I love how all the wild conspiracy theorists ignore the most compelling piece of evidence:
It's clear as day the mom wrote the fake ransom note. You can cling to all the other crap and distract yourself and everyone else with crap. She wrote that note.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

That’s very convincing. No wonder John Ramsey is pissed.

John Ramsey is a strange dude. He has had not 1 but 2 daughters die tragically and suddenly. When his kids dog died, he didn't tell them, he just replaced it. When his wife was undergoing chemo for the second time and it was evident that it wasn't working, he stopped her chemo treatments without telling her. In his own Netflix interview he was like, "she was asking me when her next treatment was, and I just avoided the question" or something, because he had medical POA and just decided to stop her treatments apparently against her will. After his daughter was murdered, he still tried to head out on vacation until the police told him not to. He seems like a very.... let's say... avoidant person. I could absolutely see this man finding his daughter murdered by either his wife or his son and being like... let's just try to make this whole thing go away, and stage some aspects of it to make it look like an intruder.

The Dr recommended palliative care. You’re making it sound like he pulled the plug. Her cancer came back, it was a long battle and one she wasn’t going to win which John and the Dr understood and Patsy, not in her right mind, didn’t.

So you think it’s ok that her husband unilaterally made that decision for her, and didn’t even tell her? I don’t.

I just think the intruder theory, while I realize is not a common scenario, is just much more plausible given this families odd habits.

They were not concerned about security as they clearly didn’t fix a broken window from months earlier, never locked doors and never set their alarm. They loved living life in the spotlight, their house was on a Christmas tour, they like to host parties at their house, and they were having tons of work done and had tons of contractors in and out.

The scrutiny over the pageant is because while I don’t think the pageants mean that they were bad parents, I do think there is no question that it opened the door to more pedophiles and weirdos in this child’s life than typical.

I really don’t think it is all that outlandish given the families opening their home, constantly having people in and out, exposing her to predators because of the pageants, and just not being concerned that anyone would break and means it’s much more likely that it could’ve been an intruder.

The Burke theory really falls apart when you learn that the sex abuse occurred while she was alive, and the strangulation occurred while she was awake and alive. I totally get staging a murder but in that insane way from a parent?

For this to work, people are saying that Burke had to be strong enough and violent enough to hit her really violently to almost kill her, that the father had been sexually abusing her and so had wanted to cover up with more sexual abuse, and that the mom went along with all if this. It’s just much more of a stretch than say if they found her at the bottom of her stairs and they tried to make it seem as if she fell. That I could believe, but this bizarre torture scene flies in the face of it being these parents.

I posted before, while I don’t believe it was that John Marr Kerr character, the detail with which he explained what happened does make it seem like he was in a pedophile chat room, and the killer actually described the scenario. I wonder if the police ever looked into anything like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

That’s very convincing. No wonder John Ramsey is pissed.

John Ramsey is a strange dude. He has had not 1 but 2 daughters die tragically and suddenly. When his kids dog died, he didn't tell them, he just replaced it. When his wife was undergoing chemo for the second time and it was evident that it wasn't working, he stopped her chemo treatments without telling her. In his own Netflix interview he was like, "she was asking me when her next treatment was, and I just avoided the question" or something, because he had medical POA and just decided to stop her treatments apparently against her will. After his daughter was murdered, he still tried to head out on vacation until the police told him not to. He seems like a very.... let's say... avoidant person. I could absolutely see this man finding his daughter murdered by either his wife or his son and being like... let's just try to make this whole thing go away, and stage some aspects of it to make it look like an intruder.

The Dr recommended palliative care. You’re making it sound like he pulled the plug. Her cancer came back, it was a long battle and one she wasn’t going to win which John and the Dr understood and Patsy, not in her right mind, didn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

That’s very convincing. No wonder John Ramsey is pissed.

John Ramsey is a strange dude. He has had not 1 but 2 daughters die tragically and suddenly. When his kids dog died, he didn't tell them, he just replaced it. When his wife was undergoing chemo for the second time and it was evident that it wasn't working, he stopped her chemo treatments without telling her. In his own Netflix interview he was like, "she was asking me when her next treatment was, and I just avoided the question" or something, because he had medical POA and just decided to stop her treatments apparently against her will. After his daughter was murdered, he still tried to head out on vacation until the police told him not to. He seems like a very.... let's say... avoidant person. I could absolutely see this man finding his daughter murdered by either his wife or his son and being like... let's just try to make this whole thing go away, and stage some aspects of it to make it look like an intruder.

Meh, I don’t find these examples all that strange. He was born in 1944. My dad was born in 1946 and men of this generation are pretty uncomfortable with heavy emotions. Could totally see a dad from this generation not wanting to deal with the loss of a pet and young children so just solving it by buying a new one. Could totally see when his wife was at the end of her life instead of explaining that they were giving up making it seem like it would be a gentler death for her to think she was still getting treatments.

Would I do this? No I wouldn’t. But I don’t think it’s really odd for a man of his generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

That’s very convincing. No wonder John Ramsey is pissed.

John Ramsey is a strange dude. He has had not 1 but 2 daughters die tragically and suddenly. When his kids dog died, he didn't tell them, he just replaced it. When his wife was undergoing chemo for the second time and it was evident that it wasn't working, he stopped her chemo treatments without telling her. In his own Netflix interview he was like, "she was asking me when her next treatment was, and I just avoided the question" or something, because he had medical POA and just decided to stop her treatments apparently against her will. After his daughter was murdered, he still tried to head out on vacation until the police told him not to. He seems like a very.... let's say... avoidant person. I could absolutely see this man finding his daughter murdered by either his wife or his son and being like... let's just try to make this whole thing go away, and stage some aspects of it to make it look like an intruder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

That’s very convincing. No wonder John Ramsey is pissed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Probably because the dna is junk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

Why don’t the police just retest what they have with all the dna advances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Larry King interview with Lou Smit is very compelling. He is the detective who thinks it was an intruder.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl/date/2001-05-28/segment/00

I like Lou Smit and I think he is one of the only competent investigators in this case. But I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it must have been an intruder. I also think that an investigator as intelligent and thorough as him would have been able to find the intruder, or find definitive evidence of an intruder, with all of the work he did, and the fact that he couldn’t, to me, just convinces me (personally) even more that someone in the home was involved.

I think the boulder police were never going to let anyone find the intruder. It seems like there is a really bad combination of incompetence in some of the force and corruption in others.

Boulder often had NO homicides at all in a year back then (not sure now) so they were not used to this situation. In fact, the only other potential homicide was the death of a former Ramsey housekeeper's adult dd just a few weeks before JonBenet.

Wonder if there's any significance or association between the two deaths. That's quite a coincidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Larry King interview with Lou Smit is very compelling. He is the detective who thinks it was an intruder.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl/date/2001-05-28/segment/00

I like Lou Smit and I think he is one of the only competent investigators in this case. But I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it must have been an intruder. I also think that an investigator as intelligent and thorough as him would have been able to find the intruder, or find definitive evidence of an intruder, with all of the work he did, and the fact that he couldn’t, to me, just convinces me (personally) even more that someone in the home was involved.

I think the boulder police were never going to let anyone find the intruder. It seems like there is a really bad combination of incompetence in some of the force and corruption in others.

Boulder often had NO homicides at all in a year back then (not sure now) so they were not used to this situation. In fact, the only other potential homicide was the death of a former Ramsey housekeeper's adult dd just a few weeks before JonBenet.

Seems like there were a lot of deaths surrounding their family! The dad’s older daughter died in a car accident a few years prior. I wonder if that was ever investigated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

Yes, but PP refuses to consider these well-established points.

I find it strange that JB would have random white man DNA on her hands to transfer to her underwear and long johns.

Why? She’d been at a Christmas party all night probably touching and hugging all sorts of people, most of them (all of them?) white. Which could also explain the traces of white male DNA (different from the underwear) under her fingernails.

Those were not unknown people. They know who was there.

That’s true. So do you think it was 2 intruders then?? One for the fingernails one for the underwear? Maybe that’s why there was a ransom note, they were going to kidnap her so one sat around drafting that weird note and the other brought her downstairs but then killed her? 2 intruders seems even harder not to leave more traces IMO but who knows

The fingernail DNA was old, according to one analyst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Larry King interview with Lou Smit is very compelling. He is the detective who thinks it was an intruder.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl/date/2001-05-28/segment/00

I like Lou Smit and I think he is one of the only competent investigators in this case. But I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it must have been an intruder. I also think that an investigator as intelligent and thorough as him would have been able to find the intruder, or find definitive evidence of an intruder, with all of the work he did, and the fact that he couldn’t, to me, just convinces me (personally) even more that someone in the home was involved.

I think the boulder police were never going to let anyone find the intruder. It seems like there is a really bad combination of incompetence in some of the force and corruption in others.

Boulder often had NO homicides at all in a year back then (not sure now) so they were not used to this situation. In fact, the only other potential homicide was the death of a former Ramsey housekeeper's adult dd just a few weeks before JonBenet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Larry King interview with Lou Smit is very compelling. He is the detective who thinks it was an intruder.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl/date/2001-05-28/segment/00

I like Lou Smit and I think he is one of the only competent investigators in this case. But I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it must have been an intruder. I also think that an investigator as intelligent and thorough as him would have been able to find the intruder, or find definitive evidence of an intruder, with all of the work he did, and the fact that he couldn’t, to me, just convinces me (personally) even more that someone in the home was involved.

I think the boulder police were never going to let anyone find the intruder. It seems like there is a really bad combination of incompetence in some of the force and corruption in others.

Or perhaps the cops protecting one of their own. Nothing is too far fetched at this point.

Did the family have any known ties/ friendships with any cops? That’s an interesting theory especially with what we know now in terms of cops covering up crimes of other cops , more than we knew in the 90s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on.

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.

Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried.

They were not indicted.

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/

It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened.

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics.

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs, and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck.

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna.

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.

My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred to it, etc.

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family.

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory. You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.

Remember JB's body was cleaned.

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which usually happens when the person dies for example)

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on.

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.

Minuscule/ microscopic traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands.

You said “no” urine and as usual you’re wrong. And about the DNA too. You’re on quite a misinformation campaign here. Must be one of Bolder’s finest.

You’re responding to more than one poster I think. I myself didn’t ever say that. I don’t think I’m on a misinformation campaign I think there is so much conflicting info out there that people are bound to draw different conclusions from it. I have read many things that say the DNA is partial alleles , that it’s only touch DNA, and that from an investigative standpoint it’s largely useless. I’ve read other things that say it’s the smoking gun and can rule out every suspect. That seems to be what the boulder police think, since they have ruled out tons of suspects based on it , but I don’t think the boulder police have handled really any of this case very well, so I don’t put a lot of stock in how they say the dna sample is so important that it can rule out every family member and every pervert who tries to claim they committed the crime.

If you’re still talking about DNA from the Chinese manufacturer you’re totally misinformed.

You’re clearly trying to argue but I’m just trying to discuss nuances of the case. Neither of us have any idea what happened and neither of us actually know how important or not important the touch DNA is because even within the boulder police department, people say different things.

But we’re not discussing the same facts. So it’s ridiculous to try to concoct a theory, cherry pick the evidence that only supports one theory, ignore everything else, then declare it 100% solved.

What facts am I ignoring?? I’d honestly like to know, I want to know all the facts!

Well you said “no” urine most recently. There have been countless erroneous facts in this entire thread. It would be too many to list them all. Many have been corrected but people still spout their own facts. Makes this discussion useless.

I don’t think I said that. There are many people on this thread. Anyways if it’s useless then step out instead of insulting people who are trying to discuss it.