The most popular theory is that there was no intruder who murdered Jonbenet, it was the parents. There may be different ideas as to which parent, acting alone, and whether the brother Burke was involved. With the announcement of DNA evidence the DA's office has stated the weight of evidence is in the intruder theory and not the Ramsey's. As Obi Wan of Star Wars once said, "these are not the droids you are looking for. Move along."

If it was an intruder then who was that intruder? Why hasn't he struck again?

Why would an intruder write a 3 page ransom note with a ransom demand, but not remove the body to collect a ransom money? Why Christmas?

For an intruder to do this, he would have to be comfortable entering an occupied home on Christmas.

There's a theory that identifies a suspect who has committed similar crimes before

here's a link

http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

If it was an intruder then who was that intruder?

That's what the police are trying to figure out.

Why hasn't he struck again?

As I was saying recently in the other thread on this case (that's currently on page 1 of this forum), since we don't know who it is, you can't say he hasn't struck again. You also can't say he hadn't done this before JonBenet. There was a similar situation months later.

Why would an intruder write a 3 page ransom note with a ransom demand, but not remove the body to collect a ransom money?

There was evidence he stuffed her in a suitcase and tried to get out the window, but it was too heavy for him to carry. He had to alter his plans.

Why Christmas?

You'd have to ask him.

For an intruder to do this, he would have to be comfortable entering an occupied home on Christmas.

You're misinformed. The Ramsey house was unoccupied for a large chunk of time on Christmas Day while they went to another Christmas party.

May I suggest you greater familiarize yourself with the evidence. This site is a tremendous resource of known facts of the case

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682472/Family%20Friends

yeah this link identifies a suspect

http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

Mr. Cruel?

The ransom letter had a plethora of Americanisms, American idioms, and American English spelling.

Even though the writer attempted to sound foreign, it was clearly written by an American.

Mr. Cruel is from Australia, not the US. I doubt there is a connection.

can you provide evidence?

You know that Australians speak English and watch Hollywood movies?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-fat-cats-are-advising-us-on-the-richpoor-gap-20140430-zr1qz.html

How fat cats are advising us on the rich-poor gap

Date
April 30, 2014

Comments 178

Mark Triffitt

Ludicrously well-paid CEOs should not be telling us how to slash public spending.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-fat-cats-are-advising-us-on-the-richpoor-gap-20140430-zr1qz.html#ixzz3K0yU4ePT


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Cat_and_Friends\

Fat Cat and Friends was an Australian children's television show starring Fat Cat (full name: Frederick Alphonso Tubsy Cat[2]), an orange/ginger anthropomorphic cat who wears red braces, a blue bow tie and a green bowler hat and striped socks. The show was similar in concept to Here's Humphrey featuring Humphrey B. Bear. One of the main hosts was Lynn Weston, who would later host "The Book Place".
Production

It was produced in the studios of Network 10 Adelaide and it survived the 1987 frequency switch of channels 10 & 7 in Adelaide.

Fat Cat and Friends was written, directed and produced by Murray George for 13 years. It was then produced by Channel 10.

Definitely the letter sounds like it was written by an American. However that is definitely NOT a fact, either.

Fat Cat is Aussie for Rich guy

I agree with RebZissel regarding the author using American terminology, spelling, phrases, etc.

I think the writer was an American. If not, then they were educated in and/or spent a lot of time in the US.

If the writer was educated in "British English" instead of "American English", they definitely wouldn't have said "that good southern common sense", and they wouldn't have told John to put the money in a paper "bag". They would have likely said paper "sack". Most countries where English is taught as a first or second language teach the British style.

Just the fact that the writer has to describe themselves as a "small foreign faction" tells me that they're locals. No foreigner describes themselves that way. That's more how someone in a specific area would describe someone from outside that specific area: foreign car, foreign origin, foreign language, foreign food, foreign currency, foreign regime, foreigner, etc.

I agree with RebZissel regarding the author using American terminology, spelling, phrases, etc.

I think the writer was an American. If not, then they were educated in and/or spent a lot of time in the US.

If the writer was educated in "British English" instead of "American English", they definitely wouldn't have said "that good southern common sense", and they wouldn't have told John to put the money in a paper "bag". They would have likely said paper "sack". Most countries where English is taught as a first or second language teach the British style.

Just the fact that the writer has to describe themselves as a "small foreign faction" tells me that they're locals. No foreigner describes themselves that way. That's more how someone in a specific area would describe someone from outside that specific area: foreign car, foreign origin, foreign language, foreign food, foreign currency, foreign regime, foreigner, etc.
I think that IF it was "a small foreign faction" who was into kidnapping, they would go after many wealthier families than the Ramseys.
This killer went after JBR BECAUSE she was Jonbenet Ramsey, not because he wanted money, and I cannot be 100% sure if his motivation was primarily because of pedophilia or sadism (while those two factors are still obviously secondary motivations to him OR HER).
We just don't know if there were ANCILLARY issues led him to target her. Hate against John Ramsey, against Patsy, against wealthy people, or hate due to his internal ideations of child beauty pageant contestants, against the mother or the daughter for winning the contests.

As far as the killer's nationality goes, the term "Fat Cat" would lend to him being slightly more Australian than American, but mostly he sounds American.
Australian man Paul Peters (the man who flew to Australia to place a collar bomb onto a teenage girl) would have mostly written letters in American English after so many years living here as a highly paid representative of his New York City employers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2adP2irYQ

a small foreign faction could mean he's from australia

a small foreign faction could mean he's from australia
The Mosman Collar Bomb Extortionist indirectly cited a "small foreign faction" when he claimed to be from the "American Special Forces Green Berets" in his ransom note to Madeleine Pulvers father. (Green Berets are a "small foreign faction" to the Australians)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n60e2ltI0W8

It's been said that the DNA evidence this case is by no means a slam dunk.

My theory: Burke did it and one or both of the parents covered it up.

It's been said that the DNA evidence this case is by no means a slam dunk.

My theory: Burke did it and one or both of the parents covered it up.

by a DNA expert or someone with an axe to grind:confused:

The Mosman Collar Bomb Extortionist indirectly cited a "small foreign faction" when he claimed to be from the "American Special Forces Green Berets" in his ransom note to Madeleine Pulvers father. (Green Berets are a "small foreign faction" to the Australians)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n60e2ltI0W8

why would he go after jonbenet?:confused: :confused:

mr cruel likes little girls:eek: :eek:

It's been said that the DNA evidence this case is by no means a slam dunk.

My theory: Burke did it and one or both of the parents covered it up.
Your theory is possible, in a general sense. I have seen first hand that kids can explode into a rage and not know what they are doing.

But if that were the case here, then Jonbenet would have still been alive (though unconscious) with only a bad bump of the head when the parents found her, (and police say she was still alive after the blow to the head, before she was strangled).

I cannot imagine either of the parents going to that extreme, to finish her off to cover for the boy if she were still alive after the blow to the head, and there is no evidence to suggest that the parents were that crazy.

Also, the ransom note is just a little too detailed for me to accept that it was invented on the spur of the moment by the panicking mother after an unplanned household catastrophe.
Check out this partial overview of the ransom note details here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJuLg-E7U_w
There are too many unnecessary and dramatic flourishes and details in the note for it to be spontaniously from the mother, unless she had been working on it for weeks. Or unless she had the most vivid and active imagination you ever saw.

I would like to see on one of the crime shows a serious criminal profiler, like Dale Hinman do a profile on the perpetrator.
Not the entitled and narcissistic profilers who look at handwriting like they are looking at tea leaves, and who say "The perpetrator was a wealthy and educated woman in her early forties".

I read the Ramse ys had an open house days before the murder and nearly 200 people/neighbors/strangers passed through their home to admire the decorations for the holiday season. Jon Benet and Burke actually greeted all the guests at the front door.

I always felt an intruder could have spotted JonBennet, then studied the layout of the house during the tour, took the Ramsey's pad of paper home with them, then returned it at the time of the crime with the bizarre ransom note already written in order to frame the parents.

Too bad the police butchered the investigation. It is impossible to tell fact from fiction at this point! I don't think we'll ever know the truth :/

I read the Ramse ys had an open house days before the murder and nearly 200 people/neighbors/strangers passed through their home to admire the decorations for the holiday season. Jon Benet and Burke actually greeted all the guests at the front door.

I always felt an intruder could have spotted JonBennet, then studied the layout of the house during the tour, took the Ramsey's pad of paper home with them, then returned it at the time of the crime with the bizarre ransom note already written in order to frame the parents.

Too bad the police butchered the investigation. It is impossible to tell fact from fiction at this point! I don't think we'll ever know the truth :/

yeah i think he took the pad ahead of time then returned with pad and rn:eek:

Lol, I don't think that's what actually happened. Just a possibility as there are so many in this case... especially if the plan was to punish John like some believe. 18 years later none of even the best theories make sense as a whole. Though the parents involvement seems most logical, there is still so much unaccounted for.

Lol, I don't think that's what actually happened. Just a possibility as there are so many in this case... especially if the plan was to punish John like some believe. 18 years later none of even the best theories make sense as a whole. Though the parents involvement seems most logical, there is still so much unaccounted for.

have u had a chance to lok at this theory



http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

:eek: :eek: :eek: :crazy:

Whoops, I'm sorry, I overlooked the link in your original post! I'm a new poster and have some cognitive issues due to illness. I actually thought you were just making fun of my original response. Anyway, there is lots to read, but so far fascinating! Thanks for sharing the link, I will continue reading the rest :)

Whoops, I'm sorry, I overlooked the link in your original post! I'm a new poster and have some cognitive issues due to illness. I actually thought you were just making fun of my original response. Anyway, there is lots to read, but so far fascinating! Thanks for sharing the link, I will continue reading the rest :)
:wave: :talk: :happyface :lol: :crazy: :eek:

if ur a new poster u probably didnt see an earlier thread i had on jonbenet

i got warnings :eek:

I finally finished reading the Mr. Cruel theory :) Because there's reward money involved, it's possible this man may be stretching a bit to make his theory fit. BUT, if the information regarding the Mr. Cruel cases have been independently verified it could certainly explain much of the unexplained in JB's case!

The pineapple issue has always baffled me. The Ramseys were so adamant that JB never had pineapple that day or evening. If they were simply trying to distance themselves from the time of the crime, they could have easily just said "Yeah, JB had a habit of fixing herself snacks in the middle of the night." Yet the parents remained insistent that this wasn't possible. I don't necessarily trust the parents, but I do believe they were honest about the pineapple.

And if Mr Cruel could tie up a family of four and then take a break to fix himself a meal, he could have certainly fixed the pineapple!

Creepy they never caught this Mr. Cruel and then the attacks suddenly stopped in AU. Whether he killed JB or not, I imagine he did move away to a new area...

I finally finished reading the Mr. Cruel theory :) Because there's reward money involved, it's possible this man may be stretching a bit to make his theory fit. BUT, if the information regarding the Mr. Cruel cases have been independently verified it could certainly explain much of the unexplained in JB's case!

The pineapple issue has always baffled me. The Ramseys were so adamant that JB never had pineapple that day or evening. If they were simply trying to distance themselves from the time of the crime, they could have easily just said "Yeah, JB had a habit of fixing herself snacks in the middle of the night." Yet the parents remained insistent that this wasn't possible. I don't necessarily trust the parents, but I do believe they were honest about the pineapple.

And if Mr Cruel could tie up a family of four and then take a break to fix himself a meal, he could have certainly fixed the pineapple!

Creepy they never caught this Mr. Cruel and then the attacks suddenly stopped in AU. Whether he killed JB or not, I imagine he did move away to a new area...

i just finished watching holly holme beat the crap out of ronda rousey in melbourne australia
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The pineapple issue has always baffled me. The Ramseys were so adamant that JB never had pineapple that day or evening. If they were simply trying to distance themselves from the time of the crime, they could have easily just said "Yeah, JB had a habit of fixing herself snacks in the middle of the night."

I don't have a strong opinion on the JB case--it's not one I know a lot about--but I share your bafflement. How many six-year-olds are able of operating a can-opener by themselves, though?

I don't have a strong opinion on the JB case--it's not one I know a lot about--but I share your bafflement. How many six-year-olds are able of operating a can-opener by themselves, though?

have u had a chance to see this spd?


http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

I don't have a strong opinion on the JB case--it's not one I know a lot about--but I share your bafflement. How many six-year-olds are able of operating a can-opener by themselves, though?

Ikr?! But I remember one commenter said they've seen their 3 year old niece use a can opener and others shared similar sentiments... Maybe you and I were just stupid kids? :crazy: :lol:

That depends on both the kid and the can opener.