JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY'S DISAPPOINTING AND INSULTING RESPONSE TO CINA WONG

[GoBuckeyes]

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

I was surprised recently when I listened to a True Crime Garage podcast episode featuring Joseph Scott Morgan, one of my criminal profiler heros. He claims that during his interactions with the Ramseys, he concluded unequivocally that they were not responsible. That they "could not have done it."

I believe the episode was in November or December 2021. Has anyone else listened to it, and what are your thoughts? TIA

 

[Meara]

That's a strong statement from Morgan. Did he give any specifics about the basis of his conclusion? What he observed about the Ramseys that convinced him they could not have killed JonBenet?

 

[Bekind89]

Wait a minute, one of JR’s daughters accused him of sexual assault? Beth or Melinda? When was this??

I always found it to be very telling that within minutes of "finding" his daughters body, JR hired THREE attorneys. One each for himself and Patsy, and one for his ex-wife. Now what incriminating information could his ex-wife have known about JR that in his mind required a separate attorney for a women that was no longer in his life?
He also was on the phone and trying to book a flight out of Boulder within an hour of her body being discovered. Who does that?
The War and Peace of ransom notes was written to scare PR into not phoning police right away, imo. JR needed time and an excuse to leave the house and remove JB's body. There was a suitcase under the basement window, ready to go. I think he was planning on telling PR that he was leaving with the suitcase to pay the ransom money, all the while placing JB's body in the suitcase to carry her out of the house unseen.
But PR did call the police right away. Why would she do that if she was involved in her daughters death or cover up of the crime?
Why didn't she do as her husband told her to?
I think she may have been frightened of JR at that moment. She may have felt something wasn't right with him. Jmo.
It sickens me to my soul that he has never been held accountable for JB.
He hides behind religion after throwing his wife, son, and every friend he ever had under the bus.
A vile, diabolical hypocrite.
All of the above are my opinions only after studying this case for years.

 

[Bekind89]

Deleted by me- Double post.

 

[Bekind89]

So sorry for the double post!
There were rumors of SA with the daughter who was killed in an automobile accident. She would have nothing to do with JR before her death, she had cut him completely out of her life.

 

[fridaybaker]

I always found it to be very telling that within minutes of "finding" his daughters body, JR hired THREE attorneys. One each for himself and Patsy, and one for his ex-wife. Now what incriminating information could his ex-wife have known about JR that in his mind required a separate attorney for a women that was no longer in his life?
He also was on the phone and trying to book a flight out of Boulder within an hour of her body being discovered. Who does that?
The War and Peace of ransom notes was written to scare PR into not phoning police right away, imo. JR needed time and an excuse to leave the house and remove JB's body. There was a suitcase under the basement window, ready to go. I think he was planning on telling PR that he was leaving with the suitcase to pay the ransom money, all the while placing JB's body in the suitcase to carry her out of the house unseen.
But PR did call the police right away. Why would she do that if she was involved in her daughters death or cover up of the crime?
Why didn't she do as her husband told her to?
I think she may have been frightened of JR at that moment. She may have felt something wasn't right with him. Jmo.
It sickens me to my soul that he has never been held accountable for JB.
He hides behind religion after throwing his wife, son, and every friend he ever had under the bus.
A vile, diabolical hypocrite.
All of the above are my opinions only after studying this case for years.

I find your theory very interesting! So much of it fits. The only issue I have with it is that to me it looks like PR wrote the ransom note. However, I still think that much of it fits anyway, although PR would have to have been in on it. The suitcase, then, if meant as a ruse wouldn't have been for PR, but for someone else. Maybe a way to get evidence out of the house in front of people, such as those friends he asked over, the police, etc., while claiming it was cash.

Not sure how that all holds together, but I did find your post helpful. I do think there was likely abuse before JB, and there was abuse of her as well, at the hands of her family. I'm not sure, though, that the abuse was limited to JR.

 

[fridaybaker]

The first comment about OJ Simpson refers to Americans believing in OJ Simpson's guilt even though there's not much evidence. Whereas people are willing to give John Ramsey a pass.

I think John Ramsey promotes these theories about Patsy, Burke, neighbors and routine intruders. Because it should be the other way around - that people think John Ramsey is guilty but think OJ Simpson is probably not guilty.

Plus OJ Simpson was arrested and charged, just not convicted. Whereas John was not arrested and charged. In terms of motive, John Ramsey had motive to silence JB from reporting PREVIOUS sexual abuse. (Because of the armed robbery with oj simpson, I think Simpson may be guilty. Perhaps simpson originally hired the killers, and then owed organized crime a favor.)


John's older daughter from his first marriage, who was named Elizabeth, also accused John of sexual abuse. Six weeks later, she died in the car accident. That's why the car accident was reinvestigated after the murder, though I certainly don't think it's suspicious. But that's the reason for reinvestigation. Look at John's family - his father married his first wife's mother! That was after the first wife (John's mother) died. When the father remarried, it was to John's first wife's mother.

Also I think Nancy Krebs is credible, though some of her details may be embellished. Krebs testified about the same issues and details years prior to JB's murder. It's not as if Krebs came up with the details after JB's murder. Remember about the child *advertiser censored* and prostitution, and that's what the accusations against Access Graphics and Subic Bay are about.

And I do think Fleet White may have been involved. He was always so anxious to endorse the theories that Patsy or Burke did it, or that it was supposedly an accident. But maybe he was just anxious because the Ramseys were framing him, as being the "Secret Santa."

<modsnip: Removed political commentary>

"Americans" is a big category. Regarding the OJ verdict, I believe that generally the belief of guilt or innocence split down race lines.

However, I can't imagine why anyone would say that "Americans" are willing to give JR a pass: Most Americans haven't really studied the case much and are likely to go by what the Boulder police "think", assuming that because he wasn't even charged, he likely wasn't guilty.

Boulder dropped the ball, plain and simple. The Ramsey's were influential, and I believe that Boulder has never convicted anyone on murder. It doesn't happen. It's more a function of Boulder than "America".

 

[Beloved76]

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

 

[Beloved76]

What is an EA device? Also couldn’t using Patty’s things just be a coincidence? Maybe the monster just grabbed what was available?

 

[Eddie99]

With regards to the hiring of lawyers. I'm willing to speculate that JR got a sense for what he was dealing with in terms of the B.P.D.

He saw where this was going. He saw who he was dealing with. When the initial shock subsided and he could think clearly, I'm sure he realized that this investigation was $@%&ed from square one.

The police didn't search the house. They did everything wrong. Careers could be on the line, and he could likley sense they were switching into self preservation mode (aka cover your @$$). (Seriously, how do you not sweep the house? )

I've watched many of the various interviews over the years, with the police. Remember, when these interviews were conducted, it was after they discovered she was dead.

I think in the time between the initial 911 call and when they found her.... that the police didn't take this 100% seriously. And it shows.

Said another way.... They messed this up. They knew it. JR knew it too, and took a defensive posture. I don't blame him.

I also don't buy that the boy killed her, and the parents covered for him with this crazy story. The kid was too young to be charged no matter what, but even if they wanted him completely out of the limelight - they could have come up with a thousand better excuses than this mess.

 

[Eddie99]

Continued.....

I think its a huge stretch to assume that if one parent killed this poor girl, that the other one would just be totally cool with this and just cover up for them.

I realize systematic abuse does occur in nuclear family situations. But, that is usually served up with a side of substance abuse and a long history of psychological problems.

This is a crazy story for sure. Very little of it makes any sense at all.

 

[Eddie99]

To expand on the idea of one of the parents killing JBR:

Just about everything we (the public) know about these people is runb through the filter of cable news, and scandal shows. The principal motivation of which is to make money.

This is what would have had to occur if one of her parents killed her -

Parent 1. "Hey honey:
Parent 2. Yes Dear?
P1. "Ummm. I killed our daughter.
P2. Oh, ok. Mmmmmm. We should probably stage a kidnapping or something to cover up the fact you killed our 6 year old. I'll put on the coffee, and we can work this out.
P1. Oh I'm Happy you said that. I was worried you'd be upset.
P2. Oh gosh, These things happen honey-bear. You put on the coffee, and I'll throw her in the spare room.

I apologize for the sarcasm there.....
But seriously, what are the odds that one or the other would be ok with their spouse killing their 6 year old? What ever those odds are..... now you gotta factor in the odds that a police department would send investigators over - that didn't search the house.

Not only that, but then that they going to leave one person there - who will instruct the parents to take a look around and see if anything is out of sorts.

Then years later go on national television and say " you know, after the dad found his daughter laying on the floor, he picked her up. That really made me suspicious".

Really? A father picks his kid off the floor, and that's somehow a red flag?

That's just pathetic. I have ZERO respect for that cop that did that interview.

 

[Stevem3]

He also was on the phone and trying to book a flight out of Boulder within an hour of her body being discovered. Who does that?

This I find most odd, even inconceivable that a person would do this.

The attorney hiring I give JR a pass on because he was well connected and had attorney friends. I believe one friend that was an attorney realized right away as attorneys do that JR was going to be a suspect by the police and he convinced him to hire attorneys. People that are rich and connected are quicker to use attorneys as compared to average person.

 

[Sister66]

A couple of weeks ago I attempted to have a mature conversation (on Twitter under the name Websleuths) about the evidence in the Ramsey case with JonBenet's older half-brother John Andrew Ramsey.
It makes you wonder if parents are coving for the son!?
Via a tagged tweet from Websleuths I invited him to listen to our live stream with Cina Wong and I pointed out how many matches Ms. Wong made between Patsy's writing and the writing of the ransom note.

Cina Wong is a very well respected and professionally recognized handwriting expert who has testified in over 65 court cases.

In response to my tweets John Andrew blocked me, called me a troll, and proceeded to attempt to attack Cina Wong and her credentials in a very immature manner.

John Andrew tweeted and asked if Cina Wong knew Henry Lee. WTH?
It never occurred to me the obvious reason for asking this question. There is only one reason why he would say this. Think about it.

I am posting here the responses to John Andrews's accusations about Cina Wong. If you have any trouble following what is going on please post your questions.

These same screenshots will be tweeted out by Websleuths and we will make John Andrew aware of these answers if he is curious to know the truth.

JAR's behavior is so disappointing. He is acting like a spoiled rich kid frat boy.

Please take a look at the tweets and responses.

Tricia
PS. I did make a crack about Lin Wood when JAR tweeted he would record my stream and send it to "Lin". "GOOD" I replied then suggested that perhaps the intruder also stole the election. That is my part but hey, using Lin Wood as a threat opens one's self up to these types of answers.

 

[DrQ]

Hello, I think you need to look at motive. And also to remember that this was a premeditated crime. (Also the Burke and Patsy theories are not medically sound. We know that JB was already dead when she received the head injury, which is why there was almost zero internal bleeding.)

So given that this was a premeditated crime, as a woman, I do not want to give John or John Andrew (at least one is a sexual abuser) a free pass, and blame Patsy or Burke. It's also worth nothing that if Patsy or Burke had accidentally killed JB (which is not medically sound), the family could have claimed that the little girl fell and hit her head.

It's important to remember that John and John Andrew WANT us to believe that Patsy and Burke committed the crime, which is has been not possible due to medical evidence.

So, since it was a premeditated crime, we must look at motive:

1) To silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse, including what may have occurred on December 23, 1996. (And fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found in JB's bed; not sure if they were also found in Burke's bed.) The police were called on December 23, 1996. However, the person who opened the door said that the police had been called by mistake.

JB was intelligent, articulate, and outspoken. Had she reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, she would be taken very seriously. Had Burke reported prior sexual abuse by John or John Andrew, he would not be taken as seriously. (I believe Burke was autistic.)

Therefore the MOTIVE to silence JB so that she could not report PRIOR sexual abuse is stronger than any MOTIVE to silence Burke.

2) To frame Patsy, or at least to discredit her. Obviously a judge or jury would not convict Patsy, but she was discredited and disgraced. People were willing to blame Patsy, claim that she killed JB by accident, and yet give John or John Andrew (at least one of whom is a sexual abuser) a free pass. Talk about sexism and bias.

There was an obvious MOTIVE to frame Patsy: ransom note included some of her expressions and choice of words. Also Patsy's notepad and writing pen were used. Patsy's paintbrush was actually used to strangle JB. (JB died from strangulation, and was already dead when she received the head injury). Now, if Patsy herself had strangled JB (and we know that she did not do this), she would have the intelligence to hide or throw out the paintbrush. (And would Patsy write a note to incriminate herself? She was an intelligent woman.)

Patsy's items that were used: paintbrush, notepad, writing pen. Plus the ransom note cast suspicion on Patsy.

What motive would John Andrew have to frame or at least cast suspicion on Patsy? He would want his father to reunite with his mother, NOT because he cared if his parents got back together, BUT due to John's WEALTH.

Therefore, John Andrew would have the above two motives. Remember that John Andrew's suitcase was found near JB's body. The suitcase contained a semen-encrusted blanket (semen belonged to John Andrew), a children's book called Dr. Seuss, and some other items. So, why was the suitcase near JB's body? Because someone (likely John the father) had every intention of disposing of JB's body, but also of disposing of the incriminating suitcase.

As previously mentioned, fibers from John Andrew's EA device were found on JB's bed.

Lastly, there has been some suspicion that JB told Melinda (her older half-sister) about the sexual abuse. However, I like to think that Melinda would have done the right thing, and reported this to police.

I believe that John Andrew also had a key to the house.

You need to also ask why John the father was not framed for the crime - only Patsy the mother!

And let's use common sense: a routine "sexual predator" would be more interested in framing the father than the mother!

 

[DrQ]

A lot of good insight to this horrific crime. There are many moving parts to the case. The most important piece is the facts.
1. How the case was handled in general. Police with little experience in a murder case, a wealthy family, and many people on sight. Who in enforcement would ever have the family look for the child in the home? Except they did that day. Probably the most damaging decision of the entire case.
2. Motive may be sexual...
3. The family is different. Patsy was known to generously show their wealth around town. JonBenet was in the public eye many times. They felt the need to fill the house with people and again on that day and the police let them.
4. Whatever WAS there to help solve the crime is sadly probably gone.
So, if not a member of the strange family...then who? How likely is it a stranger? They may have watched and stalked the family and JonBenet's routines and house safety. What are the chances someone would go in and wait...hoping to not be found? What if it was someone, other than her family, that knew her well enough to have her eat pineapple with them and not be scared? If the autopsy is correct about previous signs of sexual abuse, was she behaving differently around family? Maybe not if she new the person. The strangeness of the family shouldn't be disregarded but other possibilities exist. As a retired forensics psychologist, not verifying myself as the expert, my gut feeling has always been that it is a person who was close enough to the family to know JonBenet. I have no clue how many people close to the family were looked at. Both parents mentioned people's behavior in interviews. With DNA advances it would be good to see them take another look at the case. Too much left unanswered. Someone knows something. A sad outcome to a young child.

 

[Eddie99]

I try to keep an open mind about the various theories, of the various cases.

But I really don't get the theory about a family member killing JBR.

I suppose anything is possible. But this really doesn't make any sense to me.

Start with the brother. There are very few documented cases of 9 year olds committing murder. And to make a Garrote? Where in the hell would he have learned that? There wasn't any YouTube how to videos back then.
Let's pretend he did kill her....
The next thing that would have to fall in place is that BOTH parents would be ok with this.

I can't imagine the emotions that would be attached to one child killing the other, but in the end I think 99.999% of people would reason this out:

He's 9, he's not going to prison.
He obviously needs help.
He could be capable of killing others.
He could kill himself.

I just don't see a way they would/could rationalize this decision.

One parent killer theory.
Again, this would hinge on the other parent condoning this. I know it's happened in the past. But the ones I've seen were real psychos. Mental illness, poverty, drugs & alcohol, and a semi transient lifestyle, with a mix of family dysfunction.

Not to mention men typically take out everyone. Where women kill the kids. And almost every instance I've found is drowning, when women go nuts. There seem to be cultish examples too, that involve knives, poison & drowning.

And not for nothing, these are both well educated people (I've seen college grads that couldn't boil water, I'm not saying college degree proves ones intelligence) but they seem reasonable. They seem to have some common sense.

As far as the father finding her. That's 100% the fault of BPD & no one else. They obviously didn't take this seriously. There is no other way to say it.

I think the father quickly assessed the situation with BPD. And realized they were going to work harder at trying to assuage from their mistakes than solving a murder.
7 hours, they sat in that house. Maddening.

As far as going to Atlanta. I would have gotten my family the hell out of there too.

Last but not least. Who in their right mind would ever get the notion to write a ransom note, with personal details, and at least a rudimentary understanding that handwriting analysis would be done?

Speaking of the ransom note. One thing I've never heard anyone mention before -

It states "we will call you tomorrow between 8 & 10am." What exactly does that mean?
Christmas was on a Wednesday. She was killed that night (late the 25th or early 26th) wouldn't "tomorrow" likley mean Friday the 27th? That would make more sense, because it would give him time to get to the bank. Correct? Not that I belive whom ever wrote this note expected money. But there do exist two possibilities. The note was written before, or after her death.

If someone was hiding in the house, before the murder - I would suppose the idea of a kidnapping her could serve two purposes, one being because they are a pedophile, the other to score some cash.

Or. It was written afterward. The only benefit is see to that is to perhaps delay the discovery of her body. Other then that - the writer has insights into the Ramsey families life. The key is how did they come about the information about them. That being their names, state of origin, the 118k. Could all this have been learned though mutual acquaintances? Child they have gone through the house and gleaned this information from letters, and personal items like letters, pay subs, check books?

Anyway. I do hope they solve this thing.

]

 

[DrQ]

I am not the original poster for the thread on Jon Benet but find everyone's thoughts and opinions interesting. Definitely a complex and perplexing unsolved case. We have an idea of when Jon Benet was killed via police and autopsy reports. We also have evidence of how she was killed. The missing pieces....most critical are: where was she killed? we know where she was found. However, since her father is who found her, destroyed the crime scene (not necessarily on purpose), moved the body through the entire house and set her down in a room filled with people continuing to destroy evidence. Her mother then holds her (as any mother would want to do) and once again destroys evidence. I have never been through a horrible situation like that and would not wish it on my worst enemy. However, I hope that if I am in a crisis, I will remain sane enough to not destroy anything that could help in solving the case. So that leaves us with there where of the crime not fully answered. Her body was found in the basement but the actual assault could have started some place else in the house of destroyed evidence. If anyone has found evidence that they used luminal, please post the findings. Where had she been...even months prior to her murder. Next you have what happened. We know an innocent child was brutally murdered some where in her own home. We don't know all of the facts surrounding what was going on prior to the murder, what has not been released, and what may have been left out on purpose or forgotten. Next why was she killed? This one is a big critical piece. Premeditated? Why that specific night? Best opportunity? Selected by chance? There was a trigger and no one knows what the catalyst was. The what and why go hand in hand to direct toward defining the most critical piece...the who. Who would have a reason or want to kill this innocent child? Was it the first attempt with her? I am not saying the autopsy is incorrect, but it is definitely strange that it was never reported that JonBenet behaved differently or showed signs of behavior change. Bed wettings a sign of something but we have no clue what caused it. Stress? fear? Unknown. I have noodled over this case for many years like many others. I keep hoping new eyes and technology will bring closure and catch the creep. It is possible that it is someone they have looked at. It is also possible there are forgotten and/or missed details that can link and answer some of the questions. As we all know....the truth is out there. Fingers crossed.

 

[RL2]

I was surprised recently when I listened to a True Crime Garage podcast episode featuring Joseph Scott Morgan, one of my criminal profiler heros. He claims that during his interactions with the Ramseys, he concluded unequivocally that they were not responsible. That they "could not have done it."

I believe the episode was in November or December 2021. Has anyone else listened to it, and what are your thoughts? TIA

“could not have done it” does not equal “did not do it”

 

[ilovewings]

what do you mean by this? serious question... i'm not sure.

i presume Lin Wood ("LW") wasn't always like he is today.....

i've loved Bugliosi's stuff. i.e. his books and the "Lee Harvey Oswald trial".... he is a blowhard like Gerry Spence. but i seriously think that is required to be a success criminal court attorney.

IMO Mr Bugliosi was a brilliant legal mind. His book " Outrage" about the OJ trial
Was right on the money- I heard him speak on several talk shows
And was always impressed with him. No way is there any comparison
Between him and LW.