Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey Case Continues to Raise Suspicions 20 Years Later
by EUN KYUNG KIM, Today Show
May 6, 2016


JonBenet Ramsey became a household name when the strangled body of the 6-year-old beauty queen was found inside her Colorado home the day after Christmas nearly 20 years ago.

Her 1996 case was never solved and today, it remains a topic of conversation for conspirators, who think the police should take a second look at the facts.

"This is the most heinous crime that has occurred in the Boulder area for the 30 plus years that I've lived around here," Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan told TODAY for its "Where Are They Now?" series.







Police initially investigated JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, along with the girl's 9-year-old brother but DNA testing exonerated each of them years later.

Brennan, who continues to cover the case for his paper, sued the Boulder district attorney's office in 2013 for records showing that a grand jury had voted to indict JonBenet's parents on a charge of felony child abuse resulting in death.



Ollie Gray, a private investigator initially hired by the Ramseys, says he continues to work the case to this day without pay.

"You have to look for something in order to find something, and unfortunately for this particular case, you had a totally inexperienced police agency," he told TODAY. "There are probably three or four people that should have been investigated earlier and still need to be investigated."







Police hit a dead end in 2006 when accused sex offender John Mark Kerr gave a false confession, saying he raped and drugged JonBenet before accidentally killed her.

Another person related to the case was Michael Helgoth, said Gray, who believes tape-recorded a confession that now remains in the care of his close friends and family. But Helgoth committed suicide months after JonBenet's death.

"I don't think Mike did all this by himself. I think there was more than one or two people involved," he said.



Brennan called Gray's theory "very controversial."

"When the indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey were revealed, it was shown that they had both been indicted as accessories to first degree murder," he said. "However, neither of them had been indicted so the question becomes who? And the only other person in the house that night that we know of was Burke Ramsey."

JonBenet's brother is now 29 and reported to be working in the technology field.







The Boulder Police Department declined to be interviewed but issued a statement to NBC News saying that two detectives are assigned to the case and that they "receive information on a regular basis that is evaluated."

The city's district attorney also declined to be interviewed.



Patsy Ramsey passed away in 2006.

Last year, John Ramsey spoke to Barbara Walters for her Discovery Channel special, "American Scandals," saying, "At this point, it's never totally in the past, you never get over the loss of a child, you move on," he said.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/06/unsolved-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-continues-to-raise-suspicions-2/21371600/

I see that this has been in the news a lot lately, but I'm not sure there's anything particularly newsy that's surfaced. Helgoth seems to be the main suspect for years now, but considering he's long dead, I doubt we'll ever get much in the way of answers. Unfortunately, this case may never be satisfactorily solved. I find the timing of his suicide highly suspicious. I'm pretty sure he also owned Hi-Tek boots like the prints that were found.

How were the family exonerated by DNA? Does anybody really believe they weren't in this up to their necks?

How were the family exonerated by DNA? Does anybody really believe they weren't in this up to their necks?

DNA found on JonBenet's underwear does not match the Ramseys, but rather an unknown male.

To answer your second question, absolutely, I've written extensively on this forum why I believe they are innocent. A search should generate some threads.

I see that this has been in the news a lot lately, but I'm not sure there's anything particularly newsy that's surfaced. Helgoth seems to be the main suspect for years now, but considering he's long dead, I doubt we'll ever get much in the way of answers. Unfortunately, this case may never be satisfactorily solved. I find the timing of his suicide highly suspicious. I'm pretty sure he also owned Hi-Tek boots like the prints that were found.

Is there any way that someone could have killed Helgoth and framed him including by planting a pair of those boots? Was it ever even proven that he owned or wore the boots or did they just show up after he was in no condition to deny anything?

DNA found on JonBenet's underwear does not match the Ramseys, but rather an unknown male.

To answer your second question, absolutely, I've written extensively on this forum why I believe they are innocent. A search should generate some threads.

Well yes it indicates somebody unknown was involved in her death, however it doesn't clear them.

To believe them being 100% innocent you have to buy that a crazed sex offender was able to be in their home undiscovered for a long amount of time writing a rambling 2 & a half page ransom note (that the FBI have never encountered) on their stationery despite already having killed her 7 which eventually demands the exact amount of his work bonus, writes like the mother-who later changed aspects of her writing, their contamination of the crime scene, that the father used to lock himself out, break in & then despite their wealth just leave windows broken, the father tampering with evidence by ripping the tape off & moving her upstairs, that they used items in the house rather than coming prepared, that any father would thinking their child had been kidnapped be trying to arrange to fly out to a business meeting that may or may not have existed & have to be talked out of it, cannot remember feeding her pineapple a couple of hours before her death & cannot explain the sons DNA being on the bowl, to refuse to help the cops & instead lawyer up etc.

Is there any way that someone could have killed Helgoth and framed him including by planting a pair of those boots? Was it ever even proven that he owned or wore the boots or did they just show up after he was in no condition to deny anything?

I thought also that his DNA didn't match that found at the crime scene either?

I thought also that his DNA didn't match that found at the crime scene either?

Correct. The DNA didn't match any of the suspects, the police, or, if every one of the hundreds who had trooped through the house recently were all tested, it didn't match any of them. It is unknown male DNA. It's either never been answered, or I've forgotten, whether the person's racial group was identified. Was the DNA that of someone who would have been working in a sweatshop in Asia or other poor countries where clothing was manufactured? (Dubbed the "Asian sneeze theory.") Also, someone's proposal that John Ramsey took JonBenét's underwear out to a restroom during the time he left the house, swiped them around, and then put them back on her is also possible. The Ramseys not being involved, simply not possible, the most devious fiend in the world couldn't fake Patsy's having written that note--to cover either for herself, John, or Burke!

Correct. The DNA didn't match any of the suspects, the police, or, if every one of the hundreds who had trooped through the house recently were all tested, it didn't match any of them. It is unknown male DNA. It's either never been answered, or I've forgotten, whether the person's racial group was identified. Was the DNA that of someone who would have been working in a sweatshop in Asia or other poor countries where clothing was manufactured? (Dubbed the "Asian sneeze theory.") Also, someone's proposal that John Ramsey took JonBenét's underwear out to a restroom during the time he left the house, swiped them around, and then put them back on her is also possible. The Ramseys not being involved, simply not possible, the most devious fiend in the world couldn't fake Patsy's having written that note--to cover either for herself, John, or Burke!

I had never even thought of that-the people making the clothing, those packaging it, those opening it & those handling it in a shop-both staff & customers could all potentially leave their DNA on it.

Well yes it indicates somebody unknown was involved in her death, however it doesn't clear them.

So you believe it's possible somebody in the household was working in collusion with some unknown person for unknown reasons?

The Boulder Police department, which focused their investigation on the Ramseys (at the expense of ignoring lots of other leads) cleared them after 12 years after not being able to find jack to tie the crimes to the Ramseys. That should be enough for most people to believe they are innocent. I understand some people still cling to the notion they are guilty. It makes me sad.

To believe them being 100% innocent you have to buy that a crazed sex offender was able to be in their home undiscovered for a long amount of time

There was a very high volume of sex offenders within a short radius to their house. There were also lots of transients, including one literally across the street. This was a big city, so there's going to be more than enough crime. A big, luxurious house (with lots of new Christmas presents) is an attractive target for a burglar, especially considering the Ramseys were gone for at least 4 hours or so that night. Nobody was home, so his presence goes undiscovered.

writing a rambling 2 & a half page ransom note (that the FBI have never encountered) on their stationery despite already having killed her

There is no proof the letter was written after her death. More to the point, the letter suggests she's still alive, so I would surmise it was written before her death.

which eventually demands the exact amount of his work bonus,

He was a key employee in a company which had just reached the billion dollar mark in sales. I believe his bonus was mentioned in a newsletter. Or maybe the killer found something alleging to this in the house. It's relatively common for the bonuses of CEO's of highly successful organizations to be publicly revealed.

the father tampering with evidence by ripping the tape off & moving her upstairs ,

You're faulting him for that? My God, what if she was still alive?

that they used items in the house rather than coming prepared,

For that matter, why would Patsy write a note instead of typing one?

cannot remember feeding her pineapple a couple of hours before her death & cannot explain the sons DNA being on the bowl,

They were at a party with lots of other guests. He probably didn't see what she ate. I'm not sure why you would find it suspicious Burke's DNA being on on the bowl. He lived in the house.

to refuse to help the cops & instead lawyer up etc.

The Ramseys subjected themselves to many hours of police interrogation and provided every sample that was asked of them (from handwriting to hair, etc). They allowed their home to be searched and lots of items were taken from the house (some of them weren't returned including keepsakes and ornaments given by JonBenet to John that he cherished.) They also allowed Burke to be interviewed.

[QUOTE=wiseguy182]So you believe it's possible somebody in the household was working in collusion with some unknown person for unknown reasons?

Yep, this is a couple who dressed their young daughter up to look like a streetwalker to try to win competitions aimed at women trying to live vicariously through their children & pedophiles. Is it really beyond belief that knowingly or unknowingly somebody they knew had a sexual interest in the child? Then there is this

"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 253

The Boulder Police department, which focused their investigation on the Ramseys (at the expense of ignoring lots of other leads) cleared them after 12 years after not being able to find jack to tie the crimes to the Ramseys. That should be enough for most people to believe they are innocent. I understand some people still cling to the notion they are guilty. It makes me sad.

Strange? I thought they had investigated the very few other leads they had to go on. In fact they were hampered by being told to lay off the family-one presumes because of their wealth/social standing.

There was a very high volume of sex offenders within a short radius to their house. There were also lots of transients, including one literally across the street. This was a big city, so there's going to be more than enough crime. A big, luxurious house (with lots of new Christmas presents) is an attractive target for a burglar, especially considering the Ramseys were gone for at least 4 hours or so that night. Nobody was home, so his presence goes undiscovered.

Sure, that describes pretty much every neighborhood, I live in an area with a high volume of child sex offenders. Problem is this wasn't a burglary was it? Nothing was taken as far as I am aware-so your theory is a burglar sneaks in, doesn't misplace or steal anything, carries on hiding when they come home, then sexually assaults & murders their six year old with items from the house & then writes an insanely long ransom note which incredibly demands the fathers exact work bonus?


There is no proof the letter was written after her death. More to the point, the letter suggests she's still alive, so I would surmise it was written before her death.

Erm why would somebody go to the lengths of sitting there composing two & a half pages of frankly nonsensical drivel about the husbands job, where those companies do business etc, finally demand the father bonus as payment & then set about molesting & murdering the child?

He was a key employee in a company which had just reached the billion dollar mark in sales. I believe his bonus was mentioned in a newsletter. Or maybe the killer found something alleging to this in the house. It's relatively common for the bonuses of CEO's of highly successful organizations to be publicly revealed.

Yep, you have a guy making a lot of money & you demandhis 118 grand bonus for his child's safe return? Sure. Where were the ransom calls anyway?

You're faulting him for that? My God, what if she was still alive?

Well no, actually I fault the police for letting him & others wander around the house in the first place. But yeah generally you would let the cop go over to check & even if you buy into him ripping the tape off, then taking her upstairs to dump the corpse in front of the mother?

For that matter, why would Patsy write a note instead of typing one?

Maybe they didn't have a typewriter, why would a mother dress her young child up like she did? Does anything about this family make any sense? Why afterwards did she change the way she wrote things? Why did the note use a rare phrase that turned up in their Xmas cards the following year?

They were at a party with lots of other guests. He probably didn't see what she ate. I'm not sure why you would find it suspicious Burke's DNA being on on the bowl. He lived in the house.

Stomach contents showed it was ingested after the party, not at it. Patsy said they were all asleep & didn't feed her pineapple.

Traces of recently digested pineapple were found in JonBenet's intestine and a bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table the morning after the crime. The bowl revealed fingerprints of both Patsy and Burke. Both John and Patsy denied any knowledge of JonBenet eating pineapple on Christmas day or evening (Burke was apparently never asked). To many this means the Ramseys were lying, because their testimony is contradicted by the evidence. It also suggests that Patsy and Burke may have been with JonBenet when she ate the pineapple, and that Patsy is unwilling to admit that.

The Ramseys subjected themselves to many hours of police interrogation and provided every sample that was asked of them (from handwriting to hair, etc). They allowed their home to be searched and lots of items were taken from the house (some of them weren't returned including keepsakes and ornaments given by JonBenet to John that he cherished.) They also allowed Burke to be interviewed.

They cooperated to some degree initially, but then stopped & stonewalled. The cops were thwarted not only from their poor handling of the crime scene initially, but also the DA's office who told them to lay off the family.

Strange? I thought they had investigated the very few other leads they had to go on. In fact they were hampered by being told to lay off the family-one presumes because of their wealth/social standing.

I would implore you to visit the Candy Rose website, where you can read about the high volume of other suspects, including many that had made threats against John.

Sure, that describes pretty much every neighborhood, I live in an area with a high volume of child sex offenders.

I'm sorry to hear that. It doesn't describe my neighborhood.

Problem is this wasn't a burglary was it? Nothing was taken as far as I am aware-so your theory is a burglar sneaks in, doesn't misplace or steal anything, carries on hiding when they come home, then sexually assaults & murders their six year old with items from the house & then writes an insanely long ransom note which incredibly demands the fathers exact work bonus?


I have no idea what their original intentions were. Did they plan to kidnap JonBenet like the letter suggests? Did they plan to steal or extort money from John?

Thousands of people went into that house as they put it on a house tour of historic homes a few years previous. THOUSANDS. And that's not even counting the number of friends, relatives, acquaintances, workers and everyone else that was in there.

If you go to the Candy Rose website, look up Jeff Merrick. He was laid off by Access Graphics. He said they owed him...$118,000.

Erm why would somebody go to the lengths of sitting there composing two & a half pages of frankly nonsensical drivel about the husbands job, where those companies do business etc, finally demand the father bonus as payment & then set about molesting & murdering the child?

I agree, it doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone thinks that letter makes sense.

Maybe they didn't have a typewriter

They owned an Apple computer. The computer was worked on a few months before JonBenet's murder by a guy who was fired from Access Graphics (the company John worked for) for assaulting a female employee.

Does anything about this family make any sense?

Well, yes.

[B]Stomach contents showed it was ingested after the party, not at it. Patsy said they were all asleep & didn't feed her pineapple.

Traces of recently digested pineapple were found in JonBenet's intestine and a bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table the morning after the crime. The bowl revealed fingerprints of both Patsy and Burke. Both John and Patsy denied any knowledge of JonBenet eating pineapple on Christmas day or evening (Burke was apparently never asked). To many this means the Ramseys were lying, because their testimony is contradicted by the evidence. It also suggests that Patsy and Burke may have been with JonBenet when she ate the pineapple, and that Patsy is unwilling to admit that.

That doesn't add up to a hill of beans in my book. There is no way to tell for certain what time it was digested. Even if the Ramseys were lying about this, it doesn't mean their murderers.

They cooperated to some degree initially, but then stopped & stonewalled. The cops were thwarted not only from their poor handling of the crime scene initially, but also the DA's office who told them to lay off the family.

This is simply false. They both took and passed polygraphs. They submitted every single sample that was asked of them of every kind (Patsy submitted numerous writing samples). They endured many hours of interrogation. Their house was searched. The police even went so far as to search their summer home in Charlevoix, Michigan. Not a damn thing was found to connect them. Nothing.

Just a couple of points on that-it would be foolhardy to type a ransom note on a PC due to the time stamp it would leave, also how would the intruder know the password or passwords the family set to gain access? Also the amount of noise getting to the computer wherever it would have been, booting it up & then sitting there typing a long letter makes it inconceivable that he wouldn't have been heard.

Yeah well Gary Ridgway the worst US serial killer ever passed a lie detector test & then went on to kill more victims, they are worthless junk science. Yep she submitted samples but changed the way/style she wrote.

Yeah well Gary Ridgway the worst US serial killer ever passed a lie detector test & then went on to kill more victims, they are worthless junk science.

Which is pretty much what Patsy said when asked about it, calling them "voodoo science". But she nonetheless said she would take 10 of them. And she did take and pass at leat one. The point being, it dispels the notion that was put forth by some that they were being "uncooperative".