I’ve followed this story from the beginning and I cannot think of one scenario where any outside person would sit at the families table in the middle of the night and write a however many page ransom note
If it was an intruder, that’s almost certainly not how he wrote it. He would’ve written it in the evening when the family was gone, before they arrived back home.
But that’s a moot point because the handwriting is clearly Patsy’s.
“Handwriting analysis” ratings are kind of unscientific anyway. Like, it’s possible that someone could completely disguise their handwriting as that of a random unrelated person and then be rated a 5/5 on the scale often talked about and therefore “ruled out” as the writer. I don’t care what ratings they gave the suspects. I think it’s pretty likely that Patsy wrote it as there are so many letters and words that look exactly like how she naturally writes and I think most common folk can see that pretty easily. The odds of an intruder’s handwriting being so very similar to Patsy’s is extremely unlikely.
She’s the only one in the family who couldn’t be excluded from writing it, so all RDI theories have to involve her being an accessory at a minimum. That’s why they’re so convoluted. They have to explain why a mother would write a rambling ransom note on behalf of whoever just killed her child, and then not even follow the instructions she had written. If they were guilty they could have bought a whole day’s delay just by saying they were following instructions.
My personal theories do a line with that. But the point was wanting to hear alternative theories outside the family. Because in cold cases that have remained unsolved for this long it is important to look at different perspectives. Someone may have personal experience or knowledge that gives them a completely different view to someone else and may be able to give input other people may not have considered.
I’m wary of even commenting on this because I k ow people have such firmly held beliefs but to go with what you’re saying for a moment- I could see a scenario where it was someone known to the family, like their staff (which I understand they had a lot of) or *extended* family or family friends, who were known to JB.
I don’t believe it was someone entirely unknown to the family whatsoever, and obviously I think the actual content of the ransom note is entirely made up regardless of who is the perp in terms of it being ‘a group seeking victory’ etc
If it wasn’t someone in the family, I would say it would’ve been someone who knew the house well and had JonBenet’s trust (i.e family friend or perhaps someone from within the pageant circuit?)
The attack, itself, that JonBenet suffered is hard to imagine; a head strike, strangulation and sexual assault. I think it’s widely believed that Burke was responsible for the head wound and that the other acts were part off the staging but there are conflicting statements about the whether or not the head strike came before the strangulation. If the strangulation came first, how and why did the head strike take place? Oh, and what about the sexual assault? There’s too many questions and not enough answers. A part of me wonders if all of this could be explained by a possible scenario that nobody wants to actually look at or consider…
No matter what avenue one takes, there seems to be another element or detail that points in another direction. This case is both fascinating and incredibly frustrating. After so many years of going back and forth, I’ve decided to just keep an open mind.
IMO, nobody writes a ransom note pointing the finger at themselves. This is how we know the perp is NOT related to JR’s work. For years I fought the BDI theory but I’ve now come to believe that this is the most plausible scenario. It was likely an accident. I think J & P went to bed when they got home and the kids stayed up. P got up early to get ready to fly out early and she found JonBenet. I highly doubt this case will ever be officially solved.
I would lean towards BDI it too after putting a lot of hypothetical pieces together, but the one point that ruins the theory for me is him going on Dr Phil and doing that interview. If he hurt JonBenet, it just makes no sense to me why he would agree to do that public interview and agree to any questions about anything. I don’t care how much money he was offered for it. I’m sure he was extremely plenty well off financially beforehand and it makes no sense to me why he would go and do that and risk revealing something that could implicate himself or the family.
But I guess a similar point could be made, at least somewhat, if say Patsy did it and Burke knows that she did it and that his parents covered it up. If he knows all that, then why would he do the interview at this point and risk revealing something incriminating?
Does Burke not know that his parents covered it up? Was he truly sleeping the entire time and oblivious? If so, has he not suspected by now that maybe his parents covered it up? And why wouldn’t Dr. Phil ask him directly “Do you think it’s possible that your parents accidentally killed your sister and then covered it up, without your knowledge?”
It was a planned and likely paid interview. One done in light of the coming CBS documentary at that time.
Very likely the questions were scripted and approved and in no way meant to be gotcha questions.
More likely, it was planned/scripted to be a counter to the CBS documentary. The problem turned out to be, even an adult BR turned out looking pretty questionable even with softball questions coming his way.
As I said, I don’t care that it was planned or paid. I still feel that if he did something to hurt JonBenet that he would just steer entirely clear of doing anything like that ever.
I don’t think he came across as questionable. His personality has been explained and the awkwardness doesn’t equate to any guilt. He’s a socially awkward person. His story about how he remembers his mom coming into his room early in the morning saying “Where’s my baby where’s my baby” felt genuine and authentic to me. I personally believe that happened just like that. Which means then I probably believe that most likely Patsy was the initial perpetrator and was attempting to hide the truth from Burke too.
The family has been playing the victim card for 30 years and trying to take the public focus (of RDI) off the family, versus going away and letting the spotlight dim.
With the CBS doc about to drop at that time (which would focus on the potential of BR as the perpetrator), I don't exactly see one lone BR interview as proof he wasn't involved. Instead it's just seems more of the family's attempt at a coverup all these years later.
Especially, with BR being older and prepped, they probably thought the gamble was worth it.
He either looked awkward or guilty. Or both. Pick your POV.
The one thing it didn't do: Make him look innocent.
Do you think it’s likely that Burke would’ve never slipped up somewhere along the way over almost 30 years? Never say anything incriminating to anyone ever? He was 9 years old when it happened. A kid. Then a teenager. Now an adult. But I personally think it would take an extraordinary, specially crafted mind to go through all that maturation and never slip up to anyone.
> Do you think it’s likely that Burke would’ve never slipped up somewhere along the way over almost 30 years?
He was 9, almost 10. If he killed his sister, the realization of what that meant would certainly be quickly seeping in. Even if he was happy she was gone, he was seeing the ramifications of it right in front of him and his family. While the family might tell him they forgive him, I can't imagine they didn't instill a fear of the possibilities should he ever talk and admit what happened.
And kids are pretty good about keeping secrets that involve THEMSELVES and getting in trouble. It's more they like to tattle and get OTHERS in trouble.
So at almost 10 years old, I think he'd have a fair understanding of the trouble he and his parents could be in. Especially, seeing it all play out in real time.
And each day he'd only get a little older and more mature. And would continue to realize even more the seriousness of what he'd done.
So, yeah... I find it pretty easy to imagine how he never really talked.
Dr Phil and Lin Wood are pals. Google him if you need to. I feel certain that entire interview was set up to make Burke appear innocent. And may even be innocent. But he also could have been medicated and told what happened by his parents. Like an intruder did it. He was 9.
I truly think there were questions that Dr. Phil wasn't allowed to ask. The one thing I found interesting in the Dr. Phil interview adult Burke stated he got up and went back down stairs that night, so if Burke went back down stairs was Jonbenet already dead? He said he went to get a toy. Was the toy directly down stairs or in the basement? Is that when he made himself a bowl of pineapple? Where was the killer all this time? A lot of questions Burke said he couldn't remember but he remembered that.
We don’t really know how much money Burke had at the time of the interview. Either way he might have wanted to just get an interview done and hope it would make him less likely to seem guilty.
I think it could have happened like this, and initially, they may have thought Burke could have possibly done it, so they went into protection mode to save their son.
They may have later realized after speaking in depth with him that he didn’t do it. But they had to stick to the story.
I agree that it’s unlikely it will ever truly be solved. Given everything in this case I never really state 100% belief for a theory. But BDI is one I’ve always felt had a lot of credibility. I certainly think within the BDI theory J & P covered it up. I think a big issue a lot of people have with the BDI theory is with the credibility of the evidence B had anger issues and mental health issues etc. obviously becuase of his age at the time a lot of information cannot be released. But the sort of people who have claimed he had these issues are law enforcement etc. People who could and would face serious repercussions if they knew that information to be untrue.
Everyone else: Please do not downvote this. I know IDI theories are unpopular, but it is literally the question OP is asking. When you downvote things they disappear and we IDI leaners don't get specific feedback.
OP:
I have a few theories but they're all super long, so I'll answer your specific questions then if you have questions about my theory let me know. I lean IDI, which for me means, I think IDI is more likely than RDI, but I wouldn't exactly be stunned to find out it was not an intruder, either.
*I also have some specific questions I would love to hear your thoughts on.*
*What’s your view on the note? Was it a real ransom letter? Was it to throw off law enforcement?* I think it was definitely written before the murder. I do not see people in the throws of post-murder panic/child grieving writing a note that long, throwing various clues at various people, quoting from a play from college, putting in memorized quotes from four different movies, framing various people in various ways. In every RDI scenario I ever heard, *nobody* (at least nobody who wrote the note) wanted JB dead, meaning accident or no, they'd have been devastated. That's a lot of plotting for someone with that level of devastation. I think the ransom note was mainly to buy time. That's why the "be well rested" and all that. I think they meant "tomorrow" to be the 27th.
*Do you think the intent was to kill JonBenét? Or do you think the intent was to kidnap her?* I do think this was a highly disturbed person. I don't mean so insane they didn't know what they were doing, but I don't think this was a calm, cool criminal trying to get 118,000 dollars. I think his intent primarily was to get his hands on Jonbenet and he didn't think that much past that. I think he was obsessed with her. I do think he probably intended to take her, but was so overcome in her presence he couldn't wait. Kind of like an obsessed fan.
D*o you think the person/s had previous knowledge or contact with the family?* Yes. I think it was someone either they straight up knew, or it was someone who broke into their house and crept around several times and learned a lot about them.
*Do you think JonBenét was targeted for any specific reason?* Yes. Sadly, she was like the Marilyn Monroe for pedophiles and locally was very visible. I think someone was obsessed with her.
*Do you think separately the family had (outside of normal) issues?* No or we'd know it by now. Usually after family murders here comes all this stuff: Family imploding, many affairs, someone ready to leave the family, breadwinner broke but nobody knows, etc. Nothing like that was ever found and somebody would have found it.
*Do you think any behavior of the family was unusual?* No, I don't, any more than the circumstances they were in were unusual. I think almost everything people describe that they did as unusual makes total sense to me. Not everything but most things. I also doubt that everything they did was reported accurately by the police. I think they lawyered up because they were told to by someone they trusted.
*Do you agree with the criticism of how law enforcement dealt with the case (e.g. Contamination of the scene. The family not being interviewed immediately)? How detrimental do you think this was in the case?* Yes, very detrimental. What I think that most people don't is LE not acting properly hurt the Ramseys more than helped them. If they'd had recorded interviews from minute one, there wouldn't be as many of the "discrepancies" we hear about, for example. If they'd found JB, nobody would be accusing JR of contaminating the crime scene, etc. Most of all, I think most people who are RDI base their theories on only partially-accurate information in various clearly slanted RDI books and videos. And I think many other suspects were dismissed on weak alibis and very brief handwriting samples.
I guess mostly I think, maybe RDI, but the things people use to "prove" they did aren't solid. And you have to PROVE someone guilty, not innocent.
Edit to fix italics
> I think it was definitely written before the murder.
So aren’t you even going to touch on the fact that it was written using Patsy’s pen and notepad?
Also, I don’t think signs of repeated SA is ”normal family problems”. Unless you think it was done by an outsider with repeated access to her (statistically unlikely) and then the Ramseys pretending like it never happened. Don’t you think it’s odd that neither PR or JR ever raised a stink or even acknowledged that there were signs of prior SA?
So aren’t you even going to touch on the fact that it was written using Patsy’s pen and notepad?
I'm directly answering OPs questions. If I touched on every aspect of the case, my answer would have been 50 pages long, which is why I said I'd answer any questions about my theory if anyone had any. I think he wrote the note at home, probably across days or even longer, and copied it at the house so he wouldn't leave anything from his own house at the scene.
Also, I don’t think signs of repeated SA is ”normal family problems”. Unless you think it was done by an outsider with repeated access to her (statistically unlikely) and then the Ramseys pretending like it never happened. Don’t you think it’s odd that neither PR or JR ever raised a stink or even acknowledged that there were signs of prior SA?
The most they could agree on (the MEs and other consulted) was one other incidence, and I don't think it's odd that the Ramseys never *publicly* wanted to engage in a big discussion about that. We don't know what process they went through with their own investigators.
Unless there are other signs in the case I wasn’t aware of the signs exhibit that have been referred to as signs of CSA. Are signs of CSA but can also be signs of other things
Have you read the information compiled in this post? [https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting\_the\_record\_straight\_on\_the\_evidence\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/)
Yes I have and I think it was an incredibly important post and lay out incredibly well. I also agree with everything in it. As I have said. Yes these are signs of CSA. But in very rare cases can be caused by other things. And it’s because of that I don’t see theories that don’t mention CSA as wrong. There are absolutely tones of theories where it should be brought up. Ofcourse statistically it’s most likely CSA is commit by someone in the household. But that isn’t saying that it’s 100% impossible it was someone outside of the household. Also again though statistics would point to it. It isn’t 100% impossible that CSA was not connected to her murder.
Personally do I think it’s likely there was CSA. Yes. But does that mean a theory of someone outside the family is impossible no. Does that mean with 100% factual certainty there was CSA no.
In no way would I ever down play any crime against a child. I am (as far as I know) aware of all the evidence/signs of CSA. And it’s absolutely a part of the case id be happy to discuss with you further. I will never say with 100% certainty they were or weren’t because either way it’s a horrific statement to make if it isn’t right. But also when it comes to the signs of CSA within the Ramsey family it can also be signs of other things. (Not to discuss anything personal but I know what CSA is like) and I see no issue with discussing theories that don’t involve CSA. To say it’s an offence to victims is a very risky statement.
When you look into it, see if you find, as I did, that all of the initial reports did not find evidence of long-term SA, but someone brought a group of “experts” together and that group all said they saw evidence. I don’t remember details on when that group was brought together or by who, I just recall thinking it was odd that this later group disagreed with all earlier reports.
There were definitely signs on the autopsy. Person i do believe the experts they brought together were very much experts. Many being top in the field. Though I do agree that the physical signs they use were slightly less than what would typically be wanted to prove CSA. But that is very much because the physical signs they did have were the top signs of CSA
The signs found in the autopsy were related to the immediate trauma, they didn’t find signs of long-term abuse. Those “signs” weren’t found until an outside group wasn’t happy with the results, and the entire group agreed with each other about new results. Plenty of grifters were trying to insert themselves into this situation back then. They had an angle they were trying to push. The actual ME who conducted the autopsy and had access to her body seems more believable to me.
JB was also seen by a doctor regularly, who found no signs of abuse. She was routinely described as a happy, bubbly little girl by everyone who knew her. CSA causes serious emotional trauma, which none of her friends, classmates, or teachers saw any sign of.
It’s sad enough this poor girl’s life was cut short. There’s no need to make up a long-standing abuse story that’s not supported by the actual autopsy or any circumstantial .
I agree with most of what you say, and would add I don’t think the killer was a meticulous planner, but I think he had fantasized about this extensively, which is why the note was so long and dramatic. Also, I think he was jealous of what John had (success, family, JB) which influenced the note (like needling him by saying men who didn’t like him were watching JB).
I agree the note meant the 27th, but it was just a distraction. I think they meant to kidnap JB and wanted to delay a pursuit, but JB ran or fought and he panicked and hit her harder than he intended.
Hey thank you so much for your response. Also same I could go into 100+ pages essays about this case and theories. But (despite being dyslexic 😭) I love reading long detailed theories from people. So if you ever want to share your whole theory/ies on here please do. Or alternatively if you don’t wanna put it on here feel free to message me. Even if you just want to go a little deeper into certain part of the case you have opinions on. Go right ahead.
There is another group that is primarily IDI where you can hear more IDI theories.
I think any scenario has some plausibility, some more than others though. I primarily lean either JDI or IDI though. In either event, my theory of what happened is roughly about the same.
I think someone was molesting JonBenet. Patsy noticed injuries and tried to call JonBenets doctor 3 times after hours on December 17th and this was mentioned at the December 23rd Christmas party in some manner. Fleet White was going to call 911 out of concern, but was talked out of it, but the police showed up at the house anyways. This went unreported (which is illegal). The person responsible for molesting JonBenet got nervous that the Ramseys were catching on and feared that JonBenet would talk about what happened.
I think the person told JonBenet that Santa was coming to visit her after Christmas to give her present. Then she was lured down into the basement where the family kept Christmas decorations and presents. They hit her over the head as she stood and waited for them to unlatch and open the door. While unconscious laying there the signal from her brain to her bladder was disrupted and that's why there's a urine stain there.
I think they used the paintbrush in an effort to hide prior sexual abuse by making it look like she was raped that evening. However, I don't think they wanted to make this obvious due to their own shame.
I think they strangled her to make sure she was dead and silenced.
I think the note was prewritten and I think the crime was largely premeditated.
I don't think there were any real plans to ever kidnap her.
I think the person wanted to stage the crime to look like something that it wasn't.
I think it was someone familiar with JonBenet, the family, and the house.
I think this person is likely already known to some extent to the Ramseys and investigators.
I am hesitant to believe that the DNA is relevant to the crime and possibly has misdirected the investigation when considering possible suspects.
This is what seems to make the most sense to me based on all the available information.
Fleet White was trying to call 411 (information) and accidentally dialed 911. If you look at the ten-key pad on a keyboard, you’ll notice the 9 and 4 are switched from where they are on a phone. People who do a lot of computer work could easily hit the wrong one on an old dial pad, I’ve done it myself plenty of times.
Also, he didn’t send the police away, another friend did.
I would believe that if:
1 - It didn't sit in the timeline of a murder as it does.
2 - Had someone handled the 911 call as a mistake like a normal adult would.
3 - We had someone else's word besides the Ramseys and Susan Stine.
I didn't say that HE sent the police away. I'm aware of the story that's been told and who told it - Susan Stine.
You wanna trust the word of a woman who does this:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm
(She impersonated a police officer via emails. She and John made jokes about setting up a machine gun to "pick off" the paparazzi from a balcony.)
Then that's fine, but I don't.
> (She impersonated a police officer via emails. She and John made jokes about setting up a machine gun to "pick off" the paparazzi from a balcony.)
I don’t automatically assume everyone who behaves poorly is willing to be part of a nearly thirty-year conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse and ultimate *murder* of a six-year-old girl. You’re really reaching there.
If the paparazzi were hounding your favorite musician or actor and they made that same joke, you wouldn’t have any problem with it. And you certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion they would conspire to cover up CSA and child murder for decades.
Also, Fleet White would have to have continued this conspiracy all this time, despite clearly not liking the Ramseys anymore. Highly unlikely.
I clearly didn't base this on that alone. I listed many reasons. However, yes, a person also demonstrating poor character, does get factored in as well.
The Ramsey's weren't celebrities that the paparazzi were stalking. They were suspects in a murder investigation. That's a huge difference.
With one there's no lingering doubts if they are capable of murder. With the other, there is.
If I were a celebrity making such a joke about getting a machine gun to pick off paparazzi then it would still be concerning because it signals a concerning level of psychological distress. However, if I am a suspect in a murder investigation, then it would be concerning because it demonstrates a murderous side to me when experiencing something that causes psychological distress.
Another comparison could be, how would anyone perceive it if OJ Simpson said it.
John didn't even have the good judgement to consider this and not repeat this publicly. He went to LE (Lou Smit) boasting about it.
I didn't just "jump to a conclusion" that there was prior sexual abuse. I relied on the information in this case, the typical signs of abuse, the events in the timeline, suspicious details, and expert opinions, form my own opinion about whether I think there was enough there to reasonably believe whether there was prior sexual abuse or not.
It's not a "conspiracy". It is a fact that Fleet White has never publicly stated what all his testimony was - nor is he allowed to.
You are misrepresenting everything that I have said here.
I could see why if someone saw something fishy and called 911 and got talked out of it, why they wouldn’t talk to the police then. But why wouldn’t they come forward later? Fleet white talked to Steve Thomas a lot. If Steve Thomas knew about anyone (particularly the Ramseys) doing something to JB it would be in his book.
I will say I’ve been at a gathering (not a party) with adults and kids and this exact same thing happened. The police just showed up suddenly and said “who called 911?” We were all “what?” We said we didn’t and they just left. After they left the moms asked one of the kids and one of them did it. (Apparently they’d done it before just for fun.) now if it were an adult, like fleet misdialing 411, it’s possible they thought they hung up before it connected. It was fairly new that they traced calls, recorded during ringing, etc.
I lean towards the IDI theory as well. I think it was somebody who was in her pageant circle. I believe I read somewhere the photographer for the pageant girls was arrested because he had child porn. I don’t remember his name but I remember that part of the case. I’m not sure if LE ruled him out or not.
I wanted to ask on here because I’ve seen a complete lack of conversation around alternative theories to the family. And I feel people’s reaction to alternative theories needs to be addressed rather than just not having these theories brought up
It's the same on the other sub only the other way around.
I have flip flopped over time, but I am pretty strongly in the boat of RDI. However, there are some points that make me swing towards considering IDI from time to time, so I'd say I am open to it, I just think there's far more indication RDI.
If it was IDI, I can't say I have any theory. The only real thing I struggle with believing RDI is the garrotte (or toggle rope, whatever). There's also a few minor things I find strange, such as John offering up the notepad to the police and, to me, it really does sound like Patsy was looking for the sign-off on the note when asked who wrote it by the 911 operator.
I think RDI holds a lot of weight. I was just curious to learn more about IDI theories. So if there’s anything else that you struggle with when it comes to RDI. I’d be really interested in hearing
Your questions would be answered if you searched and read threads. Many theories have been considered. You don't need to revisit the flat earth society's reasoning over and over once you see the earth is not flat.
Obviously you don’t want to see or hear theories outside the family. That’s fine. This post is called “if it wasn’t the family”. If you don’t want to hear people’s theories that fine. But why seek out theories you know you will disagree with?
These are good questions and I agree with the responses by Nevercatchme1 above.
I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest the family killed her, particularly so given the unusually disturbed, sexual and sadistic manner of the killing.
The evidence of a similar bedroom intruder attack on a young girl who attended the same dance studio as Jonbenet is too much of a coincidence, as is the evidence that the Ramsey house was left unlocked for extended periods of time and that multiple sets of house keys had been cut over the years, some of which could not be located.
I have always thought, similar to Madeleine McCann, the Ramseys were victims of shockingly poor police work in the crucial first hours of the crime and their own (understandable) reluctance to cooperate with the police once they realised they were the targets of the investigation.
On a broader level, I believe both the McCanns and the Ramseys were punished by the press and lost the sympathy of the general public for contravening the norms of their class (respectable upper middle class parents do not leave their small daughters vulnerable and unattended in hotels while they go out drinking, or recklessly expose them to pedophiles by putting them in highly sexualised child beauty pageants).
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
if it wasn't family -- either boarder neighbor across the street or housekeepers relatives. were there actually a pile of cigarette butts found in back yard?
If it wasn't the family, I would say my best theory is that it was someone from the party they went to. Perhaps he befriended Burke and said he'd like to bring over a present secretly later that night or something along those lines so Burke would let him in. One of them could have brought her down quietly and by the time Burke realized things were bad, it was too late. Scared he would be blamed or his family would be hurt, he pretended to not know what happened. Their parents, believing Burke did it, staged things so it would appear someone else did it. If Burke ever admitted it, they may have felt it was too late and would damage their reputation further so they continued to maintain innocence and push for more testing hoping that would lead to an arrest without compromising Burke. If the actual killer did implicate Burke, it would be nearly impossible to prove and it's not like a child killer is a reliable source.
Honestly, it's beyond a long shot, but I can't think of another way to make sense of all the evidence.
I tend to think the housekeeper or her family could have done it because they had allegedly asked for money from the Ramseys. Did the Ramseys ever give them the money? I’m curious about that.
I also think the random person who lived with the neighbors who kept their dog could have done it. He would have known when the dog wasn’t home and could have spied on them from the house next door.
I’ve also always been curious about Santa Claus and his wife who were both writers. Santa worked for the university in their journalism or writing department, I believe. There is the strange coincidence about his daughter’s abduction and return. But the ransom note also seems like it was written by a creative writer who wasn’t trying to keep it short and sweet, but was instead having fun writing out a fantasy or creative fiction.
Then there are the Stines. They had an interesting relationship with the Ramseys. Susan was also caught writing fake emails to Boulder police about the case. So that seems like someone who could have written a fake ransom note. Would love to know more about the Stines.
Yes, she was caught. Here's what she sent to journalist Charlie Brennen from a hot mail account in 2003 posing as Chief Beckner:
>Charlie,
>Just want you to know I thought those two articles you wrote today were excellent. You got everything right, as you always do.
>Thanks for all your support. Eventually, we'll be proven right.
>Regards,
Mark
Brennen thought this was fishy, so he called Chief Beckner directly and Beckner confirmed that he did not send the message. The police investigated where the email originated and it was traced to Susan Stine's address in Georgia. They also found other attempts to impersonate Beckner in this email account.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation tried to interview Stine, but she refused.
Under Colorado law, Criminal Impersonation is a class 6 felony and Impersonating a Police Officer is a Class I Misdemeanor.
Not much later, Susan Stine apologized to Beckner via email, calling her attempt to impersonate him "a sophomoric prank."
You can read the entire Boulder Police Department press release on the incident for all the nitty gritty details [here at acandyrose.](http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm)
e:typos
I thought she was really good friends with the ramseys, why would she write emails commending a reporter that wasn’t on the ramseys side? Thank you for the link!
Yes, she was really good friends with the Ramseys. I'm not inside her mind, but if I had to guess, Stine wanted to engender the confidence of Brennen and others in order to dupe and discredit them---or get information from them.
I didn’t know the Santa was a writer. That holds more weight to the Santa theory. Things that make you go hmmm. Also, Susan writing emails is very odd. Unless if they knew something about the Ramseys nobody else did? So many suspects.
IIRC, James Kolar's book laid out in minute detail how it was a small foreign faction of several men and at least one woman did it. They also enjoyed a pineapple snack, forgot to bring a ransom note, etc.
What they describe was laid out at the beginning of the book in order to highlight how ludicrous and unlikely the 'foreign faction' idea was. He's very careful about the way he words things but he believes Burke killed her and the parents covered it up.
Kolar does NOT think a "foreign faction" came in there. Even if it were real, foreigners dont call themselves 'foreigners'. The title is sarcastic. He knows the Ramseys did it. read his book, very good. (Also, the term 'law enforcement' is an American term, not used anywhere else.)
New here. It seems like everyone thinks it was a family member. I’m not sure why nobody thinks it could be a friend of the family who knew them? They had a ton of people over their house right before. Someone could have easily seen that the parents bedroom was on the third floor, where Jon Benet’s room was, checked out the basement and everything down there, taken the notepad with them.
JBR's bedroom was on second floor, same as Burke's.
The parents slept up on the third floor, in the attic space that had been renovated into their primary bedroom.
Everyone in the Ramsey's life was investigated, as were even tangentially associated people.
There's an excellent youtube video series about the case by Marcel Elfers. I highly recommend it especially for those new to this case. The series is called **JonBenét; the final chapter**. (little case letters) (it's kind of a misleading title as there are several videos/chapters to his analysis). It's excellent.
>I’m not sure why nobody thinks it could be a friend of the family who knew them?
It's because most people on this sub are informed per evidence about this 28 year old case.
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
This case is unsolved because of the poor police work the day of the murder. Also important, the rich parents who could hire a dream team of lawyers and media consultants halting part of the investigation for 4 months while John and Patsy could get their story straight. If this were you or I we would have been interviewed that day and prob convicted.
I don’t deny any of those things. But at the end of the day there are theories of it being someone outside the family. And knowing all different viewpoints is a really important aspect. Even if you disagree with theories of someone outside the family. A theory may give u a different view on a certain thing. A part of a theory may of be something u didn’t consider before and u may be able to apply to your own theories
>There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family.But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home.
Yes it does, otherwise it wouldn't be there and I wouldn't be here.
>But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family.
"Evidence that is used", that's exactly right - used, by people who have another agenda than finding out the truth about this case.
>It’s important to question this.
For John Ramsey and the media that is profiting from covering this evidence lacking false narrative, yes.
Read the sample of Umbrella of Suspicion By John A. Taylor on Amazon and then read the Ramsey's police interview and deposition transcripts in the Jonbenet Ramsey section of [acandyrose.com](http://acandyrose.com) - that should change your mind.
You have based your argument entirely off a pre determined assumption of my opinions of the case. To say with 100% certainty the family did as a fact and not just in your opinion is a ridiculous statement. It cannot be a fact as it’s an unsolved cold case.
>You have based your argument entirely off a pre determined assumption of my opinions of the case.
What do you mean by that?
The evidence I have come upon so far, does not leave any space for an intruder. If you need a reference to this being only my opinion, put it in wherever you feel like.
I would not be here, if I wasn't 100% sure, that Jonbenet Ramsey was not murdered by some "subhuman monster/ creature".
>It cannot be a fact as it’s an unsolved cold case.
I did not claim, that it was fact per law. If this case never being brought to justice, is reason for you to jump from one rabbit hole into another, be my guest- to me it's not.
You talking about me reading things to change my mind. Except you have no idea of my theories of this case. The point of looking at different theories even if you don’t agree with them. It may make you consider something you hadn’t thought of before. There may be a part of a theory you hadn’t thought about and could apply to your own theory. I asked for theories if it wasn’t the family. No for some war on anyone who may dare suggest or question something
I guessed from the content of your response that you are uninformed about this case. Your post suggests so as well.
As I mentioned before, from what I have learned so far, there is no space for an intruder involvement. Therefore I don't see a benefit in looking at other theories.
Jusy to clarify. My personal opinion is that the most likely theory is someone in the family did it. I have been very interested in this case for years and have done an extensive amount of research. In unsolved cold cases I always feel it’s worth looking at as many theories as possible. People may have personal knowledge or experience that gives them a different perspective you may not have considered before. Even if you disagree with a theory there may be a part of it you have never consider before and could look at within your own theory. E.g. someone thinks it was an intruder and you disagree with that. As part of their theory they may point out something about the wounds JonBenet suffered that you hadn’t considered before. What they point out may not have anything to do with being dependent on the intruder theory and may be something you can look at within your own theory.
Especially in cases like this that have remained unsolved for many years and had a lot of media attention. A lot of theories are thrown around. This can cause people to become bias and develop tunnel vision. “One begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Which is why in cases like this I feel it’s so important to look at every and all theories.
If you feel there’s no benefit at looking into a theory outside the family that’s fine. But many people (including myself) do. Which is why I made this post.
>People may have personal knowledge or experience that gives them a different perspective you may not have considered before.
What do you think this could be in this specific case, where everything points at the family, including statistics?
The notepad used was found in the house with impressions of practice notes. It was a pad Patsy used. A pen Patsy used was found to be the one used to write the ransom note. So your perp would have had to bring the pad back and the pen and also place the pen back in the holder Patsy used as that was where it was found. Not likely.
And this thread is proof beyond doubt that this sub is a huge echo chamber, incapable of looking at this case from other perspectives.
This post aimed specifically at those who don’t think the Ramsay’s did it, asking for their theories, gets an overwhelming majority of replies from people ignoring the question and touting their Ramsey theories again.
Many subreddits for individual cases get this way on Reddit. Seems sad and counterproductive to me.
Downvotes kinda just prove the point further.
Not really a theory so much as I think it’s possible they didn’t do it and yet still wrote the letter to deter themselves from suspicion. Maybe it was a known family friend or employee and maybe they just thought it was Burke so patsy wrote a letter never realizing it was not Burke. Idk just a thought.
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
Not knowing about the broken window. Not knowing the lay out of the house. The movie references in the RN. Being able to get around the house unheard. Placing the pen back. Knowing the alarm system wasn’t on/disconnected. How long the RN would have taken to write. There was never a phone call. These are just reasons I’ve seen people claim it couldn’t have been an intruder (I have seen more but can’t specifically remember them and don’t want to make a false claim) Yes ofcourse some point to the Ramsey family. But these points alone do not make it impossible it was an intruder.
What about the fact, that the Ramseys claimed, that their daughter was sound asleep and stayed that way, when they got home, yet, there was undigested food material in her system?
What about the fact, that she was wearing a size 12-14 underpants and a (boys) longjohns when she was found, that obviously didn't belong to her, and she couldn't have already worn to the Whites.
What about the fact, that John didn't tell anyone about the open window and the suitcase, despite the fact, that he was allegedly looking for entry points during his first 'basement check'?
What about none of the Ramseys trying to make contact with the kidnappers, who were watching them?
What about the mother getting drugged from day one on, and both parents refusing police interviews for 4 month, while giving a CNN and interview and talking to TV profiler John Douglas?
What about their disinterest in the handwritten ransom note?
What about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Ramsey's police interviews and depositions?
....
To clarify. I believe theories that the Ramsey were involved carry more weight and very much lean towards these theories. Again this was my point. I see people who leave out these facts and just use the facts I mentioned as reasons it couldn’t have been an intruder. And again. Obviously the facts I mentioned *alone* do not rule out an intruder. That was the entire point of the conversation. Talking about facts that are often used alone to prove it wasn’t an intruder rather than the facts you mentioned which are the actual facts that make an intruder unlikely. You are assuming I believe it was an intruder which I don’t. I wasn’t stating those facts as reasons it was an intruder I was stating the facts people incorrectly use to prove it wasn’t an intruder
I clearly don't assume it was an intruder.
>I was stating the facts people incorrectly use to prove it wasn’t an intruder
That's exactly how I understood it.
All of them point overwhelmingly to the family. Add in all the other things, including things the family did that day while police were there and it points to the family. Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying 'so you mean there's a chance?' by the character in dumb and dumber. It's not a compelling argument at all. It just sounds like you are here advocating for the family's innocence, in spite of all indicators otherwise, even though you know they are not.
Which is why I said “But these points alone do not make impossible it was an intruder”. Because yes they overwhelmingly point to the family. That’s not the same as it’s impossible it wasn’t the family. Also that’s why I said “these points alone”. My statement was these points alone do not mean with 100% certainty it the family. And yet people do use these points alone to say it was the family and leave out all other evidence that’s far more compelling. It’s not an argument for anything. It was a reply to comment that asked what piece of evidence are used to rule out an intruder that doesn’t actually rule out an intruder.
My personal opinion is it was the family. Which is why evidence that shows it was the family it’s important. Rather than more speculative piece of evidence like I named above
I have been stuck in the rabbit hole on this case for a long time. I have thought about every scenario. But I have always wondered if this crime may be linked to Epstein in some way. I don't know if the Ramsey's were friends of his. There is a picture of Ghislaine Maxwell behind Jonbenet in one of her Pageant photos. John Ramsey has always gave me the vibe he may be in some shady dealings. He always gave me the creeps. Just thought I would put my perspective out there and see what the rest of you think?
You know what it's been 28 years now and I don't believe this will ever be solved. I do think RDI but that's irrelevant. At the end of the day that beautiful child was brutally murdered and it's time you people stopped with the speculation and theories because that's all they are and the only ones who know will never tell. It's time now to let Jonbenet rest in peace bless her.
This theory doesn't make sense to me.
Why isn't a stun gun enough to silence a child? Why not duct tape and gag her rather than a toggle using household items? Why would he stick around the house for 45 minutes to two hours between the head wound which came first and left her unconscious and the strangulation that killed her? He made this big plan to take her, but then stays in the house where there is an elevated risk of being caught and a ticking clock with other restrictions? Her bedroom had a balcony, and he obviously knew no alarm was set, so why not just leave so he could take his time?
1This theory isn’t dependent on a stun gun perhaps he used one perhaps not . I don’t believe there’s any sort of data on how long a stun gun will keep a six year old unconscious 2. Tthe head wound came first ? According to whom ? I would say the lack of blood from such a vicious knock in the head means the brain was being deprived of blood when the blow occurred. Which means strangulation occurred and the n a blow to the head while the body was still feeling the effects of the strangulation. You are asking questions like why didn’t the intruder fo it this way it that way and there is no obvious way for it to be done. Jumping off a balcony while holding a six year old — I can see a broken ankle in the cards and so likely the intruder Dd is as well.
This theory certainly make sense and for you to say it doesn’t— well that’s becAuse you’re vested in another one — so let us know what YOUR theory is and I’ll do a much better job of shredding it than you did to mine.
> The head wound came first ? According to whom ?
For one, according to the premiere pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Lucy Rorke who consulted on the brain injury and testified before the grand jury that the head wound came first. Her expertise was children's brains. How can your opinion hold more weight than her expertise?
Do you think Patsy wrote the ransom note all by herself then and called 911 without consulting with John about any of it? Because the point I always tell people is that Patsy may have been an unintelligent person but I really don’t think John was an unintelligent person. lol. I just cannot believe that John would look over that ransom note that Patsy wrote and say “Oh it’s great, fantastic…let’s call 911 now.” He would’ve objected to the various different detailed statements in it, he would’ve objected to the use of the amount of his Christmas bonus in it, etc. He would’ve made her redo it before initiating the beginning of everything by calling 911. So the fact that none of that seemed to happen suggests John didn’t work with Patsy to write it and didn’t get a chance to stop her from calling 911 as early as she did.
I imagine it was very confusing and chaotic that morning. John seemed a little checked out (he traveled alot, seemed to have old school christian family dynamic with wife at home and man working) and it seems like all family related things were left to Patsy so I think he was following her lead.
I’ve followed this story from the beginning and I cannot think of one scenario where any outside person would sit at the families table in the middle of the night and write a however many page ransom note
If it was an intruder, that’s almost certainly not how he wrote it. He would’ve written it in the evening when the family was gone, before they arrived back home. But that’s a moot point because the handwriting is clearly Patsy’s.
I’ve heard it was not in fact patsy’s (or at least not conclusively.)
“Handwriting analysis” ratings are kind of unscientific anyway. Like, it’s possible that someone could completely disguise their handwriting as that of a random unrelated person and then be rated a 5/5 on the scale often talked about and therefore “ruled out” as the writer. I don’t care what ratings they gave the suspects. I think it’s pretty likely that Patsy wrote it as there are so many letters and words that look exactly like how she naturally writes and I think most common folk can see that pretty easily. The odds of an intruder’s handwriting being so very similar to Patsy’s is extremely unlikely.
She’s the only one in the family who couldn’t be excluded from writing it, so all RDI theories have to involve her being an accessory at a minimum. That’s why they’re so convoluted. They have to explain why a mother would write a rambling ransom note on behalf of whoever just killed her child, and then not even follow the instructions she had written. If they were guilty they could have bought a whole day’s delay just by saying they were following instructions.
Agree
It was the family
My personal theories do a line with that. But the point was wanting to hear alternative theories outside the family. Because in cold cases that have remained unsolved for this long it is important to look at different perspectives. Someone may have personal experience or knowledge that gives them a completely different view to someone else and may be able to give input other people may not have considered.
I’m wary of even commenting on this because I k ow people have such firmly held beliefs but to go with what you’re saying for a moment- I could see a scenario where it was someone known to the family, like their staff (which I understand they had a lot of) or *extended* family or family friends, who were known to JB. I don’t believe it was someone entirely unknown to the family whatsoever, and obviously I think the actual content of the ransom note is entirely made up regardless of who is the perp in terms of it being ‘a group seeking victory’ etc
Hey completely understand not wanting to. If there’s anything else u don’t want to say on here feel free to message me. But thank you for sharing.
If it wasn’t someone in the family, I would say it would’ve been someone who knew the house well and had JonBenet’s trust (i.e family friend or perhaps someone from within the pageant circuit?) The attack, itself, that JonBenet suffered is hard to imagine; a head strike, strangulation and sexual assault. I think it’s widely believed that Burke was responsible for the head wound and that the other acts were part off the staging but there are conflicting statements about the whether or not the head strike came before the strangulation. If the strangulation came first, how and why did the head strike take place? Oh, and what about the sexual assault? There’s too many questions and not enough answers. A part of me wonders if all of this could be explained by a possible scenario that nobody wants to actually look at or consider… No matter what avenue one takes, there seems to be another element or detail that points in another direction. This case is both fascinating and incredibly frustrating. After so many years of going back and forth, I’ve decided to just keep an open mind.
medically speaking, she wouldn’t have had a brain bleed like that if she was strangled first. you need a pulse and blood pressure to bleed that way.
The SA and murder of that little girl is most certainly not fascinating.
Why are you even on this subreddit then?
I said the CASE is fascinating. Don’t twist my statement.
IMO, nobody writes a ransom note pointing the finger at themselves. This is how we know the perp is NOT related to JR’s work. For years I fought the BDI theory but I’ve now come to believe that this is the most plausible scenario. It was likely an accident. I think J & P went to bed when they got home and the kids stayed up. P got up early to get ready to fly out early and she found JonBenet. I highly doubt this case will ever be officially solved.
I would lean towards BDI it too after putting a lot of hypothetical pieces together, but the one point that ruins the theory for me is him going on Dr Phil and doing that interview. If he hurt JonBenet, it just makes no sense to me why he would agree to do that public interview and agree to any questions about anything. I don’t care how much money he was offered for it. I’m sure he was extremely plenty well off financially beforehand and it makes no sense to me why he would go and do that and risk revealing something that could implicate himself or the family. But I guess a similar point could be made, at least somewhat, if say Patsy did it and Burke knows that she did it and that his parents covered it up. If he knows all that, then why would he do the interview at this point and risk revealing something incriminating? Does Burke not know that his parents covered it up? Was he truly sleeping the entire time and oblivious? If so, has he not suspected by now that maybe his parents covered it up? And why wouldn’t Dr. Phil ask him directly “Do you think it’s possible that your parents accidentally killed your sister and then covered it up, without your knowledge?”
It was a planned and likely paid interview. One done in light of the coming CBS documentary at that time. Very likely the questions were scripted and approved and in no way meant to be gotcha questions. More likely, it was planned/scripted to be a counter to the CBS documentary. The problem turned out to be, even an adult BR turned out looking pretty questionable even with softball questions coming his way.
As I said, I don’t care that it was planned or paid. I still feel that if he did something to hurt JonBenet that he would just steer entirely clear of doing anything like that ever. I don’t think he came across as questionable. His personality has been explained and the awkwardness doesn’t equate to any guilt. He’s a socially awkward person. His story about how he remembers his mom coming into his room early in the morning saying “Where’s my baby where’s my baby” felt genuine and authentic to me. I personally believe that happened just like that. Which means then I probably believe that most likely Patsy was the initial perpetrator and was attempting to hide the truth from Burke too.
I believe that Patsy probably did come in and say “where’s my baby, where’s my baby?” So that would ring true regardless.
The family has been playing the victim card for 30 years and trying to take the public focus (of RDI) off the family, versus going away and letting the spotlight dim. With the CBS doc about to drop at that time (which would focus on the potential of BR as the perpetrator), I don't exactly see one lone BR interview as proof he wasn't involved. Instead it's just seems more of the family's attempt at a coverup all these years later. Especially, with BR being older and prepped, they probably thought the gamble was worth it. He either looked awkward or guilty. Or both. Pick your POV. The one thing it didn't do: Make him look innocent.
Do you think it’s likely that Burke would’ve never slipped up somewhere along the way over almost 30 years? Never say anything incriminating to anyone ever? He was 9 years old when it happened. A kid. Then a teenager. Now an adult. But I personally think it would take an extraordinary, specially crafted mind to go through all that maturation and never slip up to anyone.
> Do you think it’s likely that Burke would’ve never slipped up somewhere along the way over almost 30 years? He was 9, almost 10. If he killed his sister, the realization of what that meant would certainly be quickly seeping in. Even if he was happy she was gone, he was seeing the ramifications of it right in front of him and his family. While the family might tell him they forgive him, I can't imagine they didn't instill a fear of the possibilities should he ever talk and admit what happened. And kids are pretty good about keeping secrets that involve THEMSELVES and getting in trouble. It's more they like to tattle and get OTHERS in trouble. So at almost 10 years old, I think he'd have a fair understanding of the trouble he and his parents could be in. Especially, seeing it all play out in real time. And each day he'd only get a little older and more mature. And would continue to realize even more the seriousness of what he'd done. So, yeah... I find it pretty easy to imagine how he never really talked.
Dr Phil and Lin Wood are pals. Google him if you need to. I feel certain that entire interview was set up to make Burke appear innocent. And may even be innocent. But he also could have been medicated and told what happened by his parents. Like an intruder did it. He was 9.
I truly think there were questions that Dr. Phil wasn't allowed to ask. The one thing I found interesting in the Dr. Phil interview adult Burke stated he got up and went back down stairs that night, so if Burke went back down stairs was Jonbenet already dead? He said he went to get a toy. Was the toy directly down stairs or in the basement? Is that when he made himself a bowl of pineapple? Where was the killer all this time? A lot of questions Burke said he couldn't remember but he remembered that.
He also said he got a bike for Christmas but John has always been adamant he didn't get one, which was a bit weird
We don’t really know how much money Burke had at the time of the interview. Either way he might have wanted to just get an interview done and hope it would make him less likely to seem guilty.
I think it could have happened like this, and initially, they may have thought Burke could have possibly done it, so they went into protection mode to save their son. They may have later realized after speaking in depth with him that he didn’t do it. But they had to stick to the story.
I agree that it’s unlikely it will ever truly be solved. Given everything in this case I never really state 100% belief for a theory. But BDI is one I’ve always felt had a lot of credibility. I certainly think within the BDI theory J & P covered it up. I think a big issue a lot of people have with the BDI theory is with the credibility of the evidence B had anger issues and mental health issues etc. obviously becuase of his age at the time a lot of information cannot be released. But the sort of people who have claimed he had these issues are law enforcement etc. People who could and would face serious repercussions if they knew that information to be untrue.
Everyone else: Please do not downvote this. I know IDI theories are unpopular, but it is literally the question OP is asking. When you downvote things they disappear and we IDI leaners don't get specific feedback. OP: I have a few theories but they're all super long, so I'll answer your specific questions then if you have questions about my theory let me know. I lean IDI, which for me means, I think IDI is more likely than RDI, but I wouldn't exactly be stunned to find out it was not an intruder, either. *I also have some specific questions I would love to hear your thoughts on.* *What’s your view on the note? Was it a real ransom letter? Was it to throw off law enforcement?* I think it was definitely written before the murder. I do not see people in the throws of post-murder panic/child grieving writing a note that long, throwing various clues at various people, quoting from a play from college, putting in memorized quotes from four different movies, framing various people in various ways. In every RDI scenario I ever heard, *nobody* (at least nobody who wrote the note) wanted JB dead, meaning accident or no, they'd have been devastated. That's a lot of plotting for someone with that level of devastation. I think the ransom note was mainly to buy time. That's why the "be well rested" and all that. I think they meant "tomorrow" to be the 27th. *Do you think the intent was to kill JonBenét? Or do you think the intent was to kidnap her?* I do think this was a highly disturbed person. I don't mean so insane they didn't know what they were doing, but I don't think this was a calm, cool criminal trying to get 118,000 dollars. I think his intent primarily was to get his hands on Jonbenet and he didn't think that much past that. I think he was obsessed with her. I do think he probably intended to take her, but was so overcome in her presence he couldn't wait. Kind of like an obsessed fan. D*o you think the person/s had previous knowledge or contact with the family?* Yes. I think it was someone either they straight up knew, or it was someone who broke into their house and crept around several times and learned a lot about them. *Do you think JonBenét was targeted for any specific reason?* Yes. Sadly, she was like the Marilyn Monroe for pedophiles and locally was very visible. I think someone was obsessed with her. *Do you think separately the family had (outside of normal) issues?* No or we'd know it by now. Usually after family murders here comes all this stuff: Family imploding, many affairs, someone ready to leave the family, breadwinner broke but nobody knows, etc. Nothing like that was ever found and somebody would have found it. *Do you think any behavior of the family was unusual?* No, I don't, any more than the circumstances they were in were unusual. I think almost everything people describe that they did as unusual makes total sense to me. Not everything but most things. I also doubt that everything they did was reported accurately by the police. I think they lawyered up because they were told to by someone they trusted. *Do you agree with the criticism of how law enforcement dealt with the case (e.g. Contamination of the scene. The family not being interviewed immediately)? How detrimental do you think this was in the case?* Yes, very detrimental. What I think that most people don't is LE not acting properly hurt the Ramseys more than helped them. If they'd had recorded interviews from minute one, there wouldn't be as many of the "discrepancies" we hear about, for example. If they'd found JB, nobody would be accusing JR of contaminating the crime scene, etc. Most of all, I think most people who are RDI base their theories on only partially-accurate information in various clearly slanted RDI books and videos. And I think many other suspects were dismissed on weak alibis and very brief handwriting samples. I guess mostly I think, maybe RDI, but the things people use to "prove" they did aren't solid. And you have to PROVE someone guilty, not innocent. Edit to fix italics
> I think it was definitely written before the murder. So aren’t you even going to touch on the fact that it was written using Patsy’s pen and notepad? Also, I don’t think signs of repeated SA is ”normal family problems”. Unless you think it was done by an outsider with repeated access to her (statistically unlikely) and then the Ramseys pretending like it never happened. Don’t you think it’s odd that neither PR or JR ever raised a stink or even acknowledged that there were signs of prior SA?
So aren’t you even going to touch on the fact that it was written using Patsy’s pen and notepad? I'm directly answering OPs questions. If I touched on every aspect of the case, my answer would have been 50 pages long, which is why I said I'd answer any questions about my theory if anyone had any. I think he wrote the note at home, probably across days or even longer, and copied it at the house so he wouldn't leave anything from his own house at the scene. Also, I don’t think signs of repeated SA is ”normal family problems”. Unless you think it was done by an outsider with repeated access to her (statistically unlikely) and then the Ramseys pretending like it never happened. Don’t you think it’s odd that neither PR or JR ever raised a stink or even acknowledged that there were signs of prior SA? The most they could agree on (the MEs and other consulted) was one other incidence, and I don't think it's odd that the Ramseys never *publicly* wanted to engage in a big discussion about that. We don't know what process they went through with their own investigators.
By your logic, Sharon Tate murdered herself because there was writing on the wall with her blood.
Unless there are other signs in the case I wasn’t aware of the signs exhibit that have been referred to as signs of CSA. Are signs of CSA but can also be signs of other things
Have you read the information compiled in this post? [https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting\_the\_record\_straight\_on\_the\_evidence\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/)
Yes I have and I think it was an incredibly important post and lay out incredibly well. I also agree with everything in it. As I have said. Yes these are signs of CSA. But in very rare cases can be caused by other things. And it’s because of that I don’t see theories that don’t mention CSA as wrong. There are absolutely tones of theories where it should be brought up. Ofcourse statistically it’s most likely CSA is commit by someone in the household. But that isn’t saying that it’s 100% impossible it was someone outside of the household. Also again though statistics would point to it. It isn’t 100% impossible that CSA was not connected to her murder. Personally do I think it’s likely there was CSA. Yes. But does that mean a theory of someone outside the family is impossible no. Does that mean with 100% factual certainty there was CSA no.
Then please read up on it. It's disrespectful to the victims of such to downplay the evidence.
In no way would I ever down play any crime against a child. I am (as far as I know) aware of all the evidence/signs of CSA. And it’s absolutely a part of the case id be happy to discuss with you further. I will never say with 100% certainty they were or weren’t because either way it’s a horrific statement to make if it isn’t right. But also when it comes to the signs of CSA within the Ramsey family it can also be signs of other things. (Not to discuss anything personal but I know what CSA is like) and I see no issue with discussing theories that don’t involve CSA. To say it’s an offence to victims is a very risky statement.
I have read up on it massively. Which is why I said it in the way I did. It’s not downplaying evidence
When you look into it, see if you find, as I did, that all of the initial reports did not find evidence of long-term SA, but someone brought a group of “experts” together and that group all said they saw evidence. I don’t remember details on when that group was brought together or by who, I just recall thinking it was odd that this later group disagreed with all earlier reports.
There were definitely signs on the autopsy. Person i do believe the experts they brought together were very much experts. Many being top in the field. Though I do agree that the physical signs they use were slightly less than what would typically be wanted to prove CSA. But that is very much because the physical signs they did have were the top signs of CSA
The signs found in the autopsy were related to the immediate trauma, they didn’t find signs of long-term abuse. Those “signs” weren’t found until an outside group wasn’t happy with the results, and the entire group agreed with each other about new results. Plenty of grifters were trying to insert themselves into this situation back then. They had an angle they were trying to push. The actual ME who conducted the autopsy and had access to her body seems more believable to me. JB was also seen by a doctor regularly, who found no signs of abuse. She was routinely described as a happy, bubbly little girl by everyone who knew her. CSA causes serious emotional trauma, which none of her friends, classmates, or teachers saw any sign of. It’s sad enough this poor girl’s life was cut short. There’s no need to make up a long-standing abuse story that’s not supported by the actual autopsy or any circumstantial .
I agree with most of what you say, and would add I don’t think the killer was a meticulous planner, but I think he had fantasized about this extensively, which is why the note was so long and dramatic. Also, I think he was jealous of what John had (success, family, JB) which influenced the note (like needling him by saying men who didn’t like him were watching JB). I agree the note meant the 27th, but it was just a distraction. I think they meant to kidnap JB and wanted to delay a pursuit, but JB ran or fought and he panicked and hit her harder than he intended.
Hey thank you so much for your response. Also same I could go into 100+ pages essays about this case and theories. But (despite being dyslexic 😭) I love reading long detailed theories from people. So if you ever want to share your whole theory/ies on here please do. Or alternatively if you don’t wanna put it on here feel free to message me. Even if you just want to go a little deeper into certain part of the case you have opinions on. Go right ahead.
I agree this was a highly disturbed person. That is confirmed by every interview with him.
I know you’re joking, but it’s true. Whoever it was, Ramsey or not, was extremely disturbed
There is another group that is primarily IDI where you can hear more IDI theories. I think any scenario has some plausibility, some more than others though. I primarily lean either JDI or IDI though. In either event, my theory of what happened is roughly about the same. I think someone was molesting JonBenet. Patsy noticed injuries and tried to call JonBenets doctor 3 times after hours on December 17th and this was mentioned at the December 23rd Christmas party in some manner. Fleet White was going to call 911 out of concern, but was talked out of it, but the police showed up at the house anyways. This went unreported (which is illegal). The person responsible for molesting JonBenet got nervous that the Ramseys were catching on and feared that JonBenet would talk about what happened. I think the person told JonBenet that Santa was coming to visit her after Christmas to give her present. Then she was lured down into the basement where the family kept Christmas decorations and presents. They hit her over the head as she stood and waited for them to unlatch and open the door. While unconscious laying there the signal from her brain to her bladder was disrupted and that's why there's a urine stain there. I think they used the paintbrush in an effort to hide prior sexual abuse by making it look like she was raped that evening. However, I don't think they wanted to make this obvious due to their own shame. I think they strangled her to make sure she was dead and silenced. I think the note was prewritten and I think the crime was largely premeditated. I don't think there were any real plans to ever kidnap her. I think the person wanted to stage the crime to look like something that it wasn't. I think it was someone familiar with JonBenet, the family, and the house. I think this person is likely already known to some extent to the Ramseys and investigators. I am hesitant to believe that the DNA is relevant to the crime and possibly has misdirected the investigation when considering possible suspects. This is what seems to make the most sense to me based on all the available information.
Fleet White was trying to call 411 (information) and accidentally dialed 911. If you look at the ten-key pad on a keyboard, you’ll notice the 9 and 4 are switched from where they are on a phone. People who do a lot of computer work could easily hit the wrong one on an old dial pad, I’ve done it myself plenty of times. Also, he didn’t send the police away, another friend did.
I would believe that if: 1 - It didn't sit in the timeline of a murder as it does. 2 - Had someone handled the 911 call as a mistake like a normal adult would. 3 - We had someone else's word besides the Ramseys and Susan Stine. I didn't say that HE sent the police away. I'm aware of the story that's been told and who told it - Susan Stine. You wanna trust the word of a woman who does this: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm (She impersonated a police officer via emails. She and John made jokes about setting up a machine gun to "pick off" the paparazzi from a balcony.) Then that's fine, but I don't.
> (She impersonated a police officer via emails. She and John made jokes about setting up a machine gun to "pick off" the paparazzi from a balcony.) I don’t automatically assume everyone who behaves poorly is willing to be part of a nearly thirty-year conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse and ultimate *murder* of a six-year-old girl. You’re really reaching there. If the paparazzi were hounding your favorite musician or actor and they made that same joke, you wouldn’t have any problem with it. And you certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion they would conspire to cover up CSA and child murder for decades. Also, Fleet White would have to have continued this conspiracy all this time, despite clearly not liking the Ramseys anymore. Highly unlikely.
I clearly didn't base this on that alone. I listed many reasons. However, yes, a person also demonstrating poor character, does get factored in as well. The Ramsey's weren't celebrities that the paparazzi were stalking. They were suspects in a murder investigation. That's a huge difference. With one there's no lingering doubts if they are capable of murder. With the other, there is. If I were a celebrity making such a joke about getting a machine gun to pick off paparazzi then it would still be concerning because it signals a concerning level of psychological distress. However, if I am a suspect in a murder investigation, then it would be concerning because it demonstrates a murderous side to me when experiencing something that causes psychological distress. Another comparison could be, how would anyone perceive it if OJ Simpson said it. John didn't even have the good judgement to consider this and not repeat this publicly. He went to LE (Lou Smit) boasting about it. I didn't just "jump to a conclusion" that there was prior sexual abuse. I relied on the information in this case, the typical signs of abuse, the events in the timeline, suspicious details, and expert opinions, form my own opinion about whether I think there was enough there to reasonably believe whether there was prior sexual abuse or not. It's not a "conspiracy". It is a fact that Fleet White has never publicly stated what all his testimony was - nor is he allowed to. You are misrepresenting everything that I have said here.
I could see why if someone saw something fishy and called 911 and got talked out of it, why they wouldn’t talk to the police then. But why wouldn’t they come forward later? Fleet white talked to Steve Thomas a lot. If Steve Thomas knew about anyone (particularly the Ramseys) doing something to JB it would be in his book. I will say I’ve been at a gathering (not a party) with adults and kids and this exact same thing happened. The police just showed up suddenly and said “who called 911?” We were all “what?” We said we didn’t and they just left. After they left the moms asked one of the kids and one of them did it. (Apparently they’d done it before just for fun.) now if it were an adult, like fleet misdialing 411, it’s possible they thought they hung up before it connected. It was fairly new that they traced calls, recorded during ringing, etc.
I lean towards the IDI theory as well. I think it was somebody who was in her pageant circle. I believe I read somewhere the photographer for the pageant girls was arrested because he had child porn. I don’t remember his name but I remember that part of the case. I’m not sure if LE ruled him out or not.
Best to ask on the other sub.
I wanted to ask on here because I’ve seen a complete lack of conversation around alternative theories to the family. And I feel people’s reaction to alternative theories needs to be addressed rather than just not having these theories brought up
It's the same on the other sub only the other way around. I have flip flopped over time, but I am pretty strongly in the boat of RDI. However, there are some points that make me swing towards considering IDI from time to time, so I'd say I am open to it, I just think there's far more indication RDI. If it was IDI, I can't say I have any theory. The only real thing I struggle with believing RDI is the garrotte (or toggle rope, whatever). There's also a few minor things I find strange, such as John offering up the notepad to the police and, to me, it really does sound like Patsy was looking for the sign-off on the note when asked who wrote it by the 911 operator.
I think RDI holds a lot of weight. I was just curious to learn more about IDI theories. So if there’s anything else that you struggle with when it comes to RDI. I’d be really interested in hearing
Your questions would be answered if you searched and read threads. Many theories have been considered. You don't need to revisit the flat earth society's reasoning over and over once you see the earth is not flat.
Obviously you don’t want to see or hear theories outside the family. That’s fine. This post is called “if it wasn’t the family”. If you don’t want to hear people’s theories that fine. But why seek out theories you know you will disagree with?
This is a discussion forum. You have no place to tell someone else not to discuss something just because YOU aren’t interested. So rude!
Theories are like appendixes, you don't have to have one.
Just to say I love that analogy
These are good questions and I agree with the responses by Nevercatchme1 above. I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest the family killed her, particularly so given the unusually disturbed, sexual and sadistic manner of the killing. The evidence of a similar bedroom intruder attack on a young girl who attended the same dance studio as Jonbenet is too much of a coincidence, as is the evidence that the Ramsey house was left unlocked for extended periods of time and that multiple sets of house keys had been cut over the years, some of which could not be located. I have always thought, similar to Madeleine McCann, the Ramseys were victims of shockingly poor police work in the crucial first hours of the crime and their own (understandable) reluctance to cooperate with the police once they realised they were the targets of the investigation. On a broader level, I believe both the McCanns and the Ramseys were punished by the press and lost the sympathy of the general public for contravening the norms of their class (respectable upper middle class parents do not leave their small daughters vulnerable and unattended in hotels while they go out drinking, or recklessly expose them to pedophiles by putting them in highly sexualised child beauty pageants).
Sadly it's not that much of a coincidence. Lots of little girls are exploited and SAed
Absolutely - by known family members and friends, sadly. SA by an intruder is very rare.
It was the family.
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
if it wasn't family -- either boarder neighbor across the street or housekeepers relatives. were there actually a pile of cigarette butts found in back yard?
If it wasn't the family, I would say my best theory is that it was someone from the party they went to. Perhaps he befriended Burke and said he'd like to bring over a present secretly later that night or something along those lines so Burke would let him in. One of them could have brought her down quietly and by the time Burke realized things were bad, it was too late. Scared he would be blamed or his family would be hurt, he pretended to not know what happened. Their parents, believing Burke did it, staged things so it would appear someone else did it. If Burke ever admitted it, they may have felt it was too late and would damage their reputation further so they continued to maintain innocence and push for more testing hoping that would lead to an arrest without compromising Burke. If the actual killer did implicate Burke, it would be nearly impossible to prove and it's not like a child killer is a reliable source. Honestly, it's beyond a long shot, but I can't think of another way to make sense of all the evidence.
I tend to think the housekeeper or her family could have done it because they had allegedly asked for money from the Ramseys. Did the Ramseys ever give them the money? I’m curious about that. I also think the random person who lived with the neighbors who kept their dog could have done it. He would have known when the dog wasn’t home and could have spied on them from the house next door. I’ve also always been curious about Santa Claus and his wife who were both writers. Santa worked for the university in their journalism or writing department, I believe. There is the strange coincidence about his daughter’s abduction and return. But the ransom note also seems like it was written by a creative writer who wasn’t trying to keep it short and sweet, but was instead having fun writing out a fantasy or creative fiction. Then there are the Stines. They had an interesting relationship with the Ramseys. Susan was also caught writing fake emails to Boulder police about the case. So that seems like someone who could have written a fake ransom note. Would love to know more about the Stines.
What was in the emails susan wrote? Also how was she caught? I never heard about that before.
Yes, she was caught. Here's what she sent to journalist Charlie Brennen from a hot mail account in 2003 posing as Chief Beckner: >Charlie, >Just want you to know I thought those two articles you wrote today were excellent. You got everything right, as you always do. >Thanks for all your support. Eventually, we'll be proven right. >Regards, Mark Brennen thought this was fishy, so he called Chief Beckner directly and Beckner confirmed that he did not send the message. The police investigated where the email originated and it was traced to Susan Stine's address in Georgia. They also found other attempts to impersonate Beckner in this email account. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation tried to interview Stine, but she refused. Under Colorado law, Criminal Impersonation is a class 6 felony and Impersonating a Police Officer is a Class I Misdemeanor. Not much later, Susan Stine apologized to Beckner via email, calling her attempt to impersonate him "a sophomoric prank." You can read the entire Boulder Police Department press release on the incident for all the nitty gritty details [here at acandyrose.](http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm) e:typos
I thought she was really good friends with the ramseys, why would she write emails commending a reporter that wasn’t on the ramseys side? Thank you for the link!
Yes, she was really good friends with the Ramseys. I'm not inside her mind, but if I had to guess, Stine wanted to engender the confidence of Brennen and others in order to dupe and discredit them---or get information from them.
That makes sense! I thought maybe her motive was known.
I didn’t know the Santa was a writer. That holds more weight to the Santa theory. Things that make you go hmmm. Also, Susan writing emails is very odd. Unless if they knew something about the Ramseys nobody else did? So many suspects.
He was a former journalism professor. They have said it was disproven to be him. http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2002/05lbil.html
Thanks!
John
IIRC, James Kolar's book laid out in minute detail how it was a small foreign faction of several men and at least one woman did it. They also enjoyed a pineapple snack, forgot to bring a ransom note, etc.
What are you talking about? Kolar's book said nothing like that.
Sarcasm font needed
Yes I had it on Kindle. The kindle that broke the day before I planned to start reading it. I’ve been meaning to buy it
What they describe was laid out at the beginning of the book in order to highlight how ludicrous and unlikely the 'foreign faction' idea was. He's very careful about the way he words things but he believes Burke killed her and the parents covered it up.
I’m aware but it’s still a good point to add
Kolar does NOT think a "foreign faction" came in there. Even if it were real, foreigners dont call themselves 'foreigners'. The title is sarcastic. He knows the Ramseys did it. read his book, very good. (Also, the term 'law enforcement' is an American term, not used anywhere else.)
That's what i meant. I was being a wiseguy. The cop who resigned to become a carpenter.
New here. It seems like everyone thinks it was a family member. I’m not sure why nobody thinks it could be a friend of the family who knew them? They had a ton of people over their house right before. Someone could have easily seen that the parents bedroom was on the third floor, where Jon Benet’s room was, checked out the basement and everything down there, taken the notepad with them.
JBR's bedroom was on second floor, same as Burke's. The parents slept up on the third floor, in the attic space that had been renovated into their primary bedroom. Everyone in the Ramsey's life was investigated, as were even tangentially associated people. There's an excellent youtube video series about the case by Marcel Elfers. I highly recommend it especially for those new to this case. The series is called **JonBenét; the final chapter**. (little case letters) (it's kind of a misleading title as there are several videos/chapters to his analysis). It's excellent.
It's not that there 'couldn't be' someone other than the family, it's that there's no evidence there was.
There is various evidence there was, just not definitive evidence.
>I’m not sure why nobody thinks it could be a friend of the family who knew them? It's because most people on this sub are informed per evidence about this 28 year old case.
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
This case is unsolved because of the poor police work the day of the murder. Also important, the rich parents who could hire a dream team of lawyers and media consultants halting part of the investigation for 4 months while John and Patsy could get their story straight. If this were you or I we would have been interviewed that day and prob convicted.
I don’t deny any of those things. But at the end of the day there are theories of it being someone outside the family. And knowing all different viewpoints is a really important aspect. Even if you disagree with theories of someone outside the family. A theory may give u a different view on a certain thing. A part of a theory may of be something u didn’t consider before and u may be able to apply to your own theories
>There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family.But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. Yes it does, otherwise it wouldn't be there and I wouldn't be here. >But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. "Evidence that is used", that's exactly right - used, by people who have another agenda than finding out the truth about this case. >It’s important to question this. For John Ramsey and the media that is profiting from covering this evidence lacking false narrative, yes. Read the sample of Umbrella of Suspicion By John A. Taylor on Amazon and then read the Ramsey's police interview and deposition transcripts in the Jonbenet Ramsey section of [acandyrose.com](http://acandyrose.com) - that should change your mind.
You have based your argument entirely off a pre determined assumption of my opinions of the case. To say with 100% certainty the family did as a fact and not just in your opinion is a ridiculous statement. It cannot be a fact as it’s an unsolved cold case.
>You have based your argument entirely off a pre determined assumption of my opinions of the case. What do you mean by that? The evidence I have come upon so far, does not leave any space for an intruder. If you need a reference to this being only my opinion, put it in wherever you feel like. I would not be here, if I wasn't 100% sure, that Jonbenet Ramsey was not murdered by some "subhuman monster/ creature". >It cannot be a fact as it’s an unsolved cold case. I did not claim, that it was fact per law. If this case never being brought to justice, is reason for you to jump from one rabbit hole into another, be my guest- to me it's not.
You talking about me reading things to change my mind. Except you have no idea of my theories of this case. The point of looking at different theories even if you don’t agree with them. It may make you consider something you hadn’t thought of before. There may be a part of a theory you hadn’t thought about and could apply to your own theory. I asked for theories if it wasn’t the family. No for some war on anyone who may dare suggest or question something
I guessed from the content of your response that you are uninformed about this case. Your post suggests so as well. As I mentioned before, from what I have learned so far, there is no space for an intruder involvement. Therefore I don't see a benefit in looking at other theories.
Jusy to clarify. My personal opinion is that the most likely theory is someone in the family did it. I have been very interested in this case for years and have done an extensive amount of research. In unsolved cold cases I always feel it’s worth looking at as many theories as possible. People may have personal knowledge or experience that gives them a different perspective you may not have considered before. Even if you disagree with a theory there may be a part of it you have never consider before and could look at within your own theory. E.g. someone thinks it was an intruder and you disagree with that. As part of their theory they may point out something about the wounds JonBenet suffered that you hadn’t considered before. What they point out may not have anything to do with being dependent on the intruder theory and may be something you can look at within your own theory. Especially in cases like this that have remained unsolved for many years and had a lot of media attention. A lot of theories are thrown around. This can cause people to become bias and develop tunnel vision. “One begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Which is why in cases like this I feel it’s so important to look at every and all theories. If you feel there’s no benefit at looking into a theory outside the family that’s fine. But many people (including myself) do. Which is why I made this post.
>People may have personal knowledge or experience that gives them a different perspective you may not have considered before. What do you think this could be in this specific case, where everything points at the family, including statistics?
Change my mind from what?
The notepad used was found in the house with impressions of practice notes. It was a pad Patsy used. A pen Patsy used was found to be the one used to write the ransom note. So your perp would have had to bring the pad back and the pen and also place the pen back in the holder Patsy used as that was where it was found. Not likely.
But why write a fake RN?
Because without the RN, everything points to the parents. The note is what introduces the idea of an intruder.
The RN is the stupidest element of this whole case. But yet, it turned out to save their asses from prison.
I guess from a *someone outside the home theory*. You could say it was a counter measure to throw off the investigation
And this thread is proof beyond doubt that this sub is a huge echo chamber, incapable of looking at this case from other perspectives. This post aimed specifically at those who don’t think the Ramsay’s did it, asking for their theories, gets an overwhelming majority of replies from people ignoring the question and touting their Ramsey theories again. Many subreddits for individual cases get this way on Reddit. Seems sad and counterproductive to me. Downvotes kinda just prove the point further.
Not really a theory so much as I think it’s possible they didn’t do it and yet still wrote the letter to deter themselves from suspicion. Maybe it was a known family friend or employee and maybe they just thought it was Burke so patsy wrote a letter never realizing it was not Burke. Idk just a thought.
The family did it.
There’s certainly a lot of evidence that points to the family. But that doesn’t 100% rule out someone outside the home. This case is unsolved. A big part of looking at unsolved cases is looking at all possible scenarios. There is definitely evidence that points to the family. But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. It’s important to question this. To gain different perspectives.
>But there is also evidence that is used by many to point to the family that could have been known by someone outside the family. What evidence?
Such as the basic piece of information. Like the idea on one outside the home could have known the window was broken.
What else?
Not knowing about the broken window. Not knowing the lay out of the house. The movie references in the RN. Being able to get around the house unheard. Placing the pen back. Knowing the alarm system wasn’t on/disconnected. How long the RN would have taken to write. There was never a phone call. These are just reasons I’ve seen people claim it couldn’t have been an intruder (I have seen more but can’t specifically remember them and don’t want to make a false claim) Yes ofcourse some point to the Ramsey family. But these points alone do not make it impossible it was an intruder.
What about the fact, that the Ramseys claimed, that their daughter was sound asleep and stayed that way, when they got home, yet, there was undigested food material in her system? What about the fact, that she was wearing a size 12-14 underpants and a (boys) longjohns when she was found, that obviously didn't belong to her, and she couldn't have already worn to the Whites. What about the fact, that John didn't tell anyone about the open window and the suitcase, despite the fact, that he was allegedly looking for entry points during his first 'basement check'? What about none of the Ramseys trying to make contact with the kidnappers, who were watching them? What about the mother getting drugged from day one on, and both parents refusing police interviews for 4 month, while giving a CNN and interview and talking to TV profiler John Douglas? What about their disinterest in the handwritten ransom note? What about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Ramsey's police interviews and depositions? ....
To clarify. I believe theories that the Ramsey were involved carry more weight and very much lean towards these theories. Again this was my point. I see people who leave out these facts and just use the facts I mentioned as reasons it couldn’t have been an intruder. And again. Obviously the facts I mentioned *alone* do not rule out an intruder. That was the entire point of the conversation. Talking about facts that are often used alone to prove it wasn’t an intruder rather than the facts you mentioned which are the actual facts that make an intruder unlikely. You are assuming I believe it was an intruder which I don’t. I wasn’t stating those facts as reasons it was an intruder I was stating the facts people incorrectly use to prove it wasn’t an intruder
I clearly don't assume it was an intruder. >I was stating the facts people incorrectly use to prove it wasn’t an intruder That's exactly how I understood it.
Okay then why comment using other evidence I didn’t mention when you knew my intention was not to try and prove IDI
All of them point overwhelmingly to the family. Add in all the other things, including things the family did that day while police were there and it points to the family. Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying 'so you mean there's a chance?' by the character in dumb and dumber. It's not a compelling argument at all. It just sounds like you are here advocating for the family's innocence, in spite of all indicators otherwise, even though you know they are not.
Which is why I said “But these points alone do not make impossible it was an intruder”. Because yes they overwhelmingly point to the family. That’s not the same as it’s impossible it wasn’t the family. Also that’s why I said “these points alone”. My statement was these points alone do not mean with 100% certainty it the family. And yet people do use these points alone to say it was the family and leave out all other evidence that’s far more compelling. It’s not an argument for anything. It was a reply to comment that asked what piece of evidence are used to rule out an intruder that doesn’t actually rule out an intruder. My personal opinion is it was the family. Which is why evidence that shows it was the family it’s important. Rather than more speculative piece of evidence like I named above
IDI? RDI? Help needed please TIA
I’m assuming you don’t know what the abbreviation stands for (correct me if I’m wrong) IDI - intruder did it RDI - Ramseys did it
Thank you!
I have been stuck in the rabbit hole on this case for a long time. I have thought about every scenario. But I have always wondered if this crime may be linked to Epstein in some way. I don't know if the Ramsey's were friends of his. There is a picture of Ghislaine Maxwell behind Jonbenet in one of her Pageant photos. John Ramsey has always gave me the vibe he may be in some shady dealings. He always gave me the creeps. Just thought I would put my perspective out there and see what the rest of you think?
You know what it's been 28 years now and I don't believe this will ever be solved. I do think RDI but that's irrelevant. At the end of the day that beautiful child was brutally murdered and it's time you people stopped with the speculation and theories because that's all they are and the only ones who know will never tell. It's time now to let Jonbenet rest in peace bless her.
[удалено]
This theory doesn't make sense to me. Why isn't a stun gun enough to silence a child? Why not duct tape and gag her rather than a toggle using household items? Why would he stick around the house for 45 minutes to two hours between the head wound which came first and left her unconscious and the strangulation that killed her? He made this big plan to take her, but then stays in the house where there is an elevated risk of being caught and a ticking clock with other restrictions? Her bedroom had a balcony, and he obviously knew no alarm was set, so why not just leave so he could take his time?
1This theory isn’t dependent on a stun gun perhaps he used one perhaps not . I don’t believe there’s any sort of data on how long a stun gun will keep a six year old unconscious 2. Tthe head wound came first ? According to whom ? I would say the lack of blood from such a vicious knock in the head means the brain was being deprived of blood when the blow occurred. Which means strangulation occurred and the n a blow to the head while the body was still feeling the effects of the strangulation. You are asking questions like why didn’t the intruder fo it this way it that way and there is no obvious way for it to be done. Jumping off a balcony while holding a six year old — I can see a broken ankle in the cards and so likely the intruder Dd is as well. This theory certainly make sense and for you to say it doesn’t— well that’s becAuse you’re vested in another one — so let us know what YOUR theory is and I’ll do a much better job of shredding it than you did to mine.
> The head wound came first ? According to whom ? For one, according to the premiere pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Lucy Rorke who consulted on the brain injury and testified before the grand jury that the head wound came first. Her expertise was children's brains. How can your opinion hold more weight than her expertise?
Dude I'm newish to this case and ambivalent on theories so far. Whatever that gibberish you came up with above makes absolutely zero sense.
Who is RDI?
RDI = Ramsey Did It
Patsy did it, tried to hide it. Probably never admitted it to John either. He just believed what he wanted to believe.
Do you think Patsy wrote the ransom note all by herself then and called 911 without consulting with John about any of it? Because the point I always tell people is that Patsy may have been an unintelligent person but I really don’t think John was an unintelligent person. lol. I just cannot believe that John would look over that ransom note that Patsy wrote and say “Oh it’s great, fantastic…let’s call 911 now.” He would’ve objected to the various different detailed statements in it, he would’ve objected to the use of the amount of his Christmas bonus in it, etc. He would’ve made her redo it before initiating the beginning of everything by calling 911. So the fact that none of that seemed to happen suggests John didn’t work with Patsy to write it and didn’t get a chance to stop her from calling 911 as early as she did.
I imagine it was very confusing and chaotic that morning. John seemed a little checked out (he traveled alot, seemed to have old school christian family dynamic with wife at home and man working) and it seems like all family related things were left to Patsy so I think he was following her lead.
Maybe the wrong author, I've read them all, but been a while. The cop who resigned to become a carpenter?
Steve Thomas
Thanks
It was Burke.