|
Post by 950nancy on Sept 19, 2016 17:48:44 GMT
Did she wet the bed? I saw pictures that showed unstained sheets. So many different "facts" for the same case.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,718
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Sept 19, 2016 18:10:32 GMT
Well, it sure matters what show and who is doing it as to how the "facts" are presented. the show last night on (CBS?) sure were leaning one way from the beginning.
The way they did the "voice analysis" on the supposed voices at the end of the phone call was hokey to me.
The one girl said "It sounds like an adult talking to a child" . This kind of thing is not facts! You can't even tell if there are voices!
Did one of the people on the "team" wright a book?
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Sept 19, 2016 18:21:45 GMT
He was hired by the DA and was working from law enforcement's evidence, until law enforcement broke ties with the DA. Wait--- isn't law enforcement supposed to be working WITH the DA? They are. It was discussed on the documentary. There was a great deal of animosity between LE & the DA's office. They (LE) didn't like Smit's conclusions because he wasn't confirming the case. LE was only looking at the Ramseys.
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 18:28:10 GMT
the forensics evidence points to a scenario where Burke hit JonBenet over the head with a heavy flashlight, and the parents created a cover up Who does that? name one single case where a child has brutally killed a sibling and then the parents are even more brutal in further mutilating her body in order to create a cover up. Just one. That's the stuff of TV shows not real life. If you have kids imagine a scenario where your much loved child has a caved in skull from your other child and is now dead or close to death. How many dead bodies have you seen or handled? Is it likely that a normal parent would then hunt around to find a cord to turn into garrotte, tie knots around a stick and tighten it around their much loved child's neck with such force that the cord is embedded into her neck and the stick snaps? Or would tie her hands together, or do something that makes it look like she was sexually molested? No parent with no previous history of physical abuse would be able to do that to their dying child. it just doesn't happen. People do not go from normal loving parents to mutilating their dead child in order to cover up the act of their other child. People don't go from being normal one minute to being able to violently injure their unexpectedly dying child the next. I agree this all seems far fetched. But I also find it extremely strange that parents of a murdered little girl would refuse to cooperate with law enforcement almost from the get-go. Why would you not want to help them in any way possible to finding who did it? Unless you know and don't want it to come out. There is so much that is bizarre with this entire thing, I don't know what to think.
|
|
Jili
Pearl Clutcher
SLPea
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 1:26:48 GMT
|
Post by Jili on Sept 19, 2016 18:35:44 GMT
I watched the special last night and I'm confused by the conclusion (speculation?) that JB was killed by a blow to the head with the flashlight first, and then the garotte was applied as part of a cover-up. I was multitasking while watching and may have totally missed this, but didn't the autopsy results state the cause of death as strangulation? I'm unsure how this 'new' conclusion can suddenly be drawn-- other than that it fits the narrative they're trying to sell.
|
|
oaksong
Drama Llama

Posts: 6,167
Location: LA Suburbia
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 6:24:29 GMT
|
Post by oaksong on Sept 19, 2016 18:35:55 GMT
the forensics evidence points to a scenario where Burke hit JonBenet over the head with a heavy flashlight, and the parents created a cover up Who does that? name one single case where a child has brutally killed a sibling and then the parents are even more brutal in further mutilating her body in order to create a cover up. Just one. That's the stuff of TV shows not real life. If you have kids imagine a scenario where your much loved child has a caved in skull from your other child and is now dead or close to death. How many dead bodies have you seen or handled? Is it likely that a normal parent would then hunt around to find a cord to turn into garrotte, tie knots around a stick and tighten it around their much loved child's neck with such force that the cord is embedded into her neck and the stick snaps? Or would tie her hands together, or do something that makes it look like she was sexually molested? No parent with no previous history of physical abuse would be able to do that to their dying child. it just doesn't happen. People do not go from normal loving parents to mutilating their dead child in order to cover up the act of their other child. People don't go from being normal one minute to being able to violently injure their unexpectedly dying child the next. I agree. Why not just say that there was a terrible accident? They said that she was brain dead but still alive. Wouldn't they call 911? The new experts feel strongly that Patsy wrote the ransom note, which is unlike any in the history of kidnapping (weird rambling, the dollar amount, leaving note on the back stairs). All of the things that occurred, including leaving the body behind, are not things that a kidnapper would do either. Everything about this case is so bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 18:49:14 GMT
I watched the special last night and I'm confused by the conclusion (speculation?) that JB was killed by a blow to the head with the flashlight first, and then the garotte was applied as part of a cover-up. I was multitasking while watching and may have totally missed this, but didn't the autopsy results state the cause of death as strangulation? I'm unsure how this 'new' conclusion can suddenly be drawn-- other than that it fits the narrative they're trying to sell. I thought they said the autopsy read strangely ?? I thought the old guy was trying to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 18:50:17 GMT
Who does that? name one single case where a child has brutally killed a sibling and then the parents are even more brutal in further mutilating her body in order to create a cover up. Just one. That's the stuff of TV shows not real life. If you have kids imagine a scenario where your much loved child has a caved in skull from your other child and is now dead or close to death. How many dead bodies have you seen or handled? Is it likely that a normal parent would then hunt around to find a cord to turn into garrotte, tie knots around a stick and tighten it around their much loved child's neck with such force that the cord is embedded into her neck and the stick snaps? Or would tie her hands together, or do something that makes it look like she was sexually molested? No parent with no previous history of physical abuse would be able to do that to their dying child. it just doesn't happen. People do not go from normal loving parents to mutilating their dead child in order to cover up the act of their other child. People don't go from being normal one minute to being able to violently injure their unexpectedly dying child the next. I agree. Why not just say that there was a terrible accident? They said that she was brain dead but still alive. Wouldn't they call 911? The new experts feel strongly that Patsy wrote the ransom note, which is unlike any in the history of kidnapping (weird rambling, the dollar amount, leaving note on the back stairs). All of the things that occurred, including leaving the body behind, are not things that a kidnapper would do either. Everything about this case is so bizarre. They also said last night the ransom amount was odd. WAY low for a ransom for the child of a millionaire. And also they said the amount was very close to the bonus $$ John had just received. but how would a kidnapper come up with that odd amount so close to his bonus $118,000  ?
|
|
|
Post by putabuttononit on Sept 19, 2016 18:52:00 GMT
There was a flashlight and a baseball bat. Why isn't there ever any talk about fingerprint, DNA, Hair, blood etc on either of those? If they were thought to be murder weapons.
I agree, the "facts" are presented in so many ways.
One thing I read is there was 45 minutes between head blow and strangling. That seems to point to family members, if it's true. Also, what if Jonbenet got up during the night, got her OWN pineapple, and surprised an intruder. Maybe they were there for a robbery and were so stunned by her, they first thought about kidnapping her and then, when she was more than they could handle, killed her. So many possibilities in this case.
I just don't think her own parents would "finish her off" after an accident. Even to protect another child. A child that young who accidentally horribly injured or killed a sibling would be exonerated.
Patsy does, however, seem to want to portray the "perfect" home, family, Christmas, life, etc. Inviting home tours and putting her pagaent dresses and crown etc on the bed for display.
But being strange doesn't mean she is a murderer.
The 911 calls are garbled. I'd say they are trying to manipulate it to prove their own theories. And I don't think it's unusual to hang up, she was in a panic and they said they'd send help, she had no reason to keep the call going, and she wasn't thinking clearly of course.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
 
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 19, 2016 18:58:53 GMT
You keep saying " normal parents". How do we know they were "normal?
How many times do we hear " they seemed so normal" from murder scenes etc.
Fact is, we don't know much about them at all until after the murder.
Maybe they appeared normal but anything can happen behind closed doors.
|
|
Kerri W
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,836
Location: Kentucky
Jun 25, 2014 20:31:44 GMT
|
Post by Kerri W on Sept 19, 2016 19:01:48 GMT
But I also find it extremely strange that parents of a murdered little girl would refuse to cooperate with law enforcement almost from the get-go. Why would you not want to help them in any way possible to finding who did it? Unless you know and don't want it to come out. I think this is one of the things I find the least strange. How many threads have we had here that have talked about NOT talking to police? Considering the police took the stance that the Ramsey's were at fault...I don't know how much I would talk to them either. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 19:06:24 GMT
But I also find it extremely strange that parents of a murdered little girl would refuse to cooperate with law enforcement almost from the get-go. Why would you not want to help them in any way possible to finding who did it? Unless you know and don't want it to come out. I think this is one of the things I find the least strange. How many threads have we had here that have talked about NOT talking to police? Considering the police took the stance that the Ramsey's were at fault...I don't know how much I would talk to them either. SaveSaveI think family is always the first ones that they look at in a murder. I guess we just disagree, but I think being uncooperative makes them look guilty, even if they were not.
|
|
|
Post by Layce on Sept 19, 2016 19:16:14 GMT
I agree. It was literally overkill.
I believe the integrity of the autopsy. She was dying from the head wound, but it was the strangulation that finished her off. Remember, this was a staged crime scene to cover up death by child abuse.
Also, I still hold to the theory of the head injury being accidental. Which would probably rule out the Maglight, so we'll see what they say tonight. I also question the sensibility of using that young boy to strike a blonde mannequin in the head with a Maglight to re-enact a possible scenario. WTF?!
Boy, didja notice John Ramsey during those news clips? He really seemed to want her to just shut up.
Anyway, they say that have a suspect. Their bottom line conclusion will probably concur with the lead investigator's.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 19, 2016 19:16:30 GMT
A few things that have been going through my mind. Initially Jonbonet was hit on the head with a flash light which cracked her skull but didn't kill her. Was Burke at 9 years old strong enough to crack her skull? Maybe. I don't think he was involved in the murder. Had he hit her over the head with a flashlight I don't think he would have immediately thought I need to cover this up by taking her downstairs and strangle her to death. And if Patsy found her after the head injury she would have taken her to the hospital because she was not dead. Patsy at that point would rather save her daughters life than protect her son. I am leaning towards Patsy murdering her daughter. At some point during the night Jonbonet woke up in the middle of the night after wetting her bed. There was arguing, Patsy was irrate that yet again her beauty queen daughter wasn't perfect and that she had to deal with this in the middle of the night for the millionth time. At some point she hit her daughter with a flashlight. The force knocked Jonbonet out, which freaked out Patsy. When Jonbonet came to Patsy tried to keep Jonbonet alert by taking her to the kitchen and giving her pineapple. We all know that with brain injuries we need to keep the kids awake and alert and watch to see if the eyes roll back in the head. This is where Patsy realized how serious her injuries were. And instead of rushing her to the hospital to try and save Jonbonet life she had to come up with a plan. Patsy knew she would eventually be arrested and everyone would know she had abused her daughter. Murdering her daughter and coming up with this elaborate lie was the only way to keep herself out of prison and protect her reputation that was the most important thing to her. As for the ransom letter its looks to be Patsy's handwriting. Why would John go along with this and protect his wife? Again reputation, maybe they would point the finger at him instead of her. At some point maybe he helped out. So what about the trace DNA evidence on her pj's? Maybe this DNA was from a store worker or the person who made the pajamas? Is it possible the DNA had nothing to do with the murder? So what about the evidence of sexual abuse? There was no evidence that she was sexually abused the night of the murderd. Maybe the murder had nothing to do with the sexual abuse? I cant wrap my mind around any of it. One thing is for certain was that life was hard for Jonbonet at 7. Sexual abuse a stage Mom and the life of a pageant queen. I don't think we will ever know the truth. Jen I don't believe a word of this.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:49:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 19:16:39 GMT
One thing I read is there was 45 minutes between head blow and strangling. That seems to point to family members, if it's true. Also, what if Jonbenet got up during the night, got her OWN pineapple, and surprised an intruder. Maybe they were there for a robbery and were so stunned by her, they first thought about kidnapping her and then, when she was more than they could handle, killed her. So many possibilities in this case. I just don't think her own parents would "finish her off" after an accident. Even to protect another child. A child that young who accidentally horribly injured or killed a sibling would be exonerated. I have been thinking this same thing. I only saw Dr. Phil - not the documentary. Did they mention whether people who knew he received a bonus may have been involved in this? Since the ransom amount was so specific and close to his bonus, wouldn't it make sense to think that someone with that knowledge (a neighbor, or someone he worked with) broke in, intended to kidnap his daughter for the ransom, and perhaps accidentally killed her while silencing her? And as to why they would use writing paper found in the house - maybe they felt the paper wouldn't be traced if they used something from the home. I have never understood why the mother was implicated when (as far as I know) she had no history of being violent or abusive in any way. Doesn't being a good mom count for anything? It seems to me there is no evidence that she had the temperament or disposition to kill her child. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 19, 2016 19:29:09 GMT
I think the reason the crime is still unsolved is there is SO much inconsistency. I agree completely that the nature of the death and/or staging is completely inconsistent with a family member particularly covering up an accidental death. But the ransom note is completely inconsistent with a stranger intruder.
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 19:31:15 GMT
I think the reason the crime is still unsolved is there is SO much inconsistency. I agree completely that the nature of the death and/or staging is completely inconsistent with a family member particularly covering up an accidental death. But the ransom note is completely inconsistent with a stranger intruder. I think all of this is true. I think the investigation of this case was messed up from the start. They allowed people just to wander in and out of this house, which was a crime scene. One officer was left there with all those people. John Ramsey searched the house, discovered and MOVED the body, thereby disturbing that part of the crime scene, and placed her down on the floor while all of the people coming and going had walked across, contaminating anything on her that might possibly be evidence. It is just one big giant mess!
|
|
|
Post by putabuttononit on Sept 19, 2016 19:56:50 GMT
I've always considered the possibility of TWO intruders. Two come in, where robbery is the plan and kidnapping and murder were never part of the plan. JonBenet somehow surprises them. The reason for all of the odd conflicting actions is because TWO minds are at work. One hits her, the other tries to protect her. They disagree on stuffing her in a suitcase or killing her. The ransom note is written by one of them, but the other just wants to kill her and leave.
One assaults her, the other one covers her with a blanket.
One more thought on the 911 call. Maybe there were three voices, Burke was there but they always wanted to shield him from the treatment they were getting from the police. So they said he was asleep. A lie like that doesmt mean they killed their baby girl. Also, if John said "what did you do?" Or something like that maybe he had contempt or disdain for his wife and thought she was involved but doesn't mean she was.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Sept 19, 2016 20:09:43 GMT
How do we know the intruders didn't come through the front door? Did they have a security system?
Since when do murderers cover a body? If she was brain dead from the blunt force, why would there be evidence that she tried to pull the rope from around her neck?
Someone on here said something interesting about the phone. That since it was a landline, the lines could have gotten crossed and we heard other people talking. I remember having that issue back in the day. However it was 5am so who else is up at that time talking on the phone?
Do you really think anything would be different if the police had done their job right in the beginning? Say they had immediately evacuated the house, what really would have changed? If Patsy put her daughter to bed her dna might be on her. So I don't see the difference in her father finding her and moving her? Yes that's the proper thing to do to preserve a crime scene, but they still got all the details of her death after the body was moved.
Everyone keep saying the Ramseys are suspicious for not speaking to the police, I disagree. I watch Dateline almost every week and while that may be the common thing for family to do, what really ends up happening is that innocent parties are interrogated for hours, treated like criminals, and all this is videotaped to show later. The Ramseys had the best attorneys at their side advising them what to do. If they honestly knew nothing, then they had nothing to share with the police. I'm sure they answered a few questions in the beginning or via their attorneys in writing, they just didn't submit to the hours long interrogation to rule them out as suspects.
If your child was accidently hit with a flashlight, wouldn't you take her to the hospital hoping for a miracle? Or with that injury was it immediately obvious she was fatal?
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
 
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 19, 2016 20:10:42 GMT
She had no history that anyone knew of. Maybe she did and they kept it hidden.
Maybe Burke had a history of hurting or hitting? Maybe John did. Again, we don't know any of this or the family history BEFORE JonBenet was found murdered.
Many of my foster kids that were abused or mistreated, most family members of the kids had NO IDEA until the authorities were called and the kids were removed. Most were shocked and couldn't believe it.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
 
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 19, 2016 20:14:40 GMT
It does have a difference. Things could have transferred to her body that weren't in the room she was found. Things that WERE on her, could have dropped off (hairs or fibers). The way her body was positioned in the basement. Any evidence on the basement floor could have been disturbed by John and the friend who found her.
Putting her on a carpet where dozens of people had walked compromised real forensic evidence. Moving her was the worst thing to do. They never should have allowed him to pick her up and move her anywhere. They never should have had him search in the first place.
|
|
River
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,627
Jun 26, 2014 15:26:04 GMT
|
Post by River on Sept 19, 2016 20:16:29 GMT
I've been reading this thread and just want to say thank you all for participating on it. Its been so great reading all of your opinions!
I've always been intrigued by this case, but have never had the time to review it. I do now though, so thanks y'all!
|
|
|
Post by mimi3566 on Sept 19, 2016 20:16:32 GMT
Who does that? name one single case where a child has brutally killed a sibling and then the parents are even more brutal in further mutilating her body in order to create a cover up. Just one. That's the stuff of TV shows not real life. If you have kids imagine a scenario where your much loved child has a caved in skull from your other child and is now dead or close to death. How many dead bodies have you seen or handled? Is it likely that a normal parent would then hunt around to find a cord to turn into garrotte, tie knots around a stick and tighten it around their much loved child's neck with such force that the cord is embedded into her neck and the stick snaps? Or would tie her hands together, or do something that makes it look like she was sexually molested? No parent with no previous history of physical abuse would be able to do that to their dying child. it just doesn't happen. People do not go from normal loving parents to mutilating their dead child in order to cover up the act of their other child. People don't go from being normal one minute to being able to violently injure their unexpectedly dying child the next. I agree this all seems far fetched. But I also find it extremely strange that parents of a murdered little girl would refuse to cooperate with law enforcement almost from the get-go. Why would you not want to help them in any way possible to finding who did it? Unless you know and don't want it to come out. There is so much that is bizarre with this entire thing, I don't know what to think. After seeing shows like Making a Murderer, I'd be very weary of speaking with LE without benefit of an attorney with me...not because I was guilty, but because I know that immediate family is always the first suspects and the "go-to" and are eager to close their case. The Ramsay's were not stupid people and had the financial means to retain a very good lawyer who most likely advised them NOT to speak with LE for this very reason. They looked guilty in the court of public opinion whether they spoke with LE or not.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Sept 19, 2016 20:45:22 GMT
I agree this all seems far fetched. But I also find it extremely strange that parents of a murdered little girl would refuse to cooperate with law enforcement almost from the get-go. Why would you not want to help them in any way possible to finding who did it? Unless you know and don't want it to come out. There is so much that is bizarre with this entire thing, I don't know what to think. After seeing shows like Making a Murderer, I'd be very weary of speaking with LE without benefit of an attorney with me...not because I was guilty, but because I know that immediate family is always the first suspects and the "go-to" and are eager to close their case. The Ramsay's were not stupid people and had the financial means to retain a very good lawyer who most likely advised them NOT to speak with LE for this very reason. They looked guilty in the court of public opinion whether they spoke with LE or not. I believe the morning of the murder they did talk to the police for quite sometime. It was after they believed they were being accused of the crime that they weren't as cooperative. Add to that the police leaking untrue information about the crime scene, and I wouldn't be talking either. I also heard that they both passed multiple lie detector tests (one originally was inconclusive), but the questions they were asked had to be about that night and whether either of them were potentially dangerous people. If you had killed your daughter, would you pass that test? No way would I have been able to pass one. Too much guilt.
|
|
|
Post by pealikecrazy on Sept 19, 2016 20:46:14 GMT
This case has REALLY got my attention lately. WHAT IF...it WAS related to John's business and they said, "we will kill your son TOO or all of you if you don't do XYZ thing...(whatever the kidnappers wanted)? Maybe the kidnappers had been there waiting for them to come home for a long time. (giving them plenty of time to write the note) I also feel like John might have known more. That somehow this was linked to his work, as in a blackmail type thing that he never believed would really occur? I feel like they were going to kidnap her but didn't get too because things went south and she died. OR, these people really wanted to hurt John because what is worse that kidnapping your kid on CHRISTMAS? I feel like Burke is completely odd, but...maybe he's just completely odd and that's it. I know ONE THING...if they knew who it was, I'm sure they would arrest and try to charge them! No one has been charged, so... 
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,718
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Sept 19, 2016 21:31:13 GMT
Well just got through watching DR. Phill. There was DNA found in her underwear and in the band of her PJ's. This DNA was not the Ramsay's. There was another attack on a little girl a few blocks down from the Ramsay's house. A taser was used on the other little girl and taser marks were found on JonBenet. I believe is was a sex crime. It didn't start out as a kidnapping. I don't know why the killer wrote the note, but who knows what goes on in the mind of a person who would do this. The killer could have been in the Ramsay's house sense the open house.
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Sept 19, 2016 22:24:33 GMT
Everything points to someone else (to me) except that crazy ransom letter. To me, that is the oddest thing about everything. I read that it would take someone at minimum 21 minutes to write the 3-page letter. WHO would do that if they were an intruder with parents upstairs? It's the ransom letter that makes me think that it was an accident and the Ramsays were trying to cover up.
It's just crazy though. Boulder police were so inept.
|
|
|
Post by debmast on Sept 19, 2016 22:32:47 GMT
Everything points to someone else (to me) except that crazy ransom letter. To me, that is the oddest thing about everything. I read that it would take someone at minimum 21 minutes to write the 3-page letter. WHO would do that if they were an intruder with parents upstairs? It's the ransom letter that makes me think that it was an accident and the Ramsays were trying to cover up. It's just crazy though. Boulder police were so inept. And why would they spend all that time writing it & then kill her and hide her but still leave the note
|
|
|
Post by putabuttononit on Sept 19, 2016 22:38:25 GMT
Using odd logic, could somebody think that a ransom note would keep them from finding her body right away? Or they thought they were taking her but she fought so hard she was just too difficult to get out of the house? What if they killed her then wanted to stall or confuse the police leaving them more time to get far away, so they wrote the note.
Or maybe they were savvy enough to know that a note and a body would point suspicion at her own parents.
|
|
|
Post by sarahbee on Sept 20, 2016 0:50:58 GMT
I was just reading a summary of the third Dr. Phil episode, and here's a quote that made me scratch my head: "The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by [the system]." -- John Ramsey ...excuse me? 
|
|