It's been over 20 years since the horrific murder of JonBenet Ramsey. While this was not one of UM's bigger segments, it is still unsolved and many people think it always will be.

Over the years, public opinion regarding this case has gone through some distinct periods:

1. Right after the murder, the media and the public both seemed to believe strongly that the parents did it
2. After Patsy died, and after Lou Smit's publicizing of his opinion (that it was an intruder), opinion seemed to be 50/50 regarding the Ramsey's innocence/guilt
3. For a few days in 2006 everyone thought John Mark Karr did it (oops, try again)
4. After the 2016 CBS special, the "Burke did it" theory got really popular

Has your view on this case changed over the years?

If you think the Ramseys are innocent, who do you think is responsible?

If you think the Ramseys are guilty, do you think it was an accidental death or intentional? If accidental, why would they choose to cover it up in such an outrageous/risky manner?

This case is obviously so bizarre.

What are the chances someone would break in and hide in the house and wait for them to come back so they could take/kill her?

What are the chances the parents actually killed their child?

Both seem rather improbable.

I tend to think the family isn't responsible ... just because...

But there are two things that always bug me. If it isn't the parents or Burke, then it's someone else...BUT. If it's someone else, two things have to happen:

1. They have to go up and get JB and then bring her down and feed her the pineapple in the kitchen.
2. Then...instead of just taking her out the back door...they take her downstairs.

A kidnapper stopping to feed her pineapple is obviously absurd.

BUT if there is a kidnapper, intent on you know, actually kidnapping her, they should take the easy route straight out the back door.

TAKING HER DOWNSTAIRS MAKES NO SENSE.

Why would you take time to take her downstairs and then try to leave through a basement window? The back door comes out right above that window. It just not logical. I can't get past that.

I fall into the “Burke killed her accidentally and the family panicked to cover” camp.

Alternatively, I fall into the “Boulder PD effed this one up so badly we’ll never know” camp.

I don't know who did it, but I am still convinced that someone inside the house killed her and that the indictment in 1999 was the best evidence as to who the police think was responsible.

I fall into the “Burke killed her accidentally and the family panicked to cover” camp.

Alternatively, I fall into the “Boulder PD effed this one up so badly we’ll never know” camp.

That's exactly how I feel. And even though I'm confident that the intent was not to kill but simply another one of his tantrums that ended up going tragically wrong (the previous year's incident when he swung a golf club at her face could have ended just as badly), Burke still comes off creepy to me in taped interviews both as a child and as an adult.

I believe it was an accident within the family and it will never be solved. BPD botched it.

https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/crimefeed/id-shows/lt-joe-kenda-answers-the-question-everyone-is-asking-about-the-jonbenet-case

It's been over 20 years since the horrific murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

Has your view on this case changed over the years?

Yes, albeit slightly. When this first happened, I watched the coverage as many others did. As the months went on, I was convinced the parents were hiding something and that they did it. Since that time, my view has softened a little bit into the "I'm not sure what the hell went on" camp.

I fall into the “Burke killed her accidentally and the family panicked to cover” camp.

Alternatively, I fall into the “Boulder PD effed this one up so badly we’ll never know” camp.

CRicci, I couldn't agree more. After all is said and done, the family is hiding something. Their lack of cooperation with the police is beyond extreme. (Yes, I know some people said the Boulder PD was out to get them, but their lack of helping any authorities other than the ones they hired is well documented.)

I've read a lot about this case and it is just tragic. My heart breaks for that little girl dying on Christmas night. You could make a decent case either way, but there are lots of unexplainable things that all point to the family. Combine that with no definitive proof that an intruder was even in the house (no, the DNA doesn't count) and the fact that whoever did this spent an extraordinary amount of time in the house, and I lean heavily that the family was involved in this.

And you really hit the nail on the head with how badly this investigation was botched. The crime scene was never sealed and thus a whole lot of physical evidence was lost and/or compromised. I honestly think if the scene had been secured properly, we'd know how this went down by now.

At this point, barring a confession, I highly doubt we will ever know who did this.

The crime scene and witnesses weren't secured as well as they could have been, but I also believe that the Ramsey's affluence and reputation also hindered the investigation. It's difficult to comprehend why the parents of a child murdered in the home didn't come in for a formal interview with investigators until four months after the homicide.

The crime scene and witnesses weren't secured as well as they could have been, but I also believe that the Ramsey's affluence and reputation also hindered the investigation. It's difficult to comprehend why the parents of a child murdered in the home didn't come in for a formal interview with investigators until four months after the homicide.

This bugged me when it happened, but now that I have kids, I think it's bewildering. I know the Ramseys were rich and they were warned that BPD was out to get them for this. So you can understand why they lawyered up and were a little reluctant at first.

However, as a parent, I can't imagine not helping the police find the killer. I would be crushed if I lost a child, especially in this manner, and I would be hounding them to find the killer. The Ramseys wouldn't talk to the cops unless it met their specific requirements. When Patsy talked to them, she could remember very vivid details about that night and morning, but when it came to her specific actions that morning she became very vague and defensive.

Before they gave their first formal, extended interview, they demanded to be able to review their previous statements to police. This is where it really makes me say "WTH?" You may not remember things that day due to the emotional trauma, but what do you have to hide? If they did nothing wrong, come clean and tell the cops whatever they want so thay they can move on and find the real killers. It took Patsy months to give them the clothes she was wearing that night, and then when she did, it appeared to be a brand new garment.

If the Ramseys are innocent, they did themselves absolutely no favors with how they handled this (including hiring a family spokesman). People tried to say "This is how rich people behave" and "There is no normal for grieving." I give them a lot of latitude in the weeks following the murder, however they continued to act very odd for months and years. Their manipulation of the media is well documented.

I honestly don't know if they did it. But they are absolutely covering something based on their evasive statements, inconsistent stories, and overall lack of cooperation. If they didn't commit the murder, it always made me wonder if they knew who did and for some reason were covering for that person.

I honestly don't know if they did it. But they are absolutely covering something based on their evasive statements, inconsistent stories, and overall lack of cooperation. If they didn't commit the murder, it always made me wonder if they knew who did and for some reason were covering for that person.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with being cautious with police, and having a lawyer present during any interviews, but their behavior contributed to further hindering the investigation. Both the police and the DA's office were fairly hands off in their dealings with the Ramseys, more so than they probably would have been with working class parents whose child had been found murdered in the home.

There are several things I just can't understand in this case:

Ramseys Did It Theory:

If the parents were guilty and, according to one popular theory, they were covering up an accidental death of Jonbenet (either Burke or Patsy struck Jonbenet in a rage and she accidentally died, etc.), their behavior afterwards is insane.

John Ramsey was a smart businessman; he would have known a 9-year-old is not going to be tried for murder. Ok, so let's say Patsy is still hysterical and is freaking out over their public reputation being ruined due to the accidental death. If that's the case, why not just wrap the child's body up in a blanket and drive it somewhere where it could be retrieved later, or why not just keep it in the basement until they later decide what to do with it, etc.

No one was scheduled to come to the Ramsey house on the 26th; in fact they were set to leave the house that day. Why not just call off the trip and then have all the time in the world to either hide the body for good or come up with a solid explanation/story for the death? John could have discreetly called a high-priced defense lawyer over and taken care of the situation much more effectively.

The Intruder Did It Theory:

If the Ramseys are innocent and there really was an intruder in the house that night, why wouldn't they have just walked right out the back door with Jonbenet? It sounds awful, obviously, but Jonbenet would have been a pedophile's "prime catch," so why not take her to some other location and commit more crimes with her? Taking her to the basement makes zero sense whatsoever...not to mention this intruder would have assaulted and killed her without leaving any physical evidence. What?!

This case just baffles me to no end.

There are several things I just can't understand in this case:

Ramseys Did It Theory:

If the parents were guilty and, according to one popular theory, they were covering up an accidental death of Jonbenet (either Burke or Patsy struck Jonbenet in a rage and she accidentally died, etc.), their behavior afterwards is insane.

John Ramsey was a smart businessman; he would have known a 9-year-old is not going to be tried for murder. Ok, so let's say Patsy is still hysterical and is freaking out over their public reputation being ruined due to the accidental death. If that's the case, why not just wrap the child's body up in a blanket and drive it somewhere where it could be retrieved later, or why not just keep it in the basement until they later decide what to do with it, etc.

No one was scheduled to come to the Ramsey house on the 26th; in fact they were set to leave the house that day. Why not just call off the trip and then have all the time in the world to either hide the body for good or come up with a solid explanation/story for the death? John could have discreetly called a high-priced defense lawyer over and taken care of the
situation much more effectively.


These things are rarely well planned out. So, on one hand, the fact that we sit here and look at it as 'crazy' that someone would come up with this plan.. Well.. Yeah. But, just seems too out there, which means, you progress on to the theory below.


The Intruder Did It Theory:

If the Ramseys are innocent and there really was an intruder in the house that night, why wouldn't they have just walked right out the back door with Jonbenet? It sounds awful, obviously, but Jonbenet would have been a pedophile's "prime catch," so why not take her to some other location and commit more crimes with her? Taking her to the basement makes zero sense whatsoever...not to mention this intruder would have assaulted and killed her without leaving any physical evidence. What?!


Doesn't seem very likely, does it? Which then.. Following logic.. Leads you back up above to the Ramsey theory.


This case just baffles me to no end.

That's pretty much the only answer on this. Unless someone comes forward and admits to guilt.. Which we've also had happen in this case, upping the crazy to new heights.. None of us "know" what happened. Because every plausible theory we can come up with.. Has a hole somewhere in it.

Time has only solidified my belief that someone in the house did it.

The letter was written IN THE HOUSE, with a pen and paper that both came from IN THE HOUSE. And from that documentary from a few years ago, just to copy the note would have taken around 25-30 minutes if I remember correctly. That's just to copy it, not write it from scratch. Have you ever posted something here, sent email or a text where you spent 5-10 minutes going over just to end up with 1-2 lines. To have written that letter out from scratch, even if they had a good idea of what they wanted to include, would have probably taken more like 45-60 minutes. The Ramsey's could have returned at any time. Why risk them coming home?

The note itself is also uncharacteristically long when compared to other ransom letters where the victim was actually removed FROM THE HOUSE and either retrieved alive where they could verify the ransom, or were found dead.

It's also unnecessarily long. Why 3 pages? All you need are 3 basic points:
1) Acknowledgement that you have the victim.
2) What you want out of this.
3) How you will communicate and handle the trade.
and a 4th point that is optional. Just a threat to their life, to make sure the family doesn't screw around.

Here's something else, why leave the note? Once she was dead, the ransom is over so its pointless to leave the note. But more importantly, you're leaving evidence behind now when there is 0% of a payoff because you are leaving the body IN THE HOUSE. You can still pull off a ransom, even if the victim is dead. She was a petite 6 year old girl, that if you believe this was a ransom, they were going to have to get her out of the house to another location one way or another. Even if she's dead, carry this petite little body to the getaway car and dispose of it somewhere, and you can still try to pull off the ransom.

But that's not even the worst part about this absurd letter, that is uncharacteristically long, unnecessarily long, and was left behind as evidence in the house with the dead body, nullifying the ransom.

THE LETTER WAS NOT EVEN NEEDED. It was 1996, not 1896. Just get in, grab the kid, get out, and call the Ramsey's from home. The letter said "I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery" so the ransomer was apparently prepared to call the Ramsey's. The ransomer spent an awful lot of time writing the note IN THE HOUSE, risking getting caught from the Ramsey's returning, then leaves it even after the ransom is clearly over.

The. Note. Was. Not. Even. Needed. To. Begin. With.

1) Whoever wrote the note was very comfortable writing the note in the house, and even put the pen back in the jar after writing it. Awfully nice of this ransomer to keep the house tidy while in the process of kidnapping the owner's kid.
2) Based on it being so much longer than confirmed ransom letters it suggests the author did not have ransom on their mind. The author really wanted you to believe this was supposed to be a ransom.
3) The fact that it was left behind, with the dead body, suggests whoever wrote the note, wanted you to see it.

Why? Why would the author want you to see this?

Let's say a ransom note was left behind at the murder scene of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson. Those murders were only 2.5 years earlier so at this point, that and the JonBenet murder are pretty much the same length of time ago. How long have we spent arguing if the OJ murders were a botched ransom? Next to none.

What if a ransom note was left behind that said "Hey OJ, we have your kid, we want one million dollars or else, we'll be in touch soon".

We would be forced to entertain the idea that the OJ murders were a botched ransom that Ron and Nicole interrupted. People to this day would still be saying it was a botched ransom. But of course, there was no note left behind, so this was never seriously looked at as a botched ransom.

But to this day, we're still arguing on whether the JonBenet murder was a botched ransom or not. And why?

Only one reason. The note was left behind.

If that note was not left behind, we would not be talking about the JonBenet murder as a botched ransom. All the "intruder" had to do was to go up one flight of stairs, grab the note that points to him, and then leave. The intruder theory competes against itself. On one hand, the intruder was so comfortable that he spent all day in the house, writing this long letter but on the other hand, he's too afraid to just go and retrieve the letter once he decided that he was leaving her body behind?

There's no intruder stalking the streets of Boulder to this day. There's been no crime before or since that you could link to this. And that tiny little minuscule DNA that they have has not pointed to anyone.

It was Christmas, and they had people over. The kids are running around, getting sweaty, there could have been some little boy who sneezed on his hands, and at some point, the sweaty, snotty hands of that little boy transferred to JonBenet's hands. I don't know about 6 year old's bathroom habits but at some point, the child has to learn how to do that on their own. At that point, the DNA on her hands also ends up down her pants in the process of going to the bathroom. I wonder if they've ever tested the DNA against any of the kids she would have been exposed to right before her death. Go put it in the Ancestry bank like they did with the Golden State Killer.

I still feel that the parents were involved, despite being "exonerated". We've never seen concrete proof of their innocence. They were wealthy enough to have the girl's death covered up. The ransom note asking for the same sum that John earned at work, the pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, the father knowing exactly where his daughter's body was and moving her from the place of injury...there are so many inconsistencies. What I haven't rested on is if JonBenet's death was an tragic accident that was covered up or if it was an accident that evolved to murder that was covered up.

But to this day, we're still arguing on whether the JonBenet murder was a botched ransom or not. And why?

Only one reason. The note was left behind.

I agree with your post 100%. And this perfectly sums up why this case is still debated to this day. That damn note. Without it, it's pretty open and shut that someone from inside that house killed her. Although I'd add the lack of experience (or incompetence, depending on who you ask) from the Boulder PD also helped muddy the waters.

I agree with your post 100%. And this perfectly sums up why this case is still debated to this day. That damn note. Without it, it's pretty open and shut that someone from inside that house killed her. Although I'd add the lack of experience (or incompetence, depending on who you ask) from the Boulder PD also helped muddy the waters.

Yeah, this is the one piece of this case that never made sense. The FBI was convinced it was written after the fact to throw off investigators and/or cast doubt on the case. The Ramsey's hired investigators, including Lou Smit, were convinced it was written ahead of time.

If it was written ahead of time, why was she killed in the basement? Why not just take her and leave? Someone also would have had to have felt comfortable being in the house long enough to write the letter before the Ramsey's came home (and keep in mind they had no idea when that would be). The note was written with paper and a pen from the house, so the person committing this kidnapping didn't even bring the note with them.

On the other hand, if they note was written after, whoever wrote it would have had to feel comfortable enough writing a ransom note with a dead child in the basement. I cannot fathom a murderer sitting in the house and writing a long, rambling letter. However, if you were trying to cover up the crime and you already lived there, it makes more sense.

I agree, Cars. If it wasn't for the letter, this probably would have been over a long time ago. That is the only piece of evidence that points to an intruder but it isn't even proof of that.

My theory has changed over the years.

I originally placed all blame on PR, as I disliked so much about her. Most of this was based on the pageant life, which I still find abhorrent. So I saw PR as the perp, John covering for her for practical reasons.

About 10 years ago, maybe more (before you hipsters made it cool) I assumed Burke did it, accidentally, and the parents covered for him. Still not a bad theory.

Now, older and wiser, I think it was JR. The key for me is the evidence of ongoing sexual abuse. I don’t think it was planned and premeditated, but something made him snap. My theory is that he convinced Patsy that Burke did it, and that they should cover for him. So she played along, unwittingly. I’m not sure if she ever figured it out.

So originally I saw Patsy as evil, now I see her as a tragic figure, like something out of a southern gothic novel.

Finally, my crazy theory is that an intruder did it, the parents assumed Burke did it, and covered for him. In the process they destroyed the evidence and doomed themselves to living under suspicion. I don’t think this is really plausible but it’s a good hybrid theory, because nothing quite makes sense in all of this.

I believe the plot of Blood Simple has a similar turn of events.

Now, older and wiser, I think it was JR. The key for me is the evidence of ongoing sexual abuse. I don’t think it was planned and premeditated, but something made him snap. My theory is that he convinced Patsy that Burke did it, and that they should cover for him. So she played along, unwittingly. I’m not sure if she ever figured it out.

So originally I saw Patsy as evil, now I see her as a tragic figure, like something out of a southern gothic novel.

John has 2 other daughers, although one passed away years ago. There's never been any sexual abuse allegations from them, or his first wife. Not that it means he couldn't molest JonBenet, but its not consistent with his other 2 daughters so I've never believed that John molested her. And I think if a man accidentally killed his daughter, he's more likely to dispose of it somewhere outside away from the home as opposed to a woman. He could have put her in the car, and disposed of her body, then smashed in that window that the intruder people point to, as John admitted that he did go through that window one time before when he was locked out.


Finally, my crazy theory is that an intruder did it, the parents assumed Burke did it, and covered for him. In the process they destroyed the evidence and doomed themselves to living under suspicion. I don’t think this is really plausible but it’s a good hybrid theory, because nothing quite makes sense in all of this.

Although I don't feel this is the actual answer, I don't think it's that crazy. I thought about this when that CBS documentary aired a few years ago and they went over all the different scenarios. I don't believe an intruder wrote the note, so this theory can certainly fit in my mind. Even if we could somehow totally exonerate Burke, John and Patsy could never admit to writing the letter because they thought Burke did it. It's too late, and they have to take that lie to their graves.

Now, older and wiser, I think it was JR. The key for me is the evidence of ongoing sexual abuse. I don’t think it was planned and premeditated, but something made him snap. My theory is that he convinced Patsy that Burke did it, and that they should cover for him. So she played along, unwittingly. I’m not sure if she ever figured it out.

I was always of the belief, if there were signs of what they thought was sexual abuse, it was probably one of the parents angrily wiping JonBenet after one of her apparently many bed wetting incidents. I think that's a theory that has been floated out there and I think makes the most sense.

Although I don't feel this is the actual answer, I don't think it's that crazy. I thought about this when that CBS documentary aired a few years ago and they went over all the different scenarios. I don't believe an intruder wrote the note, so this theory can certainly fit in my mind. Even if we could somehow totally exonerate Burke, John and Patsy could never admit to writing the letter because they thought Burke did it. It's too late, and they have to take that lie to their graves.

There is some credible evidence supporting the intruder theory, but I can’t accept that anyone wrote that note other than her parents. So one day I just used that as an assumption and considered all theories.

It seems like a case where no theory is rock solid, so I have always thought that if we learned the truth, we would all be a little surprised - like there is some bizarre twist that was never considered. Sort of a real life deus ex machina.

There is some credible evidence supporting the intruder theory

It's been a while since I did a deep dive on this case but what credible evidence exists supporting an intruder theory?

It's been a while since I did a deep dive on this case but what credible evidence exists supporting an intruder theory?

To be honest I can’t remember off hand. I’m really an RDI person, and it’s not a pet case for me. There is a whole Reddit sub of IDI people.

I should say “people find it credible” - I don’t personally vouch for it beyond being proud of my crazy hybrid theory.

Edit to add: I believe Bill James, Lou Smit and perhaps John Douglas were all supporters of the intruder theory.

It's been a while since I did a deep dive on this case but what credible evidence exists supporting an intruder theory?

There really isn't anything strong, more like ambiguous situations where you can't completely rule out an intruder. Just a weak possibility of it.

On face value, the note points to an intruder. But there are numerous things about the note that go against an intruder, and points to someone in the house writing it.

The basement window is really the only point of entry that has any credibility, and even that is weak. There was an old spider web that shows on the video the police took right after. If the intruder went through it, he would have taken out the web. There should either be no web, or maybe a fresh new looking web made right after. Not an old, weathered web.

The minuscule DNA found has never pointed to anyone. Now compare that to the Golden State Killer where his DNA was at dozens of scenes. They linked dozens of crimes and knew it came from the same offender for 20-30 years before they finally put a name and face to it.

How many other scenes has the Ramsey house DNA pointed to? Zero. Now does that mean there wasn't an intruder? No. But that means the intruder either hasn't committed any other crimes, or he hasn't left his DNA anywhere else. Neither of those seems very credible. Someone who breaks into a house, spends half a day in there, plans a ransom, writes a note, and kills someone, has likely done something like that before, or would do it again sometime in the future. The Ramsey house intrusion seems to have been a one time thing. And if you believe JonBenet was sexually assaulted by the intruder, it makes it even harder to believe because those types of people don't just do it once. There should be a series of assaults on young girls in that area for a period of time. But again, nothing like that ever happened. There are sex offenders who spend years locked up, and the first thing they do when they get out is assault again.

What was done to the body makes it hard for some people to believe it was the family, but that's not proof of an intruder. Once JonBenet was dead, the priority goes to the living. What was done to the body after she was dead, was not done because the family are horrible people, it was done to stage the scene to protect those still living.

In my view an intruder with deviant intentions has two options.
1) Remove JBR from the house.
2) Kill everyone in the house.

Neither of those things happened. So either the most cowardly home invader / rapist / kidnapper / murderer in history visited the house, or there never was one.

It seems like a case where no theory is rock solid, so I have always thought that if we learned the truth, we would all be a little surprised - like there is some bizarre twist that was never considered. Sort of a real life deus ex machina.

Yes! There has to be some crazy twist that we don't know about because the two main possibilities make no sense.

One "crazy twist" I've considered is that either John, Patsy or Burke was a MUCH worse person than initially thought....maybe Burke was a little sociopath and his family has had him under tight control the rest of his life. Maybe John was a pedo and no one knew, and he only abused Jonbenet. Maybe Patsy was secretly crazy and abusing Jonbenet herself.

There's absolutely zero evidence for these possibilities, though, which is why this case is so incredibly frustrating.

I was a kid when JonBenet was murdered, but distinctly remember this being all over the news. Maybe it's because I was only 10 at the time, but I seem to remember that the intruder scenario was accepted at the start and it wasn't until a few years later that suspicion fell on the parents. Has there ever been a case where an intruder entered a home and left a note for a ransom (or other note to suggest a kidnapping) but then murdered the person the note claimed they took?! It makes no sense. Even if there was an intruder who intended on taking JonBenet for a ransom, but killed her in the process, why not take her from the home? Jaclyn Dowaliby immediately comes to mind as someone who was taken from her home by an intruder, but her body was found outside of the home.

Occam's Razor for me would mean that someone inside that house killed her. And it could have been 1 person without the knowledge of the others in the house. Meaning John or Patsy could have been responsible, but the other (and Burke) had no idea.

Has there ever been a case where an intruder entered a home and left a note for a ransom (or other note to suggest a kidnapping) but then murdered the person the note claimed they took?! It makes no sense. Even if there was an intruder who intended on taking JonBenet for a ransom, but killed her in the process, why not take her from the home?

After reading quite a bit about this case, I learned there were a lot of firsts (or at least, very rare) aspects to this case. The FBI said both the length and tone of the ransom note were among the most unusual they had ever seen. As you said, the fact there was a ransom note and the body was left behind was extraordinary.

Many Ramsey supporters tried to say this was a kidnapping gone wrong. If that is the case, why take JBR to the basement to molest and torture her and not just leave? With that said, most of the LE experts said that the basement scene was staging after the fact. All of that pointed to someone in the house committing the crime and trying to cover it up.

I don't normally refer to Dr. Phil, but I did watch his interview with Burke and it was... odd. It doesn't make Burke guilty on that alone, but he just had an odd affect to him. I'm sure growing up with this murder didn't help. In reading about him though, he did have some issues growing up including how he treated JBR.

I try to keep an open mind on this, but all logic points to this being done by people in the house. I just can't figure out an exact motive and sequence of events. There are still things like the pineapple that just don't logically fit anywhere. The level of staging with the garrote and sexual assault is so over the top that it really makes me wonder who did that and why. Almost all of the physical evidence came from that house, meaning if it was an outsider they likely brought nothing with them to commit this crime.

There was also a pretty decent theory put out by one of the LE investigators that Burke accidentally killed JBR, Patsy covered it up, and John wasn't aware/involved until the next morning. That would cover most of the odd pieces of this case.

The level of staging with the garrote and sexual assault is so over the top that it really makes me wonder who did that and why.

The note, as well as the over the top cover up after the fact, makes me lean towards Patsy doing things that she thought a perverted intruder would do. And I don't think Patsy being involved would have to mean John had to have helped either. He could have totally been in the dark (or vice versa).

The note, as well as the over the top cover up after the fact, makes me lean towards Patsy doing things that she thought a perverted intruder would do. And I don't think Patsy being involved would have to mean John had to have helped either. He could have totally been in the dark (or vice versa).

I'm vice versa. I think John could manipulate and hoodwink Patsy much easier than the other way around. That's why I think he blamed Burke and Patsy bought it.

When I watch the old interviews now, Patsy comes off as a pawn who doesn't really know what is true and what isn't. I'm obviously viewing it through my own assumptions and biases, but John comes off as someone who is in complete control of the situation and manipulating it to his advantage.

Burke did it and Patsy covered it up. She ended up playing the part of the hysterical wife perfectly. She obviously deflected suspicion. Watch her body language in interviews around that time.

Ultimately she is a tragic figure. Doesn't change that she and Burke did something horrible. They're basically Ananias and Sappora. Though I don't know about John.....what's the agreed upon staging of him that day?

Burke did it and Patsy covered it up. She ended up playing the part of the hysterical wife perfectly. She obviously deflected suspicion. Watch her body language in interviews around that time.

Ultimately she is a tragic figure. Doesn't change that she and Burke did something horrible. They're basically Ananias and Sappora. Though I don't know about John.....what's the agreed upon staging of him that day?

Mine has changed from twenty years of basically believing Patsy did it, Burke either didn't know what happened or was intimidated into silence, to, following the 20-year specials, the above. I never suspected John and believe he slept through the initial attack and was an accessory to crime after the fact. Don't believe in any intruder and never will unless space aliens are dragged in. No human alive could so perfectly frame a family.

Though I don't know about John.....what's the agreed upon staging of him that day?

Some of this is fact, some of this is speculation... At some point after the police detectives arrived, one of them suggested to John and his friend Fleet White that they search the house "from top to bottom" looking for JBR or any clues. They started in the basement. This is a bit odd as it would more likely for JBR to be upstairs in the living area and the detective said "top to bottom". Fleet White had previously looked in the basement and he opened the wine cellar door. When he did, he couldn't find a light and thus couldn't see anything. When they looked in the basement the second time, John opened the door and immediately saw JBR's body in the blanket. (This always bugged LE as they claimed there was no way he could see anything without a light.)

John ripped the tape off of JBR's mouth and then carried her body in the blanket up the stairs and laid it down in the living room. The problem is that he destroyed a lot of physical evidence at the scene of the body as well as on the body and blanket. LE said this was deliberate, while many others have said this was just a panicked parent finding their dead child. I could go either way on this. (As a side note, Patsy began weeping loudly and collapsed right on top of JonBenet yelling "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead. Please raise my baby!" Which is a really, really odd thing to say in the moment.)

The other huge WTH moment to me is shortly after this, John called his pilot to switch their scheduled flight to Minneapolis to a flight to take them to Atlanta. His baby daughter's body was just found murdered in his house, and one of his first thoughts was "We need to get to Atlanta"? I realize they had a home there but that always really bothered me. It sounded more like him wanting to get the hell out of Dodge as opposed to going somewhere to grieve.

I tend to agree with people who say if the Ramseys are guilty, Patsy was the architect of the cover up and John either went along or was an accessory after the fact. One of the LE investigators firmly believes John didn't know until he found her body, and then started putting two and two together. When he realized his daughter was dead and his family had something to do with it and they may go to jail, he shut down and then quickly consulted an attorney.

I know there is no playbook for how grieving parents are supposed to act. I can't imagine losing one of my kids, especially under circumstances like this. However, I do think a lot of what they did and said was really odd. The oddest of all to me was the bizarre interview they did on CNN shortly after JBR died. Their behavior was odd and it seemed more self-serving than anything.

Among the many televised interviews I did watch, and I have not seen all, John comes across as likable and credible, which is alarming absolutely knowing he is lying and that he knows he is lying and throwing innocent people under the bus. Patsy always came across as kind of overblown, overdone, and stagey, therefore more suspicious, but they both have complicity in this crime. I do believe Burke killed JonBenét suddenly by accident and it was not any drawn-out premeditated murder.

Though I don't know about John.....what's the agreed upon staging of him that day?

Based on the 911 call that they enhanced the audio on, you can hear a conversation. I think we could make a case that John knew by the time of the phone call.

There are 3 known people in the house: John, Patsy and Burke.
There are 3 voices believed to be heard on the call: a man's voice, and 2 other voices that sound a lot more similar, like a woman and/or a young boy.

There's only one man in the house so it has to be John. It appears the voice of Burke says something like "What did you find?" and then John says something like "We're not speaking to you".

That's very standoffish, like there's a clear division. 'We' are not speaking to 'you'. If Burke is the 'you', then the 'we' could only mean John and Patsy. Why is there this division when they should be united against the person who wrote the ransom note, and likely took their daughter/sister? If what has been interpreted from that enhanced call is correct, it appears that John and Patsy believe Burke did it.

Based on the 911 call that they enhanced the audio on, you can hear a conversation. I think we could make a case that John knew by the time of the phone call.

There are 3 known people in the house: John, Patsy and Burke.
There are 3 voices believed to be heard on the call: a man's voice, and 2 other voices that sound a lot more similar, like a woman and/or a young boy.

There's only one man in the house so it has to be John. It appears the voice of Burke says something like "What did you find?" and then John says something like "We're not speaking to you".

That's very standoffish, like there's a clear division. 'We' are not speaking to 'you'. If Burke is the 'you', then the 'we' could only mean John and Patsy. Why is there this division when they should be united against the person who wrote the ransom note, and likely took their daughter/sister? If what has been interpreted from that enhanced call is correct, it appears that John and Patsy believe Burke did it.

Yes, I didn't mention that because it's supposedly been refuted. Does anyone know if this is genuine?

In his almost too revealing AMA (https://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html), Boulder police chief Mark Beckner confirms that he hears something similar. It's a great read, he seems very skeptical of any outside party being involved...


It has been reported the dialogue at the end of the 911 tape was: Male: "We're not speaking to you!" Female: "Help me Jesus. Help me Jesus." Young Male: "Well, what did you find?" Do you believe this is valid, that those words were actually spoken?

The words are difficult to hear and some claim they cannot hear them. After listening to the tape many times, I can tell you that I can hear what sounds like voices saying those words.

I do not hear anything remotely close to what people have said they've heard at the end of the 911 call. I think it's just white noise or static and the human brain is filling in gaps to make it sound like sentences. And I think Patsy was responsible for her death.

I do not hear anything remotely close to what people have said they've heard at the end of the 911 call. I think it's just white noise or static and the human brain is filling in gaps to make it sound like sentences. And I think Patsy was responsible for her death.

Yeah, I have an open mind about this but I hear nothing. I can’t believe anyone can say they can clearly hear those words.

Regardless of what may have been said or done, I do believe both John and Patsy to be culpable not only in the coverup of JonBenét's death but directly for her death by not getting help for Burke when it was evident for a long while that he had these problems. This was not just a matter of an accident when he snapped once. He seems to have either learned his lesson or received help or both, as there are many cases of true sociopaths where the parents repeatedly jumped up and down screaming for help and nothing was taken seriously by any professionals or authorities until the juvenile sociopath killed somebody. It's quite possible Burke resented only his sister and once she was gone he felt things were fine...he was sure having a good laugh over getting away with it on Dr. Phil! It's also possible as some have suggested that Patsy was responsible for JonBenét's death, that Burke only wounded her, seriously and perhaps mortally, and Patsy choked the life out of her with her overblown fake kidnapping scenario, as whatever was in JonBenét's stomach was digested for at least an hour.

Do I believe that John, Burke, Patsy's sister, and other relatives such as John's older children, know the complete truth and are withholding it from the public, therefore becoming accessories after the fact of murder, failure to report a death, abuse of a corpse, and whatever other crimes were committed? Yes, I do, 100%! Our only hope is that someone leaves a deathbed confession.