Posted on 09/20/2016 7:59:03 AM PDT by traderrob6
JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother Burke and it was covered up by her parents after a fight over a midnight snack of pineapples, investigators have claimed.
The six-year-old's mother Patsy Ramsey called 911 on December 26, 1996 to report that her six-year-old daughter had been kidnapped from her family's home in Boulder, Colorado.
JonBenet, a child beauty queen, was found beaten and strangled on the floor of the family's cellar several hours after the 911 call.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
He could have had it drummed into his head by his parents to lie every day until the day before he turned ten, and he would have been participating in NO CRIME. After that, continuing to lie does not involve him any conspiracy unless he discussed lying with them at that time. Simply continuing to lie about something is not conspiracy.
2. Patsy Ramsey wrote that note, definitely. One sure thing.
3. They were up late or all night as patsy was wearing the same thing in the morning. The blow to the head probably occurred before midnight. Then the decision to finish JB off and set it up as a break in must have taken a while.
Excellent answers, Yaelle! You've solved the case. All of these answers seem so simple and transparent to an outside observer, as they were to many in law enforcement investigating the case, but money, position and power bought the Ramsey's time. Add to that some mistakes by the police and you've created "reasonable" doubt.
Whenever I speak to IDI's (Intruder Did It) about this, their answer is always the same: a mother doesn't kill her children. I beg to differ. It happens often.
I don’t know who did it. I haven’t watched the show on it yet either. I’ve followed the case for years and I know patsy wrote that note. I also know Jon benet are the pineapple BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND IN HER STOMACH. My 3 was total conjecture — someone in the house did it, someone who would put the paper and pen back in its correct place after penning the longest ransom note in history. But I have not solved the case.
????????
Pineapples?
I watched every episode of this program and yes, it makes sense. Burke didn’t mean to kill her. He was 9 and under 10 he couldn’t be accused of murder. He got mad, maybe because she ate some of his pineapple(supposition) and he whacked her with a heavy flashlight. His parents covered it up to protect him. Sad tragic story, but fascinating.
I wonder if Burke has moved out of the country by now?
Three different docuentaries on different networks all seemed to work from different points of view—and came up with different conclusions.
It was interestng to watch this battle of evidence to see how this case is textbook example of how police investigations can go really really bad and how by leaks and relegating different type of evidence as relevant, the investigators can come up with different culprits or no culprit at all.
Exactly.
The DNA on the panties is the ONLY definitive evidence suggesting a perp outside the family, but the fact that Patsy lied suggests exactly what you’re saying: the panties / DNA were a red herring, planted by Patsy.
The panties were so large, they’d fall off while she was standing/ still alive. They were placed on her when she was prone.
This brings the suspicion right back to the the liar: Patsy.
And the DNA / intruder theory simply does. not. square. with the idiotic, obviously faked ransom note. An unknown intruder could not / would not have composed that letter.
That letter-—practiced, composed and left in the house; the child’s body in the house—not taken away by any note-writing kidnapper; and the fact that John went directly to JBR’s body as if already he knew where she was—all this screams the Ramseys did it.
But which one did exactly what?
Either Patsy did it, or Patsy and John were covering for Burke.
John may have been molesting Jonbenet, and Patsy may have known.
Bed wetting is a sign of abuse.
Burke may have cracked Jonbenet’s head, or maybe not.
But I seriously doubt he strangled her too, and, at age 9, staged the crime scene and faked a sexual assault on her body.
More likely John did this while Patsy was writing the note.
My theory about the panties: They were Patsy’s, and she’d had an affair. In the frantic staging of the crime scene, Patsy might have told John, “We’ve got worse things to worry about right now than a little ole affair. These panties with my boyfriend’s man-juice on ‘em will save your life, so *shut up John. Don’t try to grow a pair now, John.*” (Those words were in the ransom note.)
I don’t have any theories other than the obvious - a person or persons within the house committed the crime.
The whole thing is bizarre.
Your daughter is missing and you throw a house party with all the friends and neighbors invited - who does that?
You mentioned John Ramsey knowing where to go when he was told by police to search the place. He said he had searched it before but the first time he didn’t bother checking out the basement room where the body was found. I’ve searched harder for a lost TV remote. In this case it was a missing child - anybody who’s even just babysat a little child knows they get into the dangdest places.
Just so many things that don’t add up.
Yes. Your child is missing, there’s a ransom note on the stairs saying the kidnappers will call...but when nobody calls, you don’t seem anxious. You even seem to have forgotten your daughter has been “ kidnapped.”
You casually go thru your mail, and call a private pilot to arrange a flight to Atlanta ?!? Oh well, if she turns up, maybe she can come along!?!
Also I noticed the “kidnapper” shifts back and forth between singular and plural. It goes from “we” are a foreign faction, then it’s “I” will do thus and such to “your daughter.” Again, an obvious attempt to point to a culprit outside the family, but can’t keep the story straight because it’s so obviously false.
It’s typical, too, of parents to say “my daughter” when a child is doing well, but “your daughter” (to the other parent) when a child has misbehaved.
IOW, my daughter is a beauty queen. Your daughter caused all this.
There are a LOT of clues in that note.
All of the clues point to the Ramseys, and many, like “your daughter” suggest Patsy was trying to equally implicate John in order to keep him quiet.
Another clue is the level of violence in the threats directed at Jonbenet herself. This suggests Patsy blames JBR for making her angry in the first place.
The violence of the threats in the note are matched by the violence that was in fact done to JBR’s body. It makes sense that whoever was capable of threatening “she will die” and “she will be beheaded” did in fact cause the child’s brutal death, likely before the note was written.
I’ve always thought it was Patsy; Jonbenet may have wet the bed, again, and Patsy just went postal.
That’s the simplest, and to me, most plausible, scenario.
Thanks for the explanation. Clears up things.
I suppose that the news media will bring forth this sad story on every possible anniversary for the next ten thousand years.
>>The strangulation was likely post mortem
Not according to the autopsy report and other evidence. There would be no reason for the Ramseys to delay calling an ambulance or taking her to the ER had she only been struck — they weren’t skilled in determining whether she was still alive or not. Its unlikely that they thought all this up immediately upon the discovery of their just killed daughter.
>>there was plenty of time to stage the scene.
Time, maybe, but that would have left evidence that wasn’t found. Making things up to try and pin this on someone doesn’t do anyone any good. Speculate based on the evidence.
>>What trail of evidence would there be?
You’re joking, right??
Wounds to the head bleed — A LOT. Trust me as I’ve cut myself shaving a bunch. The good news is that if the wound isn’t that bad, in the head, it has the ability to heal quickly because of the availability of blood to get to it. That availability makes it difficult to move a just wounded body without trace evidence of it being moved. Whatever they were, the Ramseys weren’t skilled in moving a body or staging a crime scene.
Again, don’t make things up to try and prove a point. Argue the evidence. If it doesn’t exist, there is likely a good reason for its non-existence.
The bleeding was internal, not external:
“Police believe the flashlight’s heavy rubber coating seems consistent with an instrument that could deliver a crushing blow yet not cause bleeding”
Boulder News Archive
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/12-1.html
This fact was hashed out at Reddit the other day:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/530j2k/the_blow_to_jonbenets_head_analysis
==
“Again, don’t make things up to try and prove a point. Argue the evidence. If it doesn’t exist, there is likely a good reason for its non-existence.’
==
You might want to get back to me on that one.
DNA means nothing?
http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2016/09/28/cape-coral-police-make-arrest-cold-case/91212964/
Like all other evidence, DNA evidence has a context and chain of possession.
If my wife turns up dead and they find my DNA on her body, does that prove I killed her? Nope. Proves nothing. We sleep in the same bed, sit on the same furniture, drive the same cars, and have done so for over 30 years.
If they find a stranger's DNA on her clothing does it prove anything? Nope. Every stranger she comes in contact with today, all of her coworkers, and the people who inspect, manufacture, and sell her clothing all can leave DNA on her clothes.
DNA Evidence, like all other evidence, only means something when it proven too be admissible, and even then only under the circumstances appropriate to its admission.
What if the DNA is tagged and bagged at the scene and no one else in the house owns it? A hair, a piece or drop of bio etc... after 20 some odd years a cold case is reopened because the DNA is matched, where is was never matched before. That is something that wasn’t a known prior. Which causes the case to be reopened.
I get you point but I don’t think it means nothing. As for clothing, unless those clothes were never washed, perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.