?