Did JR do it?

I just read a post from someone here that made me for the first time snap that JR may have been the one to kill JB. Here are my thoughts. We know JB was being molested. If JR was the one molesting her (very possible IMO) then we can surmise from there that this is a man who would have everything to lose by being exposed as a sexual abuser. Head of a billion dollar company and very ambitious, how far would he be willing to go to protect the empire he had so carefully built up? We don't want to believe that a father would be capable of brutally murdering his daughter to protect himself from exposure, but what if that is exactly what happened? What if PR and BR is innocent and JR did it all? What if he did both the murder and the staging? Imagine you are JR and you have been molesting JB and do it again Christmas night and then something unexpected happens and you think in your mind that you have a choice: either lose everything you have worked so hard for or kill your daughter. Which would you choose? JR may have been so ruthless as to have made that hard choice if he believed in his mind that he was in a corner and had to do it to protect himself. I may be way off base but it just jumped out at me that JR could have done it all.

It's possible to develop a possible theory concerning anyone in the house.
Imo Jr is implausible because:
1 I believe PR wrote the note
2 No prior or post examples of improper behavior from JR
3 Majority of physical evidence points to PR
All this leads me to believe that the JR did it all theory is the least likely of common theories.

I've never really thought he did any of it because he's not stupid, loved his money, and the grown kids loved him. However, some things in his book, his demeanor after the death, etc are troubling. Linda Hoffman Pugh stated that Patsy was always trying to keep the kids quiet when he was home, he was wealthy and belly ached about an ill Patsy's housekeeping, showed no affection, etc. These could be subtle signs of mental abuse. He may have also had the flashlight out that morning when he was going across the street to get the bikes and surely couldn't have been happy to drive around delivering xmas baskets, something Patsy should have already done. What if he raged at the kids then went up and shut himself up in his room leaving them up alone.

I actually usually suspect the male adult before anyone else, but in this case, I do not believe JR was responsible for JBR's molestation. I think he was barely even part of the household, always at work, always gone.

If you aren't familiar with DocG's Theory of JRDI, lots of interesting reading here...start with the 2012 blogs, and work your way up to this month: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com

I thought from the start that JR was the top suspect. Finding the body, odd behavior after the murder, refusing to cooperate with LE from the start. and getting angry with anyone who asked him more detailed questions during interviews on TV is very telling, in my opinion.

I've really wondered about this theory, but IMO, it doesn't seem likely that he would have had enough rage towards JB to bash her in the head like that. IMO, this seems more like a mother/daughter dynamic. Also, there's the note to consider. Although we give him a lot of credit for being too smart to write that novel, IMO, that might be a mistake. PR was pretty smart herself. After comparing this ransom note to the Mackle note, it's moo that the author used the Mackle book as a guide... and that doesn't necessarily mean PR. He could have sat there with the book, just as easily as PR. But the last paragraph screams PR and IMO, it's her handwriting. moo

dodie20 said:

I've really wondered about this theory, but IMO, it doesn't seem likely that he would have had enough rage towards JB to bash her in the head like that. IMO, this seems more like a mother/daughter dynamic. Also, there's the note to consider. Although we give him a lot of credit for being too smart to write that novel, IMO, that might be a mistake. PR was pretty smart herself. After comparing this ransom note to the Mackle note, it's moo that the author used the Mackle book as a guide... and that doesn't necessarily mean PR. He could have sat there with the book, just as easily as PR. But the last paragraph screams PR and IMO, it's her handwriting. moo

Click to expand...

You make the assumption that rage was the motive for the murder. What about a pure ruthless instinct for survival as being the motive? Not rage, but intentionally destroying the thing that threatened him personally. It is true that JR appears to be innocent and would normally be the least likely suspect, but there is something about him that makes me think he would be capable of this murder, which is directly tied to his sexual molestation of his own daughter.

One reason this case is not solved is because of false assumptions that are accepted as fact. Once you are on a false trail it becomes impossible to get back on the one true path that leads to the murderer.

Anyhoo said:

You make the assumption that rage was the motive for the murder. What about a pure ruthless instinct for survival as being the motive? Not rage, but intentionally destroying the thing that threatened him personally. It is true that JR appears to be innocent and would normally be the least likely suspect, but there is something about him that makes me think he would be capable of this murder, which is directly tied to his sexual molestation of his own daughter.

One reason this case is not solved is because of false assumptions that are accepted as fact. Once you are on a false trail it becomes impossible to get back on the one true path that leads to the murderer.

Click to expand...

I'm not assuming it was motived by a snapping kind of rage, (although it could have been), it's just that I can't imagine the person who bashed JB not being filled with some kind of rage and hatred... and IMO, JR doesn't seem as likely here as PR. Not saying it's not possible, because he acted weird from the get go...weirder than PR, in retrospect, so I just don't know. But, IMO, whoever did this was very angry and full of hate, not necessarily just trying to save his/her own hide. It seems like if the same molester molested JB on this night, she would probably have been molested in similar ways in the past...and there would have been signs that couldn't have gone overlooked....like those 'burn' looking marks and bruising on the neck. I don't know much about pedophiles, but I wouldn't think they'd change their MO up on a particular victim...groom and escalate yes, but not go from an easy to hide molestation, to what happened that night. IDK though and I surely think JR has been hiding behind lawyers for a reason. moo

The saintly forgiving of the murderer about a week after the death was the most bizarre behavior. That alone would make people think they knew who did it. A really clever narcissistic might be able to orchestrate the whole thing to look like Patsy or B might have done it if the intruder angle didn't work. I don't know. It just seems like detectives would have seen through it if John had more involvement.

I'm a JDI as far as murderer and molester of JB, but I believe Patsy had a hand in the staging, wrote the RN, and stood by her man- at any cost!!!

txsvicki said:

The saintly forgiving of the murderer about a week after the death was the most bizarre behavior. That alone would make people think they knew who did it. A really clever narcissistic might be able to orchestrate the whole thing to look like Patsy or B might have done it if the intruder angle didn't work. I don't know. It just seems like detectives would have seen through it if John had more involvement.

Click to expand...

This touches on one of the more confusing statements among the many confusing statements of the family. (Also, include JAR’s statement that the killer should be forgiven). It seems to point to a killer who needs forgiveness which isn’t usually a knee-jerk reaction to a murder. Does this point to or suggest a child-killer? Would a narcissist killer/conspirator lead people to believe this was caused by a child who couldn’t be named or tried?

There are other words which paint an additional picture of JR. A phone interview with JR on ACR, depicts a furious and vindictive JR. He is furious with the media and “raging” against what has been published as well as excited to file suits:

Q: Lin has said that (former Boulder detective and author) Steve Thomas and (his publisher) St. Martin's Press is now at the top of the list of people and media organizations that you intend to file on behalf of you and Patsy. True?
A: Certainly the top five. No question. That's another outrageous, bigger issue than just 'Patsy and John.' This is about a detective employed by the citizens of a community to fairly administer justice and he is now taking justice in his own hands trying to convict Patsy and I, I guess, in the media, all for profit. And that's a huge issue for the American society. People ought to be just aghast at that. And, again, if our lives are to account for something, we're going to account for this kinda crap. That it can't happen in America.

Q: That sounds like you've on a mission, after Thomas.
A: Yeah! This is bigger than dollar and sense and getting even. This is a tragedy in the American justice system. Steve Thomas ought to be a poster child for what is wrong with police in America.

Q: You say Thomas is number five. Is that a flippant number?
A: Oh. Yeah. I wouldn't say he's at the top of the list. That would be quite an honor (Ramsey laughs). He certainly has gotten into target range, let me put it that way. As Lin Wood says, we could keep a law school busy for the next few years.

Q: A top media lawyer told me earlier that one of the most significant problems in libel lawsuits is often the plaintiffs —in this case you and your wife — often dupe themselves and their lawyers into believing they have a case. How have you assured Lin you're not duping him?
A: Lin is working on a contingency fee. I told him if he thinks this is a winnable case, if he thinks any of these are winnable cases, you go for 'em. If you don't, forget 'em. There is only a few I would be interested in filing purely for setting the record straight.

Q: And which one's is that?
A: Oh, I think this woman Kimberly Ballard who said she was my mistress. An out-an-out lie. And to expect Lin to take that as a contingency fee would be ridiculous. But she was on national television saying she was my mistress. And how am I going to set the record straight other than to prove it in a court of law?

Q: Let me rephrase my earlier questions. How did you convince Lin you two are innocent?
A: I think, I think any reasonable person that looks at this comes to that conclusion pretty quickly.

Q: In six months, Lin Wood says he'll be filing libel lawsuits on behalf of you and Patsy. That's a very different fight than the one Burke is facing.
A: Um. They're probably a bit different. Yeah, but uh…

Q: It's the "Civil Trial" of you and your wife.
A: Well, that's a possibility. But perhaps that's the only way we can get a trial. And we certainly aren't afraid of that. But I think our objective here is to, uh — there is very fundamental principle that has been horribly violated by people in the media. And we can either choose to, you know, to go in a cave and ignore it, or stand up for something. And hopefully we can make a difference.

Q: Make a difference in journalism. That must seem a bit ironic to you.
A: Yeah (chuckles). I've been told it can't be done. But certainly in the arena of journalism that's purely focused on profit, and does things that have been done by people like the Globe, I don't know, hit 'em where it hurts. And hit them big.

Q: Like $35 million.
A: Hopefully that's big enough.

Q: Any other thoughts?
A: I think, uh, the important thing is for us to be good examples for Burke. We've got to fight for what is right.

Q: Is that the motive here?
A: Certainly. And it's not always easy. This has been a horrible wrong.

Q: Was their relief in filing these suits?
A: Oh yeah. We've been anxious to get on with it. I'm glad to see we're making progress. There's a long -- lot's to go, as far as I'm concerned.

Q: What will the money be used if he wins or settles?
A: For Burke?

Q: Yeah.
A: He has a trust fund administered by my brother and for Burke's benefits.

Now on the one hand JR and JAR point to a killer who needs forgiveness (BR?) and on the other JR and PR are suing up a storm in order to shut the media up as well as to fill up the coffers of BR’s trust fund. If BDI, the lawsuit money seems like a bizarre “reward”. Or do they (JR/PR) initiate the lawsuits out of guilt for what they’ve put BR through and because they want protection for him if they are arrested? moo

questfortrue said:

This touches on one of the more confusing statements among the many confusing statements of the family. (Also, include JAR’s statement that the killer should be forgiven). It seems to point to a killer who needs forgiveness which isn’t usually a knee-jerk reaction to a murder. Does this point to or suggest a child-killer? Would a narcissist killer/conspirator lead people to believe this was caused by a child who couldn’t be named or tried?

There are other words which paint an additional picture of JR. A phone interview with JR on ACR, depicts a furious and vindictive JR. He is furious with the media and “raging” against what has been published as well as excited to file suits:

Q: Lin has said that (former Boulder detective and author) Steve Thomas and (his publisher) St. Martin's Press is now at the top of the list of people and media organizations that you intend to file on behalf of you and Patsy. True?
A: Certainly the top five. No question. That's another outrageous, bigger issue than just 'Patsy and John.' This is about a detective employed by the citizens of a community to fairly administer justice and he is now taking justice in his own hands trying to convict Patsy and I, I guess, in the media, all for profit. And that's a huge issue for the American society. People ought to be just aghast at that. And, again, if our lives are to account for something, we're going to account for this kinda crap. That it can't happen in America.

Q: That sounds like you've on a mission, after Thomas.
A: Yeah! This is bigger than dollar and sense and getting even. This is a tragedy in the American justice system. Steve Thomas ought to be a poster child for what is wrong with police in America.

Q: You say Thomas is number five. Is that a flippant number?
A: Oh. Yeah. I wouldn't say he's at the top of the list. That would be quite an honor (Ramsey laughs). He certainly has gotten into target range, let me put it that way. As Lin Wood says, we could keep a law school busy for the next few years.

Q: A top media lawyer told me earlier that one of the most significant problems in libel lawsuits is often the plaintiffs —in this case you and your wife — often dupe themselves and their lawyers into believing they have a case. How have you assured Lin you're not duping him?
A: Lin is working on a contingency fee. I told him if he thinks this is a winnable case, if he thinks any of these are winnable cases, you go for 'em. If you don't, forget 'em. There is only a few I would be interested in filing purely for setting the record straight.

Q: And which one's is that?
A: Oh, I think this woman Kimberly Ballard who said she was my mistress. An out-an-out lie. And to expect Lin to take that as a contingency fee would be ridiculous. But she was on national television saying she was my mistress. And how am I going to set the record straight other than to prove it in a court of law?

Q: Let me rephrase my earlier questions. How did you convince Lin you two are innocent?
A: I think, I think any reasonable person that looks at this comes to that conclusion pretty quickly.

Q: In six months, Lin Wood says he'll be filing libel lawsuits on behalf of you and Patsy. That's a very different fight than the one Burke is facing.
A: Um. They're probably a bit different. Yeah, but uh…

Q: It's the "Civil Trial" of you and your wife.
A: Well, that's a possibility. But perhaps that's the only way we can get a trial. And we certainly aren't afraid of that. But I think our objective here is to, uh — there is very fundamental principle that has been horribly violated by people in the media. And we can either choose to, you know, to go in a cave and ignore it, or stand up for something. And hopefully we can make a difference.

Q: Make a difference in journalism. That must seem a bit ironic to you.
A: Yeah (chuckles). I've been told it can't be done. But certainly in the arena of journalism that's purely focused on profit, and does things that have been done by people like the Globe, I don't know, hit 'em where it hurts. And hit them big.

Q: Like $35 million.
A: Hopefully that's big enough.

Q: Any other thoughts?
A: I think, uh, the important thing is for us to be good examples for Burke. We've got to fight for what is right.

Q: Is that the motive here?
A: Certainly. And it's not always easy. This has been a horrible wrong.

Q: Was their relief in filing these suits?
A: Oh yeah. We've been anxious to get on with it. I'm glad to see we're making progress. There's a long -- lot's to go, as far as I'm concerned.

Q: What will the money be used if he wins or settles?
A: For Burke?

Q: Yeah.
A: He has a trust fund administered by my brother and for Burke's benefits.

Now on the one hand JR and JAR point to a killer who needs forgiveness (BR?) and on the other JR and PR are suing up a storm in order to shut the media up as well as to fill up the coffers of BR’s trust fund. If BDI, the lawsuit money seems like a bizarre “reward”. Or do they (JR/PR) initiate the lawsuits out of guilt for what they’ve put BR through and because they want protection for him if they are arrested? moo

Click to expand...

right... forgive the rapist/murderer of your daughter, because that's the Christian way, but go after these reporters with a hate filled vengeance. I wonder if he ever listens to himself and hears what we hear. ..that the 'tragedy in the American justice system' is what's important here. JR is the victim here. moo

dodie20 said:

right... forgive the rapist/murderer of your daughter, because that's the Christian way, but go after these reporters with a hate filled vengeance. I wonder if he ever listens to himself and hears what we hear. ..that the 'tragedy in the American justice system' is what's important here. JR is the victim here. moo

Click to expand...

It's so refreshing when the mask falls away.

wengr said:

It's possible to develop a possible theory concerning anyone in the house.
Imo Jr is implausible because:
1 I believe PR wrote the note
2 No prior or post examples of improper behavior from JR
3 Majority of physical evidence points to PR
All this leads me to believe that the JR did it all theory is the least likely of common theories.

Click to expand...

wengr,
IMO PDI is the least probable theory. In my BDI JR is the person who whacks JonBenet on the head.

Also it could be JDI all the way, with PR simply tidying up for JR, she has an excellent grasp of narrative drama, so could add the paintbrush and ransom note etc.

.

I have always believed John had a huge part in Jonbenet's death. The ONLY reason this theory doesn't seem right to me is that Patsy is obviously hiding something. She has guilty knowledge about this crime. So, for whatever reason they had to kill Jonbenet, I do believe that both parents had something to do with it.

Btw, I love this website! I love reading everybody's posts. I have always been a RDI. The pineapple, the ransom note, the fibers, the odd behavior of both parents, are some reasons that scream out at me that these parents know exactly what happened to their precious daughter.

Forthechildren said:

I have always believed John had a huge part in Jonbenet's death. The ONLY reason this theory doesn't seem right to me is that Patsy is obviously hiding something. She has guilty knowledge about this crime. So, for whatever reason they had to kill Jonbenet, I do believe that both parents had something to do with it.

Click to expand...

Intuition tells me you are correct about this, and the way you phrased that (for whatever reason they had to kill JB) particularly resonates with me, but what could be the reason they had to kill her? Surely for more of a reason than to just protect Burke. There has to be more to it than that.

Anyhoo said:

Intuition tells me you are correct about this, and the way you phrased that (for whatever reason they had to kill JB) particularly resonates with me, but what could be the reason they had to kill her? Surely for more of a reason than to just protect Burke. There has to be more to it than that.

Click to expand...

John had to finish her off when he strangled her in the sex game taken too far, or perhaps JB was old enough to tell on him...
I don't think Burke had any involvement.

The fact that JonBenet didn't lie unconscious very long, and was positioned in the wineroom pretty quickly after death shows that someone knew what happened. If a RDI, then it has to be at least one person doing it all, and/or at least one adult discovering JonBenet early enough to get the note written. If a kid didn't do all injuries and wipe JonBenet plus get her into the wineroom, then an adult had to of made the decision to strangle her. If a decision to strangle came that quickly to people who probably didn't know much about head injuries, then the adult most likely did it all, and on purpose, imo.

Anyhoo said:

Intuition tells me you are correct about this, and the way you phrased that (for whatever reason they had to kill JB) particularly resonates with me, but what could be the reason they had to kill her? Surely for more of a reason than to just protect Burke. There has to be more to it than that.

Click to expand...

I have never believed Burke had anything to do with it, ever. But you know...doesn't Kolar believe Burke may have done it? I want to buy that book and read for myself.
I think this family was very dysfunctional but hid it very well from their friends. In private, though...I am starting to think anything is possible with their family dynamics.

I just don't know why the R's killed their daughter. I have always believed John did it because of the molestation, and being afraid Jonbenet would tell, but WHY would Patsy cover for him? It doesn't make sense.

A theory I read on here recently 'seems' to make the most current sense to me. Patsy accidentally killed her, and John, afraid the molestation would be found out, staged the crime scene.

Maybe Jonbenet was being punished for soiling herself by BOTH parents. Maybe one told the other to spank her, the other complied, and Jonbenet accidentally hit her head. Both of them would be responsible, therefore, they worked together to cover it up.

I just don't know. I do believe that this family knows ALOT.