Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

Who do you believe killed JonBenet?

  • Patsy

    Votes: 168 25.0%
  • John

    Votes: 44 6.6%
  • Burke

    Votes: 107 15.9%
  • an unknown intruder

    Votes: 86 12.8%
  • BR (head bash), then JR

    Votes: 4 0.6%
  • BR (head bash); then JR & PR (strangled/coverup)

    Votes: 113 16.8%
  • Knowing all I know, still on the fence.

    Votes: 55 8.2%
  • John, with an 'inside' accomplice

    Votes: 11 1.6%
  • I think John and Patsy caught him and he made her cover up

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • I still have no idea

    Votes: 57 8.5%
  • patsy and john helped cover it up

    Votes: 9 1.3%

  • Total voters
    671
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks God we all have an 'open mind' on this forum:)....Every scenario is possible IN THE MIND of it's creator. Agree? So, let's also agree that everyone is entitled to solve this mystery in the way it fits individual's logic and currently known evidences. Kind of, like every individual can see/describe the painting on the museum wall differently...

Yep, I agree. I think had a jury been called they might have agreed too. We've actually given a defense attorney a good little run-through on how well a cross-fingerpointing defense would have worked (or might work in the future).

This case won't ever be prosecuted.
 
Hi :) I'm just a newbie, so I hope it's ok if I join in?

I've been reading about this case for a long time and I think I'm pretty much a BDI, with parental cover up (all strictly my opinion only).

I have a child with Aspergers, so when I read about B's behaviour, the odd dispassionate language, (beep beep, just want to get on with my life) etc I'm not in the least bit surprised by it, it's exactly how my own child would talk, and in fact it's exactly how I have seen my own child talk at times when sympathy, compassion, sadness could be expected.

I've also seen flashes of incredible rage which thankfully my child has never acted upon, but do I think they or any other child could be capable of it? oh yes, just a moment, thats all it takes, just a flash, so easily done :(..and with the added intense frustrations of the condition? yes.

One important point though is that usually children with Aspergers find it very difficult to tell a lie, (and if they do try it is glaringly obvious, they cannot hide it), generally they tell the truth at all costs, regardless if it hurts, which makes me wonder if the question was ever asked?

Another thing I've seen much discussed (if BDI) is WHY would the R's try and cover it up? why not just report it if it would just be classed as an accident and covered over.

I think the motive that stands out for me is shame, pure and simple. From what I've read appearances seem to have been very important to the R's, perhaps especially to P, and can you imagine the social stigma and shame of being the parent of a child who caused the death of a sibling? and thats before even considering the more disturbing elements of the case...if you are at the top of the pile it's a terrifying fall to the bottom, and so I imagine avoiding that kind of shame is a powerful motivating factor, one that could make one engage in all kind of risks because the gamble might just pay off and prestige and family may just be maintained.

I would be very interested to know how many people have swtiched to BDI since reading Kolars book (I have not yet bought it, funds will not allow at present).

I'm not sure how much it is ok to say publically on the forum, so if I have overstepped the mark please just delete this.

hetty, welcome to WS.

You are not alone in your thinking. I have believed exactly what you stated for a long time. It's only become fashionable to even consider it since Kolar published his book. For a long time, expressing those suspicions would get you instant ostracism and shame for even bringing it up.

But don't worry about "overstepping", you haven't in today's environment.
.
 
:wagon: hetty!

Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. Your post if just fine, so keep on posting.

If you want to read the book, check to see if your local library has it in yet. If not, you can ask that they order it. They will, and they will call you when it is in!
 
Looks like Burke and Patsy are tied with 21 votes each.
 
Hetty, I appreciate your post and welcome you to Websleuths as a fellow newcomer to the forum. I have been a BDI from Day One, and the possibility of autism (or a variant) playing a role has occurred to me, as well. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but it seems to me that difficulty with lying and unusual affect might explain why John and Patsy removed Burke from the reach of law enforcement as soon as possible. And I also agree with you that shame - and safeguarding the remaining child's reputation and future opportunities - could have been behind a coverup and any staging that took place. This is a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions, and one I doubt will ever be prosecuted.
 
I can kill the chrishope theory with one sentence:

If jdi he never would have let pr make that 911 call.
 
I can kill the chrishope theory with one sentence:

If jdi he never would have let pr make that 911 call.


That's a good thought. I felt that way too, when I first heard of this theory.

I still think it's a problem, one would think JR would at all costs avoid that 911 call.

But, he might have felt the whole thing was more believable to PR if she found the note. He may have assumed she'd read the whole thing, then consult him on what to do. Instead she panicked and called 911.

If PR came down the stairs by herself she could easily have got to the phone before JR could stop her. Once the call has been made, there is pretty much no stopping it. Even if the phone was hung up at that point the 911 operator would call back. If it's not answered police will be dispatched.

Now you can have your doubts, and that is very reasonable. But if you embrace another theory where PR/JR work together to cover up, then you have to believe that PR calls the police, with JR's approval, knowing the body is in the basement, knowing that it will probably result in both of them being arrested (being arrested is what should have happened, and even in Boulder one would have to assume this would happen) then she hands the police a RN in her handwritting. IOWs you have to believe that JR and PR are both very stupid.

You also have to swallow the notion that the Rs expected the police to believe it was a kidnapping when they knew the body would be found. When the body is found it's just like saying to the police "We faked a kidnapping". You'd have to believe that the Rs actually expected to fool the police with the RN and that they didn't think the body would be found.

As it turned out the police didn't find JB. John "found" her. But the Rs could not have known the police would fail to find her. What if French had opened that door? What if they had brought a K-9 unit in? So to put it bluntly, you have to believe that JR/PR staged a crime scene so that they could hand the police a goofy RN, then have the police find the body soon afterwords.

So you have a choice as to what to believe. You can believe the Rs are very very stupid, or you can believe that JR slipped up and made a mistake.
 
Hi :) I'm just a newbie, so I hope it's ok if I join in?

I've been reading about this case for a long time and I think I'm pretty much a BDI, with parental cover up (all strictly my opinion only).

I have a child with Aspergers, so when I read about B's behaviour, the odd dispassionate language, (beep beep, just want to get on with my life) etc I'm not in the least bit surprised by it, it's exactly how my own child would talk, and in fact it's exactly how I have seen my own child talk at times when sympathy, compassion, sadness could be expected.

I've also seen flashes of incredible rage which thankfully my child has never acted upon, but do I think they or any other child could be capable of it? oh yes, just a moment, thats all it takes, just a flash, so easily done :(..and with the added intense frustrations of the condition? yes.

One important point though is that usually children with Aspergers find it very difficult to tell a lie, (and if they do try it is glaringly obvious, they cannot hide it), generally they tell the truth at all costs, regardless if it hurts, which makes me wonder if the question was ever asked?

Another thing I've seen much discussed (if BDI) is WHY would the R's try and cover it up? why not just report it if it would just be classed as an accident and covered over.

I think the motive that stands out for me is shame, pure and simple. From what I've read appearances seem to have been very important to the R's, perhaps especially to P, and can you imagine the social stigma and shame of being the parent of a child who caused the death of a sibling? and thats before even considering the more disturbing elements of the case...if you are at the top of the pile it's a terrifying fall to the bottom, and so I imagine avoiding that kind of shame is a powerful motivating factor, one that could make one engage in all kind of risks because the gamble might just pay off and prestige and family may just be maintained.

I would be very interested to know how many people have swtiched to BDI since reading Kolars book (I have not yet bought it, funds will not allow at present).

I'm not sure how much it is ok to say publically on the forum, so if I have overstepped the mark please just delete this.

Welcome Hetty.

Great post. I've always been a BDI. I can easily see the parents, especially Patsy, covering for Burke. You're right, there is no way this family would ever want knowledge of Burke's behavior (sexual and anger) to be out in the public. It was so important to cover up the actual cause and events that the Ramsey's risked being arrested. And, they could safely look the public in the eye and say "We did not kill our daughter."
jmo
 
OMG I cannot believe people think Burke killed his sister.


Burke does not, and never has had, aspergers. Right now he is a fit, healthy successful young man with an active social life and lots of girlfriends.

He has done extremely well in college and I believe is now starting a successful career, much like dear old dad.

How can this not be considered "bashing the family"? Why are these posts allowed on here? Burke was NEVER considered a suspect by LE?
 
You've presented the gist of it very clearly. One can certainly argue that John wouldn't have allowed Patsy to make the call if he wrote the note. On the other hand, one can also argue that if John wanted that call made, he'd have made it himself. While they've presented a united front on literally every aspect of this case, Patsy's version of what happened, as reported in the Tracey documentary, is very different from John's. She says it was HER idea and that she told John she was going to make the call and then made it while John was upstairs tending to Burke. That rings true to me. The story that he told her to make the call originally came from HIM, not her.

I can actually see JR throwing up his hands and saying to his wife "I want nothing to do with this - sort it out yourself".
 
I don't buy the reasoning that Patsy wouldn't have called 911 if she wrote the note. They cannot hide her death or disappearance indefinitely so authorities will need to be called at some point, they do not want to abandon their daughter somewhere, and they are trying to obscure the facts of her murder. The note adds an element that cannot be ignored when law enforcement arrives despite how implausible the note is in content as well as in the context of a dead body being found in the home. It's far from perfect but it is useful.

Many guilty parties find themselves in need of reporting their own crime. It is part of the process of attempting to cover up, because your intimate relationship dictates you will notice the crime and want help.
 
JR is the strongest suspect. No other theory really makes any sense. PR can be ruled out completely, both as the killer and as a co-conspirator in the cover up. BDI is just complete nonsense.

docG solved it years ago, but we've all been caught up in over-analyzing the case. I've recently seen that his theory makes the most sense.

If both JR/PR were in on it, even if they just worked jointly on the coverup, then the police would not have been called shortly before 6am with the body in the basement.

The staging does not fit with the RN. If there is a RN there should be no body. If they had staged it as an intruder murderer then they'd have left the body out in plain view, and naked - just the way a real intruder would do.

But we have a RN, and a body hidden in the WC, redressed, and wrapped in a blanket. That doesn't make sense.

It would be a lot safer for the Rs if the body were not in the house. Any plausible plan where the Rs acted as co-conspirators would include dumping the body. Yet the 911 call was placed with the body in the house and with staging that didn't fit with the RN.

So, the RN wasn't meant to fool the police at 6am. It was meant to fool PR. It fooled her so well that she didn't read it carefully and went off and made a 911 call.

Over and over the RN warns not to call the police or JB will be killed. I won't bother with quoting the movie lines, but the emphasis of the note is don't call the police if you want your daughter back alive.

Many of us have figured that the original plan was to dump the body. That makes sense. But we figured that the plan was aborted for some reason. We figured what actually happened was plan B. But we failed to realize that the plan to dump the body had not been abandoned. It simply had not been implemented yet. It would have been implemented later, but PR called 911 and screwed-up the plan.

Notice that the note gives JR until the morning of the 27th to come up with the money. Meanwhile, he has the perfect excuse for not calling the police. He can send PR and BR off to stay with friends, and then dump the body. After that he gets the money from the bank, phones in the ransom call, then makes the drop off. He looses $118K, but he can afford it.

PR didn't cooperate in the coverup, because if she did, she'd never have made the 911 call. It would have been easy for them to run the above scenario working together. And it's plain silly to let the police have a chance to find the body in the house. Anywhere but Boulder that would be an automatic arrest.

PR didn't write the note. I don't have time to go into all the details of that right now, but suffice to say that handwriting analysis is not a science. It's a pseudo science. It's opinion masquerading as science. Many "experts" thought JMK wrote the note when they compared his writing, that tells you how useful handwriting analysis is. Take a look at http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/ and you'll see that JR could easily have been the author.

PR didn't help with the staging. Again, if she had been in on the coverup why not get rid of the body before calling 911. Also her fibers are not inside the size 12 bloomies. Hers are only on the outside of things, and she hugged JB's lifeless body when it was brought upstairs, so we really don't know whether fiber transfer happened downstairs or upstairs.

Sure, her fibers are in the basement too, and she probably lied about wearing the red jacket (or was it a sweater) down there. Or there could have simply been fiber transfer that explains her red fibers in the basement.

I'm going to write up my theory of the case for the members theories thread, but that will have to wait a while, when I'm not as busy. It's not that I can improve on docG's write up, but it might help if there were 2 people writing from the same perspective.

Shake off your conviction that PR wrote the note. She didn't. It makes no sense for her to have called 911 when she did if she was in on it. It's that simple. Spending a couple more years analyzing the word "hence" or pondering why the Paughs bought 3 books as gifts, or trying to decide who also ate pineapple with JB is not going to solve the case. Step back, stop examining the bark on a particular tree, and notice that in front of you is a forest.

The answer is plain as day if you can stop getting lost in the minutiae.

The RN doesn't jibe with a body in the house. The RN was meant to buy time to dispose of the body. PR would know this if she were in on it. The fact that she called 911 shows us she wasn't in on it. The RN is consistent with stalling for time to get rid of the body. That's the whole case in a nutshell.

Oh, and BDI is nonsese because in that scenario no one is going to jail, so there is no need for a coverup. BDIs love the theory because it seems to explain PR/JR pulling in team. But the 911 call with the body in the house makes no sense, so we know PR wasn't part of the team.

We can't say anyone killed JB w/o a conviction. We can say who we think is the strongest suspect. IMO JDI is the strongest case theory.

I'm not active on this case, but I do read along, both here and at FFJ. I used to be staunchly in the PDI camp, but after reading Docg's blog, I have to agree with Docg, and you, Chrishope on who the strongest suspect is.

It's like this. We've got a ransom note that looks like Patsy might have written it, fibers from the Blazer she wore Christmas Day: in the garotte, on the paint brush, in the paint tray, on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, on the underside of the duct tape, her fingerprint on the bowl of pineapple and in 5 places on the ransom note, and on top of all that her call to 911. Sounded pretty convincing until I realized it's too convincing. It's overkill.

Patsy Ramsey was not a stupid woman. There is no way she would have been stupid enough to leave so much that points directly at her if she was the guilty party, and she certainly wouldn't have handled the ransom note if she'd been its author. At least that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

From the evidence listed above, it looks to me like plan B was to frame Patsy, and leave her holding the proverbial bag.

Does anyone here think that Patsy wore that blazer to bed?

Who was it who didn't touch the ransom note, supposedly? told Patsy to call 911, lawyered up, scheduled a flight that evening to Atlanta, and a few days later hired a handwriting expert? Oh, and said it had to be an inside job.
Well we all know who that was. He could have easily known that Patsy made her letter Qs look like the figure 8, could have known how she printed the letter U, could have known she put periods following each initial in an acronym, and could have written the ransom note to sound like she'd written it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aly2fPK-XE&feat
 
I can kill the chrishope theory with one sentence:

If jdi he never would have let pr make that 911 call.
your post got me to thinking. How, exactly, could he have stopped her from calling 911? Short of conking her on the head, I don't see that he would have had much choice. Go through the note with her, word for word, and show her where JBR would be beheaded, among other things? If there wasn't much time to contemplate repercussions,, and in this scenario, there wouldn't be, PR would be doing what came instinctively, and what would be instinctive, is taking action and calling the cops for help. MOO, but whoever wrote that note, sure didn't want the authorities involved, and PR calling 911, does go against that. MOO
 
OMG I cannot believe people think Burke killed his sister.


Burke does not, and never has had, aspergers. Right now he is a fit, healthy successful young man with an active social life and lots of girlfriends.

He has done extremely well in college and I believe is now starting a successful career, much like dear old dad.

How can this not be considered "bashing the family"? Why are these posts allowed on here? Burke was NEVER considered a suspect by LE?

So the only type of posts that should be allowed on here are ones that accuse a nameless intruder?

If that were true, and not protected under the law, there would be no purpose for this forum - for any debate of any other viewpoint.


....And yes, Burke was considered a suspect. Right now we have a new book by a former investigator of the murder. And who do you think he alludes to as the prime suspect?

....Just because someone may/may not have Aspergers, or has a good social life and is successful in their career does not mean they are crime-free, or have never done anything in their past.

If the debate offends you, why are you here, I wonder?
 
SapphireSteel (I love your name btw, is that a reference to the programme? I loved that!),

I don't know if B has Aspergers and thats the truth, but as a mother of a child who does, you can be sure that the language and demeanour B is alleged to have used just screams it to me...but I'm not an expert.

There may or many not have ever been an offical diagnosis there, I don't know, but it doesn't make the condition being present any less likely, MANY go undiagnosed, especially girls strangely...certainly my own child was 18 before it was discovered/confirmed.

Can a child with Apsergers grow into a happy, confident, academically gifted, socially active, romatically involved, successful adult? sure they can, some of the worlds most gifted people have fitted into both categories....didn't work out like that for my child, sadly, but it can and does happen (depends MUCH on how much help they get when very young..18 is just too late.)

Can somebody who is happy, confident, academically gifted, socially active, romatically involved, and successful kill? I think so, Ted Bundy did.

(Not saying B is in ANY way like Ted Bundy,or that he is currently dangerous or anything, just that outward appearances are not always a reliable indication of what someone is or what they may or may not have done in the past).

Can a child kill, either accidentally or deliberately - yes, we could name many.

Can a child who kills grow up to be happy, confident, academically gifted, socially active, romatically involved, and successful? It seems so, Mary Bell for one, has her own child now too.

All this could be nonsense, for sure, and B might in no way be involved, as you say, and I sure hope that is the case (but if he was I do think it may have been accidental,and as someone said, *a tragedy of shakespearian proportions*)..but with respect, for me, none of the points you raised mean it can't be the case.
 
I think the chrishope/docg theory is compelling, but I still think it hinges on PR making that call and how that fits in. Let me think through a few scenarios using the "Hon we need 'em" that is the first thing we hear on the 911 recording and which presumably was spoken to John.

1) If the scenario is JDI -- if JR was so close to PR that he was telling her NOT to call and she replied "Hon we need 'em" after just having dialed 911 -- this to me suggests that he, for whatever reason, WANTED her to call, because he easily could have ripped the phone from her and said, "Didn't you read the note! She dies if we call anyone!" So JDI suffers given this information.

2) If the scenario is PDI or RDI w/cover up -- the question is, why is she saying "Hon we need 'em" -- is she THAT good an actor/writer to have created a "backstory" that just happens to be overheard by the 911 operator? Did they "stage" a disagreement about whether or not to call 911 that was "overheard" by the operator? This seems unlikely.

Another possibility is that "Hon we need em" refers to a different discussion -- maybe Patsy saying that after calling 911 she wants to call friends, and JR objecting?

One thing is clear: whether or not BDI, one or both of the Ramseys carried out a crime that night.

If I go back to my gut, I initially thought JDI but then got lost in evidence. I also recall Linda Arndt's gut. These gut reactions are very powerful.

When I think back to early interviews, John always seemed much less smooth and emotional than Patsy, pointing to JDI. Patsy seemed crazy, but like she was always crazy. The big powerful business man John seemed ill at ease and like a guilty man. Go back to the initial CNN interview. Sure, Patsy is drugged up and loony, but John is saying very bizarre things as if to distance himself from a guilty feeling.

So I am more willing than ever to support JDI. But if he let her make that call, the only thing that makes sense to me is that unconsciously part of him wanted to get caught. Because it just makes no sense that he'd think everything through so brilliantly and then let Patsy mess up his plans for the day, which hinged on being able to go about his business alone.

It's hard to imagine Patsy covering up for John. Much easier to see her covering up for Burke. But the BDI scenario has really suffered despite the initial response to Kolar's book. The most convincing scenario has JDI. But we still need a better explanation for why John let Patsy call 911, especially if he was feet away from her and they were arguing about whether or not to call the police.

"Hon we need em" seems key to me...
 
So the only type of posts that should be allowed on here are ones that accuse a nameless intruder?

If that were true, and not protected under the law, there would be no purpose for this forum - for any debate of any other viewpoint.


....And yes, Burke was considered a suspect. Right now we have a new book by a former investigator of the murder. And who do you think he alludes to as the prime suspect?

....Just because someone may/may not have Aspergers, or has a good social life and is successful in their career does not mean they are crime-free, or have never done anything in their past.

If the debate offends you, why are you here, I wonder?

Very well said Whaleshark. :goodpost:
 
Lets not forget, IDI & RDI alike, that BR was not ALLOWED to be named as a suspect. If he was, and I believe he was, they would not have been allowed to state it publicly. Even if they KNEW he was involved in even a small part of it- even if the parents said he was involved but it was an accident- even if the DNA is HIS- it makes no difference. His name is not allowed to be associated with this crime (or ANY crime) under Colorado law because of his age at the time. THE END.

Even his Grand Jury testimony was inconsequential. BR did not testify in front of the Grand Jury. He testified in front of a video camera. Big difference.
People are not permitted to have an attorney present when they are questioned by a GJ. With BR, we do not know WHO was with him- whether he answered spontaneously or not, whether he READ answers held off-camera that his lawyers supplied him with or whether he was coached. (THAT you can believe).
 
Lets not forget, IDI & RDI alike, that BR was not ALLOWED to be named as a suspect. If he was, and I believe he was, they would not have been allowed to state it publicly. Even if they KNEW he was involved in even a small part of it- even if the parents said he was involved but it was an accident- even if the DNA is HIS- it makes no difference. His name is not allowed to be associated with this crime (or ANY crime) under Colorado law because of his age at the time. THE END.

Even his Grand Jury testimony was inconsequential. BR did not testify in front of the Grand Jury. He testified in front of a video camera. Big difference.
People are not permitted to have an attorney present when they are questioned by a GJ. With BR, we do not know WHO was with him- whether he answered spontaneously or not, whether he READ answers held off-camera that his lawyers supplied him with or whether he was coached. (THAT you can believe).

DeeDee249,
The authorities might not be able to consider him as a suspect, but in the court of public opinion, their rules do not matter.

I think its pretty obvious all three Ramsey's participated in the staging and coverup.

One of John, Patsy, or Burke initially sexually assaulted JonBenet.

Assuming its usually males who do this, and that the acute and chronic abuse was digital, I reckon this slims the suspects down to one?

If you disagree then its the other male.

And of course, just for gender balance, in case Patsy was a crazy cookie, she too may have sexually assaulted JonBenet etc. This I think is less likely. Other variations on PDI abound, so take your choice, e.g. too many meds, bedwetting, bed-soiling, Mother-Daughter argument over clothing etc.

The argument that John crafted the RN without Patsy's knowledge, and had a master plan which included dumping JonBenet, relocating Burke and Patsy, before collecting the ransom money, is a speculative scenario, which in many parts is in conflict with the known forensic evidence.

Patsy can be placed at the crime-scene wearing the same clothes she wore the night before. Fibers from her jacket are embedded into the knotting on the ligature/paintbrush-handle *advertiser censored* garrote, and are attached to the sticky side of the duct tape found on JonBenet. Thats two different physical locations, which I reckon rules out chance. Then there is Patsy's own testimony that she never visited the wine-cellar the night before or the following morning!

If John had actually dumped JonBenet outdoors and collected the cash, he would have been suspect number one, and would most likely have been arrested ASAP. And once JonBenet was found, what was John going say? That because they wrapped her in blanket they never meant to kill her? And of course the media would be screaming Kidnapped girl found dead, e.g. not abducted, just sexually assaulted and dumped. And in those kind of cases the Number One suspect is always the father, check google for cases.

Then of course there is the planning anomally. John hatches his abduction plan, executes it, then camly leaves Patsy to her own devices. Knowing full well that one of Patsy's options is to dial 911. Somehow I think not!


.
 
Could there be a way of blending two of the theories, i.e., BDI and JDI? MOO, but could it be that JDI, but convinced Patsy that BDI and that they would need to cover up for him? It might be fairly easy to convince Patsy of this scenario, if their son did have behavioral/psychological problems (plus, he had whacked JB with a golfclub in the past).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
3,325
Total visitors
3,540

Forum statistics

Threads
592,250
Messages
17,966,039
Members
228,732
Latest member
FrnkKrcher
Back
Top