Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

[Sweeetleftfoot]

There's an interesting clip on YT by a sound engineer who has analysed Patsy's very first words on the 911 call.

He believes, and I can hear it too, that she says 'hurry, we need an am.....gasp.... Police!'

Curious, especially in conjunction with the comments Patsy, John and Burke made after they thought the call had been terminated.......even moreso when Burke was allegedly in bed and unaware of developments.

I don’t necessarily put to much stock into the enhanced call, as people will be tuned to hear what they believe is being said. Regardless of what’s being said it’s clear there’s multiple different voices.
Another inconsistency from the Ramsays

 

[Cataholic]

I don’t necessarily put to much stock into the enhanced call, as people will be tuned to hear what they believe is being said. Regardless of what’s being said it’s clear there’s multiple different voices.
Another inconsistency from the Ramsays

It was the first time I've heard it, and honestly believe I hear Patsy begin calling for an ambulance before changing to 'police'.

 

[OnTheRocks]

There's a chance - the first step I described essentially outlines the killer being in the house 'previously', before going away to practice their handwriting etc then returning to murder the poor girl etc.

I'm just don't think that a killer freely coming and going, helping themselves to examples of Patsy's handwriting / linguistics whilst also browsing John's correspondence is a likely scenario.

Just my opinion.

My theory is that it wasn't a random intruder but someone who could get close enough to be able to plan & execute deception, without raising suspicion or being able to deflect it from themselves

EARONS
Displayed signs of rat cunning, coming & going multiple times to his intended targets homes, taking & moving things.
I didn't say take the notepad but rather removed some pages, as they wouldn't be noticed missing.
Why remove so many pages but only leave the ransom note & 1 in the bin? Why not leave the other pages (notes)?

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

D96-4153 from 1997 precludes them. If the new testing that John is fighting for she's they could be guilty then we have to reconsider.

I can't believe how hard some people find it to understand the ransom value. John receives a $188k bonus, which is printed on his payslips, which are in the office with the perpetrator. Perpetrator sees a payslip and demands the value of the bonus. He'd have no idea John is worth six million.

No it doesn’t , I don’t know why people are refusing the facts.
D96-4153 states if the dna came from a single source all the Ramsays are cleared.
We know from the Bode report the dna is from a mixture and cannot be attained to a single source, therefore Burke can’t be ruled out. This is not speculation it’s fact.

 

[jason_recliner]

No it doesn’t , I don’t know why people are refusing the facts.
D96-4153 states if the dna came from a single source all the Ramsays are cleared.
We know from the Bode report the dna is from a mixture and cannot be attained to a single source, therefore Burke can’t be ruled out. This is not speculation it’s fact.

I don't know much about DNA and I have no idea about your technical qualifications and experience. The Police exonerated the Ramseys based largely on DNA evidence and for now that's good enough for me. You would have to be extremely persuasive - you aren't - to convince me otherwise. It's my opinion that family has been through far more than is fair, and keyboard warriors should leave them alone unless evidence comes to light.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

You are basing so much on handwriting analysis which at best is inconclusive. You're completely discounting the hard evidence - the DNA report that precludes the Ramseys. As mentioned, his payslips, which were in his office, listed the bonus amount. How would a stranger know his net worth?

How would a stranger know he had received a large sum in order to break in to his house out of all those in his neighbourhood and abduct his Daughter for ransom.
So he's enough of a stranger to not know Johns net worth but familiar enough to chose him to extort via a kidnapping of his child.

As for DNA, DNA can only rule them out as having been the unaccounted for donor, it doesnt prove the unaccounted for donor is the killer.

 

[Cataholic]

My theory is that it wasn't a random intruder but someone who could get close enough to be able to plan & execute deception, without raising suspicion or being able to deflect it from themselves

EARONS
Displayed signs of rat cunning, coming & going multiple times to his intended targets homes, taking & moving things.
I didn't say take the notepad but rather removed some pages, as they wouldn't be noticed missing.
Why remove so many pages but only leave the ransom note & 1 in the bin? Why not leave the other pages (notes)?

It would take rat cunning and a laser focus, so why the uncertainty of mind in addressing the ransom note, and the sudden disorganisation in pivoting from abduction and extortion to brutal murder?

It's also hard to believe the alleged intruder could've been 'spooked' into this course of action when the Ramsey's claim to have been utterly unaware of anyone in their house, and having been sleep.

This 'intruder' was invisible. No-one was aware of their presence, and they remain invisible to this day. So there was nothing to be spooked about.

They were bold enough to physically take JB, restrain her, move about the house freely, write the note, go and put it on the stair case, but then suddenly got spooked or changed their mind completely and killed her anyway?

I just don't buy it.

The ransom note is a deliberate distraction imo.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

What's worries or should I say annoys me about the forthcoming JonBenet Docu on Netflix is we will see other exploitive docudramas about other child tragedies like the disappearance of Madelaine McCain

It just strikes me as exploitive and a cash grab over the tragic unsolved murder of a young innocent child.

Or am I too churlish about it ??

 

[faible]

I don't know much about DNA and I have no idea about your technical qualifications and experience. The Police exonerated the Ramseys based largely on DNA evidence and for now that's good enough for me. You would have to be extremely persuasive - you aren't - to convince me otherwise. It's my opinion that family has been through far more than is fair, and keyboard warriors should leave them alone unless evidence comes to light.

AFAIK it wasn't the Police, but the DA who exonerated them.

It's a weird case, if they ever work out who did it, it'll be fascinating to hear how it all fits together.

 

[Cataholic]

How would a stranger know he had received a large sum in order to break in to his house out of all those in his neighbourhood and abduct his Daughter for ransom.
So he's enough of a stranger to not know Johns net worth but familiar enough to chose him to extort via a kidnapping of his child.

As for DNA, DNA can only rule them out as having been the unaccounted for donor, it doesnt prove the unaccounted for donor is the killer.

As I mentioned above, John told Barbara Walters that HE connected the odd amount of $118k to his bonus for that year, and Patsy said she was unaware he'd received that bonus.

So the alleged intruder had confidential information that Patsy wasn't privy to.

How?

 

[faible]

What's worries or should I say annoys me about the forthcoming JonBenet Docu on Netflix is we will see other exploitive docudramas about other child tragedies like the disappearance of Madelaine McCain

It just strikes me as exploitive and a cash grab over the tragic unsolved murder of a young innocent child.

Or am I too churlish about it ??

There's already been a McCann one a few years ago.

 

[jason_recliner]

How would a stranger know he had received a large sum in order to break in to his house out of all those in his neighbourhood and abduct his Daughter for ransom.
So he's enough of a stranger to not know Johns net worth but familiar enough to chose him to extort via a kidnapping of his child.

As for DNA, DNA can only rule them out as having been the unaccounted for donor, it doesnt prove the unaccounted for donor is the killer.

He might have known about the bonus prior to breaking in or he might have learned about it when he found a payslip. Why would he know John's net worth? I don't know the net worth of anybody I know (I don't even know mine!).

 

[Cataholic]

He might have known about the bonus prior to breaking in or he might have learned about it when he found a payslip. Why would he know John's net worth? I don't know the net worth of anybyod I know (I don't even know mine!).

Given his wife didn't know about the bonus it's unlikely that John left a payslip laying around, or discussed it with friends, family, or general employees.

Only the upper echelon in the company would've known you'd think.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

I don't know much about DNA and I have no idea about your technical qualifications and experience. The Police exonerated the Ramseys based largely on DNA evidence and for now that's good enough for me. You would have to be extremely persuasive - you aren't - to convince me otherwise. It's my opinion that family has been through far more than is fair, and keyboard warriors should leave them alone unless evidence comes to light.

This isn’t a conspiracy or anything, the DA exonerated the Ramsays on good faith, which has no legal bindings btw.

I don’t need to be extremely persuasive it’s the facts of the case , that’s why some people were amazed the DA dismissed them as suspects as they all couldn’t be ruled out especially Burke.

 

[jason_recliner]

Given his wife didn't know about the bonus it's unlikely that John left a payslip laying around, or discussed it with friends, family, or general employees.

Only the upper echelon in the company would've known you'd think.

Well, he said the payslips were in his office and the DA and police accept that.

 

[Cataholic]

Well, he said the payslips were in his office and the DA and police accept that.

A logical assumption would then be that the intruder had access to his office AND his house.

That would narrow down the suspect list somewhat.

Edit: a payslip, and knowledge of John, would indicate he'd be good for way more than $118k. If you're going to kidnap and extort wouldn't you ask for as much as you could get??

 

[Kurve]

A logical assumption would then be that the intruder had access to his office AND his house.

That would narrow down the suspect list somewhat.

He had an office in the Boulder house. That's where the killer would have had access to a lot of files.

 

[jason_recliner]

A logical assumption would then be that the intruder had access to his office AND his house.

That would narrow down the suspect list somewhat.

Edit: a payslip, and knowledge of John, would indicate he'd be good for way more than $118k. If you're going to kidnap and extort wouldn't you ask for as much as you could get??

Home office. US$118,000 was A LOT of money in the USA in 1996. If the perpetrator was not wealthy it was probably wealth beyond their imagination and they might not also be thinking if this guys get a $100k bonus he has millions of cash in the bank. That, to me (and the police and the DA), seems far more likely than what you are implying, which is Patsy and John had to come up with a ransom value and decided that the exact value of his bonus was the way to go.

 

[OnTheRocks]

But they didnt go with intent to murder, they went to abduct, which is why they went to the effort of writing a lengthy ransom letter

Is this a fact?

They just decided at the last minute that all of that effort was pointless and escelated to Murdering a child on Christmas

Maybe, you've never changed plans or your mind before?

If John was worth 6 mil,

I doubt it was about the money but rather it was about pain & suffering

It makes no sense.

Only to the perpetrator(s)
Sadly they do walk among us

 

[Cataholic]

Home office. US$118,000 was A LOT of money in the USA in 1996. If the perpetrator was not wealthy it was probably wealth beyond their imagination and they might be thinking if this guys get a $100k bonus he has millions of cash in the bank. That, to me (and the police and the DA), seems far more likely than what you are implying, which is Patsy and John had to come up with a ransom value and decided that the exact value of his bonus was the way to go.

So if they were thinking 'he has millions of cash in the bank' why were they happy to settle for $118k, even if that sum was a lot of money to them?

Wouldn't you ask for at least one of those millions, especially given you were about to abduct a child?

But then it couldn't have been about the money because 'two' minutes later they decided to bash and strangle the poor girl.

 

[Cataholic]

He had an office in the Boulder house. That's where the killer would have had access to a lot of files.

You don't find it strange, just yet another coincidence, that the alleged intruder came to know about John's bonus whilst Patsy remained unaware of it?

 

[Kurve]

You don't find it strange, just yet another coincidence, that the alleged intruder came to know about John's bonus whilst Patsy remained unaware of it?

I didn't know Patsy was unaware of it - if an intruder could have found something in the house going through John's paperwork, Patsy may have noticed it as well but they had a lot of money, $118k might not have even been something that got Patsy's attention.

The ransom note was part of a sick game imo, to further terrorise the Ramseys. There may have never been any intention to abduct JonBenet.

The mention of $118k was to let John know he had that information, like he'd one upped John again and done his homework.

Have you ever got a weird message off someone you don't know but they drop a piece of personal information about you that very few people would or should know? They do it on purpose to create confusion, intimidate and grab attention. It's stalker behaviour.

The stalker's ready to let you know that you're being stalked.

 

[bomberclifford]

I've been RDI in some way shape or form for as long as I've been reading about this case, but I'm still open to the fact that it may very well be IDI. I'm not wedded to a side like some here.

One thing that I see time and again in these threads is using a storytelling narrative to 'prove' that something could not have happened in a particular way. It's not evidence or proof. It's just a narrative based on your own perception of how you think people act in certain circumstances.

For me, the logical rationale based on the things that we do know is that Patsy is involved somehow, but I struggle to reconcile this with the way in which JBR was killed and sexually assaulted. It boggles my mind to think that a mother could do that to her daughter. It's a massive leap to include this in a theory without any real evidence of that level of psychopathy in either Patsy or John.

I'd also add that Occam's Razor is only applicable when you have two (or more) scenarios to compare and, to be honest, there are just as many insanely weird occurrences for the RDI scenarios as there are on the IDI side. Neither scenario is the 'simplest'.

Finally, I've always found the John Mark Karr confession to be a plausible explanation. I know he was cleared but his description of the act felt like it was coming from someone who knew a lot about what went down that night. Either he was the culprit, or had a connection with the real culprit.

(My hazy memory of that time recalls some emails that were discovered between him and Patsy at some point. The implication was that potentially she put him up to confessing. Can't find anything about that online so it could just be a faulty memory on my part)

 

[Cataholic]

I didn't know Patsy was unaware of it but if an intruder could have found something in the house going through John's paperwork, Patsy may have noticed it as well. They had a lot of money, $118k might not have even been something that got Patsy's attention.

The ransom note was part of a sick game imo, to further terrorise the Ramseys. There may have never been any intention to abduct JonBenet.

The mention of $118k was to let John know he had that information, like he'd one upped John again and done his homework.

Have you ever got a weird message off someone you don't know but they drop a piece of personal information about you that very few people would or should know? They do it on purpose to create fear. It's stalker behaviour.

Patsy told Barbara Walters she did not know of the bonus paid to John.

 

[Kurve]

Patsy told Barbara Walters she did not know of the bonus paid to John.

Maybe she genuinely didn't. Patsy was quite ill for lengthy periods undergoing chemo and fighting cancer, I don't see why she'd need to bother herself with the finances and she trusted John to take care of it all.

Patsy also had a housekeeper, so maybe she didn't go in John's office.