The Killing Of JonBenet: The Truth Uncovered (A&E)

[FormerMod-a1]

The CBS "special" - The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey is 6 hours total, Sept 18, 19 and 25.   We also have a forum for The Case Of here.

[TattleTeeny]

Thank you! Whoo, it's an onslaught; I told my BF to prepare for yelling and hollering in the next couple weeks--especially when I see that infernal window grate 4,000 times!

[Court]

Yes, the window grate is crazy. I can look at it and clearly see anyone can get through it. I mean she was in there anyways. It's not that hard.

[tobeannounced]

Maybe someone can clarify on the window grate for me.  There was a broken window found in the basement, and John Ramsey said he broke it weeks earlier to get into the house when he was locked out.  Was that the same window as the infamous grate?  Because obviously if John Ramsey got through there, so could an intruder.

[ghoulina]

On 9/6/2016 at 6:44 PM, Court said:

What I haven't seen discussed here is the theory about Burke. I have difficulty believing a 9 year old could do that. 

The part that I do think has merit is that the parent(s) covered for someone or even maybe each other. 

I'm in the Burke Did It camp, simply because I can't believe that a parent would go to the lengths they did to cover this up, and for years and years hold it in, to protect anyone other than a child. But I don't think that means he did ALL of it. Didn't the medical records say there was evidence of ongoing vaginal trauma? It wasn't just that night that she was abused? I think something might have been going on with Burke. Maybe he hit her to keep her quiet and they thought she was dead. I'm not sure a 9 year old could hit her hard enough to kill her, but who knows? It's impossible to speculate as to how it went down exactly, but I'm inclined to think it started with Burke, but a lot of the cover-up and staging was done by the parents. Probably frantically and without really consulting each other, and that's why there's a lot of inconsistencies and weirdness about it. 

It's also possible that John or Patsy caught something going on, had the flashlight in hand, everyone was fighting and arguing, gesticulating wildly, and they swung and accidentally hit their daughter. I remember the case of the Green Beret who murdered his family and blamed it on Manson-like hippies. Jeffrey McDonald. He never admitted it, but it was pretty well believe that he was fighting with his wife and the daughter came into the room and things got out of hand and he accidentally killed one of them, then killed the other 2 in the house to make it look like a break in and a murder. People will to great lengths sometimes to avoid getting in trouble. 

But, in no way, do I think an intruder went through all that, and then just left the dead body down there. 

Also, I believe the 911 call is incriminating. Patsy starts off saying something like, "We have a kidnapping". Who talks like that when they think their daughter is missing? And towards the end, you can hear Burke ask a question and she speaks to him, but their official story is that Burke wasn't up at that time. Then I believe she just hangs up. 

It's all very odd, and I could certainly be wrong. I'm open to that. But if someone asked me to guess, I'd say Burke. 

[BitterApple]

My only hesitation on Burke is that a murder and cover-up is one hell of a secret for a 9 year-old to keep. Of course, if he was the one sexually abusing JonBenet, it probably wouldn't be ouside the realm of possibility. By all accounts he was a strange kid, but John and Patsy were weird as well, that's why this case is so damn hard to wrap my head around.

I definitely agree that if the parents were involved in a cover-up, the only person they'd risk jail time for was their son. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by BitterApple

[jenrising]

2 hours ago, tobeannounced said:

Maybe someone can clarify on the window grate for me.  There was a broken window found in the basement, and John Ramsey said he broke it weeks earlier to get into the house when he was locked out.  Was that the same window as the infamous grate?  Because obviously if John Ramsey got through there, so could an intruder.

Here's a few pics of the whole basement window setup. I think most of these are screenshots from a video, so the quality is bad but you can get the idea. Putting them behind spoilers to help load time. 

This is the grate outside that lifts up revealing the window well. 

Spoiler

This is the best pic I could find of the broken pane. John Ramsey said he broke it before and used the window to get into the house.

Spoiler

More pics of the window from the inside. Apparently it was stuck and couldn't swing open all the way, so I assume this is as far as it goes.

Spoiler

This is the suitcase that was under the window when the police took pictures. Now, this is after they let John down there by himself (when he found her body) so the placement could be staged. 

Spoiler

And some pics of the investigator who climbed in and out of the window to show it's possible. Tight squeeze, but in the video he doesn't seem to really struggle. 

Spoiler

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4287&stc=1&d=1308580681

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4145&stc=1&d=1286429129

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4146&stc=1&d=1286429156

I linked directly to the photos because most of the sites have some pretty grisly images all over the place. 

[TattleTeeny]

I can't even get my head around the Burke theory at all.

[Court]

I thought that this article was interesting. Was there any unknown hair at the scene? 

http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/5016.html

[TattleTeeny]

I am about to pull out the Ouija board from our storage closet* and just ask JonBenet my damn self!

(* which we call the "Toby closet," after Paranormal Activity 3--which I have now mentioned twice in this thread!)

There is something I have wondered about lately, and I admit, it could be a really stupid thought (over the years, I have had lots of thoughts about this case that pop in and out regularly. Bear with me if I've forgotten something or conflated info somewhere along the line; this is so many years' worth of stuff swirling around in my not-a-detective brain):

So, if the police (or, just Linda Arndt) did a cursory search of the house and barely skimmed the basement, thus missing the "wine cellar," why would a guilty John Ramsey--after being asked by Linda Arndt to search his own crime-scene home--pretty much go straight to it? I mean, OK, if he were complicit in the murder, I suppose he'd be resigned to the fact that the police would get there eventually (ahahahhahaaaa, or maybe they wouldn't have...but he had no way of knowing at that point just how bad the Boulder cops were at this). Or, guilt could have set in, and leaving his child dead on a dirty floor could have become too much to bear.

But as far as everyone was concerned at that moment, this was a kidnapping. So why not stay as far away as possible from that door, and simply continue to perpetuate the ruse that JonBenét's body was not even on the premises at all? Eh...who knows? Maybe I have a more prevaricating nature than I thought...

Edited September 9, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[ghoulina]

But that's the thing, if it really was an outside source and the Ramseys weren't involved at all, they'd be thinking it was a kidnapping and not really be intent on searching the house anyhow. They'd think Jon Benet was gone. Of course, I guess they could be searching for "clues". 

 

My memory is bad, but wasn't Fleet White with him when they found Jon Benet? Is it possible Fleet was kind of the one leading the search and John couldn't just be like, "no, no, don't go in there!" 

 

It's also possible that since he already knew his daughter was dead that it was very hard to keep participating in the kidnapping ruse, and he just wanted to get onto the next phase. Who knows. 

[BitterApple]

If you ascribe to JDI, you could argue that he killed his daughter and staged the kidnapping to buy himself time to dump the body. However, the plan was blown to shit when Patsy panicked and called 911. Now he's got cops on the way and a dead six year-old in the basement. He needs to be the one to "find" his daughter and bring her upstairs to explain away any of his DNA that might be discovered on JonBenet.

I'm still not convinced that Patsy was the writer of the RN. I know handwriting experts didn't exclude her, but my gut tells me someone male wrote that note.

[TattleTeeny]

Oh, all good points, ghoulina--and I think you are right about Fleet White (so your memory is good!). At the same time though, if you're not a criminal, and a cop suggests that you search, you might just acquiesce.  

Edited September 9, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[glowlights]

On 9/6/2016 at 1:35 PM, walnutqueen said:

Plus, they are allowed to lie to you for any reason, and you can be prosecuted for lying to them.  I've seen enough police "interviews" to see how quickly things can turn south for an innocent person.  No thanks.  I have a purse ulu, car console hatchet and recliner machete for personal protection; why wouldn't I protect myself from the intentional abrogation of my civil rights by an "officer of the law" hellbent on closing a case with the least amount of effort possible?

Lordy, I've missed you. :)

On 9/6/2016 at 1:36 PM, tobeannounced said:

Speaking of FBI profiling upthread, does anyone know if the FBI did a profile on who the killer might be?  Many times they are uncannily close.

Both John Douglas and Robert Ressler did their own profiles, but not in an official capacity. Were the FBI even asked to do one by the Boulder PD? Typically they have to be asked. I also wonder if the Vidocq Society has tackled this, but again it would have to be at the invitation of both the PD and the family. And neither of those parties seem particularly interested in going under a microscope. :/

So this show pissed me off from the start with the awful, cheesy music and Rachel Handshaw's terrible narration, but when the BIG REVEAL of "startling new evidence" turned out to be from the unqualified Dutch quack who has been barred from testifying in an ongoing sexual assault trial?!?!?!?! ARGH.

"A Denver prosecutor got Eikelenboom to admit that he had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency texts in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was a 'self-trained' in running DNA profiles," the DA's office said.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/denver/dna-expert-richard-eikelenboom-admits-he-has-no-direct-dna-or-analysis-experience

[EVS]

I just watched the Dateline special, and the one thing I noticed is that they said that new DNA evidence showed the same unknown DNA on her underwear and two spots on her pajama bottoms. The investigator interviewed immediately after brushed it off as contact DNA from a factory or store worker but it was on two different articles of her clothing.  I'm curious about this evidence because, before it was presented, I was leaning toward the "the parents know something they are not telling" camp. Whether they were involved or not though, I feel like a lot of their own behavior made them seem suspicious. 

I also thought police seemed quick to eliminate the "Santa" as a suspect simply because of his heart surgery.

Finally, one thing I have never seen addressed is why they didn't set their house alarm both when they went to the party that night and also when they went to bed that night.  Also, why didn't they fix the window John had broken?  Don't robberies usually increase at the holidays?  Why have a security system on that big house and not use it?  I wonder if that was normal for them or if they usually set it.

Anyway, those were my thoughts after watching last night's Dateline special.  I didn't see the one being discussed in this thread, but there isn't one for the Dateline special that I noticed.

Edited September 10, 2016 by EVS
Clarity

[BitterApple]

I agree it does seem odd, given their level of wealth, that John wasn't more security conscious. 

I also agree that it was completely ludicrous for detectives to dismiss Santa strictly on the basis of him having had heart surgery five months prior. The guy was a total creeper and the fact that he made a large portion of the mourners at the memorial service uncomfortable should've set off the detectives' radar. I mean, how well did he really know JonBenet, aside from playing Santa at their Christmas parties?

I will say, the one thing I have a hard time with is this whole thing going down on Christmas Day. That's an odd time to kidnap and murder a child. Additionally, a holiday isnt a convenient time for your target to scrape together 118k in cash. That is, assuming the RN wasn't fake and money was the real motive. Logistically it's just not a smart plan. In that sense, it's pretty obvious why law enforcement would consider this angle a deliberate red herring and hone in on the parents.

Edited September 10, 2016 by BitterApple

[ghoulina]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

I will say, the one thing I have a hard time with is this whole thing going down on Christmas Day. That's an odd time to kidnap and murder a child. Additionally, a holiday isnt a convenient time for your target to scrape together 118k in cash. That is, assuming the RN wasn't fake and money was the real motive. Logistically it's just not a smart plan. In that sense, it's pretty obvious why law enforcement would consider this angle a deliberate red herring and hone in on the parents.

Exactly. And holidays are also rife with family conflict. Traveling. Too much sugar. Not enough sleep. Having to keep a tight schedule. Plenty of opportunity for short fuses and arguments that get out of hand.

[walnutqueen]

4 hours ago, glowlights said:

Lordy, I've missed you. :)

Miss & lurve y'all too.  But my old Mum has been in hospice these last few months, so I have (less than) ZERO fucks  to give!  :-)))

[BananaRama]

On 9/6/2016 at 2:14 PM, BitterApple said:

I wouldn't either. Especially if the cops in question have obvious tunnel vision and aren't handling your case objectively. 

I think that the police showed incompetence and inexperience and stupidity.  They made so many mistakes that even if they did find the perpetrator carrying a bag full of evidence, it would have been difficult to convict that person.  The police never should have let friends and family enter the crime scene.  

[Mountainair]

Did they ever compare Burke's handwriting to the ransom note? I never thought he did it but my husband watched last night's dateline with me and immediately suspected Burke so that got me curious. 

Also Smit said that there was a scuff mark on the wall below the cellar window indicating an intruder did it. However we have John's own admission that he broke the window and climbed in the house when he was locked out one day. How did Smit know that was a new scuff mark and not one created when John supposedly broke in?

[Court]

I thought Dateline did a much better job of balancing their coverage as opposed to the A&E special. 

Two things I found interesting in my googling last night. Fleet White one of the friends had said he already checked the wine cellar when John checked the house again. I now want to know more about him. Was he checked out? Their friends?

The D.A. Alex Hunter thought Smit became too close to the Ramsey's and therefore the case. That he was influenced by his friendship he developed with them and that they were Christians like him.

What I still can't understand is why the FBI let everyone in the house even for a kidnapping? Then once she was found, he was all peace, not my problem, you have a contaminated crime scene?

Then that the friends were allowed to go behind the fingerprint tech and clean up!?? That's baffling. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Court

[BananaRama]

I'm trying to piece together an intruder's actions the night of the event.  Please critique and let me know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.  Here goes:

The intruder enters through the basement window and brings duct tape, rope, gloves and a stun gun.  He forgets to bring a ransom note.  He writes the 3 page note in the house while the Ramseys are gone.  He hears their car in the driveway.  He can’t risk having the family find the note before the kidnapping so he takes the note and hides downstairs and waits until the family goes to bed.  He takes the note and stun gun upstairs, stuns Jon Benet unconscious and carries her back to the basement and leaves the note on the stairs for the family to find in the morning.   Instead of just walking out the door with her, he takes her downstairs to assault her.  He ties her up and uses a garotte on her for his own cruel reasons. (The A&E program said she was sexually assaulted and the Dateline program said she was possibly sexually assaulted?) While doing this, she wakes up and starts clawing at the rope around her neck.  He hits her on the head and kills her.  Realizing that he killed her, he ditches his plans to kidnap her and he covers her with a blanket.  He leaves the premises (either through the window again or the front or back door).  He takes his stun gun, nylon rope and duct tape with him.  He forgets that he left the ransom note on the stairs.  

[Court]

I would guess the intruder was afraid of being heard if he didn't exit the window. Or leaving his fingerprints somewhere. 

He had to be very familiar with the house. 

[BitterApple]

My question is this: if the kidnapping was money motivated then why sexually assault the child? On the flip side, if a pedo stalker had been wanting to snatch JonBenet, why go through the trouble of staging a ransom kidnapping? And if JB's autopsy revealed signs of chronic sexual trauma, why wasn't that investigated? Especially considering there was another young child in the home who could be at risk?

Edited September 11, 2016 by BitterApple

[Court]

The experts disagree on the sexual trauma being present before the killing. She had a history of vaginosis which would explain the swelling.

I have the same other questions as you. Maybe the kidnapping was meant to give him enough time to get away? I'm brainstorming.

[BitterApple]

15 minutes ago, Court said:

The experts disagree on the sexual trauma being present before the killing. She had a history of vaginosis which would explain the swelling.

 

If that's the case, then I have a really hard time believing John or Patsy did this. Let's say for shits and giggles the parents were responsible. They got home, John and Patsy were cranky and wanted to go to bed, JonBenet was acting up, they struck her out of frustration and she dies. They panic and come up with a plan to cover their tracks. Neither is a criminal mastermind, so in their haste, they don't realize the kidnapping ruse has enough holes to drive a Sherman tank through. However, would they really go so far as to sexually assault their child, even if it was done to protect a family member? It's disgusting to even think about, let alone act out, especially if neither parent had a history of violence or abuse. I know people will do crazy things out of fear, but that's a pretty extreme level of brutality.

[WicketyWack]

On 9/6/2016 at 9:05 AM, beesknees said:

Talk to me about the pineapple!  I remember the pineapple but why is that a smoking gun?  Who cares about pineapple in the stomach unless it creates a timeline?  Do tell and enlighten!

Yes, the thing about the pineapple is that it would have created a timeline: according to police, the parents said JonBenet didn't eat pineapple after they came back from the party --> pineapple was found in her small intestine --> i.e.the parents are lying.

Here's a screen grab from the #NeverBeforeSeenDocuments that show the pineapple doesn't create as accurate a timeline as all that: 

[TattleTeeny]

You guys, let me get a bit corny here: you are my people, even if we have different ideas as to whodunnit! Rarely do I get to talk to anyone (anyone who cares, at least) about stomach pineapple or shady police procedure or broken paintbrush handles! Thank you all!

Edited September 11, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, TattleTeeny said:

You guys, let me get a bit corny here: you are my people, even if we have different ideas as to whodunnit! Rarely do I get t talk to anyone (anyone who cares, at least) about stomach pineapple or shady police procedure or broken paintbrush handles! Thank you all!

I'm a huge true crime buff, but I find that many forums dedicated to the subject are snippy and condescending. I don't like to see people's ideas put down, so I avoid them. Here everyone agrees or disagrees respectfully, it's a much better environment. 

[TattleTeeny]

And if we do get fired up, it's just our true-crime nerdery bubbling over!

[WicketyWack]

I too have been obsessed with this case for going on 20 years now (omg) and I don't think the Ramseys did it. I think they were naive about Boulder being an idyllic safe bubble where you could leave windows and doors unlocked, and invite hundreds of strangers into your home like it was no big deal, and lead very visible lives of wealth and privilege and not think twice about who might be paying attention. I think a ton of people had regular access to their home whether inside (household help, repairmen) or out (delivery guys, lawn care), and they were careless about keeping track of who came and went, and it wouldn't have been too difficult for someone who set their sights on JonBenet to scope out the house. If not someone who knew the family, then a kiddie pageant creep or anyone who saw JonBenet as Little Miss Colorado in the paper or on TV or in the Boulder Christmas parade, and then jump on an opportunity to actually enter this same kid's house during a Christmas home tour.

The DNA of an unknown male, non-related to the victim, was found on her pants and underwear. That's what I keep coming back to. Yes the Ramseys were weird, and yes a lot points to their involvement, but neither one of them ever showed past indications of such extreme violence that was visited on JonBenet that night. And someone else's DNA was on her pants and underwear.  

Word to the poster who said that the Ramseys were smart to lawyer up right off the bat. I'd do the same thing. 

[WicketyWack]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

On the flip side, if a pedo stalker had been wanting to snatch JonBenet, why go through the trouble of staging a ransom kidnapping? 

To buy himself time to get far away with her. The note told the Ramseys to sit tight and wait for instructions and obviously those instructions would never come. Someone whose mind is clearly not normal might actually think this might convince parents to wait a good long time before calling cops, instead of calling them immediately when they discovered she was gone. 

[walnutqueen]

42 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

You guys, let me get a bit corny here: you are my people, even if we have different ideas as to whodunnit! Rarely do I get to talk to anyone (anyone who cares, at least) about stomach pineapple or shady police procedure or broken paintbrush handles! Thank you all!

 

39 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I'm a huge true crime buff, but I find that many forums dedicated to the subject are snippy and condescending. I don't like to see people's ideas put down, so I avoid them. Here everyone agrees or disagrees respectfully, it's a much better environment. 

 

38 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

And if we do get fired up, it's just our true-crime nerdery bubbling over!

My true crime nerdy PEEPS 4EVER!!!

Lordy lordy, how I appreciate respectful discourse!

But we mostly agreed that Pam effin  hupp needed to go away eh!  :-)

[WicketyWack]

On 9/6/2016 at 1:25 PM, Yokosmom said:

Supposedly there was a book on sibling incest in one of the rooms of the house (according to the "Burke did it" camp.)

I had a copy of "Flowers in the Attic" in my house for years ... so people could have said the same thing about me!

I entertained "Burke did it" briefly until the DNA evidence pointing to an unknown male. The interviews with Burke at the time support that. A detective interviewed Burke before he was told his sister had died, and remains convinced he knew nothing about her death at the time. Child services interviewed him and nothing seemed hinky to them.

[Court]

Burke was nine. Maybe if he was older, I could see that theory holding water. But he was 9!  I just can't see him being involved.

I have the entire Flowers in the Attic series still.

Maybe one day they'll get a match on that DNA. Are the police just waiting on Codis? Or are they getting DNA from anyone involved at the time currently? Did the go back through to see if it matched anyone? I think they should retest anyone previously excluded.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

I have the entire Flowers in the Attic series still.

Yup. I repeat, my people. Unrelated: when my BF and I adopted two kittens, one set of my name suggestions was AFIS and CODIS.

[xls]

Not wanting to accuse anyone first of all. Did anyone catch the previews of Burke w Dr. Phil? He's so effin Kevin-from-Sin-City creepy! ugh

Wth did the killer spend so much time in the house, I wonder, when abductors/ molesters usually so quickly spirit the victim to a second location?

[Guest]

Not wanting to accuse anyone first of all. Did anyone catch the previews of Burke w Dr. Phil? He's so effin Kevin-from-Sin-City creepy! ugh

Agreed. I found his affect in the interview video sketchy as well. He seemed very rehearsed. Not that I think he killed her, but that he was covering for someone who did. 

[BitterApple]

I think Burke has Asperger's. I'm not an expert on the subject, but people with the condition have a strange affect and their reactions and facial expressions often seem inappropriate for the situation.

With that said, I agree he knows more about what went down that night than what he revealed in his initial interview. He saw or heard something. Did they ever determine whether or not it was his voice in the background during the 911 call?

[Guest]

Here's a good link with information about the enhanced 911 call. Long story short, BPD engaged Aerospace Corporation to see if they could find anything else on the tape. AC turned their report over to the BPD in 1997 but it was never made public. The following year, the Enquirer leaked the report and, in fact, AC had found three voices at the end do the call. However, other agencies, including the FBI and the Secret Service, found nothing. 

The enhanced audio tapes were never made public. Hopefully the CBS mini series will include them. 

[GaT]

5 hours ago, xls said:

Not wanting to accuse anyone first of all. Did anyone catch the previews of Burke w Dr. Phil? He's so effin Kevin-from-Sin-City creepy! ugh

 

4 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Agreed. I found his affect in the interview video sketchy as well. He seemed very rehearsed. Not that I think he killed her, but that he was covering for someone who did. 

 

3 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I think Burke has Asperger's. I'm not an expert on the subject, but people with the condition have a strange affect and their reactions and facial expressions often seem inappropriate for the situation.

 

I would think that being only 9 years old when your sister is supposedly kidnapped & killed, being interviewed by the police for years, being all over the news so that everyone knows who you are, & still being a suspect in some people's minds 20 years later is going to have a detrimental effect on your personality. The last time this guy had "normal" was the day JonBenet died. I wouldn't think he's comfortable being in the spotlight or talking to strangers at all, & the questions he gets asked are probably the same questions he's been answering for 20 years. If he sounds rehearsed it's probably because he's said the same exact thing many, many times.

[Guest]

At nine, he sounded rehearsed to me. From the excerpts I've seen from the Dr Phil (ugh), Burke smiles through some pretty grim answers. It's weird. And I can explain it to myself one way, others will explain his behavior another. One of us is right, the other wrong. We'll never know which is which. But it's interesting that after 20 years this case still provokes passionate conversations. 

[GaT]

9 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

But it's interesting that after 20 years this case still provokes passionate conversations. 

IMO, that's because the police screwed up so badly. In other crimes you at least get some facts, but because the police didn't do what they should have, we are missing a lot of facts & conjecture & interpretation is all we're ever going to have.

[DangerousMinds]

Did they lighten JonBenet's hair?

[BitterApple]

28 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Did they lighten JonBenet's hair?

Yes, her hair was bleached for the pageants. 

[ghoulina]

Yea, here you can see the difference after they started it dying it. So insane, to me, to color a little girl's hair. She was absolutely adorable as she was.

[GaT]

14 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Yes, her hair was bleached for the pageants. 

I used to work with someone whose mother started bleaching her hair when she was 5 because she wanted a blonde daughter. It's sad when your looks aren't good enough for your parents when you're only a small child.

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

I used to work with someone whose mother started bleaching her hair when she was 5 because she wanted a blonde daughter. It's sad when your looks aren't good enough for your parents when you're only a small child.

I agree. It sends a very negative message to the child. 

[RedheadZombie]

On September 6, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Mountainair said:

Mostly the inconsistencies and the fact that it was made to look like a kidnapping with that long assed ransom note. If the Ramsey's didn't do it I believe it was someone that knew them well and even someone JonBenet knew well. How else do you explain the pineapple? Either the Ramsey's were lying about what happened that night when they got home or someone JonBenet knew and or trusted opened some pineapple for her to eat and she ate it. I'm not exactly sure how stun guns work but if she was stunned in her room when did she eat the pineapple? How do you explain the fingernail marks on her kneck (the theory is that she was alive when she was strangled and tried to save her own life by clawing at the noose around her neck). If she was stunned would she be conscious enough to do that? 

It's hard to judge people based on grief. We all grieve differently but it all just seemed so matter-of-fact with them besides the one interview where Patsy was high as a kite I didn't see what I would call grieving parents. But that's my opinion and not the sole reason I think they had a hand in this. 

I researched this case 10 years ago and had to let it go. It was too emotionally draining so watching this last night made me heart ache all over again but also presented some new tidbits I had not heard before, thus the 20% doubt.

I believe in the intruder theory and I believe the ransom note was a red herring.  Apparently in the room with the broken window, there was a suitcase with trace evidence inside from Jon Benet's last clothing.   There's a theory that the intruder tased her to silence her temporarily, took her to the basement, bound her and then placed her in the suitcase.  The way the window well is shaped, it was impossible for him to lift himself and the suitcase out. Then at that point he gave into his compulsion and tortured and killed her.  She would have been awake at that - he would have made sure of it.  I think the ransom note was to throw people off, and it worked with the keystone cops.  He never intended to ransom her.  It was a sexually sadistic crime from the start, he just had to compromise on where he committed it.

On September 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, andromeda331 said:

I just can't figure out if it was an intruder. To break into the house, find their way around, grab things to be used to duck tape, go get the girl duck tape and kill her either in her room or the room she was found, then write out a really long ransom note. Wouldn't that take a long time to do all of that? And while there were still people in the house?

Jon Ramsey told the cops right away that he himself broke that window days prior after locking himself out.   So the intruder could have been in there for days.  The Ramsey house was also open to the public for Christmas viewing, so someone could have slipped away and hidden.   It's not unheard of.  I know of at least two instances where a predator hid inside of a house's crawl space over a period of time, and snuck in to offend - in one case repeatedly, until the father stumbled upon him.

[MsTree]

Perhaps the author of that "ransom note" already knew of Boulder Police incompetency when they "signed" the note S.B.T.C. (Saved By The Cops)!