Revisiting JonBenet: Has Your View Changed?

[SheRaaa]

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?

[ghosthouse]

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.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

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.

[TheCars1986]

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.

[dynoguy88]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

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.

[Killarney Rose]

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

https://www.investigationdiscovery.c...-jonbenet-case

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by SheRaaa

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.

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

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.

[soilentgreen]

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.

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by soilentgreen

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.

[soilentgreen]

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

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.

[SheRaaa]

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.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by SheRaaa

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.

[ScaryFog]

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.

[1990 UM fan]

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by ScaryFog

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.