JonBenet Ramsey - 24 years later

[Tskware]

Is it possible that there may have been an extended family member or friend that were staying with the Ramsey’s at that time, with it being Christmas and all? Just throwing against the wall, I guess.

No, was just the four of them, if I recall correctly, the whole family had been to a friend's house for a Christmas party, had gotten home and gone to bed.

 

[dkingsland967]

An interesting summary from the link I provided above:

The 911 Call

- Patsy Ramsey began the 911 call by saying, "We have a kidnapping" as opposed to saying, "My daughter has been kidnapped."
- She had two changes in language that appear to be unjustified - "gone" to "missing" and "note" to "ransom note."
- She referred to herself as "the mother" and not "her mother."
- Unless it was at the beginning in the inaudible portion of her 911 call, Patsy's plea for help comes towards the end her call;
"Please send somebody."
- Patsy hung up the phone after reporting her daughter was missing.

There are too many unusual things about this 911 call which would lead us to believe that something is amiss.


The Ransom Note

- We know this was not a group effort because of the changing pronouns. The writer usually used plural pronouns but slipped and used
the singular pronoun "I" and "my."
- The writer misspelled two words in the first paragraph but correctly spelled all the other words. This indicates the author is probably
educated but was trying to sound uneducated.
- The writer requested a low and odd amount of money.
- The writer was about to say that they would deliver JonBenet but then crossed out the word "delivery."
- The writer used the phrase "she dies" as opposed to "she will die." This is an indication JonBenet was already dead when the ransom
note was written.
- At the end of the ransom note, the writer referred to John Ramsey as "John." This indicates the writer felt comfortable call him John.
The writer knows John Ramsey.
- The ransom note was 2.5 pages long. The FBI has stated they have never seen a ransom that long.
- The ransom note was written in the Ramsey house with their pen and their notebook.

It is very clear this ransom note was not written with the intent of extorting money from John Ramsey. It is not a legitimate ransom note. No one attempted to kidnap JonBenet. The ransom note was most likely written after she had died. All indications are it was written as a ruse to throw investigators off.


John and Patsy Ramsey's Interviews

- In their first interview, they were more interested in thanking people and finding out "why this happened" as opposed to finding out
who killed JonBenet.
- They both said that for their entire life they will be looking for the person who murdered their daughter. So far, that has held true.
- After someone broke into their house and murdered JonBenet, John Ramsey said they still believed they lived in a safe community.
- Patsy Ramsey said she thought the ransom note was written as a "Ruse to throw us off." This contradicts what they said in their book
The Death of Innocence. In their book, they said this was a kidnapping that turned into a murder.

The Ramsey's language indicates they know who killed JonBenet. That's why they can say they live in a safe community. That's why they both stated they will be looking for the killer for their entire life. They know this was not a kidnapping that turned into a murder. That is why Patsy Ramsey said she thought the ransom note was written as a ruse.


John Mark Karr

- He's a nut.


Burke Ramsey's Interviews

- Burke could not tell us with certainty when he last saw JonBenet alive. He said, "I want to say it was in the car."
- He did not give a very good explanation as to why he stayed in bed while his mother was frantically searching for JonBenet.
- He never specifically stated that the handwriting in the ransom did not look like his mother's handwriting.
- He denied being present during the 911 call.
- He gave a stronger denial when asked if he purposely hit JonBenet with a golf club as opposed to when he was asked if he hit her over
the head with a baseball bat or flashlight.
- He gave a good denial when asked if he harmed or murdered JonBenet. The problem is he was alerted that this was going to be an
important question.
- Burke's statement that he felt bad about possibly leaving the front door open appears to be truthful.

We do have problems with some of Burke's answers. There were times when he changed how he answered a question. There may be a justification for the change and we do not know what it is. There were times when Dr. Phil prepped him for the question. He did show signs of being truthful. He gave some direct denials and he said he felt bad about possibly leaving the front door open.

As to his truthfulness, this one is a toss-up. I would lean in the direction he was being truthful. However, there are several follow-up questions I would want to ask him which would help us in determining if he was telling us the whole truth.

The Sun has reported that Burke Ramsey, most likely through his lawyer, has offered to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. A lot of people who say they are willing to take a polygraph never do. We will wait and see if he does take a polygraph test.

Update
As of 2020, Burke Ramsey has not taken a polygraph.

As someone who has some formal education/training on examining written or electronic communications looking for “language tells” or “slips”, I think there are some points of analysis of the ransom note (some, not all) that are tenuous and appear as though the guy who wrote the analysis had already come to his conclusion and was reaching for more evidence to point to. I do agree with some of his points though, most specifically that several words were intentionally misspelled early and also the odd language transition from representing a group to speaking as an individual.

Also, something the writer did not pick up on that I did... the use of the phrase “watch over”. He went with a religious angle, but to me that phrase indicates a protective instinct. The writer is correct that a kidnapper would not use that term. But you know who would... a mother.

Also, something that stood out to me about the 911 call.... primarily because Patsy Ramsey sounded to me exactly like I do when I’m on the phone with someone who has a tendency to ramble on and not let a conversation die (like my mother).

She wanted to get off the phone.

She is constantly rushing the operator. She keeps saying things like “please” and ”hurry” and speaking in quick, broken sentences. I believe she had a few rehearsed sentences she intended to say and then was thrown off by the fact that the operator kept asking her questions.

Also significant: she mentions the ransom note multiple times. That isn’t important at all in the context of the call. What is important is that her daughter is missing. Liars tend to gloss over important details and focus on superfluous ones that they believe give their story more credibility.

John Douglas, FBI legend of Mindhunter Fame, says it definitely was an outside intruder and not a family member.

Ehhhh... I mean, yes, he’s got a track record with the FBI and is an expert in the field. But he was also specifically hired by the Ramseys to perform independent analysis. He did the exact same thing for Amanda Knox’s family.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

As someone who has some formal education/training on examining written or electronic communications looking for “language tells” or “slips”, I think there are some points of analysis of the ransom note (some, not all) that are tenuous and appear as though the guy who wrote the analysis had already come to his conclusion and was reaching for more evidence to point to. I do agree with some of his points though, most specifically that several words were intentionally misspelled early and also the odd language transition from representing a group to speaking as an individual.

Also, something the writer did not pick up on that I did... the use of the phrase “watch over”. He went with a religious angle, but to me that phrase indicates a protective instinct. The writer is correct that a kidnapper would not use that term. But you know who would... a mother.

Also, something that stood out to me about the 911 call.... primarily because Patsy Ramsey sounded to me exactly like I do when I’m on the phone with someone who has a tendency to ramble on and not let a conversation die (like my mother).

She wanted to get off the phone.

She is constantly rushing the operator. She keeps saying things like “please” and ”hurry” and speaking in quick, broken sentences. I believe she had a few rehearsed sentences she intended to say and then was thrown off by the fact that the operator kept asking her questions.

Also significant: she mentions the ransom note multiple times. That isn’t important at all in the context of the call. What is important is that her daughter is missing. Liars tend to gloss over important details and focus on superfluous ones that they believe give their story more credibility.


Ehhhh... I mean, yes, he’s got a track record with the FBI and is an expert in the field. But he was also specifically hired by the Ramseys to perform independent analysis. He did the exact same thing for Amanda Knox’s family.

I have no idea who killed her, but if your child was missing wouldn't you want to get off the phone so the police would be dispatched and get to your house quickly. I don't think I would want to waste time answering a bunch a questions on the phone that could be answered after the police arrived. I think people often read too much into these things.

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

As someone who has some formal education/training on examining written or electronic communications looking for “language tells” or “slips”, I think there are some points of analysis of the ransom note (some, not all) that are tenuous and appear as though the guy who wrote the analysis had already come to his conclusion and was reaching for more evidence to point to. I do agree with some of his points though, most specifically that several words were intentionally misspelled early and also the odd language transition from representing a group to speaking as an individual.

Also, something the writer did not pick up on that I did... the use of the phrase “watch over”. He went with a religious angle, but to me that phrase indicates a protective instinct. The writer is correct that a kidnapper would not use that term. But you know who would... a mother.

Also, something that stood out to me about the 911 call.... primarily because Patsy Ramsey sounded to me exactly like I do when I’m on the phone with someone who has a tendency to ramble on and not let a conversation die (like my mother).

She wanted to get off the phone.

She is constantly rushing the operator. She keeps saying things like “please” and ”hurry” and speaking in quick, broken sentences. I believe she had a few rehearsed sentences she intended to say and then was thrown off by the fact that the operator kept asking her questions.

Also significant: she mentions the ransom note multiple times. That isn’t important at all in the context of the call. What is important is that her daughter is missing. Liars tend to gloss over important details and focus on superfluous ones that they believe give their story more credibility.


Ehhhh... I mean, yes, he’s got a track record with the FBI and is an expert in the field. But he was also specifically hired by the Ramseys to perform independent analysis. He did the exact same thing for Amanda Knox’s family.

Good input. Glad you posted. I think it's normal to want to get off a 911 call so I don't hold that against Patsy nor do I think that is telling, but your point about her stressing the note over her missing daughter is spot on.

All the evidence around the note points at Patsy, that's why I was always in the camp that believed she did it. But it nagged at me as to why the father would cover for her? Or if he did it why she would cover for him? I believe the ransom note written by Patsy shows she was concerned their business would possibly be ruined by the murder as she makes several clumsy attempts to shield his business from the crime, but Burke is the only one that answers all the questions for me. It was one of the 3 but Burke is the most likely to me.

 

[bluthruandthru]

One point that hasn't been mentioned is that Burke may have been leaving his feces in her bedroom.

If this is true, it doesn't make him guilty but it's not a great look.

I think it was documented that he had smeared some in a bathroom when his mother was diagnosed with cancer. The other times it was assumed it was his in some PJ's in her room and smeared on a chocolate box she got for Christmas.

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

One point that hasn't been mentioned is that Burke may have been leaving his feces in her bedroom.

If this is true, it doesn't make him guilty but it's not a great look.

I think it was documented that he had smeared some in a bathroom when his mother was diagnosed with cancer. The other times it was assumed it was his in some PJ's in her room and smeared on a chocolate box she got for Christmas.

That and a whole lot more. I didn't want to get into that so I just stressed what a weird kid he was, but anyone unfamiliar with the case needs to understand we're talking about a total freak in Burke.

 

[Atrain7732]

There is a decent multi-part podcast out there on True Crime Garage that lists some plausible suspects. Those guys -- not genuises by the way but at least they put in a lot of time -- agree with John Douglas, who they interviewed, and also the local prosecutor who exonerated the family in 2008, that it was someone outside the immediate family. Who? Again, there are people to choose from if one really gets into the details of the case. I can't say that I'm convinced of anyone's guilt. But there is some DNA, so the case could possibly be solved some day the way some of these cases are.

Was just gonna mention John Douglas and his thoughts on the case. I have read all of his books including “the cases that haunt us” and altho he’s a pompous ***, no one can question his profiling skills. I always suspected as most others it was someone within the family, but Douglas and the Boulder lead det initially who had many years as a det were both very clearly not in the direct family camp.

So as already stated I suspect we will never know. Brother seems like a weird creepy little Bastid but that could be a result of growing up with this hanging over his head.

If not direct family member must have been someone very close as the ransom and all clues indicate.

 

[Tskware]

Burke was only 9 at the time, hard for me to believe that on Christmas he beat his little sister to death and/or strangled her with a piece of wire

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

Burke was only 9 at the time, hard for me to believe that on Christmas he beat his little sister to death and/or strangled her with a piece of wire

That is a common feeling amongst people that don't know anything about the case. Would you find it hard to believe Burke smeared his poop all over her Christmas presents and bed?

FBI special agent Jim Clemente said, “Burke had a history of scatological problems” (CBS Real Crime). Burke showed these problems by leaving excrement around the Ramsey house. According to the Ramsey’s former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh, Burke was known to leave feces specifically in JonBenet’s bed and to spread it on walls in the home. (Reynolds). When crime scene technicians visited Jon Benet’s bedroom after sealing it off, they apparently found “feces smeared on a box of candy” she had gotten for Christmas” (Reynolds). This abnormal behavior suggests that Burke not only had mental issues, but he also may have had jealousy issues towards his sister.

Burke’s anger problems also point to his responsibility in JonBenet’s death. According to an old family friend of the Ramsey’s, Burke was easy to anger, and had struck JonBenet with a golf club after getting mad, leaving her with a scar on her face (CBS Real Crime). This behavior shows that Burke was capable of being fatally violent with JonBenet.

Burke’s response to questions in his investigative interview are very odd, and they don’t show any feelings of a typical child. Two weeks after the murder, Burke told investigators that he felt safe and didn’t worry that an intruder would come back for him. (CBS Real Crime). According to former FBI profiler Jim Clemente, these responses and feelings were, “very unusual for a child” (CBS Real Crime). It is expected for a child to feel scared and unsafe after an intruder has kidnapped and murdered their sister. Most children would feel in extreme danger living in the house that their sister was murdered in. Burke’s casual feelings would be considered as very unusual, unless he knew that there was no intruder to blame for murdering his sister. This behavior again leads one to believe that JonBenet’s murder was not at the hands of an intruder, but rather someone in the house, and Burke’s mental and anger issues prove him to be capable.

Burke told investigators that he first asked his dad where JonBenet’s body was found. It is strange for a nine year old to ask about their sisters body, rather than what had happened to her (CBS Real Crime). His concern with Jon Benet’s dead body is very abnormal for a child of that age. When asked how Jon Benet died, Burke did physical demonstrations of someone hitting her with a hammer. Jim Clemente states that this was “odd because most children would not want to reenact something like that” (CBS Real Crime). Burke Ramsey’s interview was full of unusual behavior . He had “. . . no appropriate emotion at all about this happening to his sister and there was no indication of a child experiencing recent trauma” (CBS Real Crime). Burke’s lack of trauma and emotion give more reason to suspect him as responsible for JonBenet’s murder.

A Short Life in the Spotlight

 

[Tskware]

^
Interesting, I may read a bit more on this topic

 

[Ron Mehico]

That is a common feeling amongst people that don't know anything about the case. Would you find it hard to believe Burke smeared his poop all over her Christmas presents and bed?

FBI special agent Jim Clemente said, “Burke had a history of scatological problems” (CBS Real Crime). Burke showed these problems by leaving excrement around the Ramsey house. According to the Ramsey’s former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh, Burke was known to leave feces specifically in JonBenet’s bed and to spread it on walls in the home. (Reynolds). When crime scene technicians visited Jon Benet’s bedroom after sealing it off, they apparently found “feces smeared on a box of candy” she had gotten for Christmas” (Reynolds). This abnormal behavior suggests that Burke not only had mental issues, but he also may have had jealousy issues towards his sister.

Burke’s anger problems also point to his responsibility in JonBenet’s death. According to an old family friend of the Ramsey’s, Burke was easy to anger, and had struck JonBenet with a golf club after getting mad, leaving her with a scar on her face (CBS Real Crime). This behavior shows that Burke was capable of being fatally violent with JonBenet.

Burke’s response to questions in his investigative interview are very odd, and they don’t show any feelings of a typical child. Two weeks after the murder, Burke told investigators that he felt safe and didn’t worry that an intruder would come back for him. (CBS Real Crime). According to former FBI profiler Jim Clemente, these responses and feelings were, “very unusual for a child” (CBS Real Crime). It is expected for a child to feel scared and unsafe after an intruder has kidnapped and murdered their sister. Most children would feel in extreme danger living in the house that their sister was murdered in. Burke’s casual feelings would be considered as very unusual, unless he knew that there was no intruder to blame for murdering his sister. This behavior again leads one to believe that JonBenet’s murder was not at the hands of an intruder, but rather someone in the house, and Burke’s mental and anger issues prove him to be capable.

Burke told investigators that he first asked his dad where JonBenet’s body was found. It is strange for a nine year old to ask about their sisters body, rather than what had happened to her (CBS Real Crime). His concern with Jon Benet’s dead body is very abnormal for a child of that age. When asked how Jon Benet died, Burke did physical demonstrations of someone hitting her with a hammer. Jim Clemente states that this was “odd because most children would not want to reenact something like that” (CBS Real Crime). Burke Ramsey’s interview was full of unusual behavior . He had “. . . no appropriate emotion at all about this happening to his sister and there was no indication of a child experiencing recent trauma” (CBS Real Crime). Burke’s lack of trauma and emotion give more reason to suspect him as responsible for JonBenet’s murder.

A Short Life in the Spotlight

While you’re clearly right about the kid apparently being a psycho it just seems really elaborate and over the top for the parents to:

write a fake kidnapping note
Take lie detector tests
Write a book
Pay large sums of money in court
Pay off police

instead of just saying their son did it and getting him help he clearly needed (which any parent would want).I mean if they knew their son killed their daughter they wouldn’t want him killing another person (or possibly another family member) and would want to get him help. He was 9, so he wasn’t going to death row. By writing a fake note and all the other **** they did they risked they THEMSELVES going on death row for murdering their daughter, which would be worse than any other result for them. I mean do you realize how insane their plan actually was if that’s really what happened? It was insanely risky for not even a clear reward. Just seems far fetched and against normal human nature and logic. I haven’t followed the case at all so you maybe right, but it just sounds insane and unrealistic

 

[Tskware]

While you’re clearly right about the kid apparently being a psycho it just seems really elaborate and over the top for the parents to:

write a fake kidnapping note
Take lie detector tests
Write a book
Pay large sums of money in court
Pay off police

instead of just saying their son did it and getting him help he clearly needed (which any parent would want).I mean if they knew their son killed their daughter they wouldn’t want him killing another person (or possibly another family member) and would want to get him help. He was 9, so he wasn’t going to death row. By writing a fake note and all the other **** they did they risked they THEMSELVES going on death roe for murdering their daughter, which would be worse than any other result for them. I mean do you realize how insane their plan actually was if that’s really what happened? It was insanely risky for not even a clear reward. Just seems far fetched and against normal human nature and logic. I haven’t followed the case at all so you maybe right, but it just sounds insane and unrealistic

You pretty much summed up my take on the situation, just really really hard to swallow the theory that the 9 year old did it, and on the fly in just a few hours the parents made up an elaborate cover story which has held up for nearly a quarter of a century despite numerous investigations, interviews, etc.

 

[bluthruandthru]

Panic. Privilege. Denial.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

That is a common feeling amongst people that don't know anything about the case. Would you find it hard to believe Burke smeared his poop all over her Christmas presents and bed?

FBI special agent Jim Clemente said, “Burke had a history of scatological problems” (CBS Real Crime). Burke showed these problems by leaving excrement around the Ramsey house. According to the Ramsey’s former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh, Burke was known to leave feces specifically in JonBenet’s bed and to spread it on walls in the home. (Reynolds). When crime scene technicians visited Jon Benet’s bedroom after sealing it off, they apparently found “feces smeared on a box of candy” she had gotten for Christmas” (Reynolds). This abnormal behavior suggests that Burke not only had mental issues, but he also may have had jealousy issues towards his sister.

Burke’s anger problems also point to his responsibility in JonBenet’s death. According to an old family friend of the Ramsey’s, Burke was easy to anger, and had struck JonBenet with a golf club after getting mad, leaving her with a scar on her face (CBS Real Crime). This behavior shows that Burke was capable of being fatally violent with JonBenet.

Burke’s response to questions in his investigative interview are very odd, and they don’t show any feelings of a typical child. Two weeks after the murder, Burke told investigators that he felt safe and didn’t worry that an intruder would come back for him. (CBS Real Crime). According to former FBI profiler Jim Clemente, these responses and feelings were, “very unusual for a child” (CBS Real Crime). It is expected for a child to feel scared and unsafe after an intruder has kidnapped and murdered their sister. Most children would feel in extreme danger living in the house that their sister was murdered in. Burke’s casual feelings would be considered as very unusual, unless he knew that there was no intruder to blame for murdering his sister. This behavior again leads one to believe that JonBenet’s murder was not at the hands of an intruder, but rather someone in the house, and Burke’s mental and anger issues prove him to be capable.

Burke told investigators that he first asked his dad where JonBenet’s body was found. It is strange for a nine year old to ask about their sisters body, rather than what had happened to her (CBS Real Crime). His concern with Jon Benet’s dead body is very abnormal for a child of that age. When asked how Jon Benet died, Burke did physical demonstrations of someone hitting her with a hammer. Jim Clemente states that this was “odd because most children would not want to reenact something like that” (CBS Real Crime). Burke Ramsey’s interview was full of unusual behavior . He had “. . . no appropriate emotion at all about this happening to his sister and there was no indication of a child experiencing recent trauma” (CBS Real Crime). Burke’s lack of trauma and emotion give more reason to suspect him as responsible for JonBenet’s murder.

A Short Life in the Spotlight

Not saying he did, not saying he didn't. But even though it's definitely abnormal behavior, all things mentioned would not be out of the norm for a child with autism like Burke. It's all post-hoc analysis to justify a preferred (predetermined) conclusion.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

I like this response.. probably because I see so much of it here lately: people being SO sure of something (example: Cal's devious intentions).....

No idea what the reference to Cal means - but I've not set foot in Rafters since the Kansas loss. My guess, which is based on actual knowledge from hanging around the place for 20 years, is that it's a train wreck and a plane crash, all in one. So I've stayed away, and your cryptic reference just affirms it's the right move.

As for this case, and others like it, you're right - so many folks are just 100% certain they've figured it out, based on what evidence is available on the internet and the last book they read.....

 

[TurnipDaBeet]

Research Johns job

What is GAN?

What/who are GANs!?

 

[Tskware]

Research Johns job

What is GAN?

What/who are GANs!?

Based on the ransom note, I always thought it was somebody that worked with him and knew exactly what he made. But of course, I would have to assume all those leads would have been pursued years and years ago at the time of the murder.

 

[Spica Orbit]

John Douglas, FBI legend of Mindhunter Fame, says it definitely was an outside intruder and not a family member.

---
Considering the FBI's track record, I'd just suspect the opposite of that conclusion.

 

[TurnipDaBeet]

Based on the ransom note, I always thought it was somebody that worked with him and knew exactly what he made. But of course, I would have to assume all those leads would have been pursued years and years ago at the time of the murder.

Burke is most suspect

I dont think it was Patsy or John

IF it wasn’t Burke & not Patsty or John...

Then the mystery is WHY

 

[TurnipDaBeet]

Obviously staged

Obviously covered up

But WHY?

 

[Atrain7732]

---
Considering the FBI's track record, I'd just suspect the opposite of that conclusion.

I don’t disagree in general about the FBI track record. However, John Douglas is the exception to the rule IMO. Dudes legit.

But, it’s still essentially an educated guess which can be hard to gauge. Im just saying I’ll take the Mindhunter’s analysis over any paddock Sherlock all day.

 

[Deeeefense]

ABC will be running a documentary on the JonBenet Ramsey case tonight, Jan 15th at 9:00 Eastern Time.

 

[AustinTXCat]

ABC will be running a documentary on the JonBenet Ramsey case tonight, Jan 15th at 9:00 Eastern Time.

Watching it now. Thanks.

 

[birdforbogey]

Watching it now. Thanks.

Didn't get to watch it. Anything new or the same old stuff?

 

[Deeeefense]

I only watched the first half, watching the other half tonight, but I'm moving way from thinking it was Burke, the case being made seems to learning hard towards an intruder.

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

I only watched the first half, watching the other half tonight, but I'm moving way from thinking it was Burke, the case being made seems to learning hard towards an intruder.

I've wrestled with how that would work. Patty would have had to think her son or husband did it then tried to cover for them because it is pretty much a certainty she wrote the note. Who breaks in with no weapons or anything they need to commit a kidnapping or a sex crime and only uses what is handy in the house, writes a practice note, throws it away in a trashcan right there at a desk where they sat down to write it with a dead kid in the basement, then writes another one 3 pages long and yet only asks for 118 grand (100K in $100 bills and 18K in $20's) which happened to be roughly the same amount as her husband's bonus? How did they come in through the broken basement window when there was a spider web in it undisturbed? If it was a kidnapping then maybe for some crazy reason they hit her in the head with the flashlight, but then why strangle her to death? if it was a sex crime, why go upstairs and write about 6 pages of ransom notes and for what reason?

 

[Tskware]

I've wrestled with how that would work. Patty would have had to think her son or husband did it then tried to cover for them because it is pretty much a certainty she wrote the note. Who breaks in with no weapons or anything they need to commit a kidnapping or a sex crime and only uses what is handy in the house, writes a practice note, throws it away in a trashcan right there at a desk where they sat down to write it with a dead kid in the basement, then writes another one 3 pages long and yet only asks for 118 grand (100K in $100 bills and 18K in $20's) which happened to be roughly the same amount as her husband's bonus? How did they come in through the broken basement window when there was a spider web in it undisturbed? If it was a kidnapping then maybe for some crazy reason they hit her in the head with the flashlight, but then why strangle her to death? if it was a sex crime, why go upstairs and write about 6 pages of ransom notes and for what reason?

There literally is no good answer to explain this one which is why it has not been solved in almost a quarter of a century

 

[Mr Schwump]

Now that BBN detectives solved that crime what about the Zodiac?

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Now that BBN detectives solved that crime what about the Zodiac?

Ted Cruz. Next?

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

Ted Cruz. Next?

And his dad got JFK so we're on a roll.

 

[Deeeefense]

I've wrestled with how that would work. Patty would have had to think her son or husband did it then tried to cover for them because it is pretty much a certainty she wrote the note. Who breaks in with no weapons or anything they need to commit a kidnapping or a sex crime and only uses what is handy in the house, writes a practice note, throws it away in a trashcan right there at a desk where they sat down to write it with a dead kid in the basement, then writes another one 3 pages long and yet only asks for 118 grand (100K in $100 bills and 18K in $20's) which happened to be roughly the same amount as her husband's bonus? How did they come in through the broken basement window when there was a spider web in it undisturbed? If it was a kidnapping then maybe for some crazy reason they hit her in the head with the flashlight, but then why strangle her to death? if it was a sex crime, why go upstairs and write about 6 pages of ransom notes and for what reason?

Most of those are legit questions. The documentary revealed that handwriting experts could not confirm or deny the note was Patsey's handwriting. They also showed that you could get through the window without touching the spider webs which were in a corner, and also spiders can build webs back very quickly. There was adequate time for spiders to build back that section of the web. The issue about why someone would carry out a crime like this including a long rambling ransom note might best be explained by asking how can you apply logic to some deranged lunatic that would do this? Their acts are inexpiable. The Ramsey's both passed a pollygraph.

There was foreign male DNA on the child's clothing which did not match anyone's DNA in the household. The child had been assaulted with a paint brush, it defies logic than any of the family members would have done that. That and the DNA to me is the strongest evidence that an intruder committed the crime. The intruder was definitely insane as well as stupid

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

This is why, barring a DNA match or confession, no one will ever be put on trial for her murder. Regardless of who they try to convict, at trial, there are too many people who can be blamed instead to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury.

 

[Tskware]

This is why, barring a DNA match or confession, no one will ever be put on trial for her murder. Regardless of why they try to convict, at trial, there are too many people who can be blamed instead to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury.

Pretty much

 

[TortElvisII]

Now that BBN detectives solved that crime what about the Zodiac?

Ross Sullivan was likely the zodiac.

There were mistakes made by the San Francisco police in picking up the wrong Ross Sullivan to investigate.

Sorry to hijack your thread.




I almost forgot, how are you Mr Scwump?

 

[Mr Schwump]

Ross Sullivan was likely the zodiac.

There were mistakes made by the San Francisco police in picking up the wrong Ross Sullivan to investigate.

Sorry to hijack your thread.




I almost forgot, how are you Mr Scwump?

OK nail, thanks for asking!

Probably right re Sullivan. Zodiac has always fascinated me. I was at Presidio the night of one of the murders although I didn't realize it until much mater.

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

Most of those are legit questions. The documentary revealed that handwriting experts could not confirm or deny the note was Patsey's handwriting. They also showed that you could get through the window without touching the spider webs which were in a corner, and also spiders can build webs back very quickly. There was adequate time for spiders to build back that section of the web. The issue about why someone would carry out a crime like this including a long rambling ransom note might best be explained by asking how can you apply logic to some deranged lunatic that would do this? Their acts are inexpiable. The Ramsey's both passed a pollygraph.

There was foreign male DNA on the child's clothing which did not match anyone's DNA in the household. The child had been assaulted with a paint brush, it defies logic than any of the family members would have done that. That and the DNA to me is the strongest evidence that an intruder committed the crime. The intruder was definitely insane as well as stupid

Dr. Henry Lee dismissed the DNA as touch DNA likely placed there in the manufacturing/packaging process. The handwriting was Patty's but under libel threat of Ramsey attorneys and of course them finding experts to contradict it was Patty they have successfully blown smoke all over what is obvious. Handwriting analysis is easy to intimidate because it always operates in a grey area of "likely" and probability so anyone with enough money can suppress it.

A handwriting expert who examined the ransom note left in the JonBenet Ramsey case says it's likely the letter was written by the girl's late mother, Patsy.

In an interview with US news show 20/20, which is taking a look at the case 20 years on, handwriting expert Cina Wong, said: "It's highly probable that she wrote the ransom note."

Wong spent three weeks back in 2000 examining the note, comparing it to 100 examples of Patsy Ramsey's writing, and found multiple similarities between the two.

Handwriting expert says JonBenet Ramsey's mum, Patsy, wrote the ransom note found at murder scene

A sitting Grand Jury returned 4 indictments against the Ramseys.

 

[Deeeefense]

A sitting Grand Jury returned 4 indictments against the Ramseys

true but the DA refused to prosecutor due to lack of evidence.

Obviously all these facts and contradictions are why this case has gone unsolved for so long.

 

[Deeeefense]

Dr. Henry Lee dismissed the DNA as touch DNA likely placed there in the manufacturing/packaging process.

The documentary reported that the same DNA was found on two separate items not manufactured by the same company. The detective that had been investigating the case on his own for several years felt like that was a game changer.

 

[Tskware]

The ransom note is the single hardest piece of evidence for the Ramseys to explain away.

 

[rick64]

Discovery+ having a special on tonight about it.