Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BoldBear]

2. a garrote is traditionally used to torture - slow strangulation, release, etc

It's fine if you want to explain the 'garrote' as a device in the hands of a skilled weaponologist. I like to think of the device used as a slipknot with a handle tied to the end for grip. Depending on your theory, it's either premeditation and skill or improvisation and desperation.

Also, a garrote was originally used for execution. I didn't know that the garrote's traditional use was for torture. If the torturer were to use the garrote in this way, wouldn't this particular knot be a poor choice? This type of knot could lock into place and would be hard to control if you wanted to torture/slowly strangle someone.

 

[andreww]

IMO if they are lying then it's easiest to say JB asleep for the ride home and the whole night, and B asleep in the morning. It removes them somewhat from the picture. If B is first awoken by the 911 call because they didn't actually yell/ run around & check him prior then they would have to start lying about the whole thing anyway.

I think it's pretty telling that the Ramsey's lied about Burke being asleep. After all, they lied about Jonbenet being asleep, as the pineapple obviously proves. And, as their stories from each of their police interviews don't seem to add up, they likely lied about their own sleep times as well.

That's the beauty of the sleep alibi, it's a story that is easy to stick to, and requires no explanation, that is until pineapple is found or a 911 call is enhanced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[singularity]

I didn't say Burke was up all night. I said that they would have to change their story and that would lead to more questions. No matter what happened in the investigation, they stuck with their original story.

Your daughter's been kidnapped. Your son's sleeping and you don't wake him up. You don't see if the kidnappers have hurt him in some way. You don't ask him if he's seen or heard anything? "If it doesn't sound right, it isn't true." Of course they woke him up.

While I have always believed an intruder(or someone close other than her parents) killed Jonbenet, the lie about this 911 call has always been troubling. Lying about Burke being asleep is an unnecessary risk for them to take if they committed the crime, and can cast doubt on almost everything else they say. It's also an absurd lie to tell if you're innocent. A person who tells a small lie will literally lie about anything.

Like Olivia brought up, are they also lying about Jonbenet being asleep? If so, it throws the entire timeline and known events into a state of flux. If she was awake while they drove home, she could have been attacked minutes after getting home.

For the issue of BR and the call, I think it's reasonable to think he knew something. But that doesn't mean he was involved.

I agree. IMO the worst case scenario involving Burke is if he stumbled upon what happened or the aftermath of it.


I voted in this poll. 32% now believe an intruder did it? It's been many years since I've participated in any discussions on this case. Looks like the more distance we get from this crime, the higher the number do not believe it was one of the parents. I would have expected the numbers to show the exact opposite.

 

[BoldBear]

I voted in this poll. 32% now believe an intruder did it? It's been many years since I've participated in any discussions on this case. Looks like the more distance we get from this crime, the higher the number do not believe it was one of the parents. I would have expected the numbers to show the exact opposite.

Is your evidence is based on a single question poll? If that's what you have to rely on, you better dig deeper. Single question polls are not evidence. They might tell you what some people might believe but they don't tell you why. If this was just an observation, then I'll direct you to the DA's exoneration and apology. Had I not learned about the details of the case, I would have believed it too.

Welcome back to the discussions.

 

[OliviaG1996]

While I have always believed an intruder(or someone close other than her parents) killed Jonbenet, the lie about this 911 call has always been troubling. Lying about Burke being asleep is an unnecessary risk for them to take if they committed the crime, and can cast doubt on almost everything else they say. It's also an absurd lie to tell if you're innocent. A person who tells a small lie will literally lie about anything.

Like Olivia brought up, are they also lying about Jonbenet being asleep? If so, it throws the entire timeline and known events into a state of flux. If she was awake while they drove home, she could have been attacked minutes after getting home.

I agree. IMO the worst case scenario involving Burke is if he stumbled upon what happened or the aftermath of it.


I voted in this poll. 32% now believe an intruder did it? It's been many years since I've participated in any discussions on this case. Looks like the more distance we get from this crime, the higher the number do not believe it was one of the parents. I would have expected the numbers to show the exact opposite.

BBM: Exactly! I understand wanting to protect BR from being scarred even more after the murder (if they're all innocent, of course), but to lie about his whereabouts for seemingly no reason (again, if they're innocent) makes absolutely no sense.

JR and PR's way of overly protecting BR in interviews is strange to me, as well. They want to mention him as little as possible, and the only time they do mention him is when they're asked (from what I've read and seen, anyway). Instead of wanting to answer all questions about BR to try to clear his name as quickly as possible, PR tells Tom Haney (UBM), ""Burke Ramsey did not do this, okay. He did not do this. Get off it." JMO.

Welcome to Websleuths, singularity! I love your icon (so cute!).

 

[Mama2JML]

While I have always believed an intruder(or someone close other than her parents) killed Jonbenet, the lie about this 911 call has always been troubling. Lying about Burke being asleep is an unnecessary risk for them to take if they committed the crime, and can cast doubt on almost everything else they say. It's also an absurd lie to tell if you're innocent. A person who tells a small lie will literally lie about anything.

Like Olivia brought up, are they also lying about Jonbenet being asleep? If so, it throws the entire timeline and known events into a state of flux. If she was awake while they drove home, she could have been attacked minutes after getting home.

I agree. IMO the worst case scenario involving Burke is if he stumbled upon what happened or the aftermath of it.


I voted in this poll. 32% now believe an intruder did it? It's been many years since I've participated in any discussions on this case. Looks like the more distance we get from this crime, the higher the number do not believe it was one of the parents. I would have expected the numbers to show the exact opposite.

You raise good points. Why would the Ramseys have lied about Burke being asleep? The events immediately following B's known wakefulness, contradict any reason to lie.

SO...

Did the Ramseys lie about Burke being asleep?...

Perhaps LE leaked this (mis)information to the MSM in support of the BPD's 'public pressure strategy'?...

Was Burke's voice REALLY recorded during the 911 call?...

If so, can we be confident in the popular consensus among JBR posters @ WS? (WRT the words & inflection attributed to Burke, JR, etc.)

Does the popular WS's opinion reflect the truth?...

Your questions are valid, and your insight is valuable; Please, don't bet your money on any other forum poster's speculative 'analysis'. All the myths, lies, and leaked misinformation that plagued this case from day one have continued to evolve. (Kinda like the telephone game.)

 

[InstantProof]

They told The Enquirer that Burke was awake. He testified for the grand jury that he was awake. J&P claim that this is how they found out he was awake ("Yeah, he testified to that. We thought he was asleep but he wasn't," said John, who had told police their son slept through the tragedy.)
According to The Enquirer, Johns story about when Burke woke up changed a couple of times, from when Patsy found the ransom note, to after 911 was called ("Burke knew something horrible had happened. He heard us screaming. He heard Patsy ...a woman in terror," John confessed. "We thought he was asleep but he wasn't. Burke was awake.

"Burke was frightened. He had tears in his eyes. He knew something very, very wrong was going on.")
-How would they know he had tears in his eyes if they didn't know he was awake until he told the grand jury??

The Enquirer then claims they brought their report about Burke's voice on the 911 call to J&P's attention and John admitted Burke was awake before the call (But then John changed his story again, calling The ENQUIRER as we went to press to say that Burke was awake BEFORE the 911 call. John told us:

"Burke recalled his mother screaming, 'Where's my baby?' and me saying, 'Calm down, calm down, we need to call the police.'")

Patsy claimed Burke wasn't anywhere near the phone. The revelation that his voice can be heard seems to make them feel obligated to push his awake time to pre-911 call, so I think they know his voice is probably on there.

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

 

[singularity]

Is your evidence is based on a single question poll? If that's what you have to rely on, you better dig deeper. Single question polls are not evidence. They might tell you what some people might believe but they don't tell you why. If this was just an observation, then I'll direct you to the DA's exoneration and apology. Had I not learned about the details of the case, I would have believed it too.

Welcome back to the discussions.

A poll is basically a sample of which way the wind is blowing. Never thought this poll(or any poll) is "evidence". Just pointing out the contrast in poll results over the years. In the early 00s these results would have been much different.

BBM: Exactly! I understand wanting to protect BR from being scarred even more after the murder (if they're all innocent, of course), but to lie about his whereabouts for seemingly no reason (again, if they're innocent) makes absolutely no sense.

Either way, their answer would have likely been different had they known the 911 call would be analyzed to such a degree. Everyone knows these calls are recorded obviously but they probably weren't thinking of such things at the time.

.
All the myths, lies, and leaked misinformation that plagued this case from day one have continued to evolve.

Once the case became stone cold they should have unloaded ALL the files on the case. I think things would have heated up fairly quickly. I've never understood the need to hold back material in this case. I know it happens in most cases for obvious reasons but this is/was a very unique case.

They told The Enquirer that Burke was awake. He testified for the grand jury that he was awake. J&P claim that this is how they found out he was awake

I find this hard to believe. They never​ spoke with him about what happened that night?

How would they know he had tears in his eyes if they didn't know he was awake until he told the grand jury??

These are the types of questions that should have been asked.

It will always boggle the mind how they decided against bugging their house.

 

[inspector rex]

A poll is basically a sample of which way the wind is blowing. Never thought this poll(or any poll) is "evidence". Just pointing out the contrast in poll results over the years. In the early 00s these results would have been much different.




Either way, their answer would have likely been different had they known the 911 call would be analyzed to such a degree. Everyone knows these calls are recorded obviously but they probably weren't thinking of such things at the time.



Once the case became stone cold they should have unloaded ALL the files on the case. I think things would have heated up fairly quickly. I've never understood the need to hold back material in this case. I know it happens in most cases for obvious reasons but this is/was a very unique case.


I find this hard to believe. They never​ spoke with him about what happened that night?

These are the types of questions that should have been asked.

It will always boggle the mind how they decided against bugging their house.

I used to wonder if he heard something in the night and was too afraid to get up and find out what it was.
And then he was too ashamed to admit that he could have helped his sister or gone and got his father, but didn't because he thought later that he may have dreamed it.
His staying in bed that morning, pretending to be asleep, fits with someone who kind of knew something had happened, but didn't know what, but felt guilt that he didn't act.

 

[jslk]

Another question: the ransom note. Why did the Rs immediately call 911 when it says their daughter will be murdered if LE are involved?

I don't believe the note is genuine and, in my mind, it's part of the staging. Was the body somehow supposed to be found later than it was, and could then be attributed to police involvement? Then LE are 'to blame'. And then something changed and JR decided to 'discover' the body earlier than planned. Just musings.

 

[BBB167893]

It will always boggle the mind how they decided against bugging their house.

You can include me in that, too.

 

[Chrishope]

Another question: the ransom note. Why did the Rs immediately call 911 when it says their daughter will be murdered if LE are involved?

Well, "The R's" didn't call, Patsy called. Of course they can't both call but if PR wrote the note then she'd be very aware of the warnings she herself had written. It doesn't seem convincing, to me, that PR wrote all those warnings borrowed from movies, then ignored them altogether. So, at least one possible answer to your question is that PR didn't read the warnings (she claimed to have only read far enough to realize JBR was kidnapped) IOWs PR may not be the author of the RN, and that would explain ignoring the warnings. If she had written the RN wouldn't she at least have mentioned the need for unmarked cars and doing everything on the QT? Even if JR had written the RN and PR was in on the cover-up she'd at least have tried to make it look like they took the RN seriously.

I don't believe the note is genuine and, in my mind, it's part of the staging. Was the body somehow supposed to be found later than it was, and could then be attributed to police involvement? Then LE are 'to blame'. And then something changed and JR decided to 'discover' the body earlier than planned. Just musings.

IMO the body wasn't to be found in the house at all. It simply makes no sense to let the police see a fishy RN then a dead body. Fishy RN + dead body = Family member killed her. Why would either or both R's present such a scenario to police? Why both JR and PR were not immediately arrested is hard to understand.

The death of JBR could not be attributed to LE presence after the body is discovered on the premises. At autopsy a reasonable estimate of TOD would be made and the police would know she died hours before they were called. Thus, she cannot have been killed because the instructions were not followed. She was already dead before the 911 call.

If the body were found outside the home -whether hours, days, or weeks later, it would look as if the "kidnappers" had killed her to prevent her from identifying them.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, "The R's" didn't call, Patsy called. Of course they can't both call but if PR wrote the note then she'd be very aware of the warnings she herself had written. It doesn't seem convincing, to me, that PR wrote all those warnings borrowed from movies, then ignored them altogether. So, at least one possible answer to your question is that PR didn't read the warnings (she claimed to have only read far enough to realize JBR was kidnapped) IOWs PR may not be the author of the RN, and that would explain ignoring the warnings. If she had written the RN wouldn't she at least have mentioned the need for unmarked cars and doing everything on the QT? Even if JR had written the RN and PR was in on the cover-up she'd at least have tried to make it look like they took the RN seriously.





IMO the body wasn't to be found in the house at all. It simply makes no sense to let the police see a fishy RN then a dead body. Fishy RN + dead body = Family member killed her. Why would either or both R's present such a scenario to police? Why both JR and PR were not immediately arrested is hard to understand.

The death of JBR could not be attributed to LE presence after the body is discovered on the premises. At autopsy a reasonable estimate of TOD would be made and the police would know she died hours before they were called. Thus, she cannot have been killed because the instructions were not followed. She was already dead before the 911 call.

If the body were found outside the home -whether hours, days, or weeks later, it would look as if the "kidnappers" had killed her to prevent her from identifying them.

Chrishope,

If the body were found outside the home -whether hours, days, or weeks later, it would look as if the "kidnappers" had killed her to prevent her from identifying them.

mmm, why bother kidnapping JonBenet if you intend to kill her and not follow up on any ransom demand? Why not just kill her in the house and leave her there?

Even if JR had written the RN and PR was in on the cover-up she'd at least have tried to make it look like they took the RN seriously.

PR simply regarded the contents of the RN as mere dramatic rhetoric, with the death threat added as a convincing flourish. She can ignore this small detail since she knows JonBenet is already dead, and needs to act distraught during the 911 call.

Fishy RN + dead body outside the house can still mean a family member killed her, since all the same questions arise, why kill the abductee when you can make a claim for return of her body?

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

mmm, why bother kidnapping JonBenet if you intend to kill her and not follow up on any ransom demand? Why not just kill her in the house and leave her there?

John was prepared to part with 118K following up on the ransom demand.

PR simply regarded the contents of the RN as mere dramatic rhetoric, with the death threat added as a convincing flourish.

This might be true if she was not the author, though the death threats would have to be an unconvincing flourish.

She can ignore this small detail since she knows JonBenet is already dead, and needs to act distraught during the 911 call.

She can't ignore it if she's going to expect the cops to take the RN seriously. She has to take it seriously first.

Fishy RN + dead body outside the house can still mean a family member killed her, ...

That's true, but it can also mean an intruder did it. Fishy RN + body can only mean a family member did it unless one thinks the police ought to be stupid enough to believe IDI. The staging of a kidnapping gone wrong is either highly unlikely (because if we don't believe it why should the cops?) or one must accept that IDI is in fact a likely solution. Staging a kidnapping gone wrong is asking the cops to believe IDI.

... since all the same questions arise, why kill the abductee when you can make a claim for return of her body?

.

??? The "abductee" is already dead, hence the need to fake some sort of coverup to keep from going to prison. Going back to jslk's question, if the body is found in the house there is no way to ask for the return of the body, and no way to blame it on "kidnappers" who obviously don't exist. (Unless, again, you are prepared to accept IDI as a plausible explanation of this murder mystery)

 

[singularity]

Another question: the ransom note. Why did the Rs immediately call 911 when it says their daughter will be murdered if LE are involved?

This has always been the most absurd question asked since this murder happened.

If your child was kidnapped, I don't care what a ransom note says, you and every single person who has asked this question would call 911 a nanosecond after reading the note.

Or are you going to twiddle your thumbs for god knows how long while your child is in danger or already dead?

I understand people believing they had something to do with it but faulting them for calling 911 makes no sense at all.

 

[andreww]

This has always been the most absurd question asked since this murder happened.

If your child was kidnapped, I don't care what a ransom note says, you and every single person who has asked this question would call 911 a nanosecond after reading the note.

Or are you going to twiddle your thumbs for god knows how long while your child is in danger or already dead?

I understand people believing they had something to do with it but faulting them for calling 911 makes no sense at all.

I don't disagree singularity, but consider this. John had a brand new cell phone, never been used. Why not call from that as the intruders would be less likely to monitor that line? Why not mention to the 911 operator that the note said not to call them, so the would respond in unmarked cars? No, they totally disregarded the threat and the only conceivable explanation for that is that they knew the threat was not real.

 

[Sika]

No footprints in the snow, right? That would seem to preclude someone coming in from outside.

 

[andreww]

No footprints in the snow, right? That would seem to preclude someone coming in from outside.

I don't put much stock in the lack of footprints. There was only a light dusting of snow that morning with relatively mild temperatures. As the sun came up any of that light snow, especially on paved surfaces would have quickly melted. Ramsey friends were among the first at the scene and John said he made a trip to the garage before LE arrived, if there was snow, there had to be at least some prints. Also, what time did that snow fall? If an intruder was out of the house by 2:00 and it snowed at 4:00 there would be no prints either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InstantProof]

I don't disagree singularity, but consider this. John had a brand new cell phone, never been used. Why not call from that as the intruders would be less likely to monitor that line? Why not mention to the 911 operator that the note said not to call them, so the would respond in unmarked cars? No, they totally disregarded the threat and the only conceivable explanation for that is that they knew the threat was not real.

Patsy said she didn't read the whole letter before calling 911. She got the gist of it from the first few lines and went to check JB and then called 911. She looked at the end for a signature. That sounds reasonable to me, even though I don't believe her story. John was supposedly reading the letter while she called 911 so I think by the time she was calling all the neighbors over he should have stopped her. My theory a while back was that the letter is 3 pages so they can do what the letter says not to, but say that they didn't see that part because it's buried in the middle.

 

[andreww]

Patsy said she didn't read the whole letter before calling 911. She got the gist of it from the first few lines and went to check JB and then called 911. She looked at the end for a signature. That sounds reasonable to me, even though I don't believe her story. John was supposedly reading the letter while she called 911 so I think by the time she was calling all the neighbors over he should have stopped her. My theory a while back was that the letter is 3 pages so they can do what the letter says not to, but say that they didn't see that part because it's buried in the middle.

If you look at Patsy's second interview, she talks about standing at the front door waiting for LE to arrive, wondering if she's made a mistake by ignoring the demands of the note. How she wondered that when she supposedly didn't read the note is beyond me!

But let's be realistic here. That note can be read in less than a minute. I find it very hard to believe that neither of them would have read that threat before calling LE.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk