Anonymous wrote:IIRC, it had snowed that night and there were no footprints leading up to or away from the house. So whoever did it either stayed in the house or floated away.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I'm an armchair crime solver with the best of them but this one still stumps me. All the individual pieces suggest Patsy but motive always eludes me.

JonBenet was Patsy's living doll, an extension of herself - her beautiful, healthy self. JonBenet started to develop a mind of her own, not always listening to Patsy and that made Patsy look and feel bad, out of control.

JonBenet had had an extremely busy day and was, no doubt, acting like an overtired 2nd grader that night. Patsy was also overtired herself with a trip to prepare for and she probably asked her daughter to do something (maybe don't take your brother's pineapple or go downstairs and get your suitcase) and JonBenet was not cooperating, whatever, and Patsy lost her cool and either struck or shoved JonBenet injuring her head.

She then picked JonBenet up carried her to her bed, laid her down and told John and Burke that she fell asleep. She later checked on JonBenet and realized how badly injured she really was and that was when the strangulation and cover up started.

I am not familiar with the minute details of this case, so this may or may not be a plausible theory. Just figured I'd toss another theory onto the pile. I doubt that we'll ever know what happened.

Yes, Patsy most likely staged the sexual assault,

"The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad.”

http://fox8.com/2015/02/26/ex-police-chief-jonbenet-ramsey-crime-scene-was-mishandled/

Anonymous wrote:I believe she was killed accidentally by the brother and the mom panicked believing that somehow this would tarnish their family reputation in the community. Patsy seemed like that kind of woman who would worry about that kind of thing.

She then orchestrated the scene and waited for the husband to wake up and pretended that she was just as shocked as the rest of them and believed their daughter was kidnaped.

By the time the husband figured out what was going on, they were too far in to change their story so they just kept up the charade likely never, ever anticipating the national coverage that would ensue.

Yeah, when police were there, the brother came down stairs that morning. He didn't ask why they were there or where his sister was. I think he knew.

The Ramseys were more concerned about their public image than actually solving a murder b/c they knew who murdered their kid,

"Patsy Ramsey called 911 a little before 6 a.m. on Dec. 26, 1996, to report a kidnapping, after she said she found on a staircase a three-page ransom note seeking $118,000 for JonBenet's safe return.

Several hours later, John Ramsey reported finding the child's body wrapped in a blanket in a windowless wine cellar in the basement.

With no clear signs of forced entry, suspicion settled on John and Patsy Ramsey, who quickly hired a battery of attorneys and publicists. Because they said they did not trust the Boulder police to be impartial, the Ramseys did not consent to formal police interviews until four months after the crime."
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/25/local/me-ramsey25

No foreign DNA on the blanket either.

Poor little girl. Was she actually dressed in pajamas?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you explain unidentified male DNA on her underwear? Among other things that I don't really even wish to list out.

The article/AMA posted on page 3 or 4 of this thread says the blunt force trauma occurred first, then strangulation 45 minutes to 2 hours later. The latter is what killed her. The vaginal injury seemed to occur later.

Also the micro DNA on the underwear was found something like a decade later, but none of the same micro DNA on her pajamas?

So a stranger bludgeons your skull, then waits 2 hours, strangles you, then somehow leaves trace amount of DNA on your underwear but no where else on the corpse like your pajamas?

IIRC, it had snowed that night and there were no footprints leading up to or away from the house. So whoever did it either stayed in the house or floated away.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you explain unidentified male DNA on her underwear? Among other things that I don't really even wish to list out.

The article/AMA posted on page 3 or 4 of this thread says the blunt force trauma occurred first, then strangulation 45 minutes to 2 hours later. The latter is what killed her. The vaginal injury seemed to occur later.

I think that the family had just been to a Christmas party, had recently had a party in their own home and that they had been around lots of other people. The foreign DNA found on JonBenet was incidental (came from sitting on a toilet at the party maybe?) and not related to her murder.

This case gives me the creeps big time. Appearances were deceiving here...

I thought there was signs of an outside intruder, something with a suitcase used to climb through a basement window?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the house is so big makes it plausible that an intruder would go unnoticed.

Except there were zero signs of outside entry or exit.

Lots of people leave doors unlocked...especially people who live in nice areas with little fear.

I believe she was killed accidentally by the brother and the mom panicked believing that somehow this would tarnish their family reputation in the community. Patsy seemed like that kind of woman who would worry about that kind of thing.

She then orchestrated the scene and waited for the husband to wake up and pretended that she was just as shocked as the rest of them and believed their daughter was kidnaped.

By the time the husband figured out what was going on, they were too far in to change their story so they just kept up the charade likely never, ever anticipating the national coverage that would ensue.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the house is so big makes it plausible that an intruder would go unnoticed.

Except there were zero signs of outside entry or exit.

The fact that the house is so big makes it plausible that an intruder would go unnoticed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They cleared the parents. It's sad people still think they did it.

Sort of. I would suggest you read up on websleuths on the case.

I don't know where to start with this sentence.

It's a site about crime cases where people post evidence and analyze things.

Point is, Mary Lacy "cleared" them based on minuscule DNA evidence at a contaminated crime scene. It was clear that she did it unilaterally and that her successor did not agree.

Yeah I could guess what "websleuths" is, but thanks.

Then not clear on your confusion?