Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Log-in Changes With Upcoming Upgrade - Update
Forum Reorganization

Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey

DanaK

By DanaK
in Netflix

Recommended Posts

SnarkAttack

SnarkAttack

Some thoughts:

I don't believe the killer went through papers in John's office and saw the amount of his bonus, that's dumb.  And someone who worked for/with him wouldn't know the amount either, except for who approved it/HR.

If the original intent was kidnapping, why would you write the ransom note while there, wouldn't you write it ahead of time to save time?  If it wasn't the original intent, then why write it if you are going to kill her/sexually assault her in the house?  Even if the parents did it, it still doesn't make sense since the child was murdered.  The note is so odd.  

They talked about the marks on her hands maybe being from her trying to grab the garrote from her neck, but her hands were tied, so that doesn't make sense.  I doubt her hands were tied after it was around her neck.

To think that her 9 year old brother would slam her on the head with an object because of a piece of pineapple, and then move her to the basement and tie her hands and make/put the garrote around her neck is ridiculous.

I was shocked how old John looked, but he's 80.  Time flies.

It makes sense that someone who knew of her from the pageants did it.

They checked the neighbors, right?   

I can't believe that networks like CBS would run a program implicating Burke and not expect to be sued and lose.

I didn't know about Beth dying.  So much tragedy.

 

 

  • Like 2
lemoncake

lemoncake

I know that most people think the murderer was one of the Ramsey's and the others covered it up. But I have never been able to wrap my head around the garrot and the sexual abuse with the paintbrush. I could almost see if Burke did it and Patsy and John wanted to cover it up so they faked the note. But really, they would sexually abuse their child and make a garrot and pull it so hard as to cause that level of damage? No way. I think it was an intruder and they found her, were worried they would be blamed and made the note. 

And that detective Steve was a total jerk. Wow. 

And after all these years why would John still be looking for the killer if her knew it was a cover-up? Why not walk away and never speak about it.

  • Like 5
Soapy Goddess

Soapy Goddess

18 hours ago, SnarkAttack said:

why would you write the ransom note while there, wouldn't you write it ahead of time to save time? 

Exactly. And a 2-page note at that!  

Someone in that house (John, Patsy, or her brother), killed JB. Whether it was accidental or not, it simply does not make sense that anyone other than one of them did it.

 

  • Like 2
TattleTeeny

TattleTeeny

(edited)

Seems like for every individual thing that points toward the family, there is something else that does the opposite. I have changed my mind about this case 100 times since the late '90s. But that's the thing – my opinion doesn't matter; I am just an observer, and some of my early opinions were shaped by a compromised, subpar police investigation and questionable (to put it kindly) behavior on the part of the officers involved. Whether the family is responsible or not, they couldn't and wouldn't have a fair trial anyway. Ironically, the police forcing a certain narrative, whether it later ends up being correct or not, is a large part of why someone has, up to now, gotten away with this.

Edited by TattleTeeny
  • Like 6
SeanBug

SeanBug

(edited)

If you think the police weren't trying to push a narrative to close this quickly, listen to the Serial podcast about Adnan Syed. Or watch Making a Murderer. It happens all the time. The Innocence Project has made it clear how many people go to prison based on lies perpetrated by the police. 

Or read the book about the Golden State killer, written by Michelle McNamara, "I'll Be Gone in The Dark".  He waited in houses, raped women and eventually started murdering people.  

People will case out a home to get a feel for it, and wait inside. It happens quite a bit and it happened in Boulder just a few months after JonBenet's murder. But this time the girl was not murdered, just assaulted. 

It would be easy to get into the home thru that window, walk around and determine the lay out. Then come back later. Or do it while the Ramseys were out that evening.  They could have seen that check or paperwork while looking for something to write the note with.  Who knows what goes thru the mind of a sick individual like this? 

JonBenet's pediatrician said he never saw signs of abuse.  And as far as JonBenet performing in pageants, what about all the little girls who act at that age?  They are taught how to perform. Look at Kiernan Shipka in Mad Men. She was 6 years old during the first season. She was able to portray Sally Draper. Dakota Fanning. Kids in commercials. Some children are natural performers. Of course those costumes are a little over the top. That's pageant 101. It can seem weird to those of us who don't participate in it.  But if the audience is just parents and family, and it's a bunch of little girls having fun. When I was 6 years old I took tap dancing classes and performed in recitals. 

Bottom line is police fucked up, decided the Ramseys did it without any evidence, as well as hiding DNA evidence that would have cleared them.  And we think the media is bad now. FFS Geraldo Rivera held a mock trial on that shit show of his. I would have sued him to kingdom come. What a sleazeball. 

As far as John cooperating with the film makers, he stated he offered to help, but hasn't watched the series, as it's too painful.  I felt awful for them. His older daughter is killed in a car accident,  Patsy has ovarian cancer, and then this murder. 

Anyone who has been thru this much trauma and just wants to live would cherish their children, not murder them. 

Edited by SeanBug
  • Like 5
ShowsILoveToHate

ShowsILoveToHate

(edited)

The reason that John Ramsey is being public again is because he wants the Boulder Police dept to either release the DNA evidence or else use the DNA themselves, in order to have a reverse family tree done on it, just like genealogists have done with so many cold cases in the last few years. A LOT of old men murderers are now being caught and held accountable for what they did 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago.  There is absolutely no legitimate reason the police department to not do this. 

Edited by ShowsILoveToHate
  • Like 9
  • Useful 1
iarwain

iarwain

Some random thoughts:  If an intruder did it, and got into the house while the Ramsays were away, maybe he wrote the ransom note while waiting for them to return home.  

A lot of the behavior by the family seems odd, but wouldn't you expect that from people who put their daughter into child beauty pageants?  An intruder may have become interested in her because of those pageants.

I can't really blame the family for not cooperating, when it seemed clear from the start the police were going to try to go after them as suspects.  I don't blame them for "lawyering up".

  • Like 1
TattleTeeny

TattleTeeny

20 hours ago, ShowsILoveToHate said:

The reason that John Ramsey is being public again is because he wants the Boulder Police dept to either release the DNA evidence or else use the DNA themselves, in order to have a reverse family tree done on it, just like genealogists have done with so many cold cases in the last few years. A LOT of old men murderers are now being caught and held accountable for what they did 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago.  There is absolutely no legitimate reason the police department to not do this. 

Especially with newer DNA-extracting technologies like M-Vac, which people have been pushing for the DNA in the West Memphis 3 case.

The idea of an intruder lying in wait and writing the note has been debated for years. The Boulder police pretty much immediately blew off that possibility as ridiculous, as did many people. I may have. But now I don’t know what seems so farfetched about it. It’s weird, but there are also countless cases of people literally living in people’s homes undetected for stretches of time, making the idea of hiding out for an hour and writing a letter not so crazy.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
iarwain

iarwain

14 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

The idea of an intruder lying in wait and writing the note has been debated for years. The Boulder police pretty much immediately blew off that possibility as ridiculous, as did many people. I may have. But now I don’t know what seems so farfetched about it. 

I don't pretend to know what actually happened, but no matter what the real answer is to this case, it's a bizarre situation.

  • Like 3
merylinkid

merylinkid

On 12/14/2024 at 6:09 PM, TattleTeeny said:

The Boulder police pretty much immediately blew off that possibility as ridiculous,

Reason right there to believe it.

The cops will never use that DNA.   Because then it will blow up their narrative.   Sticking to their version of events is more important than catching the guy.

  • Like 1
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

On 11/27/2024 at 5:01 AM, Soapy Goddess said:

Exactly. And a 2-page note at that!  

Someone in that house (John, Patsy, or her brother), killed JB. Whether it was accidental or not, it simply does not make sense that anyone other than one of them did it.

 

True, imo.  The ransom note implicates an adult in the house who knew details of John’s finances.   There is no escaping that and due to that, I lost interest in a pursuit of an intruder, since mother has died and father apparently still in denial.  The what ifs make for a wild array of possibilities, but it always comes back to the incriminating, lengthy note that was so completely uncharacteristic of a actual note from a kidnapper.  And, linked to the pad found in the home.  
It was obviously bogus, so why write and leave it?  

I’ve started watching a little of this series. If they explain away the note, please tell where. I’ll check it out.  Three episodes, right? To me, there’s a difference in handwriting analysis being inconclusive and with certainty excluding someone.  

  • Like 2
BitterApple

BitterApple

On 12/14/2024 at 3:09 PM, TattleTeeny said:

 It’s weird, but there are also countless cases of people literally living in people’s homes undetected for stretches of time, making the idea of hiding out for an hour and writing a letter not so crazy.

I've always been 50/50 on the Ramseys' guilt, but the intruder theory is plausible. The house was nearly 8,000 square feet with a maze-like layout and four levels. Someone could've easily been hiding undetected and roamed around while the family was out on Christmas day. 

On 12/22/2024 at 8:19 AM, merylinkid said:

Reason right there to believe it.

The cops will never use that DNA.   Because then it will blow up their narrative.   Sticking to their version of events is more important than catching the guy.

Agreed. If they test the DNA and it turns out to be a local sex offender, then their department looks even worse than it did the first time around. It would underscore the inept, sloppy investigation and tunnel vision. It means they dragged an innocent family through the mud for 30 years and allowed a child predator to go free and likely commit more crimes. That DNA will never see the light of day. 

  • Useful 1
iarwain

iarwain

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I've always been 50/50 on the Ramseys' guilt, but the intruder theory is plausible. The house was nearly 8,000 square feet with a maze-like layout and four levels. Someone could've easily been hiding undetected and roamed around while the family was out on Christmas day. 

According to this guy's YouTube channel, there were a lot of keys floating around, people who had keys to the Ramsey house.  His theory is child pornographers who were associated with beauty pageant photographers took her from the house, and when she was accidentally killed, they returned her to the house.  He bases this in part on the visit with the "special Santa" on Christmas night.  He points out there was a white teddy bear under Jon Benet's tree that no one had ever seen before.  

https://www.youtube.com/@davidpate6095

  • Useful 2
BitterApple

BitterApple

1 hour ago, iarwain said:

According to this guy's YouTube channel, there were a lot of keys floating around, people who had keys to the Ramsey house.  His theory is child pornographers who were associated with beauty pageant photographers took her from the house, and when she was accidentally killed, they returned her to the house.  He bases this in part on the visit with the "special Santa" on Christmas night.  He points out there was a white teddy bear under Jon Benet's tree that no one had ever seen before.  

https://www.youtube.com/@davidpate6095

Thank you for the link, I plan on watching it this evening. It's hard to fathom people on the Ramseys' level of wealth were so lax on security. Granted, the mid-90s were a different time, but still. Keys given to random tradesmen, a broken window that hadn't been fixed in months, an alarm system they never used, a child's bedroom far away from her parents with a balcony and outside entrance, touring strangers through the home, etc. I know hindsight is 20/20 and J&P probably never thought they'd be victims of a heinous crime, but talk about a perfect storm of factors that allowed it to happen. 

  • Like 3
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

So, the theory of an intruder who hid out in the house would have to include a person who had personal knowledge of John’s finances AND love to write to the point of making the letter lengthy and not even a real ransom note.  
 

Any reports such as a toy under the tree they had not seen before are not really provable.  One can claim anything.  

iarwain

iarwain

6 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Any reports such as a toy under the tree they had not seen before are not really provable.  One can claim anything.  

Sure, but there isn't much provable in this case, nothing tangible that leads to a conclusive direction anyway.  I'm not deep into this case, but the statement about the toy under the tree supposedly came from the family.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/toy-bear-may-be-jonbenet-clue/

SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

1 hour ago, iarwain said:

Sure, but there isn't much provable in this case, nothing tangible that leads to a conclusive direction anyway.  I'm not deep into this case, but the statement about the toy under the tree supposedly came from the family.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/toy-bear-may-be-jonbenet-clue/

Exactly, but the family can say anything.  They could deny it was hers when it was hers.  Perhaps as a ruse , a mistake or some other reason.   It would be difficult to prove it one way or the other.  

iarwain

iarwain

27 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Exactly, but the family can say anything.  They could deny it was hers when it was hers.  Perhaps as a ruse , a mistake or some other reason.   It would be difficult to prove it one way or the other.  

Some proponents of the "special Santa" theory think that the Ramseys were allowing the photographers to take pornographic photos of their daughter, in exchange for whatever.  The white teddy bear goes along with the special Santa idea, which even the neighbor heard being discussed.  I don't pretend to know what happened, I think everything is on the table until debunked.

RealHousewife

RealHousewife

On 1/2/2025 at 12:11 PM, BitterApple said:

I've always been 50/50 on the Ramseys' guilt, but the intruder theory is plausible. The house was nearly 8,000 square feet with a maze-like layout and four levels. Someone could've easily been hiding undetected and roamed around while the family was out on Christmas day. 

Agreed. If they test the DNA and it turns out to be a local sex offender, then their department looks even worse than it did the first time around. It would underscore the inept, sloppy investigation and tunnel vision. It means they dragged an innocent family through the mud for 30 years and allowed a child predator to go free and likely commit more crimes. That DNA will never see the light of day. 

The Ramseys never struck me as the type of people who would hurt their own child. At worst, I wondered if maybe Burke accidentally killed JonBonet, and the Ramseys freaked out and wanted to protect him. I'm not convinced of that either though. My guess is also that this was an innocent family that went through hell, but you can never really know without evidence. 

I could see that. It's sickening. 

On 1/2/2025 at 7:45 PM, BitterApple said:

Thank you for the link, I plan on watching it this evening. It's hard to fathom people on the Ramseys' level of wealth were so lax on security. Granted, the mid-90s were a different time, but still. Keys given to random tradesmen, a broken window that hadn't been fixed in months, an alarm system they never used, a child's bedroom far away from her parents with a balcony and outside entrance, touring strangers through the home, etc. I know hindsight is 20/20 and J&P probably never thought they'd be victims of a heinous crime, but talk about a perfect storm of factors that allowed it to happen. 

For real. My family did not have the kind of money the Ramseys had, but safety was always a priority. The only thing we do now that we didn't then is have cameras around the house. But even in the 90s, doors were always locked, alarm system always on, anything that compromised safety was immediately taken care of, etc. I feel like our world is still so dangerous, but I wonder if 30 years later, would someone dare such a crime? Would the perpetrator get caught if so? The crime was also committed before parents could do a quick google search to check for sex offenders nearby. The Ramseys may have had God knows who in their circle and own home and had no idea of the danger. 

  • Like 2
iarwain

iarwain

54 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

The Ramseys never struck me as the type of people who would hurt their own child. At worst, I wondered if maybe Burke accidentally killed JonBonet, and the Ramseys freaked out and wanted to protect him. I'm not convinced of that either though. My guess is also that this was an innocent family that went through hell, but you can never really know without evidence. 

People always want to suspect the family, because they are closest to the situation, and there were some oddities in this case.  But for whatever reason, I've always felt they were innocent (I could well be wrong, what do I know?).  But with JonBonet being involved in those child beauty contests, it just seems like that would draw the attention of some unscrupulous characters.

  • Like 2
iarwain

iarwain

7 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

I can see that because the 2-page "ransom" note written on the Ramsey's notepad contained too many personal details.

Everything's on the table as far as I'm concerned.  Or maybe it indicates someone who knew them, was familiar with the layout of the house, etc.  As for John's bonus, it could be coincidence, but some people are very open about their earnings.  I was always brought up to keep my finances private, but I notice some people are very free to tell people what they make:  "I make $x a year plus a $y bonus".  Especially if they make a good amount of money, it can be a form of bragging.

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...