Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

markm106 said:
The recent Netflix doco was good. The media really slammed the parents.
Click to expand...

The media were fed by the police. It was farcical.

The policewoman who was in the house when the body was found, reckons she could see in the father's eyes that he was guilty. Did you see her eyes - raving lunatic that I wouldn't want anywhere near an investigation into anyone from my family.

It will be a nutter that watched the shows where the girls performed IMO.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

markm106 said:
I don’t think the brother was capable of all the injuries and tying her up like that. Also he was cleared via DNA.
Click to expand...

From memory they've done tests and shown a ~ 9 year old is capable of inflicting the head injury, and the DNA sample is being questioned as to whether it's accurate or not.

Whether he did it or not, I don't think it can be ruled out as being 'possible' for a child of that age, and we've seen a number of cases over the years of younger children being violent e.g. the Bulger murder.
 
Earls Smother said:
The media were fed by the police. It was farcical.

The policewoman who was in the house when the body was found, reckons she could see in the father's eyes that he was guilty. Did you see her eyes - raving lunatic that I wouldn't want anywhere near an investigation into anyone from my family.

It will be a nutter that watched the shows where the girls performed IMO.
Click to expand...
That seems the most likely or one of the most likely culprits IMO.
 
faible said:
From memory they've done tests and shown a ~ 9 year old is capable of inflicting the head injury, and the DNA sample is being questioned as to whether it's accurate or not.

Whether he did it or not, I don't think it can be ruled out as being 'possible' for a child of that age, and we've seen a number of cases over the years of younger children being violent e.g. the Bulger murder.
Click to expand...

A 9 year old could not have tied the garotte knots.

If the parents covered up for him, then they were doing those things while she was still alive. The evidence says she struggled against the garotte and ties.

Anyone who thinks that a) a brother could do that, and b) the parents could find her alive and decide to finish her off and cover it up, has as many problems as the prick who did it IMO.
 
Earls Smother said:
A 9 year old could not have tied the garotte knots.

If the parents covered up for him, then they were doing those things while she was still alive. The evidence says she struggled against the garotte and ties.

Anyone who thinks that a) a brother could do that, and b) the parents could find her alive and decide to finish her off and cover it up, has as many problems as the prick who did it IMO.
Click to expand...

As I said, not saying he did do it, just that the head wound inflicted wasn't beyond the capacity of a 9 year old.

In the scenario the brother did it, the belief seems to be that the parents found her dead and helped stage a scene so as to not lose two children.
 
faible said:
From memory they've done tests and shown a ~ 9 year old is capable of inflicting the head injury, and the DNA sample is being questioned as to whether it's accurate or not.

Whether he did it or not, I don't think it can be ruled out as being 'possible' for a child of that age, and we've seen a number of cases over the years of younger children being violent e.g. the Bulger murder.
Click to expand...
Yeah he probably could have inflicted the head injuries etc. but the way she was tied up and the note. He wouldn’t have done. Not without help. So the parents covering it up theory could come into play there. But it’s a very odd way to deal with your son killing your daughter.
 
markm106 said:
Yeah he probably could have inflicted the head injuries etc. but the way she was tied up and the note. He wouldn’t have done. Not without help. So the parents covering it up theory could come into play there. But it’s a very odd way to deal with your son killing your daughter.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly it's a very extreme way of dealing with it. The idea seems to be that they'd do it on the basis of 'not losing two children'.

It's a weird one because some of the evidence makes a lot more sense if the parents are somehow involved. The note including a very specific amount of money that was his bonus that year for example. And not looking in all the basement rooms when searching for your missing child?

But no DNA has ever really pointed to family involvement, and some of the other evidence could very well fit with an intruder.
 
faible said:
Undoubtedly it's a very extreme way of dealing with it. The idea seems to be that they'd do it on the basis of 'not losing two children'.

It's a weird one because some of the evidence makes a lot more sense if the parents are somehow involved. The note including a very specific amount of money that was his bonus that year for example.

But no DNA has ever really pointed to family involvement, and some of the other evidence could very well fit with a stranger.
Click to expand...
If the parents were faking a ransom note they wouldn't ask for the exact amount of his bonus, they'd ask for $100k, or $200k or whatever.
 
jason_recliner said:
If the parents were faking a ransom note they wouldn't ask for the exact amount of his bonus, they'd ask for $100k, or $200k or whatever.
Click to expand...

So the intruder writing the note happens to know almost exactly the bonus amount?

That would be an extreme coincidence to guess. There's a lot of weird things like that in this case.
 
faible said:
So the intruder writing the note happens to know almost exactly the bonus amount?

That would be an extreme coincidence to guess. There's a lot of weird things like that in this case.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought, too, until I watched a recent News Nation feature. Apparently there was documentation in the office specifying the bonus amount.
 
faible said:
So the intruder writing the note happens to know almost exactly the bonus amount?

That would be an extreme coincidence to guess. There's a lot of weird things like that in this case.
Click to expand...
jason_recliner said:
That's what I thought, too, until I watched a recent News Nation feature. Apparently there was documentation in the office specifying the bonus amount.
Click to expand...

John's image featured in a magazine as well, boasting record profit for his company and that was kept in the office. Someone defaced it.

I think the intruder had been going in and out of that house for a while and they killed JonBenet, with all the hatred they felt towards John taken out on her.

Then that sneaky ransom note, which further extended the torture and caused so much confusion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

faible said:
Undoubtedly it's a very extreme way of dealing with it. The idea seems to be that they'd do it on the basis of 'not losing two children'.

It's a weird one because some of the evidence makes a lot more sense if the parents are somehow involved. The note including a very specific amount of money that was his bonus that year for example. And not looking in all the basement rooms when searching for your missing child?

But no DNA has ever really pointed to family involvement, and some of the other evidence could very well fit with an intruder.
Click to expand...
I do think it was weird that no one looked in the basement thoroughly in the initial search of the house. An emphasis was placed on the abduction. But it’s not like they didn’t search the house.
I do think the parents being involved is a possibility. I’m not convinced of Burke being involved. But my guess is that it was likely someone obsessed with JonBenet. It is strange the DNA was never linked to anyone. And perhaps the DNA was mixed etc and there could be issues with the accuracy of testing. I won’t go into that as I am no expert in it.
 
jason_recliner said:
That's what I thought, too, until I watched a recent News Nation feature. Apparently there was documentation in the office specifying the bonus amount.
Click to expand...
Kurve said:
John's image featured in a magazine as well, boasting record profit for his company and that was kept in the office. Someone defaced it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware of this one, if so the pool of suspects that had access to this information must still be fairly small.
 
markm106 said:
I do think it was weird that no one looked in the basement thoroughly in the initial search of the house. An emphasis was placed on the abduction. But it’s not like they didn’t search the house.
I do think the parents being involved is a possibility. I’m not convinced of Burke being involved. But my guess is that it was likely someone obsessed with JonBenet. It is strange the DNA was never linked to anyone. And perhaps the DNA was mixed etc and there could be issues with the accuracy of testing. I won’t go into that as I am no expert in it.
Click to expand...

My hope is they re-test the already tested items, and test any items that haven't been tested, then reconfirm the DNA profile and if different, re-test it against any previously eliminated suspects.
 
faible said:
Wasn't aware of this one, if so the pool of suspects that had access to this information must still be fairly small.
Click to expand...
Not really, because it could be anybody who entered their home and had a look around the office. I think it was probably related to her pageant appearances, but who knows?
 
faible said:
So the intruder writing the note happens to know almost exactly the bonus amount?

That would be an extreme coincidence to guess. There's a lot of weird things like that in this case.
Click to expand...
Well, the word "intruder" indicates the person came into their house. He could have been there for hours, cruising around looking at their stuff and noticed the bonus amount (was it a cheque or a payment advice?). He could have been there previously - worked there or was with someone who worked there.
 
Awakening said:
What’s the general consensus on this one? I don’t think the Ramseys were involved, but not sure if I’m in the minority or majority.
Click to expand...
The ransom note is the biggest thing that points to the Ramsays imo.

You only have to read the first line of the ransom note and the hoax is revealed.

“We represent a small foreign faction faction”
You’re not foreign to yourself.

The so called kidnapper was even kind enough to give John’s business a plug in the ransom note.

the note just screams to me that patsy wrote it while she and John were deciding what to say.



An handwriting expert also analysed the ransom note and found over 200 similarities to patsy’s known writing.
 
Kurve said:
I read recently Boulder PD opened the case again with the view to doing something with the DNA and have refused to comment since.
Click to expand...
Those PD fellas have been sitting on the DNA and seemingly have not gone the EAR Joe DeAngelo route in seeking a match on genealogy sites, perhaps until now, what's caused the delay, chaps?
They've been incompetent from minute 1 when they didn't search and secure the crime scene, and allowed it to be tarnished with random visitors. They also held on to the info that the dna did not match that of mum or dad for quite a while, letting media go nuts with conspiracy theories. Fcuknuckles!
 
Osho said:
Those PD fellas have been sitting on the DNA and seemingly have not gone the EAR Joe DeAngelo route in seeking a match on genealogy sites, perhaps until now, what's caused the delay, chaps?
They've been incompetent from minute 1 when they didn't search and secure the crime scene, and allowed it to be tarnished with random visitors. They also held on to the info that the dna did not match that of mum or dad for quite a while, letting media go nuts with conspiracy theories. Fcuknuckles!
Click to expand...
Apparently, the Police who were on the case at the beginning were still running things. Now it appears they have (finally) all retired and a new Police Chief, from outside the area and never been involved in the case, has been appointed. They are hopeful that he may be willing to try to solve it or at least re-look at all the evidence, particularly the mixed sample of DNA.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top