Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

Pat is dead. They have no qualms about reopening the case now. She was the most defensive when challenged or questioned about the ransom note.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

I don’t think you kick the hornet’s nest in order to clear a name. You write a book, like OJ, “If Burke did it” or some nonsense. You don’t keep asking the police to get involved in case they stumble on something that will implicate your son you’ve been protecting for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

DNA is a very easy way for the family to keep kicking the can along. Any family DNA won’t implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why they were never charged despite the grand jury indictment, and pushing for “other” DNA discovery will only divert attention away from the family.

John is in his 80s and won’t be around forever. He wants to protect Burke and the family from what he perceives was a tragic accident. And perhaps he feels some level of guilt that they were not treating burkes childhood psychiatric issues appropriately and this could have been avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

Anonymous wrote:The ransom note used the words “and hence” which Patsy used before in a Xmas card to a neighbor, and the word attaché which is not a commonly used word especially from a foreign faction. However, it appears in Patsy Ramsey’s favorite movie The Prime of Miss Jean Browdie

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

But John is out there participating in documentaries asking for DNA to be checked. Why would he do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Yes this is what happened and Patsy wrote the note. Its not really hard to see this. Unless you think Burke needs to be put in jail at this time, I don't see why this case needs to continue. He's lived a quiet life so just let it go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broken window is really weird. Who keeps a broken window for 7 months? Why didn’t any snow track inside with the snowy Colorado winter? They certainly had the money to fix it. It surprises me such a perfectionist and type A parent like Pat Ramsey would forget that detail. Wasn’t she showing off the house for the annual Christmas house tour (She gave a tour of that house the day before Christmas to neighborhood admirers)

The broken window was less than 2 inches, which is probably why they didn’t bother to fix it. Also, it was covered in undisturbed spider webs that the police observed.

No one went through that broken window.

Anonymous wrote:I just went down this rabbit hole, and now finally understand why people are still fascinated as it is one of the strangest stories I've ever heard. If it were an outsider who committed the murder I find it hard to believe that there has not been enough DNA to find a match. Which leaves me to think that the DNA they did find was of the trace kind you find everywhere incidentally.

I had no opinion before, but after reading all the evidence I have the camp of people who believe Burke did it. I know there's not enough evidence for a court of law, but too many lines point to Burke in my mind.

1) His strange and emotionless behavior in the video interview with the psychologist. I know some kids show odd behavior but this was reallllly odd. My kid, at age 4, showed more distress when discussing her dead cat.
2) he previously hit his sister with a golf club hard enough to leave a scar, and a family friend said he was prone to anger issues
3) his scatolia and the fact that they found a candy box belonging to his sister with his feces smeared on it. This is not typical, healthy behavior for a 9yo
4) the pineapple bowl and clear glass had his prints on them and JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple matching what was in the bowl
5) the toy train track marks on her body, the SA with the paintbrush handle, the strange and incompetent way her hands were bound all suggest a juvenile aggressor
6) I do not see how he could be cleared on the basis of DNA evidence when there wasn't enough DNA evidence to implicate anyone

The ransom note is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. If Burke did it, we can only conclude that Patsy wrote the note to deflect blame on an outsider. But why on earth is it so bizarre and rambling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something nobody has mentioned that always makes me think Patsy obviously had a role here:

JB was found wearing way too large brand new underpants, like size 10. They were wrapped in the basement as a present for a relative. So. Someone opened a gift, knowing it was underwear - didn’t open any other gift - and put those underwear on her. After wiping her down. I mean, come on. And they found her paint tray and her other supplies to use. And nobody woke up. It’s not a huge house. This whole thing is inane.

It was a 7k sq ft home- I'd say that's pretty huge - and investigators have agreed its winding layout, multiple staircases and "hidden" rooms made it difficult to search. Kids were on the 2nd floor and parents on the 3rd.







The dad, who took a sleeping pill, would likely not have heard anything going on in the basement.

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents on the top floor

I live in a 7500 square foot home and I wake up every time the kids get up. Most moms do.

Keep telling yourself this. How naive.

I’m not “telling” myself this? I live there? Keep being asinine

This is exactly what people tell themselves so they never have to think something bad will happen to them. Their kids are never out of their sight, they see and hear all, they never turn their back or get distracted, ever. No, you’ve just been lucky up until now.

Do you sleep like the dead? At night in my house, yes, I do think I know.

My kid woke up just last night and came to my room to throw up. I didn’t hear him until he was throwing up. He could have walked all over the house until then, silently. I don’t believe for a second everyone quickly awakes to every slight rustle in their home.

Okay. But this wasn’t a slight rustle. This was someone in their home feeding the kid in the kitchen. Would your 6 year old be totally silent?

They had been at a Christmas party. Were Patsy and John drinking?

They say no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents on the top floor

I live in a 7500 square foot home and I wake up every time the kids get up. Most moms do.

Keep telling yourself this. How naive.

I’m not “telling” myself this? I live there? Keep being asinine

This is exactly what people tell themselves so they never have to think something bad will happen to them. Their kids are never out of their sight, they see and hear all, they never turn their back or get distracted, ever. No, you’ve just been lucky up until now.

Do you sleep like the dead? At night in my house, yes, I do think I know.

My kid woke up just last night and came to my room to throw up. I didn’t hear him until he was throwing up. He could have walked all over the house until then, silently. I don’t believe for a second everyone quickly awakes to every slight rustle in their home.

Okay. But this wasn’t a slight rustle. This was someone in their home feeding the kid in the kitchen. Would your 6 year old be totally silent?

They had been at a Christmas party. Were Patsy and John drinking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents on the top floor

I live in a 7500 square foot home and I wake up every time the kids get up. Most moms do.

Keep telling yourself this. How naive.

I’m not “telling” myself this? I live there? Keep being asinine

This is exactly what people tell themselves so they never have to think something bad will happen to them. Their kids are never out of their sight, they see and hear all, they never turn their back or get distracted, ever. No, you’ve just been lucky up until now.

Do you sleep like the dead? At night in my house, yes, I do think I know.

My kid woke up just last night and came to my room to throw up. I didn’t hear him until he was throwing up. He could have walked all over the house until then, silently. I don’t believe for a second everyone quickly awakes to every slight rustle in their home.

Okay. But this wasn’t a slight rustle. This was someone in their home feeding the kid in the kitchen. Would your 6 year old be totally silent?