JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

I believe Patsy killed her in a fit of rage and John helped cover it up. In my mind just to many odd things you just can't overlook.

Statistically you should be in the neighborhood or neighborhood adjacent of correct. Other than that there is a couple decades of speculation, a very botched investigation and profit driven media projects and some interviews of a family that's been through a trauma, or is traumatized by the fear of covering up a crime. Unless the killer manages to present themselves along with some thus far unknown smoking gun of evidence to prove their confession of guilt, this crime will never be definitively solved, and certainly never prosecuted. Police screw ups saw to that. If the family or someone in the family has gotten away with it and law enforcement is angry about that, the family didn't manage to cover it up without plenty of blunders by LE.
 
Its so funny how different people can have all the same info and come to different conclusions. For me, I think there is so much odd stuff that can't be over looked too, but IMO it points to someone else doing it.

It really is a shame that the truth will probably never be known.

And then there is me. I can see both scenarios as a possibility. I have never been so undecided on a case before. It was so contaminated and so bizaare that I can't point fingers at anyone. I'd like to believe the parents didn't do it but it is not an impossible scenario either. The idea of an intruder is definitely a real possibility in my mind as well. But I just have a hard time believing a 9 year old boy did it. That's the 1 I really struggle to find plausible out of all the possibilities that have been presented throughout the years.
 
John knew exactly where her body was. How do you know that? He was told to look for anything out of the ordinary and found her in the basement after noticing a nearby window was open. they said she went to bed. When she obviously had pineapple. She could have gotten up and got pineapple or she could have had it earlier and could have taken longer to digest. Why no tracts of footprints. Where? The stories about there being snow around the perimeter of the house are not true. Why would a kidnapper take the time to.write out a novel of a ransom note. While there people were in the house. Weren't they afraid of being caught? They were out all night. The killer could have came into the basement window while they were gone and waited until the middle of the night. Why weren't they freaking out when the time passed and no call for kidnappers. Who knows? Why was Patsy in the same clothes from the day before? When she was such a slave to fashion? Even her close friends said that was strange for her. Again who knows? Maybe she fell asleep without getting undressed. I've come home from a party tired and laid down without planning on falling asleep for the night to wake up still dressed. Whoever wrote that ransom note was trying to be dumb but knew what an attached bag was and spelled it correctly when the whole ransom note was filled with misspellings. I could go on and on.


Answered in bold
 

For me, there isn't enough evidence to pin it on the parents or BR. All of the "oddities" listed previously make me think that an intruder did it. The one thing that does make me wonder is why PR was wearing the same clothes....that seems strange for her. But by no means does that mean she murdered her child.
 
John knew exactly where her body was. they said she went to bed. When she obviously had pineapple. Why no tracts of footprints. Why would a kidnapper take the time to.write out a novel of a ransom note. While there people were in the house. Weren't they afraid of being caught? Why weren't they freaking out when the time passed and no call for kidnappers. Why was Patsy in the same clothes from the day before? When she was such a slave to fashion? Even her close friends said that was strange for her. Whoever wrote that ransom note was trying to be dumb but knew what an attached bag was and spelled it correctly when the whole ransom note was filled with misspellings. I could go on and on.

How can you absolutely say he knew right where her body was? Didn't LE ask them to search? There isn't definitive evidence on the digestive rate of pineapple to conclusively prove she didn't have it before the party. What I'd love to know is, was there a fruit plate or fruit salad at the party where she could have potentially eaten some then also? Any possibility the party included any cocktails which had cut up pineapple garnishes? What am I saying? Of course that's an impossibility. How do you know they weren't freaking out? How do you know they weren't in shock? Did Patsy generally get up so early in the morning? Is it possible that she wasn't acting in her normal routine because of a party the night before and getting up so early to leave town? In a house that size is it completely impossible that an intruder had gotten in while they were away at the party and had time to case the home and make preparations? Would it have been impossible for an intruder who had never seen them before to uncover the fact that they had a daughter even though they weren't there at the moment?

All reasonable doubt.
 
For me, there isn't enough evidence to pin it on the parents or BR. All of the "oddities" listed previously make me think that an intruder did it. The one thing that does make me wonder is why PR was wearing the same clothes....that seems strange for her. But by no means does that mean she murdered her child.
It may be odd but for me it makes me less likely to think she did it. If she did it she had plenty of time to try to cover things up. She didn't come across as a dumb woman. I would think she would have the sense to change before the Whites' came over and saw her in the same clothes.
 
Well expect JB finger prints weren't on the bowl of pineapple just Patsy. Just little things don't add up.

It's possible to touch something and not get fingerprints on it. Or maybe they bowl was already sitting on the table and she didn't touch the bowl.
 
Also why didn't they look.for her in the house before calling the police. Also, the claim that the boy was asleep in.his room the whole time. However, the 911 tape proves that there was a young boy in.the background.
 
It also bothers me that a grand jury indicted the Rameys and they were never charged.

That's basically the same as saying that every case that's bound over for trial doesn't need to be tried, because there's no need for a finder of fact to review the case at trial, just find the person guilty. IMO the Prosecutor never brought the case because he realized there was no getting around the screwups in the investigation, no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, there is one shot to try someone and then double jeopardy attaches. There may have been hope that further evidence would somehow come to light and be enough to definitively charge and try someone with the expectation of receiving a conviction.
 
It's possible to touch something and not get fingerprints on it. Or maybe they bowl was already sitting on the table and she didn't touch the bowl.

Not true. Fingerprints are a very weird thing in investigations. They can have a lot to do with a surface type, weather conditions, body chemistry, etc. Also it's possible to touch something and not leave a readable print, or even a partial that can be identified.
 
Also why didn't they look.for her in the house before calling the police. Also, the claim that the boy was asleep in.his room the whole time. However, the 911 tape proves that there was a young boy in.the background.

If you woke up to that letter and you didn't write it and you believed your spouse didn't write it, wouldn't you call the police? Doesn't that mean someone was in your home while you slept?
 
Not true. Fingerprints are a very weird thing in investigations. They can have a lot to do with a surface type, weather conditions, body chemistry, etc. Also it's possible to touch something and not leave a readable print, or even a partial that can be identified.
Did you misread my post?
 
Also why didn't they look.for her in the house before calling the police. Also, the claim that the boy was asleep in.his room the whole time. However, the 911 tape proves that there was a young boy in.the background.

Proves, or speculated that a young boy was in the background? There's an important difference.
 
Also why didn't they look.for her in the house before calling the police. Also, the claim that the boy was asleep in.his room the whole time. However, the 911 tape proves that there was a young boy in.the background.

1-You can't be serious? It was a 15 room house. And why would they look in the house if they thought she was kidnapped.
2-That has never been proven by anyone.
 
Also why didn't they look.for her in the house before calling the police. Also, the claim that the boy was asleep in.his room the whole time. However, the 911 tape proves that there was a young boy in.the background.

They thought she had been kidnapped so didn't expect to find her in the house.
And there is nothing proving Burke voice was heard in the 911 call. More something dreamed up by internet detectives.
The first detective who talked with Burke that morning says he doesn't believe Burke knew about JonBenet or had anything to do with her death.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1832...1-call-dateline-delves-into-a-contested-claim
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top