I know it was over 8 years ago, but does anyone know who killed her? Everyone says it's her mother, and some people say it's her Dad. A very few people say it was probably her brother.
Who do you think killed her?

Originally posted by *CamdenGirl89*
I know it was over 8 years ago, but does anyone know who killed her? Everyone says it's her mother, and some people say it's her Dad. A very few people say it was probably her brother.
Who do you think killed her?

Only the killer him or herself knows for sure who did away with Jon Benet Ramsey. (Well, Jon Benet knows as well, but, of course, she can't tell us, since she is dead.)

I seriously don't believe that her brother was involved. But judging from what I have heard about the crime scene, it is difficult to believe that her killer could have been a total stranger. My general feeling is that she had to have been killed by someone known to the family.

If you read Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, you will likely develop a strong opinion either way, on who you think did it. Let's put it this way: somebody INSIDE the home had to have done it. One of the strangest things that works against the couple is that their good friends from Newprt Beach, California ended the friendship right after the murders. Jon Benet's dad apparently said something to spook them. There are a lot of books out there but this one kept my attention and offered a lot of details/facts. ***The fact that it snowed the morning of her murder STINKS..it washed away any evidence there was or would have been outisde.":mad:

I definetly think its either the mom or dad but thats only my opinion

My personal belief too is that the parents did it and got away with it.

definetly.

Does anyone else think that parts of the Ramsey note carry eerie similarities to some movies? For example:

"If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies."

Sounds like Scorpio in "Dirty Harry" re: the Deacon girl.

Also:

"Don't try to grow a brain John."

Sounds like Dennis Hopper's character talking to Keanu Reeves' character in "Speed".

I have always felt that one of the family did it, or they had one of their friends in the house who did it.

I just cannot buy that such a wealthy individual would be happy to leave a broken window unfixed for such a long period, or that when you are making a 911 call you would tell your son it is none of his business- then say he was asleep while you were making the call, or that a mother frantic with worry would be worried about fixing her hair & make up for the police.

His finding the body by chance in a room the police had already checked & the moving it also has to be considered highly suspect, as does the lack of evidence of an intruder & the fact the note was written inside the house.

These child beauty pageants sicken me, my guess is either the dad or one of his buddies was into little girls & she was being abused with the knowledge of the mother, something went wrong- either this time she cried or started screaming, or the individual just lost contol & smothered her by accident, neighbours reported hearing a chilling scream at 2.00 am, yet the Ramsey's say they heard nothing.

The abduction happened inside the house.

The murder happened inside the house

The materials for the garrotte came from inside the house

The material for the ransom note came from inside the house.

Everything in this case happens from inside the house.


This all points to the suspect being someone from in the house.

Pedophiles are creatures of opportunity. They usely don't brazenly break into peoples homes and kill and molest their victims inside the homes.

No kidnapper with half a brain, would write such a long ransom note, ask for so little money and then panick so much that he kills the victim he was ransoming in the first place.

It was either

1. One of the Ramsey Family did and the family covered up the murder to protect the family as a whole

2. Some business partner or employee of John Ramsey had a grudge against him and decided to get vengeance on him by killing his beauty pageant daughter.

3. Members of some organized crime that Jon Ramsey was involved with. Perhaps from Atlanta. Perhaps Johns fortune wasn't completely legitimate. Maybe loan sharks finally caught up with him.

4. A jealous lover of John Ramsey who was jilted.

I vote number 1 as the most probable.

You can find more information here:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=228379&page=3&highlight=Jon+Benet+Ramsey

I completely disagree. DNA tests have cleared the family of any suspicion in Jon-Benet's death. They found some DNA on Jon-Benet's body that they have determined came from an unknown man. It is now believed that when the match for the unknown DNA is found, Jon-Benet's killer will also be found.

Also, are you guys forgetting about the window in the Ramsey's basement that was left open? Also, I believe investigators found part of a hiking shoe print on the floor... which came from a shoe that belonged to NO ONE in the Ramsey household. The belief is now that Jon-Benet happened upon someone while they were breaking into the house and the kidnapping/murder was totally spontaneous. While it's true that SOME of the material used in the kidnapping/murder were found in the home, not ALL of the stuff came from the home. The cord and the duct tape were not originally in the Ramsey home.

I think (obviously) that the police botched this investigation from the start. They put their suspicion TOTALLY on the Ramsey family, and in doing so, they let the real killer get away.

Sorry to get so passionate on the topic-- hope I haven't offended anyone. I used to believe that someone in the Ramsey household killed Jon-Benet, too. However, the recent DNA tests have changed my mind on the matter. I feel the Ramseys are innocent. It's a shame that Patsy Ramsey died before she was officially cleared. This family has suffered enough. I hope that someday, they'll find out who the actual culprit was. However, I strongly believe it was not anyone in the Ramsey house.

CNN recently did a story on Jon-Benet as part of Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, if you want to read where most of my information came from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/23/grace.coldcase.jonbenet.ramsey/index.html

The brother I think. If it wasn't him, it was somebody the family knew, but wasn't the direct family.

Yes the police did botch the case, however the scene was already compromised by the time they arrived, due to the Ramsey's inviting their friends over.

According to John Ramsey, the window was broken the summer before when he was locked out, does a very wealthy man just leave a window broken that would mean anybody could gain access to his house?

Whether they did it or not they have more knowledge than they ever let on, instead of helping the police they stonewalled & hindered them at every turn, instead playing to the media, rather than wanting to obtain justice for their child.

Sorry to get so passionate on the topic-- hope I haven't offended anyone. I used to believe that someone in the Ramsey household killed Jon-Benet, too.

No problem. I understand your passion.

For the record,let it be said that i fully believe the McCann's are innocent in the Madeliene McCann case.

I also am on the fence about the Dowaliby case.

I just cannot see a plausible scenario in which an kidnapper or pedophile could have done this?

1. If it's a pedophile, this would have to be the most ambitious pedophile in the history of crime. Most pedophiles are creatures of opportunity like in the Nyleen Kay Marshall case. This guy apparently has the cahones to not only break into the house, but he kills her their and believes he has enough time to garrotte her and write a nearly 3 page ransom note. And he doesn;t even give himself time to enjoy his capture. He could of easily got her out of the house and brough her to a van or whereever so he could take his time and perform his awful atrocities.

2. If it's a kidnapper, i can;t imagine any criminal of an repute writting that ridiculous ransom note or asked for so little from the Ramseys. Plus as with the pedophile theory, he could have easily got out of the house and gotten his ransom rather than killing her and defeating the purpose of the kidnapping.

I'm sorry too much points to the family being involved. It's not like little Maddy's case where there was a moment of opportunity that any criminal could of taken advantage of.

The only way an intruder theory works is if Jon Benets killing was a vengeance killing against Jon. And that theory still leaves the question of why the killer used the materials in the house to write the Ransom note.

As for the DNA. There have been theories that Jon Benets panties were someone elses. Perhaps a panty swap as some littel girls are known to do. It has been believed that the panties were oversized for Jon Benet.

It';s also possible the DNA is from the original manufacturer of the undergarments.

The DNA is still in my opinion the only evidence of an outside party.

I used to believe that someone in the Ramsey household killed Jon-Benet, too. However, the recent DNA tests have changed my mind on the matter.

I actually came into this case thinking the Ramsey's were completely innocent.

It was when i read the Ransom Note that I really started to look into the ramseys. The note is completely false and i don't see why anyone other than the Ramseys would think to write a fake ransom note.

As far as I'm concerned, little details one way or another can't change the main fact that one of the parents did it. I believe the housekeeper's theory that John took some kind of sleeping aid and wouldn't have awakened if a cannon went off by his bed, leaving Patsy to deal with JonBenét, and she just snapped. She takes out resentments against John in the ransom note.

One of the rumors was that in the 911 call before Patsy hangs up John and Burke can be heard having the following conversation:

Burke: Please, what do I do?
John: We're not talking to you.
Burke: Well, what did you find?

Supposedly this has since been discounted. Burke possibly really was asleep. I don't know how they managed to clear Burke so quickly. It's also hard to see how Burke doesn't know more than he has told, but I suppose it's possible. (He is either in college or just graduated. Someone needs to befriend him, get him drunk, and pump him for info, seriously.)

The stranger shoe print came from someone in the Police Department. They probably know who and just aren't admitting it.

As for the DNA on the underwear, it's a misleading bunch of nonsense. Supposedly there was fluid DNA on the panties and touch DNA from the same individual on the long johns, which were together only on JonBenét's body and had to have come from a stranger (meaning none of the people tested, which amounted to about half the town of Boulder by the time the Ramseys got done accusing people.) I heard the story (which I've never seen confirmed; anyone care to investigate?) that the fluid DNA on the panties was the same as DNA found in unused panties in a package which was among evidence seized. This is known as the "Asian sneeze theory" and seems to have formed one of a number of incredibly lucky breaks for the guilty party (one of the Ramseys.) If the touch DNA existed at all, well, whoever left the fluid DNA also left skin flakes and a few transferred from the panties to the long johns at some point. Cross contamination happens all the time. So what? It doesn't make a murderer innocent. Supposedly the new DA is having another look at this.

Supposedly this has since been discounted. Burke possibly really was asleep. I don't know how they managed to clear Burke so quickly. It's also hard to see how Burke doesn't know more than he has told, but I suppose it's possible. (He is either in college or just graduated. Someone needs to befriend him, get him drunk, and pump him for info, seriously.)

In a way, Burke might be the one who ultimately solves this case. Perhaps via confession or he may provide some info about that night that police have overlooked.

I used to think it was crazy that Burke could be responsible. But I've found out recently that brother-sister sexual abuse and violence is a lot more common than we think. It is not that far-fetched that Burke had killed his own sister out of sexual needs, jealousy or pure acccident.

I know it was over 8 years ago, but does anyone know who killed her? Everyone says it's her mother, and some people say it's her Dad. A very few people say it was probably her brother.
Who do you think killed her?

I think it was a distraught worker at Jon Ramsey's workplace. he knew he had money.

I think it was a distraught worker at Jon Ramsey's workplace. he knew he had money.

1.Why did he use the Ramsey's own material for the Ransom note? Why didn;t he bring his own materials?

2.Why risk valuable escape time to construct a garrote to strangle her? Especially since you've already bludgened her?

3. Why not ransom her for real? He could have netted a cool $200,000 for her and not get caught and still get his revenge on John Ramsey. He could still kill her anytime he wanted as well.

4. Wouldn;t the Ramsey's know exactly who this person is? Wouldn;t Jon know of a disgruntled employee? Also why would the Ramseys be lenient in helping the investigation to protect this guy?

5. Why kill Jon Benet? Why not kill John Ramsey himself? You already in the house. You ready to committ murder? You probably could have killed him and his wife in his sleep? You probably could have coerced John Ramsey to follow you in which case you could torture John Ramsey any which way you wanted.

6. If you've broken into the house, why not steal some if his valuables while your at it?


A point to keep in mind is that the 18,000 was bonus money. Not part of the regular payroll or savings. If the Ramseys had to pay a ransom..it would not be a big financial hit for them. That IMHO, is why that amount was written...it was so the Ramseys wouldn't have to hurt their quality of life by paying out an unexpected amount like $200,000 or a half a million?

The Ramseys would simply lose money that was EXTRA income, not regualr income or savings.

Choosing $18,000 was a benefit to the Ramsey's situation, not a hindrance.

A point to keep in mind is that the 18,000 was bonus money. Not part of the regular payroll or savings. If the Ramseys had to pay a ransom..it would not be a big financial hit for them. That IMHO, is why that amount was written...it was so the Ramseys wouldn't have to hurt their quality of life by paying out an unexpected amount like $200,000 or a half a million?

The Ramseys would simply lose money that was EXTRA income, not regualr income or savings.

Choosing $18,000 was a benefit to the Ramsey's situation, not a hindrance.

The amount mentioned in the ransom note was $118,000.00--almost the exact amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus. If a stranger wrote that note it is an act of criminal genius to rival if not surpass anything in crime history--making the writing look like Patsy's and having everything in the note point back to the Ramseys.

In a way, Burke might be the one who ultimately solves this case. Perhaps via confession or he may provide some info about that night that police have overlooked.

That's what I'm thinking--I just hope he outlives his father and survives to produce his own tell-all (as opposed to the tell-a-tale his parents wrote.) It's too bad John is likely to leave Burke so much money he won't have a financial motive for writing the truth.

Remember that the Whites, who were the Ramseys' best friends, broke off their relationship shortly after the murder. It's hardly probable that the Ramseys confessed outright, but they said or did something to make the Whites suspicious of their ultimate guilt. Even if Burke slept through the whole attack initially--he lived in that house for ten years afterwards. He saw or heard something pass between John and Patsy that would give him a fairly clear picture of what happened, even if he suppresses or denies it. If he was guilty and confesses many years later, although there is no statute of limitations on murder, it's unlikely that he could be charged with murder.

Someone in that house did it and I think it was the mother. I've always thought it was the mother. I don't care if the DNA cleared her. There have been mistakes made in reading DNA and people who have forged DNA results.

I don't think it was anyone in the house.

I think the killer is dead, and that it was Michael Helgoth. Quite a bit of evidence does point to Helgoth.

I don't think it was anyone in the house.

I think the killer is dead, and that it was Michael Helgoth. Quite a bit of evidence does point to Helgoth.

Be Careful. A lot of the evidence implicating John Steven Gigax & Michael Helgoth has been called into question. I hope you are not getting this theory from the Tracey documentary.

1. I believe the story about him having a cap with the symbols SBTC has been dismissed by a lot of people. This may be a confusion with another suspect who had Santa Barbera Tennis Club t-shirt. That suspect has been cleared, i think.

2. His boots don't match the footprint in the basement.

3. There's been no evidence of either being a pedophile

4. No concrete evidence that a stun gun was used in Jon Benet

5. Questionable as to whether a poperty dispute would really be that much of a motivation to kill Jon Benet.

6. Still doesn't explain why the used materials in the house to write ransom note and why he risked the time to get captured.

7. Again if they really wanted to, they could have ransomed Jon Benet for real.

8. There are other reasons for Helgoth's suicide. His girlfriend broke up with him a few days before the sucide. Helgoth's friends reported him being broken up about the failed relationship.

9. Only real evidence against Helgoth was his suspicious sucide after Jon Benets death and the stun gun found next to him. There is even question as to whether a stun gun was really found.

I don't think it was anyone in the house.

I think the killer is dead, and that it was Michael Helgoth. Quite a bit of evidence does point to Helgoth.

I think you're on to something. Regardless of what's being said, I will always believe that the Ramsey family is innocent. It's nice to know I'm not alone in that thought.

Perhaps but the dna found on her doesn't match the family so i don't think they did it. Neither does the handwriting match any member of the family either. In fact most profilers long ago eliminated them. Not that it's not possible but i think it was simply the work of a serial rapist/killer. Most pedophiles tend to fit that mo but not all, there have been many rape cases that have happened right in peoples houses while family members sleep. The fact that the items came from the houses can mean a lot of things. it can mean the person did this to throw the police off into looking at the family. It can also mean the killer never planned on killing her but due to some reason he did...perhaps part of the fantasy...perhaps he heard someone moving...no one can say. The sad fact is the boulder police like most small town police bumbled this case badly.


The abduction happened inside the house.

The murder happened inside the house

The materials for the garrotte came from inside the house

The material for the ransom note came from inside the house.

Everything in this case happens from inside the house.


This all points to the suspect being someone from in the house.

Pedophiles are creatures of opportunity. They usely don't brazenly break into peoples homes and kill and molest their victims inside the homes.

No kidnapper with half a brain, would write such a long ransom note, ask for so little money and then panick so much that he kills the victim he was ransoming in the first place.

It was either

1. One of the Ramsey Family did and the family covered up the murder to protect the family as a whole

2. Some business partner or employee of John Ramsey had a grudge against him and decided to get vengeance on him by killing his beauty pageant daughter.

3. Members of some organized crime that Jon Ramsey was involved with. Perhaps from Atlanta. Perhaps Johns fortune wasn't completely legitimate. Maybe loan sharks finally caught up with him.

4. A jealous lover of John Ramsey who was jilted.

I vote number 1 as the most probable.

I think you're on to something. Regardless of what's being said, I will always believe that the Ramsey family is innocent. It's nice to know I'm not alone in that thought.

I don't think it was anyone in the house, that killed Jon Benet. I think it was an intruder.

I'm still leaning towards Helgoth, and that the original intention wasn't to kill Jon Benet, it was to ransom her. It's possible there was a 3rd individual working with Helgoth and his partner. And that's where everything went from a ransom to murder.

This was obviously a massively botched investigation, where the Boulder police refused to look at anyone else but the Ramseys. Sadly unless Burke saw something, I don't think this will have an ending like another investigation that was botched, but ultimately saw someone put away. I don't see it having the closure that the Martha Moxley case had.

Most pedophiles tend to fit that mo but not all, there have been many rape cases that have happened right in peoples houses while family members sleep

How may rapists have blugeoned and strangled their victims AND wrote a nearly three page ransom note AND used nearly all their criminal items from AND didn't sexual molest their victim at the time AND left the dead victim in said house AND they decided not to rob the house or kill anyone else or damage the house.

John Benet was not sexually molested at the time of her death (whether she was after, is another story)


They';re are a lot easier ways to kidnapp and kill Jon Benet than breaking into the Ramsey house.

Jon benet was practically all over the place at beauty pageants and what have you. A pedophile could easily have kidnapped her backstage or lured her as a photographer or took her in the numerous times she was alone without parental supervision.

Helgoth IMHO, is as credible a suspect as Mark Karr was. Mark Helgoth became a popular suspect due to a documentary done by a questionable source.

Again, Helgoth commited suicide most likely due to his loss of his girlfriend. I also believe that Helgoth committed sucide on Valentine's Day, no? A popular day for suicides.

However I wouldn't be surprised if John and Patsy thought that their son did it. And tried to cover that up, and in the process destroyed valuable evidence.


Why would they think that unless it was the truth? If the window was broken wouldn;t they automatically assume that an intruder took her.

Your also assuming in that case that the Ramseys knew their daughter was dead at the time? Why? Wouldn;t they call the hospital? You mean to tell me they risked moving her body? Bludgeoning her or strangling her?

People cover up crimes not suspicions.

Another year, another Christmas, another bump for this thread.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14060024?source=most_emailed

I have strong feelings about this case. I feel the ramseys may be innocent but the ransom note gets me. Who does that inside the house? I've seen the lay out of the Ramsey home and there is no way, no way someone who has never been in the home navigate in the dark without waking someone. I feel someone who had been in the house before murdered Jon benet.Somene has to know something.

I have strong feelings about this case. I feel the ramseys may be innocent but the ransom note gets me. Who does that inside the house? I've seen the lay out of the Ramsey home and there is no way, no way someone who has never been in the home navigate in the dark without waking someone. I feel someone who had been in the house before murdered Jon benet.Somene has to know something.

Some things to think about regarding the ransom note (my analysis):

1. If you read the first part of the letter, it reads much like a formal business letter that a CEO might have his secretary draw up. Read a copy of a letter you receive from your bank or insurance company and compare the style to the first paragraph of the ransom note. The letters were written with proper indentation and format. Like someone who is used to dictating or writting letters.

2. Whether it be the Ramseys or an outside killer, the ransom note only had one purpose..to hide identity and the motive of the crime. That's why the first paragraph says the most important thing; the who, what, why of the crime.

3. Whoever wrote the ransom note, made an effort to hide their handwriting. The writer feared that his handwriting might be recognized.

4.The language of the letter is that of someone who has worked in an office and has a higher eduction background. The languiage also indicates that whoever wrote the letter is most likely a peer of John Ramsey and is familliar with electronics of somesort.

5. John Benet's name is never mentioned once in the letter. In fact, she is refered to only as a daughter. This is interesting since very few people know or would have seen the correct spelling of her name. Nor is Burke Ramsey threatened or the rest of the family.

6. The reason why the letter is so long is that most if it is spent going through the details of the ransom drop. The writer apparently thought this procedure significant enough to go into severe detail.

7. The writer knew that Jon Benet was dead or was going to die by the fact that he says there is a 99% chance of her being killed. 99% is practically a certainty. This also gives the writer an excuse as to why Jon Benet was killed. Namely the Ramseys spoke to the police on the monitored phone that the writer boasted of.

8. I'm going to put this in bold.
THE WRITER NEVER INTENDED FOR JON BENET's BODY TO BE FOUND!!
That was the mistake the writer made. He even says that the Ramsey's wouldn't find her body in the ransom not. If you follow this thinking, this case becomes a whole lot more clearer.

9. The letter writer IMHO, does not seem to be a confident person. Nor does he appear to have committed a crime before. The letter is fairly tame. There is no profanity. The writer keeps repeating the fact that she will die and almost is prompting John Ramsey to act. This is author is not Jack the Ripper by any means.

10. Everything in this letter feels like an office memo, a teacher's note or a letter your mom might put in your lunch. Compare this letter to the Zodiac letters and you'll see what I mean. The Zoidac was quick witted and vicious in his prose

11. SBTC is the name of the fictional terrorist group that is referred to in the first paragraph. The original lettering was SBT but then a C was added to it later. If SBTC really meant anything why would the writer forget the last letter?

12. The writer is most likely a peer of John Ramsey.(If not John or Patsy themselves..) He's old enough to have graduated college. Old enough to have been invited into the Ramsey house more than once. Old enough to have worked in an office setting for more than 2 years. Old enough to have had an eduction or experience in the electronics field. He has to be conencted enough to be worthy of being invited to the Ramsey home. Yet spurned enough to want to get revenge.

This is what I get for coming here late at night. I dreamed about the case (not for the first time)! In the dream, something had come to light revealing the Ramseys were guilty and as John Ramsey was coming to or from a courthouse or press conference I started screaming that he was an "accessory to murder" and hoped he was happy with himself for "accusing innocent people and ruining their lives" and was throwing things at him. People were telling me to be nice, and that I'd get in trouble for throwing things, but I said, "I don't care; he deserves it!" :mad:

If not for the ransom note, I don't know if I'd consider the Ramseys 100% innocent but I'd give them 100% of the benefit of the doubt. With it, one has to suppose if they were not directly involved, that the ransom note writer knew enough intimate details (including quotes from movies they'd just rented and the amount of John's Christmas bonus) right down to being able to imitate Patsy's handwriting, yet had SOMETHING on them serious enough that they would not implicate this person after maligning half the town of Boulder! The simpler explanation is, Patsy wrote the note. She would have no reason to do so unless covering up for either herself, John, or Burke having killed JonBenét. And Patsy is the one who seems to have been up all night. :whatever:

About the stranger DNA, I still want to know. Obviously they took DNA from every suspect, including ones who have since died, while alive, and this doesn't match any of them. Do they know what racial or ethnic group the unknown male came from? If all of the suspects were white, and this guy was Mexican, Asian, Pakistani or wherever else sweatshops are usually found, could tell ya something. :eek3:

If not for the ransom note, I don't know if I'd consider the Ramseys 100% innocent but I'd give them 100% of the benefit of the doubt.


One way I like to look at this case is to imagine, what would happen if that note didn't exist? Think about how radically the case changes!

That's why the not is so signicant in this case.:mad:

One way I like to look at this case is to imagine, what would happen if that note didn't exist? Think about how radically the case changes!

That's why the not is so signicant in this case.:mad:

Long and interesting ransom note analysis: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404

Good reading Cori.

Have you also heard of the fact that John Ramsey's cell phone records for the month of December that year are missing?

Bizzare, huh?

Good reading Cori.

Have you also heard of the fact that John Ramsey's cell phone records for the month of December that year are missing?

Bizzare, huh?

No, and it is suspicious. I did hear he was left free to come and go that morning so potentially able to dispose of evidence. It now sounds as if he may have paid others to dispose of or even plant evidence.

Long and interesting ransom note analysis: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404

Who wrote this analysis? What is the official position on the ransom note?

No, and it is suspicious. I did hear he was left free to come and go that morning so potentially able to dispose of evidence. It now sounds as if he may have paid others to dispose of or even plant evidence.

OK i've never heard that his phone records were missing for December. What happened to them? Did the police look into this? How could Jon Ramsey dispose of the records?

OK i've never heard that his phone records were missing for December. What happened to them? Did the police look into this? How could Jon Ramsey dispose of the records?

Yes, the police did look into this. Jon Ramsey had an explaination for this that is really a non-explantion. Something to do with him never using the cell phone (which is preposterous.)

I spoke to a guy who worked at Cingular Wireless a while back about how I could make my phone records disappear. This was his response.

"All you have to do is find a supervisor, pay him some significant cash under the table...and voila!. It could be a simple as changing the file number in the computer to another customer. Then changing it back.

Remember, John Ramsey owned an electronics company. It isn;t far-fetched that he knew someone at the phone company. or that Jon knew the procedures for phone records keeping.

The phone records may very well be paper. Quite easy to lose and alter.

Now here is the big question:
why did Jon feel the need to hid the records for December that year.


Who wrote this analysis? What is the official position on the ransom note?

I don;t think there is one. I think you get a different answer depending on the person and (unfortunately) which position he;s taking on the case.

I'm with you on this one Mastermind, I've always believed it was someone inthe house. As far as that latest sample of DNA supposedly not matching the family, what's to tell me they didn't botch this up like they've done EVERYTHING else in this case. Kinda like how they thought that weirdo did it after he 'confessed' and they gave a huge press conference with high-fives and all. DOH!

What gets me the most is what might have been the biggest police blunder Boulder, CO history: Not questioning Patsy and Jon separately right after the body was discovered. Thats basic policing 101. The next time they had an aopportunity to talk to the Ramsey's Jon & Patsy demanded lawyers present; who does that after their daughter has been found dead? What is it they're hiding?

I'm inclined to believe it was either Burke in some pre-pubescent fit of rage (it does happen) or Monster-Mom Patsy did it after finding that Jon-Benet wet the bed again. Patsy, as before, flew into an uncontrollable rage and...there you go.

What gets me the most is what might have been the biggest police blunder Boulder, CO history: Not questioning Patsy and Jon separately right after the body was discovered. Thats basic policing 101. The next time they had an aopportunity to talk to the Ramsey's Jon & Patsy demanded lawyers present; who does that after their daughter has been found dead? What is it they're hiding?

I totally agree!!

They could have found so much information and caught the Ramseys in several lies by interviewing all three separately.

What gets me the most is what might have been the biggest police blunder Boulder, CO history: Not questioning Patsy and Jon separately right after the body was discovered. Thats basic policing 101. The next time they had an aopportunity to talk to the Ramsey's Jon & Patsy demanded lawyers present; who does that after their daughter has been found dead? What is it they're hiding?

I totally agree!!

They could have found so much information and caught the Ramseys in several lies by interviewing all three separately.

I totally agree!!

They could have found so much information and caught the Ramseys in several lies by interviewing all three separately.

I truly believe that this misstep was the proverbial nail in the coffin', so to speak - which is rather ironic because the investigation was in it's infancy then! But that one misstep cost the police department dearly, because the Ramsey's was always one step ahead of them from that point on...to the point that they were and always have been untouchable. On that day of discovery Jon-Benet's body they could have had Patsy and Jon take lie detector tests based solely on statistical facts (regarding child abuse). And with this latest 'development' by the police claiming the DNA matched no one in the house, Jon must feel so superior. Even if they did develop something new you can bet at this point where the public has observed several high-profile mistakes from out of Boulder, they aren't touching ANYTHING. Especially after the press-conference where they thought the weirdo (I forget his name) was the culprit. Talk about embarrassing.

Every respectable person who's looked at this case with even an ounce of reason came to the same conclusion: something domestic happened inside that house. There is NO way in hell someone is going to write a ransom note if that scene had actually been genuine. The only reason that Patsy wrote it was to throw off suspicions...and it's so funny and comedic almost that she would do that when there wasn't even a kidnapping to speak of in which a ransom note would be necessary! Who the heck sits in a house of a little girl they just killed and bothers with that?

It isn't even reasonable, in my opinion, to think an intruder with pedophile intents would bother to kill the girl without 'doing the deed', so to speak; that makes no sense. Killers don't operate like that, they're going to rape first and then kill and promptly leave, not kill a little girl for no reason all the while risking discovery....there would've at least been a sexual motive. Just doesn't fit ANY profile. So I really can't believe that the Ramsey's still have people fooled.

Because of Boulder's missteps it seems early on they knew it was a domestic situation, but simply couldn't determine who of the three did it. A legitimate problem of course, but dang, you'd think they would've charged someone. I bet that would've got them singing.

As to what you mentioned earlier about the missing phone records (how convenient) I'm VERY inclined to believe Jon called up one of his lawyer buddies that same day of Jon-Benet's death, explained everything that happened, and asked about the best way out of it. The attorney could never talk of course, due to privilege. That attorney guided them through and through....kept the Ramsey's one step ahead of the game...especially the genius idea of having the friends over before discovery of the corpse. That compromised scene of the crime would do wonders later for the Ramsey attorneys. And as we can see in hindsight over a decade later it kept the Ramsey's out of jail.

There was a criminal profiler that was famous and worked with the FBI, I forgot his name, but he said the Ramsey's were innocent.

I have a really hard time believing it was some strange intruder. I dunno if it was the Ramsey's themselves or not. I just don't think they did it. I may be wrong, I use to think they were guilty as sin! But over the years I have waffled. Maybe burke? Who knows? I think its someone who worked for them and been in that house or a family member or friend.

"Don't try to grow a brain John."

Sounds like Dennis Hopper's character talking to Keanu Reeves' character in "Speed".

Didn't Hopper say that exactly? Hmmm

OT leafygreens, your avatar scares me

and yes, he said that in the movie Speed.

OT leafygreens, your avatar scares me

Glad I could help :wave:

There was a criminal profiler that was famous and worked with the FBI, I forgot his name, but he said the Ramsey's were innocent.

I forget where the link is, but I believe that the FBI official position on the case was that the intruder was too familiar and comfortable with the house. That it was very rare and extreme you'd have an intruder like this.

Anyone have the link?


I think its someone who worked for them and been in that house or a family member or friend.

1. The housekeeper was one of the first people that was looked at. she's been cleared via several reasons.
2. There was a supposed "disgruntled" employee of the Jon;s company that was looked at for a while. Apparently this suspect led nowhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StackTime
"Don't try to grow a brain John."

Sounds like Dennis Hopper's character talking to Keanu Reeves' character in "Speed".

Didn't Hopper say that exactly? Hmmm

The usage of lines from movies I feel is a non-issue in this case. Several people have watched those movies, including the Ramseys.


As to what you mentioned earlier about the missing phone records (how convenient) I'm VERY inclined to believe Jon called up one of his lawyer buddies that same day of Jon-Benet's death, explained everything that happened, and asked about the best way out of it. The attorney could never talk of course, due to privilege. That attorney guided them through and through....kept the Ramsey's one step ahead of the game...especially the genius idea of having the friends over before discovery of the corpse

My thoughts exactly! He probably talked to the lawyer and the lawyer sort of spoke to in legalese about what he could do, without implicating himself. I wouldn't be surprised if the DNA is from someone that the lawyer sent over to help out and do the garrotte on Jon Benet.

No, the Former FBI profiler or detective was retired his name is Lou something. He wrote a book too. He sided with the Ramsey's.

Glad I could help :wave:

:eek: I hate ghosts...

No, the Former FBI profiler or detective was retired his name is Lou something. He wrote a book too. He sided with the Ramsey's.

No, that's not it.

I'm referring to the official profiling that was done by several FBI agents close to the time of the original investigation. This resulted in a official FBI assesment of the case.

The problem I have with a lot of these former FBI profilers and detectives analysing these cases is that it usually involves money and a book deal.

This is a great websleuths thread on the DNA evidence.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999

Well, public opinion has hurt the Ramseys. Remember that hilarious sketch on MadTV where the Ramseys were part of the Hollywood Squares game and every time the scene cut to John Ramsey there was another celebrity who had disappeared? That had me in stitches.

Patty is dead now and she never was privy to that hoax of a confession from that guy who claims he killed JonBenet. John if you can believe it tried to run for Congress (or Senator/Governor) a few years ago. Would you vote for him?

Either the Ramseys did it or the world owes them a HUGE apology. This case will go down with JFK and Jimmy Hoffa IMO. We are likely never to know the truth.

Bottom line is this, like the Duwaliby's if the Ramsays are not guilty of murder then they were at the very least neglectful parents in my mind.

Either the Ramseys did it or the world owes them a HUGE apology. This case will go down with JFK and Jimmy Hoffa IMO. We are likely never to know the truth.

Bottom line is this, like the Duwaliby's if the Ramsays are not guilty of murder then they were at the very least neglectful parents in my mind.

I think this case is still solveable.

1. If the Ramsey family did it, there are two survivors in Burke and John who still could talk. There are also other accomplices who could speak as well. I don;t think this case is that far beyond. John Ramsey or Burke still may be the ones that ultimately killed Jon Benet.

2. If the Ramseys didn;t do it, the suspect is not a stranger, but someone well withing the Ramseys inner circle of friends. The killer's name was in their address book circa 1990s. It should not be as difficult as trying to find a stranger.

3. There are two pieces of evidence that we have that usually do not exist in cases. We have DNA(if it is the killer's DNA) and a handwriting sample.

I still believe this case can be solved. The problem is that people have to open themselves to the possibility that the Ramseys may have done it. They cannot shut off that line of investigation.

Bottom line is this, like the Duwaliby's if the Ramsays are not guilty of murder then they were at the very least neglectful parents in my mind.

I think sometimes we put too much stock in the whole Beauty Queen angle of this case. Personally I think that it has nothing to do with this case.

His finding the body by chance in a room the police had already checked & the moving it also has to be considered
highly suspect, as does the lack of evidence of an intruder & the fact the note was written inside the house.

If I remember correctly that room where she was found was overlooked as the door was locked or had a pad lock on it.

When looking for a missing/kidnapped child you look in EVERY ROOM locked or not.

Yes the police did botch the case, however the scene was already compromised by the time they arrived, due to the
Ramsey's inviting their friends over.

Why invite friends over so early in the morning ??
Wait for the police and let the police do their job and they should have looked in ALL rooms locked or not.

Why did he use the Ramsey's own material for the Ransom note? Why didn;t he bring his own materials?

That has been bothering me from the start, just not right

Quote:
Why did he use the Ramsey's own material for the Ransom note? Why didn;t he bring his own materials?

That has been bothering me from the start, just not right

He even had the gracious foresight to return the pen back to it's cannister.

JonBenét would have been 20 today and still no justice or solution. :rip:

OT leafygreens, your avatar scares me

leafygreen's avatar scares me now. It's from that creepy Sherry Eyerly segment. There's even something about that technology they used in the recreation of that vision John Catchings said he had that creeps me out (which, of course, is the avatar).

I think this case is still solveable.

1. If the Ramsey family did it, there are two survivors in Burke and John who still could talk. There are also other accomplices who could speak as well. I don;t think this case is that far beyond. John Ramsey or Burke still may be the ones that ultimately killed Jon Benet.

What I wonder is how much trouble someone is in who didn't do it, but definitely knows who did and didn't turn them in? Obviously if Patsy did it, Burke can't talk for fear of getting John in trouble for helping Patsy cover up. But how about others, such as Patsy's relatives and (ex-)friends, to whom Patsy either openly confessed or let enough slip that they guessed? How much is just suspicion, and how much is proof that should be brought to the police? I'm wondering if Burke will never talk while any of these people are alive? What if Burke marries, tells his wife the truth, and they later split up so she is free to talk?

My opinion is that her late mother killed her. I've never been satisfied with their explanation and I imagine it was guilt that possibly hastened her early death from cancer. Stress from having to live with that will do that. But that is just my opinion. I don't believe this case was every properly investigated the way it should have been although the Ramseys sure didn't make it easy regardless. As I recall they lawyered up and moved away.

Well, public opinion has hurt the Ramseys. Remember that hilarious sketch on MadTV where the Ramseys were part of the Hollywood Squares game and every time the scene cut to John Ramsey there was another celebrity who had disappeared? That had me in stitches.

Patty is dead now and she never was privy to that hoax of a confession from that guy who claims he killed JonBenet. John if you can believe it tried to run for Congress (or Senator/Governor) a few years ago. Would you vote for him?

Either the Ramseys did it or the world owes them a HUGE apology. This case will go down with JFK and Jimmy Hoffa IMO. We are likely never to know the truth.

Bottom line is this, like the Duwaliby's if the Ramsays are not guilty of murder then they were at the very least neglectful parents in my mind.

Oswald killed JFK and Hoffa was whacked by the mob.

Oswald had a straight on shot when the motorcade was nearly stopped. Oswald could have thrown a rock out the window and hit Kennedy in the head. Of course one can't completely overlook Marcello and Trafficante as wanting JFK dead. And Ruby did have mob connections. But I still come down to Oswald as the lone gunman. Three shots were fired. One went astray. One hit JFK and Connelly but was not fatal and the final shot blew out the back of Kennedy's skull and killed him. He would have survived the first shot. And then Oswald went on to a movie house and wound up killing Officer Tibbett later that day with a handgun. At the very least he was the triggerman. He had the means, the motive and the opportunity.

Hoffa was no longer of any use to the mob as they had their own puppet in place with Fitzsimmons. Hoffa was excess baggage and a man who knew too much who was trying to muscle his way back into power.

Oswald had a straight on shot when the motorcade was nearly stopped. Oswald could have thrown a rock out the window and hit Kennedy in the head.

It was not an easy shot, but was a possible one. There are wildly contradictory stories regarding Oswald's shooting ability. Someone recalled being on a rabbit hunt with him in Russia where he couldn't even hit a rabbit and someone else had to shoot it for him. Someone else recalled target practice in the Marines, when everyone had knocked off for coffee and cigarettes because no one could hit anything accurately with a strong side wind. Oswald continued to shoot, and to hit the target accurately.

It was not an easy shot, but was a possible one. There are wildly contradictory stories regarding Oswald's shooting ability. Someone recalled being on a rabbit hunt with him in Russia where he couldn't even hit a rabbit and someone else had to shoot it for him. Someone else recalled target practice in the Marines, when everyone had knocked off for coffee and cigarettes because no one could hit anything accurately with a strong side wind. Oswald continued to shoot, and to hit the target accurately.

He had to be at a minimum a "marksman" in order to be qualified at all. I attained this while in the AF a long time ago. (Next is "Sharpshooter" and the top rank is "Expert.) As I said, one shot went completely astray and hit the curb down from the motorcade. So that left only two shots. From a photo I saw from where Oswald was sitting, it was an easy shot in my opinion. As I recall he bought the rifle for $12 through the mail and it was said to be of inferior design but evidently accurate enough. With a scope and a steady position and the motorcade moving at 15 mph (as told by Jack Valenti on Imus) it was an easy shot. Valenti (now deceased) said he had no doubt as to what happened. He always struck me as a "straight shooter."

I do believe, however, that the possible connection to Marcello and Trafficante are worth exploring.

The other thing is the alleged "magic bullet" which fell out on the gurney. Although it was said to be "pristine" I believe it is more accurate to say that it was slightly deformed. On the number of bullets fired:

"Of 178 witnesses whose evidence was compiled by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), 132 reported hearing exactly three shots, 17 recalled hearing two, 7 said they heard two or three shots (total: 88%). A total of 6 people said they thought they heard four shots, and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. Another 7 people said they thought they heard 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots."...

(Snip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Marcello

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtrafficante.htm

So now they think the killer was an unknown stranger, but they still want to interview Burke? What the...?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39505843/ns/today-today_people/?gt1=43001

So now they think the killer was an unknown stranger, but they still want to interview Burke? What the...?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39505843/ns/today-today_people/?gt1=43001

I dont buy this crime was committed by a unknown stranger. If they think this, what is the need for interviewing Burke??? That makes no sense.

Maybe now that Burke is an adult he might be able to recall some info that may help police ???

I dont buy this crime was committed by a unknown stranger. If they think this, what is the need for interviewing Burke??? That makes no sense.


Just like in the Antonette Cayadito case (her sister remembered other things as an adult, or realized as she got older that something she remembered could be of importantce) or many others, re-interviewing witnesses once they're grown can bring out new revelations. Many times, as children, the witnesses may have held back some information thinking, in their child's logic, they might get in trouble, that they did some little thing wrong they shouldn't have (something that had nothing to do with the crime). I.E. Say Brock wasn't supposed to be out of bed at a certain time, but he was, and he saw something. As a child he may not have told, because he thought he'd get in trouble for being out of bed. Now as adults they may open up, they may also remember something with new questioning that may not have been brought out before.

Have you guys seen this about that nut, John Mark Karr?

I missed it when it was first published in June. I initially ignored it because the title of the article sounded like some bizarre concoction of the National Enquirer.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37465020/ns/today-today_people

Turns out that he's been living as a woman and has been known to stay in a Seattle women's shelter.

Why would a pedophile who prefers female victims live as a woman? I don't think it's because he's a male lesbian. The only reason I can think of is that little kids aren't hanging around men's homeless shelters. The best place to find new victims with inattentive mothers is exactly where this guy's been hanging out: schools, thailand, craig's list, and women's shelters.

His first wife was 13 years old and his second wife was 16. This latest girl, the one who claims he used her in his sex cult plan, was 17 when she started dating him. San Francisco is trying to serve him with a restraining order, but can't find him. I wish someone would just put this old pervert out of our misery.

So now they think the killer was an unknown stranger, but they still want to interview Burke? What the...?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39505843/ns/today-today_people/?gt1=43001
I think they have a chance to solve this case with the method familial DNA. I still think a guy living in the neighborhood did it. Maybe in a radius of 300 meters from the Ramsey's. I don't think the killer knew the Ramsey's more than being a observer that walked (or drove) by their house regularly.

I think they have a chance to solve this case with the method familial DNA. I still think a guy living in the neighborhood did it. Maybe in a radius of 300 meters from the Ramsey's. I don't think the killer knew the Ramsey's more than being a observer that walked (or drove) by their house regularly.

Whoever committed this crime had to been somewhat close at least with the Ramseys given the details in the ransom note. I highly doubt a total stranger would roam around there house for hours looking for personal info to put into that ransom note.

Whoever committed this crime had to been somewhat close at least with the Ramseys given the details in the ransom note. I highly doubt a total stranger would roam around there house for hours looking for personal info to put into that ransom note.
The killer probably was in the house for hours before the Ramsey's came home. I think there is a strong probability that the killer did collect information about the Ramsey's by going through their personal information then write the note before the Ramsey's came home. The killer using a pen and paper from the Ramsey's home proves to me it was something of a spontaneous sick joke from the killer. But it don't have to be spontaneous thing though, cause all houses have a pen and paper so maybe the killer planned to do it like that.
The only important thing the note proves to me is that the killer lives pretty close to the Ramsey's (in the neighborhood) and that he didn't know them very much.

The killer probably was in the house for hours before the Ramsey's came home. I think there is a strong probability that the killer did collect information about the Ramsey's by going through their personal information then write the note before the Ramsey's came home. The killer using a pen and paper from the Ramsey's home proves to me it was something of a spontaneous sick joke from the killer. The only important thing the note proves to me is that the killer lives pretty close to the Ramsey's (in the neighborhood) and that he didn't know them very much.
I agree, i think the killer likely lived near them and likely came to the house for hours and likely found a way to get info on them, the guy planned ahead.

MAYBE an intruder could have dug around and found out that John Ramsey's bonus was $118,000 and asked for that amount in the ransom note. NO WAY would an intruder know that it was an inside family joke that John Ramsey had "good southern common sense".

Not buying it.

Should have been bumped up for Christmas. Not one goes by that I don't think of her. :(

The killer probably was in the house for hours before the Ramsey's came home. I think there is a strong probability that the killer did collect information about the Ramsey's by going through their personal information then write the note before the Ramsey's came home. The killer using a pen and paper from the Ramsey's home proves to me it was something of a spontaneous sick joke from the killer. But it don't have to be spontaneous thing though, cause all houses have a pen and paper so maybe the killer planned to do it like that.
The only important thing the note proves to me is that the killer lives pretty close to the Ramsey's (in the neighborhood) and that he didn't know them very much.

Seriously? You believe that an unknown killer, w/ detailed knowledge of the Ramsey home, broke in, waited HOURS and then killed the little girl? This same killer then wrote a note in handwriting similar to the mother's and mentioned an amount of a bonus that the father received from his job?

AND....this same killer left the home unnoticed by either the Ramsey's or the neighbors, has gone years w/o admitting his/her guilt and has been able to lead a "normal life" despite strangling a small child to death?

Had this case not been bungled so badly, I believe that at least one member of the Ramsey family would have indicted and possibly convicted for this crime. The "stranger killing" narrative just doesn't seem to have any credibility in this case.

Seriously? You believe that an unknown killer, w/ detailed knowledge of the Ramsey home, broke in, waited HOURS and then killed the little girl? This same killer then wrote a note in handwriting similar to the mother's and mentioned an amount of a bonus that the father received from his job?

AND....this same killer left the home unnoticed by either the Ramsey's or the neighbors, has gone years w/o admitting his/her guilt and has been able to lead a "normal life" despite strangling a small child to death?

Had this case not been bungled so badly, I believe that at least one member of the Ramsey family would have indicted and possibly convicted for this crime. The "stranger killing" narrative just doesn't seem to have any credibility in this case.

You're dead on. I can't believe those pursuing the case now can seriously believe such things. They are just trying to get Burke to tell what (if anything) he knows. It wasn't prosecuted because no one could determine which of the parents to charge with murder and which with accomplice or accessory after the fact, or whether both may have been covering for Burke.

As to confusion by some regarding what happened here, I'll quote what was said following the O. J. trial: "they split a hair, then they split the split." The defense used all sorts of tactics, including not allowing certain evidence to be admitted, to confuse the jury and divert them from the obvious. After they were allowed out of seclusion and heard some of what the public had been hearing all that time, some, if not all, of them changed their minds, but it was too late then. Lou Schmidt did some great work regarding JonBenét's case, but it doesn't change the fact that only three people could have committed that crime. Since it's unlikely all three ganged up on her, it boils down to one, and the only question is which. My money's still on Patsy.

The thing about the "Ramseys did it" crowd is that they (still to this day) have never settled on who they actually think is responsible.

"John did it."

"No wait, Patsy did it"

"No wait, Burke did it"

"No wait, John and Patsy together did it",

"No wait, Burke did it and Patsy is covering for him"

Please. If you were going to get me believe someone in the house was responsible, you would have to pick a horse and stick with it. It is simply too easy to say someone in the house was responsible, but not settle on an actual family member (or members).

And that's one of the main reasons I was never convinced someone in the (immediate, at least) family did it.

The thing about the "Ramseys did it" crowd is that they (still to this day) have never settled on who they actually think is responsible.

"John did it."

"No wait, Patsy did it"

"No wait, Burke did it"

"No wait, John and Patsy together did it",

"No wait, Burke did it and Patsy is covering for him"

Please. If you were going to get me believe someone in the house was responsible, you would have to pick a horse and stick with it. It is simply too easy to say someone in the house was responsible, but not settle on an actual family member (or members).

And that's one of the main reasons I was never convinced someone in the (immediate, at least) family did it.

Really? You aren't convinced that any of the Ramseys committed this crime because you are unable to tell which one "did it?"

So a complete stranger:

1) Broke into the Ramsey home while the Ramsey's were there.
2) Lured or took the girl not out of the house but down to the basement w/o waking other family members.
3) Strangled her and struck her in head, but apparently didn't molest her.
4) Used items found in the Ramsey home to commit the murder.
5) Left a ransom detailing the exact amount of money that the Ramsey father got in a bonus as the amount to paid.
6) Didn't then take the body from home to at least prevent it being found so the ransom could be paid.
7) Left only minor traces that anybody but family members was even in the home.
8) Left the home completely undetected while other people were there.

There are many more things, but I think that I have detailed why it should be obvious that the Ramsey's should at least be strongly considered as suspects. All of the items above could have happened like the Ramsey's are stating, but the odds favor another reason that their daughter was killed.

Did anyone see the recent case, I believe it happened in 2008--It wasn't a UM mystery but--

A woman had a new boyfriend and a young daughter; She was age 12. For whatever reason, the boyfriend didn't like her daughter very much and told the mother to choose between him and her daughter. So the mother took her daughter out for a ride, first to a supermarket mall where she made a call from a payphone, and then she took the girl out to the woods, strangled her and even took the girl's bottoms off to make it appear like she had been molested.

Then she went home crying, claiming the girl was stolen from the parking lot (the boyfriend didn't mean to kill her, and didn't know the woman did), she went on national TV hysterically crying, asking that her daughter be found--And if you didn't know the truth, she was very convincing. And then investigators found out the truth: She had murdered her own daughter, yet was able to act on TV as if she was a grieving mother looking for a missing child.

The girl's name was Karissa Boudreau
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/02/penny-boudreau-pleads-guilty-to.html

It kind of changed my perspective on the Ramsey case a bit.

I remember I was 10 years old when this case first came on the scene. Its heartbreaking it is still not solved today. I also remember about 3 or 4 years ago when that guy claimed he killed Jon Benet. It was all over the media. I think he did it just to get attention. I dont want to place blame on the family because we honestly do not know who exactly did it. Who ever did do it though should have their spine snapped in 3 pieces and fed to the lions.

Anderson Cooper is having a look into some cold cases, and one of them is Jonbenet's

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/07/reporter%E2%80%99s-notebook-reflections-on-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/

I know John was running for Congress at one time which might shock some people who figure he is in on it. Patsy took to her grave what really happened to JonBenet and who knows, she may have been telling the truth although the evidence I always felt implicated someone in that house. The whole idea that there was some new DNA found in 2008 leading to the idea that someone else was down there has always been a weak excuse for clearing the Ramsey's.

wow so this is the second thread now thats been filled with people who "feel that someone is guilty" and therefore that person must be guilty, all based on circumstantial evidence or heresay. Im quite disturbed about this fact, especially as this is a board dedicated to a tv show about solving crimes. folks, hate to break it to you, but we cant solve crimes if we discuss cases based on "oh i feel he, or they or she is guilty" or "they are guilty based on circumstantial evidence". that may be the way most police departments run, but it doesnt make it ethical or moral or right.

one would think, john and patsy being these monsters who molested and murdered their own daughter, that their dna would be on her body, that johns handprints would be all over the murder weapons, that patsy would have similar handwriting to the ransom note. the fact is NO DNA evidence exists in this case that links john and patsy to the murder of their daughter. NONE. We can sit here all day and talk about the odd things in this case but if we are out to hang john for the murder of his kid, I'd say we better have damn good evidence to prove it. From what i know, DNA and other evidence was found around the scene and ON JONBENET herself. Oddly, for cold blooded killers John and Patsy seem to have mastered the art of having their DNA disappear magically, because their DNA appears nowhere at the scene or on the child, in fact DNA exists on Jon Benet that matches no one in the house.

Lets debate cases and jail the bad guys. Im all for that. But this is asinine and absolutely a lynch mob mentality, if we start saying people are guilty because they entered and exited a house and murdered a kid without anyone seeing or hearing. yep, that means they are guilty. lets go get john....

for a group of people so dedicated to helping the victims of the crime, you all are sure quick to label people criminals based on the most asinine of evidence...

gross...

as with any case, it makes no sense that people could kill anyone and not leave dna behind. the dna left behind is not patsy's or johns or burkes. its someone else's dna. how could john or patsy kill jonbenet and not leave any dna behind? its impossible.

It was not an easy shot, but was a possible one. There are wildly contradictory stories regarding Oswald's shooting ability. Someone recalled being on a rabbit hunt with him in Russia where he couldn't even hit a rabbit and someone else had to shoot it for him. Someone else recalled target practice in the Marines, when everyone had knocked off for coffee and cigarettes because no one could hit anything accurately with a strong side wind. Oswald continued to shoot, and to hit the target accurately.


if you are planning on offing the president you are damn sure going to get an accurate and powerful gun or rifle, one that is the top of the top, the best of the best. a mannlicher is none of that. its complete crap.

and dont even get me started on the lie that is that picture of him holding that rifle and the communist newspaper. You ever stood at that angle before? has anyone? its the most unnatural and bizaare stance ive ever seen.

Seriously? You believe that an unknown killer, w/ detailed knowledge of the Ramsey home, broke in, waited HOURS and then killed the little girl? This same killer then wrote a note in handwriting similar to the mother's and mentioned an amount of a bonus that the father received from his job?
They lived in a house not a castle, why is so hard to get knowledge of someone if your alone in a house for several hours? The killer wrote the note while he was bored waiting for the Ramsey's to come home.

AND....this same killer left the home unnoticed by either the Ramsey's or the neighbors, has gone years w/o admitting his/her guilt and has been able to lead a "normal life" despite strangling a small child to death?

Yes to all

Had this case not been bungled so badly, I believe that at least one member of the Ramsey family would have indicted and possibly convicted for this crime. The "stranger killing" narrative just doesn't seem to have any credibility in this case.
Have anybody thought of this, if some of the Ramsey's killed Jon Benet they have to be one of the stupidest killers ever. Hiding the body in their own cellar without even trying to hide it. At least they would have hide her in a closet or something. And if they killed her, it is likely they would have taken the body out of the house and tried to hide it. Remember Ramsey called the cops they could have waited and hid the body much better than a room in the cellar.
If they wanted it to look like an abduction that body would not have been inside the house. People are stupid but not that stupid...

wow so this is the second thread now thats been filled with people who "feel that someone is guilty" and therefore that person must be guilty, all based on circumstantial evidence or heresay. Im quite disturbed about this fact, especially as this is a board dedicated to a tv show about solving crimes. folks, hate to break it to you, but we cant solve crimes if we discuss cases based on "oh i feel he, or they or she is guilty" or "they are guilty based on circumstantial evidence". that may be the way most police departments run, but it doesnt make it ethical or moral or right.

one would think, john and patsy being these monsters who molested and murdered their own daughter, that their dna would be on her body, that johns handprints would be all over the murder weapons, that patsy would have similar handwriting to the ransom note. the fact is NO DNA evidence exists in this case that links john and patsy to the murder of their daughter. NONE. We can sit here all day and talk about the odd things in this case but if we are out to hang john for the murder of his kid, I'd say we better have damn good evidence to prove it. From what i know, DNA and other evidence was found around the scene and ON JONBENET herself. Oddly, for cold blooded killers John and Patsy seem to have mastered the art of having their DNA disappear magically, because their DNA appears nowhere at the scene or on the child, in fact DNA exists on Jon Benet that matches no one in the house.

Lets debate cases and jail the bad guys. Im all for that. But this is asinine and absolutely a lynch mob mentality, if we start saying people are guilty because they entered and exited a house and murdered a kid without anyone seeing or hearing. yep, that means they are guilty. lets go get john....

for a group of people so dedicated to helping the victims of the crime, you all are sure quick to label people criminals based on the most asinine of evidence...

gross...

The narrative as presented by the Ramsey family makes little in the way of sense. While most "true" stories have "flaws" the Ramsey tale has so many flaws and logical errors that it barely holds up to scrutiny. And since there was no record of a similar type of crime happening in their area, the question of who committed this crime still remains.

If you choose to believe the Ramseys, then that, of course, your right. However, that makes your opinion no more valid than that of the rest of us. If you can explain a narrative that somehow explains all of the evidence that links the Ramseys to this crime, then by all means.

the issue is not believing or not believing the ramseys. if evidence exists of someones guilt they are guilty, flat out. theres no grey area.

i dont dwell in fairy tales. i believe that its an impossibility for the ramseys to have murdered and raped their own daughter and to not leave any dna or evidence behind. thats what i believe, and i frankly dont know how anyone could disagree with that.

Its not some huge drawn out thing people. scratching our heads and wondeirng. "gee did they do it". No DNA was found that matched the ramseys at the crime scene, or on their daughter. Did they magically kill her and not get any DNA on her or around the room/house? Did they kill her and then somehow erase ALL TRACES of their DNA anywhere in the house?

This aint some huge mystery folks. WOW!!

The narrative as presented by the Ramsey family makes little in the way of sense. While most "true" stories have "flaws" the Ramsey tale has so many flaws and logical errors that it barely holds up to scrutiny. And since there was no record of a similar type of crime happening in their area, the question of who committed this crime still remains.

If you choose to believe the Ramseys, then that, of course, your right. However, that makes your opinion no more valid than that of the rest of us. If you can explain a narrative that somehow explains all of the evidence that links the Ramseys to this crime, then by all means.


actually it does make my view more valid. im dealing in facts, dna evidence. if dna from john was found on his daughter thats one thing, then he or his wife are guilty. the lack of such evidence though doesnt mean that we live in fairy tale land and we can accuse and say people are guilty just because we have a gut feeling about it.

IF you have more powerful evidence or if the state has more powerful evidence than circumstantial evidence and the fact that the ramson note was written on patsy's own paper, then lets have it. What is it?

and the state came out and said that the ramseys are innocent, they even sent them an apology for years of innuendo. The ramseys are innocent and its my assertion that this is true, not because I feel it, or believe it, but because the evidence PROVES this to be the case.

You cant murder and rape a girl and not leave behind dna evidence.

the issue is not believing or not believing the ramseys. if evidence exists of someones guilt they are guilty, flat out. theres no grey area.

i dont dwell in fairy tales. i believe that its an impossibility for the ramseys to have murdered and raped their own daughter and to not leave any dna or evidence behind. thats what i believe, and i frankly dont know how anyone could disagree with that.

Its not some huge drawn out thing people. scratching our heads and wondeirng. "gee did they do it". No DNA was found that matched the ramseys at the crime scene, or on their daughter. Did they magically kill her and not get any DNA on her or around the room/house? Did they kill her and then somehow erase ALL TRACES of their DNA anywhere in the house?

This aint some huge mystery folks. WOW!!

That the child was sexually assaulted and then killed were two different crimes and should probably have been treated as such in the beginning. While sexual assault (if there was one) would have left traces of DNA, manually strangling the child could have easily be accomplished using a garrote (which they found potential pieces of ) w/o even touching her.

And you are correct that this isn't a "huge mystery." If the Boulder PD had thoroughly searched the home when the crime was first reported, separated the Ramseys and questioned them in detail and hadn't contaminated the crime scene (thus destroying crucial potential evidence) it's doubtful that this case would have remain unsolved. The most likely suspects (one now deceased) were in the home. That the investigation didn't start off in that direction will likely be the reason that this case will never be solved.

A "fairy tale" , IMHO, would be a narrative that a "super prowler" entered a home in upscale neighborhood by unknown means and in an unseen manner, committed several crimes unheard, left a ransom note for no apparent reason and left the home ,again undetected. And that this person has managed to somehow elude law enforcement despite a massive manhunt for him/her after all of these years to the point of remaining unidentified.

Now THAT'S a fairy tale.

The girl's name was Karissa Boudreau
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/02/penny-boudreau-pleads-guilty-to.html

It kind of changed my perspective on the Ramsey case a bit.

Was it famous in Canada? Never heard of it here, but the Diane Downs and Susan Smith cases were famous. Both were the same way: a boyfriend wishing to dump or discourage a rather unstable girlfriend used her children as an excuse, figuring no woman would choose a man over her children. Boy were they in for a shock. There was also a girl named Valiree Jackson in Spokane, Washington, whose father killed her in a similar way for the same sort of reasons.

The Ramseys would have no financial or emotional reasons to want to get rid of JonBenét. The most logical person to be jealous was the stepbrother, who was not home at the time. I'm betting accident, whether it involved one or more parties.

The "Ramsesy did it" crowd has flip-flopped so many times in regards to which one (or should i say ones) they beileved committed these atrocius acts, it's difficult to pinpoint where they actually stand at any certain time. My personal favorite are the ones that believe more than one person in the house was responsible. ORLY? That is a huge leap. So not just one, but two people, who have absolutely no history of abusing JonBenet, (sexually, physically, emotionally, or verbally, or whatever) decide to wake up in the middle of the night on Christmas night (when they have an early flight in the morning) and their minds snap and they do all these horrible things to her. Come up with far-fetched scenarios much?

And in addition to their being absolutely zero DNA evidence to link the Ramseys to this, as radiohead33 correctly pointed out, I also pose the question: What motive is there for the Ramseys to do this? Or what possible motive could there be? The only thing they have been able to offer in 15 years is the infamous bedwetting scenario, but that is entirely speculative.

When you look at the actual facts and evidence of the case, it is clear the Ramseys are innocent. Anybody that believes otherwise hasn't looked at the facts, or has maniuplated them and twisted them in order to cling on for dear life that their theories are correct. I think the most famous one was that they Ramseys avoided the police and moved away. ORLY? Because the Ramseys in actuality, gave everything to the police that they asked for, including allowing themselves to hours on end of questioning, every sample from handwriting samples to hair samples, you name it. However, the "Ramseys did it" crowd just simply state they ignored the police and quickly change the subject.

The "Ramsesy did it" crowd has flip-flopped so many times in regards to which one (or should i say ones) they beileved committed these atrocius acts, it's difficult to pinpoint where they actually stand at any certain time. My personal favorite are the ones that believe more than one person in the house was responsible. ORLY? That is a huge leap. So not just one, but two people, who have absolutely no history of abusing JonBenet, (sexually, physically, emotionally, or verbally, or whatever) decide to wake up in the middle of the night on Christmas night (when they have an early flight in the morning) and their minds snap and they do all these horrible things to her. Come up with far-fetched scenarios much?

And in addition to their being absolutely zero DNA evidence to link the Ramseys to this, as radiohead33 correctly pointed out, I also pose the question: What motive is there for the Ramseys to do this? Or what possible motive could there be? The only thing they have been able to offer in 15 years is the infamous bedwetting scenario, but that is entirely speculative.

When you look at the actual facts and evidence of the case, it is clear the Ramseys are innocent. Anybody that believes otherwise hasn't looked at the facts, or has maniuplated them and twisted them in order to cling on for dear life that their theories are correct. I think the most famous one was that they Ramseys avoided the police and moved away. ORLY? Because the Ramseys in actuality, gave everything to the police that they asked for, including allowing themselves to hours on end of questioning, every sample from handwriting samples to hair samples, you name it. However, the "Ramseys did it" crowd just simply state they ignored the police and quickly change the subject.

Hmmm....

1) Not knowing the mental or emotional baggage carried by the Ramsey's, it's difficult to guess why they might have committed this crime, if they in fact did do so. It is clear,however, that Patsy Ramsey was living her dreams through her daughter and that their marriage seemed to have a great deal of difficulty.

2) And what's the hard part of believing that more than one person in the home was involved? The death of JonBenet would have affected the comfortable lifestyle they were experiencing. If one party (the one that didn't commit the crime) realized that, they might do anything to prevent that from occurring.

3) As far as motive; from what I have seen, there have been few detailed background stories on the Ramsey's. In fact, shortly after this started, they "circled the wagons" and released very limited information. W/O a detailed psychological work up on both parents it would be very hard to determine if they were involved in this. As UM has shown many times,there are a surprising number of people that willing (and able) to commit murder.

As a person that believe that Ramsey's role in this is far more than they are admitting, I'm very surprised that given the extensive LE investigation and the staggering amounts of media coverage that the alternate suspect (if there is one) has never emerged. With a lot of people looking for something, there's usually a discovery. In case...not so much.

i STILL think her killer is likely either a neighbor or a criminal who had somehow been in the house before and knew the layout almost perfectly.

While I understand how people think the intruder theory is so improbable, it does happen. Look at the Elizabeth Smart case. Just a few mistakes in a family's routine can cause disaster. The Ramsey home was not secured; the alarm system was not set that night, a door was unlocked, and the basement window was accessible.

A few things stick out to me, which makes me believe that an intruder killed JonBenet.

1. DNA was found on three distinctive places on JonBenet's body: her longjohns, her underwear and under her fingernails. This eliminates all speculation that the DNA came from an underwear factory worker as the DNA would not be found under her fingernails nor her longjohns. We know the DNA belongs to an unknown caucasion male. When and if he's found he better have a good explanation for his DNA being there.

2. The ransom note mentioning the $118,000 has always bothered me. If Patsy or John did in fact write the letter, why make the amount so obvious? If they wrote the letter then they tried to disguise themselves by altering the handwriting yet they mention such an exact amount of money? John and Patsy would be smarter than that. This makes me wonder if the killer worked within John's company and had knowledge of the bonus. Otherwise, Lou Smit has mentioned that a check stub for John's bonus was sitting out in the open on the night of the murder. So the information wouldn't have been to difficult to obtain.

3. The ransom note, in my opinion, is trying to sound too much like Patsy. Certain phrases (and not to mention the bonus amount) makes me wonder if the killer wanted to frame the Ramsey's. Again, if Patsy or John wrote that letter than they didn't do a sufficient job from trying to disguise themselves.

4. Nearly nine months after JonBenet's murder, a friend of her's from dance school, "Amy", was attacked and sexually assaulted by an unknown intruder while she slept. They speculated that this intruder broke into Amy's house in the hours before her assault. Luckily, her mother awoke to the sound of hushed whispers and scared the intruder away before he could further harm Amy. If you're not familiar with the story, here's a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

While I understand how people think the intruder theory is so improbable, it does happen. Look at the Elizabeth Smart case. Just a few mistakes in a family's routine can cause disaster. The Ramsey home was not secured; the alarm system was not set that night, a door was unlocked, and the basement window was accessible.
yep very true, honestly, i do NOT think that this was a complete stranger, i think whoever did this at least been to the house, like a guy who did work on the house or knew the family and been in the house, the Ramsey's did it theory in my book fell apart when the DNA evidence didnt match. Unless the Ramsey's have ways of hiding their DNA (doubtful), then, i say they are innocent.

yep very true, honestly, i do NOT think that this was a complete stranger, i think whoever did this at least been to the house, like a guy who did work on the house or knew the family and been in the house, the Ramsey's did it theory in my book fell apart when the DNA evidence didnt match. Unless the Ramsey's have ways of hiding their DNA (doubtful), then, i say they are innocent.


agree 100 percent here. we all can speculate and debate all we want, but when people are killed and the people who many claim to be guilty of the crime are found not to have dna at the scene or on their daughter, then i think its time to admit defeat or whatever and say, "the ramseys are innocent". Just as in the macdonald case, if dna evidence existed that pointed to the guilt of these people then fine. lock them up. convict and try them. Call them murders. But if no dna evidence points to their guilt, then again you have to come to the glaringly obvious conclusion that they are innocent.

Again, you cant murder and rape someone without leaving behind dna evidence. john and patsy's dna is nowhere at this crime scene, or on their daughter.

Is everyone forgetting the DNA evidence that was found? It is mentioned in the E! most shocking unsolved crimes series - the DNA was determined to be from an "unknown male," not related to the Ramseys.

agree 100 percent here. we all can speculate and debate all we want, but when people are killed and the people who many claim to be guilty of the crime are found not to have dna at the scene or on their daughter, then i think its time to admit defeat or whatever and say, "the ramseys are innocent". Just as in the macdonald case, if dna evidence existed that pointed to the guilt of these people then fine. lock them up. convict and try them. Call them murders. But if no dna evidence points to their guilt, then again you have to come to the glaringly obvious conclusion that they are innocent. Again, you cant murder and rape someone without leaving behind dna evidence. john and patsy's dna is nowhere at this crime scene, or on their daughter.
yep also agree with you 100%, if the DNA matched, i would be on the Ramsey's did it bandwaggon, BUT the fact is the DNA belongs to an unknown male who "I" feel likely knew the Ramsey's or worked for them or did some work for them.
Is everyone forgetting the DNA evidence that was found? It is mentioned in the E! most shocking unsolved crimes series - the DNA was determined to be from an "unknown male," not related to the Ramseys.
i think many people who think the Ramsey's did this either dont know about the evidence or dont care and think they somehow did it.

2) And what's the hard part of believing that more than one person in the home was involved? The death of JonBenet would have affected the comfortable lifestyle they were experiencing. If one party (the one that didn't commit the crime) realized that, they might do anything to prevent that from occurring.

Absolutely. It does defy belief that more than one person with no prior history of abuse ganged up on JonBenét, but it is not only not out of the question that one person was guilty and others covered up, but the most likely scenario fitting known facts--especially statements and behavior of family members afterwards.

It occurred to me that just getting Burke, who was a child at the time, to talk about what, if anything, he may know, is not the answer here. He has been put in the position, either through things he heard at the time or since, of covering up for other people who covered up for the guilty--adults who were not present at the time, but know the truth, such as Patsy's sister and John's adult children. Perhaps the only way to get at the truth is to wait until John passes on and then offer the others immunity if they talk, because Burke could be protecting them and they might well outlive him.

Something I'm curious about:

December 23 - 911 is called from Ramsey house during a party.
December 24 - JonBenet's grandfather flies back to Atlanta, STANDBY (Also, he was at the December 23 party)
December 25/26 - JonBenet killed. 911 called from Ramsey house on the morning of the 26th.

How many of you have dialed 911 within a space of 60 hours from your home? Possible? Maybe. I'd like to know more though.

If it was a kidnapping, why was she not, you know, kidnapped?

If it wasn't a kidnapping, why was there a ransom note left behind?

I know, I know. The DNA doesn't match any Ramsey. I can't ignore everything else though. The DNA was NOT from semen either. If it was semen, I would have a totally different view of things.

but it doesn't change the fact that only three people could have committed that crime.

That is just flat-out untrue. How can you say that is a "fact?" There are lots of people who could have committed the crime. All of the "evidence" presented against the Ramseys so far has been circumstancial. For exampe, "the killer had to know the layout of the house." That does not mean that, because the Ramseys knew the layout of their own house, no one else could have done it. The Ramseys are also not the only ones who knew the amount of John's bonus that year. I understand that crimes are usually committed by people close to the victim, and that the idea of an intruder may be unlikely. But that does not make it impossible.

With that said, I don't really think the killer was a random stranger (though that is a possibility). I think it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in their home before, probably more than once. As for the killer hiding out in the house undiscovered, remember that the Ramsey house was huge and had several levels. I'm guessing someone could have hid in the basement all night and never been heard or seen.

Something I'm curious about:

December 23 - 911 is called from Ramsey house during a party.
December 24 - JonBenet's grandfather flies back to Atlanta, STANDBY (Also, he was at the December 23 party)
December 25/26 - JonBenet killed. 911 called from Ramsey house on the morning of the 26th.

How many of you have dialed 911 within a space of 60 hours from your home? Possible? Maybe. I'd like to know more though.

If it was a kidnapping, why was she not, you know, kidnapped?

If it wasn't a kidnapping, why was there a ransom note left behind?



As for the 911 call placed on 12/23, it was made by Fleet White (who later with John Ramsey discovered JB). Apparently, the Ramsey's had one of those phone systems where you dialed 9 to get an open line. So it's plausible he could have dialed 9 followed by a 1 to dial an area code and then for some reason dialed another 1.

Nobody will ever know why JB was found in the basement room and why her kidnapper did not indeed take her away. I have always believed it was an attempted kidnapping that just didn't pan out. It would be difficult to escape the basement as a small window was the clearest way out and I can imagine that would be very difficult to manage getting JB and himself out without causing a disturbance. It's also worth noting that a blue suitcase was situated directly underneath the open basement window. This suitcase had a sham and duvet inside and the fibers from the duvet were consistent with fibers found on JB's body. Obviously it's not a slam dunk, but it raises some very interesting possibilities that the kidnapper had attempted to take her away, failed, panicked and killed her in the cellar room.

Sadly, JonBenét Patricia Ramsey, born August 6, 1990, would have been 21 today. :rip:

Meant to bump this up yesterday. 16 years unsolved. :(

Please visit websleuths.com for more info on this case.the posters there are highly informed about it.

deleted

because apparently the post I was responding to was deleting while I was replying

deleted

because apparently the post I was responding to was deleting while I was replying
Sorry I have deleted it because it may be upsetting to some who remember her.

I've never felt like anyone in the Ramsey family was responsible for JonBenet's murder, even before they were cleared. I've found some of the accusations concerning John, Patsy, and Burke to be utterly disgusting, frankly--especially given the fact that every single one of those accusations had not one shred of evidence to back it up, such as John being a pedophile. I don't blame them for their defensiveness or their defamation lawsuits over the years.

I think it either was, in fact, a kidnapping-for-ransom gone wrong, or someone who wanted to make it look that way.

I've never felt like anyone in the Ramsey family was responsible for JonBenet's murder, even before they were cleared. I've found some of the accusations concerning John, Patsy, and Burke to be utterly disgusting, frankly--especially given the fact that every single one of those accusations had not one shred of evidence to back it up, such as John being a pedophile. I don't blame them for their defensiveness or their defamation lawsuits over the years.

I think it either was, in fact, a kidnapping-for-ransom gone wrong, or someone who wanted to make it look that way.
Yes I agree,and the stun gun markings on JonBenet's body which were missed for so long suggest an outsider. But then we're faced with the ransom note with the exact figure of the father's bonus I believe,so there was either some loose talk in a public place or somebody connected with his place of employment. One ends up going round in circles but I think ultimately we are left with a pushy mother(not that there's anything wrong intrinsically in that) and a father who didn't know what hit them and who must reminisce on that fatal night as he walks along the shores of Lake Michegan on a frosty Christmas morning.

What's unfortunate regarding the investigation is that there were just so many people at the family's house during the Christmas party the week prior and then the one the night before, that it would've been incredibly challenging to nail down everyone who'd had access to the house in the days leading up. Coupling that with the corrupted crime scene, the fact that the Boulder PD aren't the FBI and the media frenzy, which only incited narrower tunnel vision, the investigation had so much going against it from jump.

Having met John Douglas at conference, I think he has a solid beat on the scenario, but the grand jury indictment does raise some eyebrows. The DNA's in CODIS, so shy of an outright confession that has validity, I think the best chance is for a hit on the database....

Been watching a few vids on the forbidden site about this case. In my point of view the investigation was a complete mess and preformed so poorly by LE.

I do nothing find anything that points towards the parents or the brother committing the crime. There seems to me no shred of evidence pointing towards it, however if there is feel free to fill me in?

There is a slight spin of suspicion that has progressed due to public perception on how someone should act when there family members are killed and if they don't act a certain way that must mean they are guilty. To me they seem to be going through a hard time yet holding it together quite well and being strong for their remaining son. They are not exactly laughing and partying or pulling any stunts to Casey Anthony or Darlie Routier standard.

Also I find it a bit harsh how many people are jumping on the brother saying he's committed this crime on his own sister. Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't he 9 years old at the time? It must be horrible thinking the world was blaming you for killing your sister when you're only a child.

Did I read some where that he died in a car crash with his wife? If its true then I know its harsh to say but that family had no luck at all.

There is a slight spin of suspicion that has progressed due to public perception on how someone should act when there family members are killed and if they don't act a certain way that must mean they are guilty. To me they seem to be going through a hard time yet holding it together quite well and being strong for their remaining son. They are not exactly laughing and partying or pulling any stunts to Casey Anthony or Darlie Routier standard.Yeah, HLN does this all the time. The recent case of a father laughing nervously while remembering his missing daughter was one. Everyone jumped all over him. Last I remember, they found the body, it turned out a local teenager killed her.

When there is sufficient evidence I understand the reaction to blame the parents, but going on someone not acting "the right way" when their child has been killed is a poor barometer of guilt.

Yeah, HLN does this all the time. The recent case of a father laughing nervously while remembering his missing daughter was one. Everyone jumped all over him. Last I remember, they found the body, it turned out a local teenager killed her.

When there is sufficient evidence I understand the reaction to blame the parents, but going on someone not acting "the right way" when their child has been killed is a poor barometer of guilt.

Nancy Grace just loves to be judge, jury and executioner. She is a vile human being.

Nancy Grace just loves to be judge, jury and executioner. She is a vile human being.

That's why she was disbarred as a states attorney when she practiced law.


Been watching a few vids on the forbidden site about this case. In my point of view the investigation was a complete mess and preformed so poorly by LE.

I do nothing find anything that points towards the parents or the brother committing the crime. There seems to me no shred of evidence pointing towards it, however if there is feel free to fill me in?

The crime scene was poorly handled from the beginning. There was no way to know that Jon Benet's body was in the basement of the house. All of the people going in and out of the house and the initial search of the house ruined any kind of evidence of fibers, hairs, etc.

It's been mentioned (in this thread, I think) that the house was fairly large and that it was possible that the body was dumped in the basement by an intruder. I believe this theory. But I also believe that the person who committed the crime had to be someone close to the family and had intimate knowledge of the house. A few years ago, on a special report on television, an investigator had in fact demonstrated how an intruder could have broken into the house and taken a route to Jon Benet's bedroom undetected. Given the size of the house and the odd route the intruder would have to take to get to her bedroom, it's not a stretch that the perpetrator had to have been someone who had very detailed knowledge of the house. Given that the ransom was the exact amount of Jon's bonus points in the same direction. The biggest thing prosecutors have for a conviction is the DNA evidence. All they need is a match to someone.

The people that believe Burke Ramsey was responsible never bothered to think about how highly implausible it would be for a 9 year old to kill someone like that, not to mention what kind of effect their baseless accusations might have on a little boy and his family on such a highly publicized case.

When these people decide to step into reality, they're going to suffer from culture shock.

Yes I agree,and the stun gun markings on JonBenet's body which were missed for so long suggest an outsider. But then we're faced with the ransom note with the exact figure of the father's bonus I believe,so there was either some loose talk in a public place or somebody connected with his place of employment. One ends up going round in circles but I think ultimately we are left with a pushy mother(not that there's anything wrong intrinsically in that) and a father who didn't know what hit them and who must reminisce on that fatal night as he walks along the shores of Lake Michegan on a frosty Christmas morning.

I do not believe the killer will ever be found. This case is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the most fascinating murder case in history. Some of you guys mention how many people had access to the house and were in the house in the weeks prior to the murder, this is very true and the really fascinating thing is that there actually is compelling evidence that could implicate all of them (especially the Ramsey's friends).Things that really bug me about the coverage of this case in the last decade or so are that they make so much out of these red herrings in the case that are irrelevant.

First, the $118,000 dollars being the same amount of John's bonus, how did they find out about that? Hello, its called dumpster diving! I think going through the trash and the mail are all very likely possibilities on how this figure came about. And it would be a smart move to because it throws off the investigation - and everybody has taken the killer's bait on this.

Also, the ransom note itself. The ransom note is NOT about trying to actually get that $118,000 dollars and it is also NOT about kidnapping and the length of it (3 pages) says nothing about who wrote it. The ransom note functioned to be as a "stopper." According to Patsy, she woke up that morning and saw that her daughter was gone and then flew down the stairs panicked to look for her. The ransom note STOPS her from searching the house! This gives the intruder more time to get out of the basement if he is still in there and makes everybody (including the police) think the child is NOT INSIDE the house! The key to getting away this is making sure that the body remains undiscovered for as long as possible. This gives the intruder the most amount of time to get out of the area and jeopardizes forensic evidence -- and as such it was in the case!

To not believe Ramsey involvement/knowledge of the crime, you have to believe that Patsy Ramsey was someone in the habit of wearing the exact same outfit two days in a row.

Also, an official investigator on the case wrote a book in 2012 that casts doubt on an intruder being responsible for the crime. (James Kolar)

I do not believe the killer will ever be found. This case is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the most fascinating murder case in history.

Agreed on both counts. This is THE most baffling mystery ever. I am completely 50/50 on whether the parents were involved or not.

Why I want to say it was an intruder:

-zero evidence indicating the father was a pedophile
-beautiful child of wealthy family paraded around in beauty pageants; clearly a primo kidnapping target
-extreme gruesome-ness of the crime; this is just generally not seen when parents bump off their own kids
-the mysterious DNA, although the investigation was so botched who knows at this point
-the mysterious boot print found in the basement

Why I want to say it was the parents:

-Mother's overdramatic southern belle personality seems to be the exact type of personality behind the wording of the ransom note
-A ransom note but no actual kidnapping? Umm, ok...
-Scant, if any, evidence of an intruder in the home
-Wealthy, well-connected father does NOT spend rest of his life searching for his daughter's killer. If I had tons of money and my precious little 6-year-old's life was snuffed out in the most brutal and mysterious of ways, you bet your life I'd be putting the heat on EVERYONE to figure out what happened.

To not believe Ramsey involvement/knowledge of the crime, you have to believe that Patsy Ramsey was someone in the habit of wearing the exact same outfit two days in a row.

Also, an official investigator on the case wrote a book in 2012 that casts doubt on an intruder being responsible for the crime. (James Kolar)

There is compelling evidence implicating Patsy but I don't think this is one of them. She was not "Oh, I'm dressed for the day now." In a pinch, it works to put on those clothes when the police are coming.

Agreed on both counts. This is THE most baffling mystery ever. I am completely 50/50 on whether the parents were involved or not.

I have gone back and forth several times over the years. When it first happened, I swore it was an intruder. But I have changed my opinion many times based on the evidence and books. Larry Schiller's book has pulled me in many directions.

Why I want to say it was an intruder:.

-zero evidence indicating the father was a pedophile
.

Very true - John Ramsey is clean, after years of inquiry into every relationship and minute of this man's life, there is no evidence of this not surrounding JonBenet or anybody else. However, we can't forget that the child had OLD and NEW vaginal injuries- she was being molested by somebody.

-beautiful child of wealthy family paraded around in beauty pageants; clearly a primo kidnapping target.

Spot on. This is really where the police's obsession with the parents in early 1997 hurt the investigation so much. Because it was those pageants and everybody who ever came to one of them that should have been interviewed and scrutinized.

-extreme gruesome-ness of the crime; this is just generally not seen when parents bump off their own kids.

The crime is painfully, bone chilling gruesome. The hit to her head could have knocked out a 350 pound football player (this comes from Lou Smit). Also, the sadistic garrote... nowhere in any instance before has a parent killed a child in that manner. Drowning, beating, throwing against walls or dropping off stairs--- all yes but not that way!

-the mysterious DNA, although the investigation was so botched who knows at this point.

I don't put any stock in that supposed DNA evidence. Likely it came from the manufacturer of the underpants she was wearing.

-the mysterious boot print found in the basement.

Mysterious yes, but that was a very common boot especially worn by police and investigators, its possible that with so many of them in and out of that basement space that it came from that. And it seemed like when the boot evidence was discovered a few years later, the DA had no interest in it.

Why I want to say it was the parents:

-Mother's overdramatic southern belle personality seems to be the exact type of personality behind the wording of the ransom note.

I agree with you. If you read the Ramsey's housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh's, account of it she says that Patsy was just about the strangest person she had ever known... weird notes she left around the house, Patsy telling her she was seeing angels and basically having hallucinations (although the chemotherapy in the years prior due to her Stage 4 ovarian cancer could have caused this).

In Steve Thomas's book (the police detective who left the department and the Ramsey's toughest critic in Boulder), he says that after an incident where Burke accidently hit JonBenet on the nose, Patsy was in the doctor's office requesting a PLASTIC SURGEON! For a 6 year old!

The wording of that note is crazy and nutty. Patsy was a fan of mystery novels and Linda Hoffman Pugh says that Patsy may have been trying to come across that way to stage the scene.

-A ransom note but no actual kidnapping? Umm, ok....

The ransom note has to be the BIGGEST red herring in the case. It has many purposes but most have to do with searching the house.

If you believe Patsy wrote it or that the Ramsey's wrote it... here is why they did it:
- Because Patsy would have had to have a "story" to call 911 about and give a plausible reason for why she is reporting her child "missing" when she has not even searched the house!
- The ransom note is an entry point for her to "break the news" to the police and everybody else about the kidnapping and bypassing doing a top/bottom up/down search of the house, as is naturally instinctive if you find your child not in her bed.
- If Patsy had not wrote the note, she would not have a way to call police about anything without implicating herself. You can't call and say, my child is missing and then say you searched the house when the body is rotting cold on the basement floor. Because then when the cops found the body, she would have some serious answering to do and it prohibit her to be so melodramatic when the body was found - key to making sure that she comes in contact with the body while the police is there so that she can explain away why her and John's clothing fibers were found all over the body.
- Also, if you believe Patsy wrote the note, you have some evidence to back it up: check out Patsy's left hand copy comparisons... it is eerily similar.

If you believe an intruder wrote the ransom note, here is why they HAD to do it:
- Because it functions as a stopper and buys them a lot of time!
- It immediately throws off the investigation from the start and all of the attention is immediately focused on one big red herring during the most critical hours
- If a mother finds their child missing from her bed, she firsts searches the house to find her. Okay, where are you. The ransom note STOPS her from doing that. And here is why that is so important: The intruder doesn't know when the Ramsey's wake up and if he is still in that basement at the time, it gives him time to get out and get as far away from the scene as possible while everybody screams and yells about the note.
- Say one of the Ramsey's woke up in the middle of the night and he had JonBenet alive in the basement... the ransom note once again protects him because it keeps them from searching the house and finding him.
- It gives the intruder A LOT of control over the situation

-Scant, if any, evidence of an intruder in the home.

Yes, and let's get real, there is NO physical evidence that an intruder entered that home in "burglar" fashion. The window in the basement - that is completely staged. The spider web was intact, that is not how he got in. The intruder walked out the back door.

Lots of people have keys, its easy to make a copy. Also, something interesting that never gets talked about is JonBenet's balcony! That is a feasible entry and exit point.

I just think that yes, it is possible an intruder came in that house without leaving forensic evidence of that.

-Wealthy, well-connected father does NOT spend rest of his life searching for his daughter's killer. If I had tons of money and my precious little 6-year-old's life was snuffed out in the most brutal and mysterious of ways, you bet your life I'd be putting the heat on EVERYONE to figure out what happened.

This may sound a bit crude but I think that John Ramsey was very disconnected from JonBenet during her life. I will never forget hearing the Ramsey's lawn keeper being interviewed (he was cleared with an alibi) and recounting what JonBenet told him, that daddy is "gone so much" and "I miss him." His concern was his business and I don't think he was really involved in her life very much.

So, ya, that's my long summation to your points. Once I get started thinking about this case, I can't stop!

With reference to the James Kolar book do we know what the grand jury information might be?http://news.sky.com/story/1319369/police-admission-over-cliff-richard-home-search

I'am on the parents are innocent ship, but I've just had a mad thought.

There was no DNA from John Ramsey found on his daughter, but then again it was him to picked her up from the basement and put her under/near the xmas tree and then picked her up to move her again. How can his DNA not be found on her? Can you really move a body twice with out getting a scrap of DNA on her?

I lean towards one or more of the Ramsey's being involved.

An intruder writes a ransom note. Then leaves the child not only inside the house, but in a room the maid didn't even know existed. It doesn't make much sense.

It was not only the existence, but the content and placement of the note. It was rambling and contained many details specific to the family, including a nickname of John's an outsider wouldn't know, a reference to a movie the family is known to have just seen, and the exact amount of a bonus he had just received. Then it was placed on some back stairs rather than in any more likely place. The initials with which it was signed were even the first letters from passages in an open Bible at the home--not to mention the suspicious behavior of John, Patsy, Patsy's sister, and the older son saying the killer needed "forgiveness" among, oh, a million or so little things. One detective at the time said he'd never seen a murder fixed to look like a kidnapping in which the family was not involved. They just implicated and made life hell for a lot of innocent people. :mad:

It was not only the existence, but the content and placement of the note. It was rambling and contained many details specific to the family, including a nickname of John's an outsider wouldn't know, a reference to a movie the family is known to have just seen, and the exact amount of a bonus he had just received. Then it was placed on some back stairs rather than in any more likely place. The initials with which it was signed were even the first letters from passages in an open Bible at the home--not to mention the suspicious behavior of John, Patsy, Patsy's sister, and the older son saying the killer needed "forgiveness" among, oh, a million or so little things. One detective at the time said he'd never seen a murder fixed to look like a kidnapping in which the family was not involved. They just implicated and made life hell for a lot of innocent people. :mad:
I believe the letter ended S.B.T.C which may stand for Saved By The Cross,but I don't see how this ties John Ramsey to the murder of his daughter,and neither do I see a reference to the movie. Why was the note handwritten,which would have been risky,and why waste time with such a long ransom note? I go along with the Aphrodite Jones theory that Michael Helgoth was on the premises with an accomplice,who may later have shot him when the heat was turned up,but this again is just one more theory of many.http://youtu.be/QDbPrqEeQ34

Here is a message board discussion about the movie reference(s). http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-42308.html

Here is a message board discussion about the movie reference(s). http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-42308.html
It's true I'm on holiday at the moment,but I don't particularly have a desire to trawl through those threads you quote until September to find the specific reference.

I'am on the parents are innocent ship, but I've just had a mad thought.

There was no DNA from John Ramsey found on his daughter, but then again it was him to picked her up from the basement and put her under/near the xmas tree and then picked her up to move her again. How can his DNA not be found on her? Can you really move a body twice with out getting a scrap of DNA on her?

I think they would be testing for DNA relative to bodily fluids and skin under nails etc. There might have been some transference of skin flakes(since we all shed so much all the time) and/or hair fibres from John as he picked up/carried his child, but if forensic investigators pulled mouth swabs and semen/blood samples from John and they didn't hit, I'm thinking that's the type of DNA that they would look for and didn't find.

Consider for instance, that we all secrete oils from our fingertips, which is what makes our fingerprints pop and leave prints but that level of secretion cannot be pulled from a dead body(not that I've ever heard of and definitely not back then, maybe if you've got your hands on them for a while, but the secretion would take an impossibly long time).

Transference of body particles is one thing but I'm thinking they'd be looking more for blood/semen/saliva-types of DNA to link and IMO, if there was anything they could've tied him to that body, they would've.

One interesting aspect of note is that technology has advanced so far since this happened. The things I learned in my forensics course during my undergrad would be much more advanced with regards to how the collect DNA, types of DNA, the machines we use and the levels of matches you can get and one has to think that if there is any remaining DNA evidence, they'd have given John's samples another shot to see if they hit... I wrote a term paper on the DNA work in the Wayne Williams/ Atlanta Child Killings and it's quite fascinating at what they used to connect Williams to SOME of the bodies through carpet fibres in his car/trunk, and we're talking minute-levels. When I look at that case, similarly feverish in media coverage and then comparatively look towards how hard the Boulder PD/DA went at the Ramseys, I'm of the belief that there wasn't any spark of Ramsey DNA to link them to the physical act back then and to this day. I could be mistaken here, but as far as DNA goes they were looking to indict the Ramseys and didn't invoke any DNA linkage in their charge, which is why they're still lurking on CODIS for a match.

I think they would be testing for DNA relative to bodily fluids and skin under nails etc. There might have been some transference of skin flakes(since we all shed so much all the time) and/or hair fibres from John as he picked up/carried his child, but if forensic investigators pulled mouth swabs and semen/blood samples from John and they didn't hit, I'm thinking that's the type of DNA that they would look for and didn't find.

Consider for instance, that we all secrete oils from our fingertips, which is what makes our fingerprints pop and leave prints but that level of secretion cannot be pulled from a dead body(not that I've ever heard of and definitely not back then, maybe if you've got your hands on them for a while, but the secretion would take an impossibly long time).

Transference of body particles is one thing but I'm thinking they'd be looking more for blood/semen/saliva-types of DNA to link and IMO, if there was anything they could've tied him to that body, they would've.

One interesting aspect of note is that technology has advanced so far since this happened. The things I learned in my forensics course during my undergrad would be much more advanced with regards to how the collect DNA, types of DNA, the machines we use and the levels of matches you can get and one has to think that if there is any remaining DNA evidence, they'd have given John's samples another shot to see if they hit... I wrote a term paper on the DNA work in the Wayne Williams/ Atlanta Child Killings and it's quite fascinating at what they used to connect Williams to SOME of the bodies through carpet fibres in his car/trunk, and we're talking minute-levels. When I look at that case, similarly feverish in media coverage and then comparatively look towards how hard the Boulder PD/DA went at the Ramseys, I'm of the belief that there wasn't any spark of Ramsey DNA to link them to the physical act back then and to this day. I could be mistaken here, but as far as DNA goes they were looking to indict the Ramseys and didn't invoke any DNA linkage in their charge, which is why they're still lurking on CODIS for a match.
In fact when I think of it the Ramseys were treated shamefully by the world's media,and if the cancer didn't get Patsy in the end the insinuations and innuendo might well have done.

I didn't read every single page, yet..but what about Jon Bennet's saying that "Santa was planning a secret visit" the night before? Was the Santa at the party ever interviewed?

I didn't read every single page, yet..but what about Jon Bennet's saying that "Santa was planning a secret visit" the night before? Was the Santa at the party ever interviewed?
It had been open house only days before at one of the Ramsey's parties,and I had always thought that this might have been a kidnapping gone wrong with Michael Helgoth and an unknown accomplice as perpetrators.

It had been open house only days before at one of the Ramsey's parties,and I had always thought that this might have been a kidnapping gone wrong with Michael Helgoth and an unknown accomplice as perpetrators.


Ok thanks. I just started getting an interest in this case. The whole pubic hair that doesn't match the parents or Burke, causes me to think the parents didn't do it. But again, I just started touching up on this case.

The key to this case, in my humble opinion, is that someone told Jonbenet that Santa Claus will come to her for a special visit on December 25th at night. A "special visit" the night after Santa delivered presents.

This was told by Jonbenet to her friend and the friend's mother. When the mother tried to explain that Santa already visited, Jonbenet went on to explain that this was a secret, special visit just for her.

Who told her that? I believe if we ever find out, we will know who killed her.

I also believe that this disproves the theory that her mother accidentally killed her because of bed wetting in a freak accident caused by rage.

Someone planned to kill her and told her about a secret visit by Santa Claus the day after Christmas Eve. I want to know who was the person who did this.

This is one especially weird and strange detail in an overall weird and strange case. Suspicion immediately fell on the man who played Santa. Creepy coincidences connected him to details of the crime, and he made at least one strange statement afterwards, but was somehow cleared--at least, the stranger DNA did not match him and possibly other things cleared him (I am not versed in every detail). Is it proven that JonBenét's friend and her mother truly made these statements (that is, did they give testimony in the investigation) or did the Ramseys merely claim they said this in order to cast suspicion off themselves?

The DNA is weird, too--it matched none of the Ramseys and other suspects, one was dry (touch) DNA and the other was wet (sneeze or something) DNA, I believe one was on the long johns and the other on the underwear (matching each other but no one who has ever been identified)--which, unless there was some way of cross contamination, were only together on JonBenét's cold, dead body! :eek:

Is it proven that JonBenét's friend and her mother truly made these statements (that is, did they give testimony in the investigation) or did the Ramseys merely claim they said this in order to cast suspicion off themselves?

Being that you are a fervent believer in the Ramsey's guilt, I'm not at all surprised you would insinuate such a thing, but in any event, I'll shoot that theory down immediately. The woman's name is Barbara Kostanick and she testified to the Boulder Police Department about the Santa Claus visit. The BPD were uninterested because it didn't fit in with their "Ramseys did it" beliefs.

Proof is at the top of this page:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-barbara-kostanick.htm

Being that you are a fervent believer in the Ramsey's guilt, I'm not at all surprised you would insinuate such a thing, but in any event, I'll shoot that theory down immediately. The woman's name is Barbara Kostanick and she testified to the Boulder Police Department about the Santa Claus visit. The BPD were uninterested because it didn't fit in with their "Ramseys did it" beliefs.

Proof is at the top of this page:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-barbara-kostanick.htm

My belief that the Ramseys did it is fairly fervent but not absolute and is based largely on the ransom note and partly on their suspicious behavior. If it wasn't for that one detail of the ransom note, the whole thing would be practically a free-for-all. Anyone in full possession of the facts has never identified the guilty party because there simply is no one theory that fits all the facts--to the point that the poor slob who solves it will have to explain away everything that seems not to fit. The best key may lie with the brother who may talk after the father passes away, or he may not, as that would incriminate anyone else who knowingly helped cover up as accessory after the fact--even if he were blameless.

About the secret visit from Santa--some people believe it happened and JonBenét let him in. That's why no sign of forced entry. They did determine that "the man who refused to play Santa ever again" not only left no DNA, but couldn't have climbed in and out of that basement window.

About the DNA thing--I thought the underwear were unwashed out of a brand-new package and they found the SAME DNA in the unused pairs remaining in the package. I've never been able to find much on this or on WHO the DNA would indicate--if it was even complete enough to show racial/ethnic origins! Is it the DNA of an Asian or Hispanic individual most likely to work in clothing manufacturing but would clear EVERY DAMN SUSPECT THEY HAVE? As, as far as I know, everyone they looked at is white? But, supposedly that wouldn't explain the DNA on the long johns, unless there was some means of transference from the underwear that they haven't hit on yet.

As for the bedwetting theory, I think the autopsy said there were urine stains on the long underwear but her bladder was still partly full? Would have to check that.

And, yes, there was NO SHORTAGE OF SUSPECTS. People tried to frame each other. One man said he had a tape of his sicko friend sobbing, confessing he had seriously injured a child, but I don't know if he ever produced the tape. You'd think the police would at least look at it in case some OTHER child was hurt around that time. Also, there was a man who passed away and a pair of the kind of shoes in question was found among his belongings but never determined to belong to him--that could have been a plant. And the woman who said her husband came home at an odd hour absolutely covered with dirt and spouted off that "they'll never find out" who did it when the story came on the news.

Has the teddy bear been mentioned ever again? JonBenét's aunt (Patsy's sister) claimed a teddy bear the family had never seen before appeared in JonBenét's room that night with a note to her from an unidentified sender. If the parents did this, they'd have had to scramble to find and place such a thing (and they probably sat up half the night writing the ransom note and wouldn't have thought of this), or they'd have had to DONE IT BEFOREHAND PLANNING TO KILL HER! What's more there is the unsettling detail that the scream the neighbor heard can be heard from the basement but not the upstairs, which blows the theory that she was unconscious when carried down there which is central to the bedwetting theory. I can hardly believe either of these things, sooooo..... :whistle:

I have always been curious about the Japanese student from the University of Colorado who took the kids to school.

If he was looked at, I will have to take it back about all the suspects being white. And the plot thickens.... :whatever:

Cori,

Lou Smith uncovered something the Boulder PD missed. A stun gun was used to knock Jonbenet out. Also, it could have been someone she recognized who told her Santa was in the basement.

Was this EVER proven? All the detective proved was that marks on her body (in distance apart and general appearance) matched a certain style of stun gun--NOT that that was definitely used!

It is possible that no one heard anything.

It is possible that no one in the house did, again depending on who you believe and what you believe. A neighbor claimed to have heard a scream that night, that was "a little girl's scream." Regardless of whether you believe the theories of Andrew Louis "Lou" Smit, he PROVED that such a scream could be clearly heard if made from the basement, but from JonBenét's room the sound would be so faint the neighbor could hardly have noticed it. So who would make such a scream? Patsy, if she walked in on the killer (who, had it been anyone other than John, would have killed HER--not to mention, what would she even be doing up unless she knew something was going on?) Burke? Or JonBenét herself? That's about it.

Jonbenet also ate pineapples shortly before she was killed. Could this have been one of the people who worked for her parents? Someone who was familiar to Jonbenet? I believe so.

No, a bowl with pineapple chunks in it with Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on it was in the kitchen, and JonBenét had something in her stomach too far gone to prove it was pineapple chunks, but its presence was supposed to show she had eaten at some point after the party, when Patsy said she put her straight to bed after the party.

Doors and windows were unlocked. The Ramseys, like most wealthy suburban Americans, sadly do not lock their doors because they think crime only happens in cities or the slums. Foolish on their part.

VERY foolish, but since it isn't proven who did it or how that person got in, it doesn't prove it has anything to do with the crime.

The basement window was broken. Anyone could have entered regardless.

Anyone physically able. Authorities proved "Santa" wasn't. They also harassed a man so far gone with AIDS he could barely get around, much less pull off a crime so physically demanding and exit through the window as it was conjectured the killer did.

The ransom note was too long and relaxed for it to have been written after the crime. You must remember one thing: this was not a planned murder, but rather a botched kidnapping. Jonbenet came back to consciousness after the stun gun was used and struggled with her abductor who tried to put her in a suitcase. He killed her out of fear that she would scream and someone would have detected him.

I put a lot of stock into the statement of someone in law enforcement who said they had never seen a murder fixed to look like a kidnapping, in which the guilty party was not someone in the family. If this was the case here, it just might be the first one since the Lindbergh baby (thought to be an intended kidnapping where the kidnapper accidentally dropped the child, killing it.) The suitcase could have been intended by someone in the house, to transport the body following the crime, and make it look like a kidnapping. If the Ramseys were guilty, why did John give away the position of the body, which no one else would have found (considering the location of the room and the door leading into it.) Your guess is as good as mine, but John is said to have exclaimed as if he saw something at a point when no one could have seen anything in that dark room! Showing maybe he already knew she was in there!

Her bladder was full. She did not wet the bed that night.

Jolly interesting, especially considering it often empties itself upon death.

The Teddy Bear- I have heard of this. All I know is that someone told her beforehand that a secret visitor is coming. This completely exonerates the Ramsey parents in my opinion.

The teddy bear is just weird. The multitude of sometimes contradictory clues is what makes this a perfect murder--not planning on anyone's part. One hell of a lucky killer walked! :mad:

Before Lou Smit died, he said he knew that after he dies he'll find out that the killer was someone from his case files. Probably one of these men.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this case. Deceased people know, starting with JonBenét herself. Too bad they can't let the living in on it!

Jonbenet also attended a dancing school in which there was a balcony for adults to sit and watch. She might have attracted her killer there.

Yeah, the Dance West case. Some psycho broke into the home of another little girl in the same class, who could have been seriously injured or killed had her Daddy not come to the rescue. I think it was shown, though, that this had nothing to do with the Ramsey murder.

Cori: Please familiarize yourself with the facts of this case.

It was determined there was pineapple found in JonBenet.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682517/The%20Pineapple%20Evidence

Since JonBenet's killer has never been found, it cannot be conclusively proven it is unconnected to the other Dance West case.

To start, here is the mysterious bear: http://crimeshots.com/bear-bedroom.jpg This thing belongs in a museum of the weird and strange, if the crime is ever solved, if not, I suppose it will remain in some evidence vault...maybe indefinitely.

Since this thread has been going on for over ten friggin' years, (sad) ohno: I had to just check everything I had already said to make sure I didn't repeat myself too much regarding other clues all pointing at it being an inside job, besides the overwhelming number in the ransom note alone, which I and others have cited. There have also been the obvious comparisons to the Lindbergh kidnapping and the JFK and O. J. murder cases.

Three pieces of physical evidence I haven't seen mentioned here yet: the blanket in which JonBenét was found wrapped, the housekeeper said was in the dryer, which was in an out-of-the-way place not readily found by someone unfamiliar with the house. What the...? Who but a family member would remove the child wrapped in anything other than a blanket already on the bed? JonBenét was put to bed in the white shirt she wore under the red sweater she wore to the party, and a pair of long johns, not her favorite Barbie nightgown--yet the nightgown was with her body when it was found! Did "Santa" tell her to bring something for an overnight stay, and not tell anybody :confused: Who in the world but a family member who knew that was her favorite, would have placed it with her? There was a heart drawn in ink on JonBenét's hand. JonBenét hated having marks on her body and would never have made such a mark--it was put there by her killer. That, the nightgown, and the wrapping in the blanket, not only indicate her killer loved her, but the nightgown shows her killer knew her intimately--not a stranger!

There is suspicious behavior by family members and friends. Patsy, who never wore the same thing twice in a row, was not only wearing the next morning what she had worn to the party, but her hair and makeup was the same, indicating she had not been to bed that night. Later Patsy wore the same outfit to a press conference that she had previously worn at another public appearance, to put on a show that it was not so abnormal for her to have dressed the same the next day--but that was, in fact, atypical of her.

Patsy's sister came over and they sat reading Bible verses about forgiveness. Is this the sort of thing that a mother and aunt would do when a daughter was missing? That simply reeks of the sister knowing that 1) JonBenét was dead, 2) Patsy killed her and, probably 3) that it was an accident--however it happened, she was sorry and forgiveness was in order. (Unfortunately this makes Patsy's sister, with John, an accessory after the fact even if Burke is exempt.) When John Ramsey's older son, who lived there but was not home that night, was asked what should be done with his sister's killer, he answered, "Forgiveness." Even Burke acted strange. When taken by a friend after JonBenét went missing, but before the body was found, he talked about Nintendo and didn't mention his sister once, possibly indicating he knew what had happened to her and that she was not just missing. Then the Whites dropped Patsy like a hot potato...possibly after having seen and heard just enough to indicate her involvement, but not enough to solidly prove it.

John Ramsey left the home right at the time the kidnapper was supposed to call, indicating he knew there would be no such call. While out, he could have disposed of the only pieces of physical evidence from the crime scene not shown to have come from the house. The duct tape is the only one I can think of...there may have been others. Everything else used in the entire crime was shown to have come from the house, with the possible exception of the teddy bear.

And, oh, about a million other things. :rolleyes:

If the crime is really solved, and it really turns out that the criminal (I don't say "kidnapper" or "murderer" as the original intent of whoever did it is unproven) was not someone in the Ramsey family, I will be just as well pleased for the closure, but I will be all :eek2: .
That being said, it's not too unusual for people to believe someone other than the parents is guilty, since if it was totally open and shut the police should have solved it long since!

So I read through the entire thread. There are several points of confusion:
-The crime was initially a kidnapping, not a murder. Jonbenet fought with her abductor, which is why his DNA was under her fingernails.

-The DNA evidence in no uncertain terms indicates that it was a Caucasian male NOT related to the family.

The DNA evidence under the nails...stranger than that on the clothing which still might somehow be explained by the "Asian sneeze theory." I never heard whether that under the fingernails and that on the clothing MATCHED EACH OTHER or were even from the same racial or ethnic group!

-A palm print and hi-tec boot print were completely foreign, which indicates it was an outsider.

These were explained away as the palm print having belonged to a worker who was in the house long before, and the boot print belonging to a police officer who entered the home to investigate on the day after Christmas. The police knew one of their own left the print but were too embarrassed at their many examples of botching the case to admit it.

-I vaguely remember that a pool of urine was found in the basement belonging to someone other than Jonbenet.

-The ransom letter in my opinion was the writing of a young man who watched Dirty Harry and Speed.

Now, the urine, I had NEVER heard! :eek: Fresh? As for the movies, whichever one had the line, "Don't try to grow a brain," the Ramseys were known to have recently rented.

-The FBI completely cleared the Ramseys from writing the ransom letter.

I never heard THAT, either. What I did hear was Patsy, possibly writing with her left hand, was the only one who could not be cleared--including the housekeeper, whose life was ruined by merely having the bad timing to ask the Ramseys for money just before. She was about the first one tested, probably because she was the first one on whom Patsy jumped to cast the blame.

Cori, I know we disagree about this, but the only way the Ramseys could have killed their daughter is if they hired a sexual deviant who was a complete stranger to kill their daughter and stage a kidnapping. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. It is preposterous and absurd to believe such a thing.

It is to be hoped that no one believes that, but after all there are (a few--hopefully a very few--) people who believe that Jackie hired JFK killed--and then sat right next to him trusting the gunman's marksmanship! :whatever:

Many seeming clues or coincidences can be explained away, some cannot. That is why the case remains unsolved. :(

The people that believe Burke Ramsey was responsible never bothered to think about how highly implausible it would be for a 9 year old to kill someone like that, not to mention what kind of effect their baseless accusations might have on a little boy and his family on such a highly publicized case.

When these people decide to step into reality, they're going to suffer from culture shock.

They are going down THE WRONG ROAD, MISTER! :mad: (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Seriously, the Burke theory is far-fetched, and possible only if the parents covered for him afterwards. One must sympathize with Burke in any case.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this case. Deceased people know, starting with JonBenét herself. Too bad they can't let the living in on it!

And put Robert Stack and Dennis Farina near the top of the list! How many cases did they have to catch up on? (Rhetorical, not really asking how many remain unsolved or half-solved.)

The palm print and hi-tec boot print were explained away by whom?

According to whom did they watch Speed before the murder?

I have not seen or read anything that would refute these points.

I saw the Speed detail on a television program about the case but all I can say is it was not on UM. I watched a number of other programs and whichever one it was showed the exact clip with the line. I'd like to say an evening newsmagazine such as 20/20. The palm and boot prints I saw in magazines, but again I read a number of these. I just assumed if they came up in these sources they would be mentioned elsewhere.

(CNN) -- Recently developed "touch DNA" technology has cleared all members of JonBenet Ramsey's family of her slaying, authorities said Wednesday.

You should have given the date of the article, July 10, 2008. There are conspiracy theories regarding this, too--though I don't know how much credence I put into them--basically that John Ramsey decided he wanted to run for political office and so pulled some strings to make it look as if his family were not guilty.

As for the DNA on the underwear, it's a misleading bunch of nonsense. Supposedly there was fluid DNA on the panties and touch DNA from the same individual on the long johns, which were together only on JonBenét's body and had to have come from a stranger (meaning none of the people tested, which amounted to about half the town of Boulder by the time the Ramseys got done accusing people.) I heard the story (which I've never seen confirmed; anyone care to investigate?) that the fluid DNA on the panties was the same as DNA found in unused panties in a package which was among evidence seized. This is known as the "Asian sneeze theory" and seems to have formed one of a number of incredibly lucky breaks for the guilty party (one of the Ramseys.) If the touch DNA existed at all, well, whoever left the fluid DNA also left skin flakes and a few transferred from the panties to the long johns at some point. Cross contamination happens all the time. So what? It doesn't make a murderer innocent. Supposedly the new DA is having another look at this.

Here's a blog saying somewhat more elaborately the same thing I said above in 2009. http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html

Good question regarding the coroner. Didn't even think of him or her. http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2012/05/jonbenet-ramsey-touch-dna.html I did, however, think of everyone at the Christmas party--did they test everyone who came into contact with her the entire time she wore those underwear (I hate the word "panties") and long johns? Suppose JonBenét sat on someone's lap, then later transferred the DNA when she used the bathroom? Perfectly innocent.

The parents definetly did it. And everyone should watch this http://youtu.be/Uah0yURYs5w. It's shocking to say the least. Can anyone confirm that John Ramsey had actually dated Natalie halloways mother for some time ? Because I herd that is true and it also ties these cases together in a strange way.

Linda stated her opinion. That doesn't mean she's correct.

Or that anyone else is. See question and link in edited post above.

I didn't think much about it, but its weird that some woman came forward saying she knows of sex rings in Colorado and other states. She was adamant that john and patsy were involved.being that there was a long on going investigation that went no where. There's always going to be rumors but the whole entire case and the way the female detective described John and Patsy's behavior bothers me so much. I understand we all deal with pain in different ways, but it doesn't sit with me.

Haha you're right I didn't pay any mind to the illuminati part, but the comment about Natalie halloway and the first part of it was intresting. I can't find the legit interview for the first part of the video. I just can't imagine my child going missing and me waking up the next day, ignoring the fact that the kidnapper never called and then going to check my mail so nonchalant. I would be a basket case.

Her parents killed her and covered it up.

South Park creators say they were wrong about the Ramseys. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/magazine/talk-trey-parker-and-matt-stone-of-south-park.html?_r=0

They did a Lindbergh/Amelia Earhart reference, too, but I think they knew they were wrong about that. ;)

Patsy's grave. Amazingly, the "Virtual Flowers" section still works. In cases where it is "continually misused," this ability is turned off. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Ramsey&GSfn=Patricia&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=12&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=14714870&df=all&

JonBenét's grave. Flowers also still function and don't see any nasty ones--at least in the first 50. (People have left nasty notes at the actual grave, though.) :( http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2745

Lou Smit's grave. Flowers few but nice. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Smit&GSfn=Andrew&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=57464148&df=all&

Lots of interesting clues here, including some, like about the underwear, I had never heard. http://kgov.com/ramsey-murder I don't quite buy the conclusion that John was molesting JonBenét. Much was made of that possibility at first, but I tend to go with the housekeeper, that he had drugged himself with a sleeping aid and didn't hear whatever went on between Patsy and JonBenét. Something I haven't seen mentioned here, it is believed that JonBenét was already near death from strangulation when the fatal blow was struck, as very little blood was found in the wound. One theory had it that Patsy strangled JonBenét with her own nightgown, then struck her to make it look like a violent attack, while other theories had that she was struck, pushed, or thrown against something hard, either accidentally or intentionally, and then strangled to make it look like a murder (which, of course, it then was).

The housekeeper's statement from 2001 tells about the blanket and nightgown and I'd forgotten about the knife. http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

A writeup on the case. http://criminalminds.wikia.com/wiki/JonBenét_Ramsey This page includes the picture of JonBenét wearing the blue suit with the white piping that her parents used for their book The Death of Innocence. At one point a website which I cannot now find alleged this suit was not off the rack but custom made, you can tell by the way it sits, and that the ropes used to strangle JonBenét and bind her wrists exactly match this white piping. Many attempts were made to trace this rope to a hardware store, with much arguing as to whether or not they (the crime scene and hardware store ropes) actually matched.

About the stranger DNA--hadn't thought of John possibly planting it, but I guess it's possible. I'd STILL like to know whether the DNA on the underwear and long johns (which did match each other) matched that under the fingernails, or if they got there separately by different ways. If they ALL matched, and if that DNA can EVER be traced to anyone who can be remotely linked to the crime scene, maybe I might just begin to consider the possibility that someone other than a family member did it!

This was said about the JFK murder but applies here, too: it's like a Rorschach test. Look at it, tell me what you see, and it will tell me more about you than it will about the crime.

Cori and others,

What are your thoughts on Michael Helgoth?

Is it possible he and accomplices got together to commit this crime and one of them botched it and killed her?

I don't know enough about him to have an opinion whether he was murdered or committed suicide. Either he owned a pair of those shoes, or someone planted them trying to frame him. Someone sure was eager to point them out. Now, was he the guy who supposedly called his friend the day after the murder saying he had seriously injured a child, and his friend taped it, or was that someone else? Did that tape even exist, or was the guy just grandstanding like Dan Pride did after that nut Karr came forward?

I know the content of that letter has been hashed and rehashed over the years. And I've probably already posted something similar to the following on this case.

IMO, it was written by a woman. Men don't bother with softening up the message, advising the victim to be well rested, listen carefully, and when heading to the bank be sure to bring an attache large enough to hold all the cash. Also, women tend to be much wordier than men.

A man writing a ransom note is just going to say: I have your kid. I want $118,000 in cash. I'll contact you tomorrow to make the exchange.

It has weird inconsistencies, like correctly spelling "adequate", "attache" and "etc" (lots of people spell it "ect" because they don't know it's short for "et cetera") but can't spell "business" or "possession". Saying "a earlier" instead of the correct "an earlier". (Ignorance or a deliberate diversion?)

It's way too long for a ransom note. By the end, it's rambling with stupid instructions about not talking to cops and stray dogs and scanning John for electronic devices. (Again, many more warnings about how to keep his daughter safe and not beheaded, which a male writer couldn't care less about.) Professional criminals don't leave such long notes with a huge amount of written evidence for the authorities to comb through.

It goes back and forth between "I" and "we". Is the writer an individual or a group of individuals?

No "foreign faction" describes themselves as being "foreign". Also, if they're "foreign" they certainly communicate in written english fairly well, using words like attache and hence, and foreigners would not know the american term "good southern common sense", which is only used in that region of the US or by people who are from or have spent a large amount of time in that region. The letter wasn't written by a foreigner or someone native to the Colorado area, imo.

Why does the note writer tell John to bring an attache to the bank to get the cash, but then transfer it to a brown paper bag when he gets home? What kidnapper cares about the kind of container he uses to carry the money around in? Why can't he just bring a duffel bag to the bank? Or skip the middle man and just bring the paper sack to the bank. (I actually had that happen to me once. I sold a piece of undeveloped property, and the buyer showed up with cash in paper grocery sacks! I didn't want an IRS investigation so we got a bank check instead.)

Why does the foreign faction want $118,000? What activities are they doing that they need this amount of money to fund? They must be an awfully small outfit with low overhead because no other fatcats were having their children kidnapped for ransom to fund a big operation of some sort. And if you're a "group of individuals", it doesn't take long to spend $118,000 on travel, food, etc. then they're broke again and have to kidnap someone else for ransom so they can have some pocket change. Obviously, no group was involved. This was written by one individual.

And the ridiculous sign off: "It's up to you now John!" Again, why do they care enough to go on and on and on and then give him a big encouraging Rah Rah Rah at the end?

So my analysis is that whoever wrote the note was from the southern united states, was female, and wasn't kidnapping the child for the purpose of obtaining ransom money.

That leaves my note writer suspect to be the mom. Less likely, someone from the southern united states who knows the family and wanted to take their daughter or kill her out of revenge or something similar.

SBTC

Southern
Babbler
Talks
Ceaselessly

SBTC

Southern
Babbler
Talks
Ceaselessly

:yourock:

It's sad to see people so sure. The BPD shot themselves in the foot clearing, and apologizing to, the Ramseys and may someday be made to look like fools. The one person still living closest to the case and likely to talk would be Patsy's sister, who was let in on it almost from the beginning. If only she could be offered an immunity deal to tell what she knows and would agree to do so, the truth might come to light. But she might still feel obligated to protect John.

DA Alex Hunter stated at a televised press conference: "I want to say something to the person or persons that committed this crime - the person or persons that took this baby from us. I mentioned the list of suspects narrows - soon there will be no one left on the list but you ... You have stripped us of any mercy we may have had in the beginning of this case. We will see that justice is served in this case, and that you pay for what you did."

Michael Helgoth ends up dead the next day.

I need to go back through the thread and read up more on this guy. I was scanning some of the info and it seems intriguing.

I need to go back through the thread and read up more on this guy. I was scanning some of the info and it seems intriguing.

From what I've seen he was way creepy and his death was no loss to humanity.

:yourock:

lol Thank you :)

SBTC really does have me stumped. RebZissel posted lots of interesting candidates for what it could mean. But honestly, I think the writer grabbed those letters out of thin air. I don't think they would want to give away anything that would identify who they were so they just made up something to make it seem like they were part of an actual criminal organization.

I did some googling and this popped up. If Patsy wrote the letter, maybe she would have seen the Small Business Tech Cooperative acronym somewhere and subconsciously used it?

Colorado Small Business Technology Cooperative

South Bank Tri Club

South Beach Tanning Company

A couple of my guesses:

The S T and the C could mean Success B? To Come

Southern Bell Telephone Company (If Patsy wrote the letter, I'm guessing this could have been her inspiration for SBTC)



S: Southern, South, Success, Successful, Superior, Strong, Secure

B: Business, Bay, Beach, Benefit, Benevolent, Base

T: Terrorist, Terror, To, Truth, Triumphant, Take, Transport

C: Company, Come, Check, Creation, Complete, Collective

Was Michael Helgoth`s scary violent pal who vanished ever traced ?

The DNA belonged to a WHITE male 25-35 not related to the family.

(Not Asian.)
i'm sorry but how can they possibly determine the AGE of someone through DNA?

i'm sorry but how can they possibly determine the AGE of someone through DNA?

That was new to me, too--and another reason clearing "Santa." Not only was none of his DNA found at the scene, he was too old to match the description of the presumed killer. The trouble is, at least some people will believe anyone ever mentioned in connection with the case is the guilty one. They can't all have done it, but many lives were ruined anyway! :(

Dan,

To whom are you referring?

I believe Helgoth may have done this with two other accomplices.

It's hard enough to believe one person pulling this off and leaving no evidence in the form of hair, fiber, fingerprint, DNA. Three guys wearing hazmat suits is too much to swallow--especially since anyone prepared enough to use a hazmat suit wouldn't botch the damn crime so badly! Some kidnap victims have disappeared in a matter of seconds!

Dan,

To whom are you referring?

I believe Helgoth may have done this with two other accomplices.

Reb, the one who was described as living in a trailer park near a car salvage yard . I believe it is said this associate of Helgoth once threatened to cut his girlfriends ear off :eek: and was once convicted of a stabbing of some sort in trailer park...

I've watched the video you referred and I agree with you. It had to be carefully planned out ahead of time. But I'm stuck between wondering if the person who wrote the ransom wanted the family to think they would call the day after the note was discovered , or they actually made a mistake with the timing.

In my search for the inevitable accusations that Obama did it (haven't found that so far--the closest was an Onion item accusing Obama of trying to frame Mitt Romney for it--) I haven't found anything directly accusing Obama, but I did come across this: http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2013/10/editorial-i-know-who-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/

It makes as good a case as can be made against Burke...I still doubt Burke did it, but it's a lot more likely than an intruder.

P. S. My dad said this probably within the first week of the murder, but there were several other cases, including Jacob Wetterling and the Westley Allan Dodd murders, where Dad said kids had accidentally or intentionally killed, or witnessed a fatal accident to, another child, and then covered it for fear of getting in trouble. In at least one case this actually happened. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-15/news/9003170560_1_violent-crimes-police-boys Dad and a friend from church were also both right about Susan Smith. My mom and the other guy's wife didn't believe it when their husbands said it. :rip: :rip:

Well, this is a little embarrassing...found the below that I posted on The Twilight Zone Cafe on August 20, 2006. I can see JonBenét's parents forgetting about the bear, when I forgot myself having written about it, and preferred remembering it as mysterious. Below is most of what I posted then. The rest, I do remember writing. I did not remember where. That's why I had to check my posts in this thread to see what I may have said already.

Supposedly the teddy bear is a non-issue. JonBenét received it as a pageant prize less than two weeks earlier. Her parents just didn't remember it, but a pageant judge saw it presented to her. More interesting is a story her aunt told on camera that the bear contained a note from the killer to JonBenét professing love for her in a nonsexual manner. Again, this seems to point more to someone in the household being the killer, since the bear was there already. But if Patsy left the note, why would they make up a story about the bear being a mystery when they knew others must have seen her with it? As far as I know, the contents of this note have not been released.

Some tabloid reports speculated that JonBenét was acting out against her treatment, and that Patsy killed her when the battle of wills became too strong. The bedwetting, certainly, indicated a child under stress. Other reports (among many) were that:

--A photographer witnessed a meltdown, in the form of a sort of silent collapse, by JonBenét during a photo session when she had to go through too many costume changes.

--JonBenét kicked Patsy for trying to put certain shoes on her during a costume change. It was "a hard kick, to the wrist," either because she didn't like the shoes or had too much of changing.

--Patsy gave JonBenét a doll for Christmas manufactured by the My Twinn Doll Company (and, boy, is there material for a TZ episode or two HERE: http://www.mytwinn.com/ ) fixed up as JonBenét in her pageant getup, with the overdone hair and all. JonBenét just looked at it and said, "I don't think it really looks that much like me," and set it aside. This is said to have fueled Patsy's murderous rage which erupted that night.

--Family and friends were "just about to stage an intervention" on the pageant stuff becoming too much when the murder occurred. They figured oh, well, the worst has happened, and just let it drop.

John Ramsey tried to dismiss the pageants as "something JonBenét and her mother did as a hobby" and nothing to do with the murder, but whether committed by a stranger drawn to her through pageant connections, or by her mother for rebelling against the pageantry, it would seem directly connected to her death.

Lou Smit also makes the great point that if it were the case of staging - why would John Ramsey pick her up and try to untie everything and revive her? A killer stays away from the crime scene and leaves it intact not to further incriminate himself.

That was the final bit of staging--John Ramsey was allowed to completely contaminate the crime scene and by the time he and Patsy were done handling the body no one would know what was placed where, when. And no one was going to stop them because they were the parents! Just a perfect setup.

As for someone with a history of these crimes, other than the vague similarities with the Dance West case, I wonder if there were any more like it? This one made international news for being so unusual!

If it were the case of staging, where would the Ramseys suddenly get a stun gun and tied their own child into a sadistic sexual contraption -the garrotte. Where would they have acquired the foresight if this were an accidental killing?

The ransom note is long and relaxed. Someone had clearly watched Ransom, Speed, Nick of Time before writing it. If it were Patsy, how and when could she have been motivated by these films if she had approximately a few hours to write it.

It simply doesn't add up.

The whole bed wetting accidental death does not add up.

John may have already had the stun gun, which was used on JonBenét after she was attacked and disposed of along with the duct tape and other evidence, or the marks could have been something else, perhaps not even related to the murder, that just accidentally resembled a certain make of stun gun. The garrotte, I don't know about, I guess it was hand-tied and it's been speculated John had some military training or something where he would have learned to fashion such a device.

As for the movies, it's been shown they watched Speed shortly prior to the murder, and if they liked that, probably saw the others at some point.

The bedwetting doesn't make sense if her bladder was full and she did not wet the bed that night. So presumably either Burke really did it, she did something else besides wet the bed to enrage Patsy, or John did it.

The stranger DNA, I thought they had lucked out by JonBenét somehow picking up DNA from the clothing manufacture or packaging, a Christmas partygoer, or any one of a number of ways. It never really occurred to me that John had time to pick it up and plant it when he was out disposing of the other evidence, until I read it in the article the link to which I posted above.

Speaking of a photographer, there is a theory that Jonbenet's photographer was the killer.

WELL, OF COURSE!!! Everyone except the teddy bear has been accused!! There's a theory against every person who ever looked sideways at that kid! Chances are, there is at least one theory indicating the actual killer!

This happened when I was 16 years old, and of course, I've never forgotten it. The story was EVERYWHERE. There have been so many reports over the years that it is hard to separate fact from fiction and speculation.

I've gone back and forth on the answer. Actually leaned towards the intruder theory for a while. Or at least, the possibility of an intruder. But after reading this thread and doing some more digging, I'm leaning back towards the Ramseys themselves. Particularly this:

So presumably either Burke really did it, she did something else besides wet the bed to enrage Patsy, or John did it.


From the very beginning, I had an inkling that Burke was involved. I don't understand why the theory that Burke did it is any more ridiculous than the idea that one of the parents did it. I don't think he intentionally murdered her, but he could have been, um, experimenting with her sexually and things got out of hand. Wasn't there evidence of previous sexual abuse? Then, the parents covered for him. To me, involving Burke is the only way to make all the pieces fit. Plus, I find it much easier to believe that the Ramsey's would cover for their son than that they would cover for each other.

WELL, OF COURSE!!! Everyone except the teddy bear has been accused!! There's a theory against every person who ever looked sideways at that kid! Chances are, there is at least one theory indicating the actual killer!

THIS. Like I said, I'm open to the idea of a non-family member committing this crime, but accusing everyone who was ever within ten feet of JB is getting a little ridiculous.

I absolutely do not believe that Burke did it.

This theory arose after the police leaked a rumor that you could hear Burke during the 911 call. I listened and there is no way you can tell what is being said. All you hear is Patsy's voice frantically praying after the 911 call ended.

It was not Burke.

Jonbenet was hit over the head by a flashlight by incredible force which only an adult male could have done.

She was electrocuted with a stun gun while still alive. She was THEN put into a garrotte with duct tape around her mouth. She scratched her killer and DNA ended up under her fingernails. The killer, an unknown white male according to that DNA, THEN sexually violated her with a paint brush.

Then she was strangled to death.

Don't all of you see what I am saying? She WAS NOT accidentally killed. She was attacked (hit over the head by an adult male), electrocuted with a stun gun, sexually violated, then strangled to death.

She was killed after being attacked and sexually violated. The proof is in the crime scene.

Burke did not and could not have killed her.
Where does the ransom note tie in in this scenario?

Actually, some believe that the blow to the head came later, as there was very little blood in the wound, which would indicate that JB was near death at the time. It is also possible that she screamed, probably in pain, and the person hit her to make her be quiet.

The last phase of the crime was the garrotte, duct tape around the mouth, sexually violating her, strangulation.

The beginning of the crime was either electrocution or hit over the head by a flashlight. No one knows the exact order but both occurred before the latter phase.

That is your opinion, but not everyone shares it.

I realize that she was violated and strangled while alive. But there is still some doubt as to when the head blow occurred.

From the very beginning, I had an inkling that Burke was involved. I don't understand why the theory that Burke did it is any more ridiculous than the idea that one of the parents did it. I don't think he intentionally murdered her, but he could have been, um, experimenting with her sexually and things got out of hand. Wasn't there evidence of previous sexual abuse? Then, the parents covered for him. To me, involving Burke is the only way to make all the pieces fit. Plus, I find it much easier to believe that the Ramsey's would cover for their son than that they would cover for each other.

Not to mention the unsettling fact that strangling is known in the UK as "burking." :X)

THIS. Like I said, I'm open to the idea of a non-family member committing this crime, but accusing everyone who was ever within ten feet of JB is getting a little ridiculous.

One lady remarked that thank God she went out of town for Christmas that year as half the town stood accused!

Ironic about the names.

John = Slang for a customer of a prostitute, or a bathroom.

Patsy = A dupe or fall guy for a crime committed by another.

Burke = Slang for "to strangle."

Strange coincidences considering the things which have been said about them. :whatever:

I'm pretty much convinced that the mom did it but I never believed the dad was sexually abusing JonBenet. With that combination, I'm kind of agreeing and disagreeing with what a lot of people think about this case.

I'm willing to admit that I've never studied this case carefully and am basing my opinions on news articles, tv shows, websites, and discussion boards.

If this was committed by someone outside the family, they must have done something similar, either before or since. They could also be dead now, or in prison for a different offense.

Has anyone researched this and found any comparable cases? Anything about someone bragging about being the perp? Anyone in prison brag to his cellmate? Any similar crimes, before or after? Any info about a creepy photographer or other insider in the child pageant circuit?

I can't think of any other child abuse/murder case where such a ridiculous ransom note was left, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Many crimes stay in local media and never get the prolonged international coverage that this case got.

There is still not a shred of evidence to indicate her parents killed her.

Foreign DNA present.

Handwriting experts cleared the Ramseys.

The bed wetting theory has always been the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Jonbenet, the light of her mother's life, decided to kill her after wetting bed. Silly. Stupid. False. Ridiculous. Unfortunately, this theory was started by trashy tabloids and it stuck. IT IS NOT TRUE.

The Ramseys also passed lie detector tests.

One day the killer will be caught. I cannot wait.
No the graphologists couldn't rule out Patsy having written the ransom note.

do you know what graphology is?

If this was committed by someone outside the family, they must have done something similar, either before or since. They could also be dead now, or in prison for a different offense.



Not necessarily Tracy , research by the FBI has found that there are some pedophile child killers who kill once and then don`t commit another similar crime but instead lead a quiet life in the community ......there could be several reasons for this (1) child abduction and murders generate a lot of media attention and huge investigations so the offender will have to lay low for a while...then self preservation kicks in

(2) the offender could regret their actions .....
(3)the offender could find a victim to abuse regularly hence no need to risk being caught trying to carry out another abduction and murder...

There is an unsolved murder from the late-80`s of a little girl in Indiana called April Tinsley were the offender committed his crime and then never committed another murder yet he remained in the community and he even brazenly communicated with authorities taunting them while stalking other girls ...... some aspects of this case are quite disturbing and in the profile the FBI also pointed out that such type of offenders do indeed exist (i.e men who abduct ,rape and murder a child and then go quite without being dead or in jail)

Someone like the person who killed JonBenet could most likely never confess to cellmate in prison about such a crime if they were in prison because apparently in prison child rapists and killers are the lowest of the low amongst prisoners and are hated by other prisoners ....

On the subject of someone bragging about being a perp in this case , there was a guy called Carr who a few years back claimed he did it ...... but his DNA and movements in 1996 cleared him, he was probably just obsessed with JonBenet from seeing her in the media coverage of this case

I'm willing to admit that I've never studied this case carefully and am basing my opinions on news articles, tv shows, websites, and discussion boards.

If this was committed by someone outside the family, they must have done something similar, either before or since. They could also be dead now, or in prison for a different offense.
y in local media and never get the prolonged international coverage that this case got.

the mr cruel theory is that after committing as many as a dozen home invasions on little girls from 70s to 90s, he committed this one. mr cruel is the world's foremost serial home invading pedophile intruder.

Anything about someone bragging about being the perp? Anyone in prison brag to his cellmate? Any similar crimes, before or after? Any info about a creepy photographer or other insider in the child pageant circuit?

Plenty of people fingered others but it never led anywhere. Some could have been just trying to get revenge on someone or attention for themselves.

Sorry but I have read differently. And please don't lecture me on my use of English.http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/

Sorry but I have read differently. And please don't lecture me on my use of English.http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/

what are that author's qualification?

what are that author's qualification?
I have said on a previous occasion that I don't hold the parents responsible,but neither do I believe the FBI is particularly superior to other graphologists working in the field. However I do take your point.

I have said on a previous occasion that I don't hold the parents responsible,but neither do I believe the FBI is particularly superior to other graphologists working in the field. However I do take your point.

do you know what graphology is?

do you know what graphology is?
Oh please. Stop splitting hairs.http://www.mantex.co.uk/2009/09/07/english-language-graphology/

the mr cruel theory is that after committing as many as a dozen home invasions on little girls from 70s to 90s, he committed this one. mr cruel is the world's foremost serial home invading pedophile intruder.

Mr Cruel is another good example of a predator who murders once and then apparently stops ...

Mr Cruel is another good example of a predator who murders once and then apparently stops ...

true but he's suspected in more than a dozen home invasions prior.

btw does crimeshots work for you?

i get
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /forums/forumdisplay.php on this server.

true but he's suspected in more than a dozen home invasions prior.

btw does crimeshots work for you?

i get
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /forums/forumdisplay.php on this server.

What is crimeshots ? :confused: :lol:

What is crimeshots ? :confused: :lol:

http://www.crimeshots.com

btw how do u know about mr cruel? curious

http://www.crimeshots.com

btw how do u know about mr cruel? curious

I cant access it either :rolleyes: .....well , the Mr Cruel case is one of those cases that I happened come across while looking up something else by coincidence :D .... I have read all sorts of murders and rapes from Australia , and Australia seems to have had some wild criminals over the years ! :lol: :eek:

I cant access it either :rolleyes: .....well , the Mr Cruel case is one of those cases that I happened come across while looking up something else by coincidence :D .... I have read all sorts of murders and rapes from Australia , and Australia seems to have had some wild criminals over the years ! :lol: :eek:

ok what a coincidence i was researching jonbenet and i found mr cruel as a suspect.

so we have 2 connections - mr cruel and dana point jane doe haha :crazy:

ok what a coincidence i was researching jonbenet and i found mr cruel as a suspect.

so we have 2 connections - mr cruel and dana point jane doe haha :crazy:

Interesting connections indeed :lol: , I just wonder who proposed Mr Cruel as a suspect in the Jonbenet case ?

Interesting connections indeed :lol: , I just wonder who proposed Mr Cruel as a suspect in the Jonbenet case ?

a poster over at crimeshots by the name of redpill. i think the idea is that jonbenet's killer shows experience and mr cruel is highly skilled at home invasion pedophilia.

ever heard of eloise worledge?

Were you a member of crimeshots before ?

I had never heard of Eloise but thanks for bringing her up ,:talk: were you thinking this might be an early Mr Cruel crime ?

Were you a member of crimeshots before ?

I had never heard of Eloise but thanks for bringing her up ,:talk: were you thinking this might be an early Mr Cruel crime ?

personally i do. what do u think happened to her?

personally i do. what do u think happened to her?

Yeah, the details of her disappearance have a Mr Cruel type offender feel to them , as for what happened to her .......I guess she was buried or dumped somewhere in the outback after her kidnapper was done with her

Yeah, the details of her disappearance have a Mr Cruel type offender feel to them , as for what happened to her .......I guess she was buried or dumped somewhere in the outback after her kidnapper was done with her

do u think mr cruel got jonbenet as well ?

do u think mr cruel got jonbenet as well ?

:lol:

no I most certainly dont think so, Mr Cruel was more perfected than JonBenet`s killer (who failed to even remove her from the house !), Mr Cruel had no interest in ransom stuff unlike JonBenet`s killer and the probability of Mr Cruel moving to the US and turning up in Boulder of all places is so low , I am flummoxed redpill even mentioned him as a suspect in the JonBenet case :rolleyes:

:lol:

no I most certainly dont think so, Mr Cruel was more perfected than JonBenet`s killer (who failed to even remove her from the house !), Mr Cruel had no interest in ransom stuff unlike JonBenet`s killer and the probability of Mr Cruel moving to the US and turning up in Boulder of all places is so low , I am flummoxed redpill even mentioned him as a suspect in the JonBenet case :rolleyes:

um actually he did make ransom demands. may not be failure on mr cruel's part, could be perfection, a way to frame the parents.

btw i wonder if eloise worledge could dana point jane doe.

um actually he did make ransom demands. may not be failure on mr cruel's part, could be perfection, a way to frame the parents.

btw i wonder if eloise worledge could dana point jane doe.

Mr Cruels primary motivator was sexual and I have not heard of any ransom demands in his crimes , he did what he wanted to do to the victims then recorded it then let most go ....he had no interest in framing or toying around parents . JonBenet`s killer had the ransom thing planned as illustrated by the demand letter and failing to remove her screwed up his plan hence what followed......the motivation in this case is way different from mister cruel


as for Eloise being DPJD that would be stretching things to breaking point ! :lol: I dont see who, when,what ,why or how that might even be ..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr Cruels primary motivator was sexual and I have not heard of any ransom demands in his crimes , he did what he wanted to do to the victims then recorded it then let most go ....he had no interest in framing or toying around parents . JonBenet`s killer had the ransom thing planned as illustrated by the demand letter and failing to remove her screwed up his plan hence what followed......the motivation in this case is way different from mister cruel


as for Eloise being DPJD that would be stretching things to breaking point ! :lol: I dont see who, when,what ,why or how that might even be ..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

there's a documentary on mr cruel with re-enactments. mr cruel did in fact toy with parents demand money and make ransom demands. he also was interested in framing the parents.

we dont know jonbenet's killer's plan was to remove the body from the home

there's been about 30 young white females missing who have been eliminated as DPJD so i'm wondering if maybe she's a white female from another english speaking country. eloise worledge would actually be around 20 in 1987.

Do you propose that at least one and up to all three men actually entered the house? I can't believe three guys who weren't trained professionals could leave such tiny traces of evidence--one footprint and a handprint which could be explained by other means, and two tiny traces of DNA which could have been planted, but should have been all over the place had a stranger, let alone more than one, attacked her. It looks as if half the town had some connection with the Ramseys, which may be quite odd but doesn't make them all guilty.

It does very much look as if someone had motivation to murder Mr. Helgoth and chose that time to frame him with the stories, plant items pointing to him, and thus misdirect anyone who might investigate the real reasons for the crime (thus muddying up both crimes). If Mr. Helgoth was suspected (as of course he was--practically everyone and his dog was--) his DNA would have been tested when his body was discovered and had it matched would have immediately been announced as a solution to the case. Then they would have followed up on other clues. Think they want to see this unsolved forever?

I agree with you that JB was killed by an intruder but I think it was 1 intruder

you are aware that the RN is full of movie references?

The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.

is a common trope in movies where the good guy in james bond is tied to a chair, 2 henchmen are next to him, and the bad guy lectures to the good guy.

IMO Mr Cruel is a good fit since he has a track record of entering homes to get little girls

The adversarial system of justice used in the USA and UK has its weaknesses in the Police often fixing on a suspect or suspects from the outset and going for them hell for leather,in this case the parents,to the detriment of collating evidence in an impartial manner by a court,which is how this case would have proceeded in continental Europe. When the evidence against the parents collapsed this case really had nowhere to go. I don't see Michael Hogath as the writer of the ransom letter,the perpetrator as has been said having an over-inflated ego of himself. I was also thinking about why the parents were left in their beds and not tied up,for example,wounded or even killed,which makes it look at if it was a kidnap attempt gone wrong.

The adversarial system of justice used in the USA and UK has its weaknesses in the Police often fixing on a suspect or suspects from the outset and going for them hell for leather,in this case the parents,to the detriment of collating evidence in an impartial manner by a court,which is how this case would have proceeded in continental Europe. When the evidence against the parents collapsed this case really had nowhere to go. I don't see Michael Hogath as the writer of the ransom letter,the perpetrator as has been said having an over-inflated ego of himself. I was also thinking about why the parents were left in their beds and not tied up,for example,wounded or even killed,which makes it look at if it was a kidnap attempt gone wrong.

IMO this is mr cruel who likes to play with little girls lady bits, and the RN is just b.s he wrote up

Steve,

I believe Helgoth was involved but an accomplice was in the house to write the ransom note and commit the kidnapping.

Neo,

So Mr. Cruel showed up to Boulder to commit this one crime? Elaborate on your theory.

have you had a chance to look at

I-70 Serial Killer and Caledonia Jane Doe (Multi-page thread 1 2)

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=322#ixzz3LSgQONo6


?

i ask b/c basically the reason that i think i70 killer got CJD is also the reason i think mr cruel got jonbenet.

victimology, MO, signature, overall rarity of the crime

From big city Melbourne to small town Boulder? Across the ocean?

It would be very unusual. Possible of course.

reasoning - has Jonbenet killer killed before or since JB?
has Jonbenet's killer show experience with this type of crime? i.e an expert?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/1_index.html

Profiling JonBenét Ramsey's Murder
BY Gregg McCrary

Many people believe that in order to be accurate or helpful, behavioral profiling of criminal incidents requires more than a single crime scene, but that's not necessarily true. Obviously, the more behavior one has to work with, the more material there is for deriving an interpretation and for having one's interpretations confirmed, but a single crime scene can yield just as much information about an offender as a series. Thus, the murder of JonBen�t Ramsey, apparently a one-time incident, can be profiled in a way similar to how we view multiple crimes linked to a single offender. In any crime, we have just as much behavioral evidence to work with as the offender leaves behind, and in this case, there was quite a lot.

With such incidents, we consider the time of day the crime occurred, the type of crime it was, the type of weapon used, whether it was high risk for the victim or high risk for the perpetrator, how it was accomplished, and whether there was evidence of mental illness or fantasy rituals. In addition, the offender might have left trace evidence behind or taken items away, any of which can help us to judge his or her comfort level with that type of crime, and his or her degree of criminal sophistication. In addition, we can take an educated guess about the offender's motivation, his or her experience with other types of crimes, and his or her possible level of education and type of work, was well as age and race. Some of these items are trickier than others, so we're always careful to alert the local law enforcement who use a profile not to exclude suspects based on criteria about which we're less certain.

While we're at a disadvantage with a single-scene incident, because it's difficult to examine such aspects as escalation, the amount of time that has passed between crimes, and whether there's a clear preference or signature that transfers from one incident to the next, we can nevertheless make a useful list from items that we discover at the scene. The story on Crime Library has laid out the facts and subsequent events, so we'll describe only those items about the crime and the victim that we need for a profile.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/10.html

Profile

The first two stages of a criminal investigation are to determine whether or not a crime or crimes have been committed and if so, accurately determine what the crime(s) are. In this case, the initial appearance was that of a kidnapping for ransom, but there was a seismic shift a few hours into the investigation, when the victim's body was recovered in the house from which she had allegedly been abducted.

The process of criminal investigative analysis involves analyzing all of the physical and behavioral evidence, including all of the choices an offender makes before, during and after a crime. In a homicide, these choices include selecting a victim, choosing the method and manner of death, deciding what, if anything, to do with the body and whether or not to "stage" the crime. Staging occurs when an offender alters the crime and/or crime scene to obfuscate his involvement by presenting false motive(s) to mislead investigators. Of all of the choices that an offender makes, arguably some of the most important are choosing to do things that are otherwise unnecessary. Apparently unnecessary choices are as important to analyze as they are necessary to a particular offender, and thus may help distinguish him from other potential suspects.

Every meaningful crime analysis begins with victimology a study of the victim. The purpose of victimology is to accurately place an individual on a risk continuum from low to moderate to high, based on an analysis of the individual's lifestyle and the situational and contextual variables present at the time of the crime.

JonBenet was a 6-year-old female at home with her parents and older brother, Burke, in an affluent neighborhood, allegedly asleep in her bed. This environment put her at a very low risk for encountering a violence-prone stranger. The single variable that increased her potential risk for encountering a violence-prone stranger was her participation in beauty pageants, which increased her visibility and brought her into contact with many strangers. She stood out as she won awards and charmed audiences. Among the awards were the Colorado State All-Star Kids Pageant at age 4, the division title in America's Royale Tiny Miss contest at age 5 and Colorado's Little Miss Christmas award on December 17, 1996, just eight days before her murder. It is possible that these public exposures may have drawn the unwanted attention of a child molester attending the pageants. It's the sort of place a child molester might go to scope out children.

However, most child molesters are known to their victims and, instead of resorting to violence, they prefer using attention, affection and gifts to "seduce" a child over time. There do exist stranger-based child molesters who abduct and rape children, but they are far less common. They typically snatch quickly and then transport the child to an area that they perceive to be safe for them to molest and/or murder the child. Any stranger entering the Ramsey home with the intent of doing harm would be at an elevated risk for detection, and the longer one spent inside the home, the greater the risk.

Discussion and Analysis (cont.)

Once finished concocting the demand note, the offender allegedly placed it on the back spiral staircase of the Ramsey home. Assuming the offender's goal was to have the note discovered so that the Ramseys could meet his financial demand, placing it on the back spiral staircase seems illogical unless one knew that the Ramseys routinely used that back staircase. Then the placement makes perfect sense. While we know that the note was written in the Ramsey residence, there is an issue of when the offender wrote it.

If the offender wrote the note before the murder, then a financially motivated abduction has to be considered as a distinct possibility. If it were written after the murder, then the note clearly would be an element of staging, i.e. a false motive to misdirect the investigation. Arguably, the most incongruous and potentially revealing decision that the offender made was to leave both the note and JonBen�t's body inside the Ramseys' house. Any chance for obtaining the ransom money hinged on the offender being able to credibly guarantee JonBen�t's safety. Once her body was discovered, which it inevitably would be, no ransom would be paid and the note would be nothing other than potential physical evidence linking the author to the murder, as well as a behavioral clue that suggested an attempt to stage JonBen�t's murder as a kidnapping.

Where and how the offender chose to leave JonBen�t's body is significant. He could remove it from the house, thereby increasing the chance that his demand for money would be met. But the offender chose to leave the body in the house, and not just anywhere in the house. He chose to conceal it in an obscure room in the basement that the Ramseys referred to as a wine cellar, a windowless brick room inside the boiler room. The police were unable to find this room when they searched the house during the day. The chances of a stranger, unfamiliar with the house, being able to find this room inside another in the dead of night are remote. But even as he supposedly selected such a room, he then laid the body on the floor instead of further concealing it in a corner or behind something, so it appears that he was ambivalent about wanting it found. This might suggest a staged kidnapping, placing the body where it would not be found quickly but would nevertheless be found before it had decomposed too much.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/13.html

The offender spent a significant amount of time inside the Ramsey house writing the note, committing the murder with items from the house, engaging in post mortem activity with the body, placing it in a hidden room, wrapping it in a white blanket from the house, and placing a pink nightgown next to the body. Not only did the police not discover JonBen�t's body during their search, they never even located the room within the room in which the body was placed.

The autopsy further revealed no sexual assault, yet there was minor vaginal trauma. This would suggest a sexual motive for the crime, just as the demand note suggested a financial motive. Sexual assault seemed an unlikely motive as (1) she was not sexually assaulted, and (2) strangers who do so typically abduct the child to a place where it is safe for the offender to assault the child. It is so uncommon to attempt to sexually assault a child in her residence, with her parents and brother nearby, as to be improbable.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/16.html

Mr. Cruel is the only known child sex offender known to fulfill ALL of the above requirements as outline by this profiler.

It would take a ton of evidence to convince me anyone outside immediate family members present in the home that night did this. A ton--not meaning false confessions by psychos--more like stopping just short of entering an alternate reality.

To elaborate:
1. Patsy did it.
2. Patsy wrote the ransom note to cover for whoever did do it. Who else but John or Burke would she protect?
3. The most evil, sick, twisted genius of a pervert on the planet somehow had access to all of Patsy's most private correspondence and conversations, to be able to imitate her patterns of speech, unique use of certain words, reference pet names in the family, movies they were known to have watched, at least one recently enough for there to be a record of it, the amount of John's Christmas bonus, on and on and on, broke into the house leaving no footprints or marks of forced entry, and then was clever enough to use a pen and paper from the house in a good enough imitation of Patsy's handwriting to divide experts as to whether she could be ruled out as the writer. Then the intruder took a Swiss Army knife the housekeeper had taken from Burke and left in the linen closet where Patsy (and no intruder) would find it, planted it next to the body, wrapped the body in a blanket which came out of a dryer situated in such an obscure location only someone familiar with the home could find it, a blanket so recently in the dryer that JonBenét's favorite nightgown still clung to it, arranged all this to frame the family, leaving no additional evidence except a footprint (from a type of shoe worn by half the Police Department who tracked all over the place), a palm print (which could have been left at any time by a workman in the house), a mark which may or may not have come from a stun gun, and even if it had John could have owned such a gun and had time to get rid of it afterwards, and two little spots of DNA transferred by some undetermined method which John had plenty of time to find and plant. Anyone fiendishly brilliant enough to set up this murder scene in such a way as to completely implicate the Ramseys would have not botched the kidnapping in the first place. And never mind the Ramseys' own behavior--this is just what an intruder would have had to do! Which do you think is most likely?

In 100 years, people will be talking about this case and wonder how late 20th Century investigators could be such dolts in their worship of new technology as to let two little spots of DNA throw roughly 1,000 pieces of other evidence out the window! Of course, money, power, and influence figure here, too. A middle class, let alone a poor, family would never get away with this (I hope)!

It would take a ton of evidence to convince me anyone outside immediate family members present in the home that night did this. A ton--not meaning false confessions by psychos--more like stopping just short of entering an alternate reality.

To elaborate:
1. Patsy did it.
2. Patsy wrote the ransom note to cover for whoever did do it. Who else but John or Burke would she protect?
3. The most evil, sick, twisted genius of a pervert on the planet somehow had access to all of Patsy's most private correspondence and conversations, to be able to imitate her patterns of speech, unique use of certain words, reference pet names in the family, movies they were known to have watched, at least one recently enough for there to be a record of it, the amount of John's Christmas bonus, on and on and on, broke into the house leaving no footprints or marks of forced entry, and then was clever enough to use a pen and paper from the house in a good enough imitation of Patsy's handwriting to divide experts as to whether she could be ruled out as the writer. Then the intruder took a Swiss Army knife the housekeeper had taken from Burke and left in the linen closet where Patsy (and no intruder) would find it, planted it next to the body, wrapped the body in a blanket which came out of a dryer situated in such an obscure location only someone familiar with the home could find it, a blanket so recently in the dryer that JonBenét's favorite nightgown still clung to it, arranged all this to frame the family, leaving no additional evidence except a footprint (from a type of shoe worn by half the Police Department who tracked all over the place), a palm print (which could have been left at any time by a workman in the house), a mark which may or may not have come from a stun gun, and even if it had John could have owned such a gun and had time to get rid of it afterwards, and two little spots of DNA transferred by some undetermined method which John had plenty of time to find and plant. Anyone fiendishly brilliant enough to set up this murder scene in such a way as to completely implicate the Ramseys would have not botched the kidnapping in the first place. And never mind the Ramseys' own behavior--this is just what an intruder would have had to do! Which do you think is most likely?

In 100 years, people will be talking about this case and wonder how late 20th Century investigators could be such dolts in their worship of new technology as to let two little spots of DNA throw roughly 1,000 pieces of other evidence out the window! Of course, money, power, and influence figure here, too. A middle class, let alone a poor, family would never get away with this (I hope)!

the handwriting experts effectively eliminated patsy as the author

The other explanation: the police botched the crime scene.

the handwriting experts effectively eliminated patsy as the author

Why do people keep saying this? I thought she could not be excluded as the writer.

The other explanation: the police botched the crime scene.

I agree. While I share in EVERYONE'S ultimate wish to see this case solved, I think we're looking at police work that was conducted by a police department who was ill-equipped to handle such a situation. In addition, I believe the family also contaminated the crime scene.

I echo the earlier sentiments that we're still going to be talking about this case 20, 50, 100 years from now. It's the modern day Lindburgh baby.

Anyone who can remember the 90's will remember this story that gripped headlines for two and a half years (96-99).

Patsy's handwriting was NOT a match. It only bore a tiny resemblance. It was so miniscule no one could ever claim she wrote it. The problem lies in the fact that the letter was written with a felt-tip marker, which creates impediments to natural handwriting.

She did not write the letter. A 5% resemblance is not a real resemblance.
Reb if we accept that what you say is true,could you answer the points made in #286 that the ransom note made specific reference to personal data in the lives of the Ramseys,suggesting someone knew a great deal about them before going ahead with their plan.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799.htm

"The most damaging information against any one suspect was the handwriting analysis that concluded JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, may have written the ransom note found in the family's Boulder home."

It would have been foolish to bring the necessary items to commit this crime from your own home. Why would the killer want something that could be traced back to him at the crime scene?

The knife found next to her was used for the duct tape and the garrotte. The garrotte was clearly created by someone with issues of sexual deviancy. John and Patsy were not the type who would have known this was used as a sex toy.

For those who believe the parents did it, no one will ever convince them of anything. There are several issues however:

Jonbenet was sexually violated, hit over the head, and then strangled. The killer intended to sexually violate her. My question for all of you is why would Patsy do such a thing when she could have strangled her and done away with it? Or if this were an accidental injury to the head - why tie her up in a garrotte and then sexually violate her and then strangle her? Why do these things? It doesn't make sense.

The sexual violation that took place was done with a broken paint brush. Experts claim that whoever did this did it because of a curiousness of the female anatomy (as sick and disgusting as that is). Why would Patsy ever tie up her daughter and then do this? If she wanted to kill her child, all she had to do is strangle her to death.

The modus operandi suggests a young male (clearly sick) who was infatuated with Jonbenet and wanted to explore the female anatomy. A young male but old enough to strangle her and put her into a weird sadistic sexual contraption.

The ransom letter was peppered with movie references from 4 movies. Just because the Ramseys watched one of those movies does not make them suspects.

Yes, and in addition the failure of the police to initially treat the house as a crime scene also meant that a good number of police trampled over the crime scene before it was even "officially" processed as one .....

the totality of those details certainly suggest a sex offender as being the culprit, add to that the male DNA found on JonBenet`s underwear which did not belong to any male family member of hers leads firmly in the direction of an as yet unknown male being JonBenet`s killer ....... I am flummoxed at how Patty even became a suspect in such a crime , :talk: the lady didnt even know what a stun gun was ! :)

The garrotte was clearly created by someone with issues of sexual deviancy. John and Patsy were not the type who would have known this was used as a sex toy.


There is no possible way for you to know that. We don't know what goes on in people's minds or in their bedrooms. Just because they were rich and well-known does not mean they weren't kinky.

I think Reb has made a good case for the perpetrator to be an outsider. I'm surprised that more male residents of the area were not DNA tested.

I think Reb has made a good case for the perpetrator to be an outsider. I'm surprised that more male residents of the area were not DNA tested.
:talk:
Doing something like that may work in the UK for example but here the ACLU would be filing lawsuits all over the place faster than a very bad case of skin rash :lol:

I think Reb has made a good case for the perpetrator to be an outsider. I'm surprised that more male residents of the area were not DNA tested.

?! We still have a few rights left in this country. You can't just randomly test people's DNA without probable cause.

:talk:
Doing something like that may work in the UK for example but here the ACLU would be filing lawsuits all over the place faster than a very bad case of skin rash :lol:

Absolutely. The first mass DNA testing was done in the UK in 1987. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forenisc-cases-colin-pitchfork-first-exoneration-through-dna.html

Although long considered a questionable source, the National Enquirer scored many scoops in the O. J. and JonBenét cases. According to them, the DNA evidence may not be so good. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/12/jon-benet-ramsey-retired-cops-vow-hunt-down-killer/ If it was really that slight or deteriorated, it may be back to the Asian sneeze theory or even, God forbid, John Mark Karr! ohno:

I don't know much about the Asian sneeze theory, but there WAS a white man's DNA under her fingernails. She scratched the intruder trying to get away.

The DNA of the killer matched her fingernails, clothing, and blanket.

Sorry folks but it WAS an intruder.

Yes, the Asian sneeze theory applies only to the underwear and long johns, nowhere else. As I understand (what little there was of) it doesn't match the fingernail DNA.

I have to say that the ransom note is one of the weirdest things I have ever read in my life. It doesn't reek of a cover-up by parents who killed their daughter and were frantically trying to cover it up. It seems like something written by a very bizarre, freakish person capable of committing this atrocious crime.

RebZissel, I think you're correct that it was an intruder. There's nothing about John and Patsey to indicate that they had any of these sick tendencies, as you mentioned above. I think that it was a very sick guy who had probably seen Jon Benet and planned this crime in advance.

I have to say that the ransom note is one of the weirdest things I have ever read in my life. It doesn't reek of a cover-up by parents who killed their daughter and were frantically trying to cover it up. It seems like something written by a very bizarre, freakish person capable of committing this atrocious crime.
RebZissel, I think you're correct that it was an intruder. There's nothing about John and Patsey to indicate that they had any of these sick tendencies, as you mentioned above. I think that it was a very sick guy who had probably seen Jon Benet and planned this crime in advance.



The ransom note has to be the BIGGEST red herring in the case. It has many purposes but most have to do with searching the house.

If you believe Patsy wrote it or that the Ramsey's wrote it... here is why they did it:
- Because Patsy would have had to have a "story" to call 911 about and give a plausible reason for why she is reporting her child "missing" when she has not even searched the house!
- The ransom note is an entry point for her to "break the news" to the police and everybody else about the kidnapping and bypassing doing a top/bottom up/down search of the house, as is naturally instinctive if you find your child not in her bed.
- If Patsy had not wrote the note, she would not have a way to call police about anything without implicating herself. You can't call and say, my child is missing and then say you searched the house when the body is rotting cold on the basement floor. Because then when the cops found the body, she would have some serious answering to do and it prohibit her to be so melodramatic when the body was found - key to making sure that she comes in contact with the body while the police is there so that she can explain away why her and John's clothing fibers were found all over the body.
- Also, if you believe Patsy wrote the note, you have some evidence to back it up: check out Patsy's left hand copy comparisons... it is eerily similar.

If you believe an intruder wrote the ransom note, here is why they HAD to do it:
- Because it functions as a stopper and buys them a lot of time!
- It immediately throws off the investigation from the start and all of the attention is immediately focused on one big red herring during the most critical hours
- If a mother finds their child missing from her bed, she firsts searches the house to find her. Okay, where are you. The ransom note STOPS her from doing that. And here is why that is so important: The intruder doesn't know when the Ramsey's wake up and if he is still in that basement at the time, it gives him time to get out and get as far away from the scene as possible while everybody screams and yells about the note.
- Say one of the Ramsey's woke up in the middle of the night and he had JonBenet alive in the basement... the ransom note once again protects him because it keeps them from searching the house and finding him.
- It gives the intruder A LOT of control over the situation

Its a tragedy that we are approaching the 18th year anniversary of this case and there is still NO JUSTICE. Whoever did this, wherever they are, they will pay on the other side.

The ransom letter was written BEFORE the murder. This was a botched kidnapping.

A ransom letter is usually short and to the point. Whoever wrote this was not under pressure and had abundant time to write out the 3 pages.

Jonbenet fought with her killer and was struck over the head and the killer decided to sexually violate her and kill her.

Also the frame of reference "will call tomorrow." It's very clear it was written late into the night but the killer referencing the next morning.
But why would he kill his source of income?

The ransom letter was written BEFORE the murder. This was a botched kidnapping.

A ransom letter is usually short and to the point. Whoever wrote this was not under pressure and had abundant time to write out the 3 pages.

Jonbenet fought with her killer and was struck over the head and the killer decided to sexually violate her and kill her.

Also the frame of reference "will call tomorrow." It's very clear it was written late into the night but the killer referencing the next morning.

Theres no way this was a kidnapping gone wrong. I just don't think this was a kidnapping... the intruder wanted the investigation to think that so they could waste time (and thus, BUY the intruder a lot of time).

The kidnapping aspect is what made this investigation go wrong during those first 48 hours. That's why the house wasn't searched... because they thought the child was "kidnapped." That's what gave Patsy the excuse to call the police. That's why it was allowed for the Ramsey's to invite all their friends and their mothers over that morning. Everybody was looking at that phone waiting for a call. Meanwhile, the killer escaped or did whatever he needed to do to cover things up a bit better.

The ransom note was written because it gives the intruder a lot of control over the situation (see my previous post).

Pushing this thread up to the top on this day. We'll never know the answers.

First of all, as I have mentioned many, many times: the Ramsey home was open to all and they were local celebrities (Patsy the socialite, John the CEO whose company surpassed a billion dollars in sales, beautiful Jonbenet who won numerous pageants including Little Miss Christmas of Colorado).

The Ramsey home was open to EVERYONE. They threw a two-day Christmas party with 1500-2000 people walking through their home.

They had servants and workers in and outside of the house. That Autumn they had a construction crew work on expanding their home.

How could someone write a letter with personal details? How could someone know about a blanket in a dryer? How could someone know about John's Christmas bonus?

They were the talk of the town. Information spreads quickly about local celebs like they were.

They left to a Christmas party on December 25. The intruder had 5 hours to look through the home - if he hadn't already been there. It would have been easy to find anything of a personal nature.

I believe the killer was connected to the Ramseys but the connection was weak. The killer never mentioned Jonbenet by name. He also referred to John being a southerner.

Agree with this 100%.

The chief said the crime scene was mishandled in the beginning. From an ABC News article:

In the Reddit forum, Beckner said police should have separated JonBenet's parents and gotten full statements from Patsy and John Ramsey that day. The case was initially mishandled due to a "perfect storm type scenario," he wrote.

"It was the Christmas holiday and we were short staffed, we faced a situation as I said earlier that no one in the country had ever seen before or since, and there was confusion at the scene as people were arriving before we had enough personnel on the scene," he wrote online.

The chief said the crime scene was mishandled in the beginning. From an ABC News article:

Don't think this is news to anybody! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ex-police-chief-jonbenet-ramsey-crime-scene-was-mishandled/ar-BBhXJk6?ocid=mailsignout

Don't think this is news to anybody! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ex-police-chief-jonbenet-ramsey-crime-scene-was-mishandled/ar-BBhXJk6?ocid=mailsignout

:lol: I know, right?

I have read all the books and seen all the movies...and have always in my opinion felt that the brother because of jealousy did it and the parents were covering for him because they felt guilty.

Pondering the significance of the foreign DNA I've come up with several possibilities:

1. Garment packaging, manufacture, or distribution. Called the "Asian sneeze theory" although supposedly the DNA came from a white male.

2. JonBenét picked it up through accidental contact, such as getting skin cells under her fingernails and then transferring them to clothing.

3. Planted. When John went out he swiped materials from a rest room, came back and planted what he found.

4. Corruption in the PD. Especially in the case of the DNA which turned up in a more sophisticated test years later, perhaps "someone" paid for it to "show up" so the Ramseys could be cleared.

Pondering the significance of the foreign DNA I've come up with several possibilities:

1. Garment packaging, manufacture, or distribution. Called the "Asian sneeze theory" although supposedly the DNA came from a white male.

2. JonBenét picked it up through accidental contact, such as getting skin cells under her fingernails and then transferring them to clothing.

3. Planted. When John went out he swiped materials from a rest room, came back and planted what he found.

4. Corruption in the PD. Especially in the case of the DNA which turned up in a more sophisticated test years later, perhaps "someone" paid for it to "show up" so the Ramseys could be cleared.

5 an intruder directly handles these articles

Here is a cached version of the Reddit AMA, if you want to read Beckner's actual replies. Pretty interesting.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

I have read all the books and seen all the movies...and have always in my opinion felt that the brother because of jealousy did it and the parents were covering for him because they felt guilty.

What evidence do you base this on?

What evidence do you base this on?I've seen this theory trotted out a lot of the years. It doesn't really make a lick of sense. There's no evidence to support it.

You might as well just say Rob did it.

You might as well just say Rob did it.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/006/512/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

It did make me laugh, though, Spark of Spirit. I think THAT was the point. :)

I've seen this theory trotted out a lot of the years. It doesn't really make a lick of sense. There's no evidence to support it.

You might as well just say Rob did it.

This. It doesn't make any sense. I'm convinced the family had nothing to do with her death. I think it was someone who worked with the father. It was someone who knew how much John's bonus check was (ransom demand). There is a small chance that the person who asked for ransom had nothing to do with the death, just found an opportunity to try and make money.

It did make me laugh, though, Spark of Spirit. I think THAT was the point. :)Glad to amuse! :)

Poor Rob, though, right? I really feel sorry for the guy.

One of the investigators of the case, James Kolar believes Burke did it and the parents covered it up. His overall theory of how and why is pretty interesting.

Until authorities or whoever find someone who matches the mystery DNA and can be PROVEN to have been on scene--or if someone with matching DNA makes a deathbed confession--I will not be convinced of the family's absolute innocence! (Absolute meaning they neither killed her themselves, nor covered up for whoever did.) Have they even released this person's race and gender? How do we know it was not some elderly woman in an Asian sweat shop? The people I feel sorry for are those such as the Santa-playing neighbor who were simply framed and lived the rest of their lives under suspicion!

The intruder theory has me beyond skeptical, by which I mean: how likely is it for an intruder to break into the Ramseys' house, spend hours becoming familiar with the layout and collecting items to use in a kidnapping, (nothing was brought in from outside), either spend a lot of time on scene composing a lengthy note, or steal the paper and pen from the house, write the note elsewhere and return, be able to write in a fair enough approximation of Patsy's handwriting that she could not be ruled out as the writer, not only that but use exact phrases she is known to have used in other writing examples? A stalker would have to have extraordinary knowledge of the family, either spend hours going through everything in the house when they were elsewhere (I don't rule out breaking in on multiple occasions to have time for all this--as on the day of the crime they were gone for only a few hours--) to learn details such as the amount of John's Christmas bonus, family expressions, and what videos the family had viewed recently. Then this individual removed a child from bed or lured her downstairs, so silently no one heard, struggled with, killed, and tied up the child, leaving three little traces of DNA so tiny it took a dozen years to FIND them--where with that much going on they should be all over! How much more likely is it that the DNA somehow got there some other way (cross contamination accidentally picked up by the person staging the scene, from an item of clothing or whatever) or was put there deliberately (say by John, who is known to have left the house before finding the body), going to some restroom, picking up what he could--obviously not enough--and smearing it in various places where it was found years later? All this "the family is innocent" stuff makes the space alien/poltergeist/Bigfoot theories look not so far-fetched after all! This whole thing of clearing the family is just a cop out on the part of officials who failed to prove a case against them, coupled with worship of a new technology, DNA, as outweighing all other evidence.

If an intruder managed to fake all this (the ransom note and all other physical indications that it was an inside job) it was the most devious frameup in crime history!