Why doesn't anyone think it could've been John.

[887sMtreme]

She was only at the halfway point, so she was far from being in the clear. She still had to be scanned and pray that no cancer cells would be found.

Chemo is only part of the long-term treatment, but IIRC, she had completed it and was no longer suffering from its most debilitating side effects. She was quite active that Christmas.

 

[ivegotthemic]

Sorry if this has already been discussed. Ive always felt JBs bedwetting gets easily dismissed. In a 6 year old the cause had to either be physical or a result of trauma. People usually claim it was because of PRs cancer but im not convince a 6 year old would comprehend what cancer was, especially since PR still looked relatively healthy

 

[southernmimi]

No. There is no agreement about whether the blow to the head came firstly or secondly. The only certainty is that strangulation was the cause of death. Dr Wecht concluded that the blow came secondly, due to the small amount of bleeding in the brain.

I can understand someone not knowing about the severity of the head wound and thinking JBR was deceased. Whoever did the hit may have thought she couldn't be saved and strangled her to make it appear an intruder killed her. The possibilities of who, what, when and where seem endless.

 

[proust20]

southernmimi

Certainly, the order of the strangulation and blow to the head is open to question. However, I do not see that the strangulation is particularly suggestive of IDI, especially as it was done with PR's paintbrush. There is also the open question of whether the head blow and the strangulation were done by the same person. In any case, these two lethal activities had to be accomplished within a brief time span of each other.

 

[icedtea4me]

Chemo is only part of the long-term treatment, but IIRC, she had completed it and was no longer suffering from its most debilitating side effects. She was quite active that Christmas.

I didn't say anything about chemo. Patsy still had to be scanned and if any [cancer cells] were found, she would die.

 

[UKGuy]

I can understand someone not knowing about the severity of the head wound and thinking JBR was deceased. Whoever did the hit may have thought she couldn't be saved and strangled her to make it appear an intruder killed her. The possibilities of who, what, when and where seem endless.

southernmimi,
I reckon you are more right than wrong. The possibilities are constrained by physics and the suspects, i.e. the residents.

have thought she couldn't be saved and strangled her to make it appear an intruder killed her.

Yes, also the strangulation might have been intended to hide/mask some prior neck injury?

The wine-cellar is really a staged crime-scene, in essence it never happened.

.

 

[proust20]

The WC was likely chosen for the staging as it has no windows, and so the lights could be turned on without detection by neighbors.

 

[Erasmus]

Hi everyone. I’m new here, but I’ve been reading for years (both here and other forums) so feel pretty clued up about the case.

I have always believed it was John. Always. Absolutely no other explanation makes sense & the reasons given for why he should be ruled out have always struck me as without any merit at all.

All of the evidence available strongly suggests that JB was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. In cases where the hymen of a girl under the age of 15 is basically absent, the cause is invariably sexual abuse. I can’t recall the exact figure but it’s something like 99% or thereabouts. That’s shocking.

This doesn’t tell us who abused her, of course - but the chances of a prepubescent boy engaging in something so invasive as to cause lasting internal damage is extremely small. Sibling abuse becomes more common once puberty strikes, of course, but when you have two potential perpetrators of this kind of assault - one sexually mature the other prepubescent then the sexually mature individual is significantly more likely.

Mothers do sometimes absue their daughters (or sons) but it’s extremely rare and often there are other factors involved - drug/alcohol/mental health &/or abuse to order.

So, of the three in the family, John is overwhelmingly more likely to have been sexually abusing JB. Doesn’t mean it WAS him, of course, but he most certainly should not be ruled out.

I do accept that there’s no evidence of paedophilia on his part, or even sexual deviancy at all. But any psychologist will state that the vast, vast majority of sexual abuse within families is not carried out by people who could be clinically classified as paedophiles or have displayed deviancy with any other partner. This is why the wives and partners of men caught committing this kind of crime often find it impossible to believe.

So, it COULD have been John....and even if it was, it doesn’t mean he murdered her.

This is a bit long so I’ll make another post.

(Hope no one minds me jumping in with a dissertation on this, just want to lay out all my thoughts!)

 

[Erasmus]

Another reason people seem keen to rule him out is the handwriting analysis.

I’ve made a point of reading up as much as I can about this and one thing I’ve learned about forensic handwriting analysis is a) it is not a science and b) when handwriting is deliberately disguised it is close to impossible to match it successfully.

One bizarre piece of information I keep reading is that John’s left hand sample did not match the ransom letter. So what? This is only significant if he actually used his left hand to write it. Who says he did? Not everyone trying to disguise their handwriting does this. I wouldn’t because when I try it looks like something a 3 year old would write, and I can’t even keep the writing straight on the lines. Whoever wrote that letter could easily have used their dominant hand and simply found another way of disguising their handwriting...tracing from a typed script, for example, or trying to ape someone else’s.

However it was done, the very fact that deliberately disguised handwriting cannot reliably rule anyone in or out must mean that John stays firmly on the suspect list.

But it’s the very existence of the ransom note itself that nails it for me. I don’t believe that anyone but John WOULD have written it as he’s the only person who would benefit from it.

 

[Erasmus]

No intruder would have written that note. Anyone planning to kidnap JB would have brought a prepared note with them - and it would have been typed. The fact that it was written in disguised, inconsistent handwriting on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen means that it was almost certainly a scrabbled together, spontaneous letter born of desperation & intent to mislead.

An intruding pervert would never have hung around like that - he’d have taken her and gone. The forensics indicate that she was abused while unconscious so, if an intruder didn’t need her awake, why leave her at all? Anyone coming in to take JB, for any reason, would have done exactly that - not hung around writing long letters, cleaning her body, searching for fresh underwear and then hiding her in the most remote part of the house.

No way. It was someone in the house. Or, maybe, two as many believe.

Even if Burke abused her then hit her with the torch, he didn’t write the letter, fashion the garrotte or clean her - that had to be either of her parents, or both working together.

I find this absurd, quite frankly, and the CBS documentary pushing this explanation is farcical.

In what universe do two parents find their child unconcious and, rather than call an ambulance, finish her off by garrotting her, violate her with a paint brush and then leave her dumped like so much rubbish in the basement?

These two brainiacs then stage a failed kidnap plot/sex crime scenario which they then immediately ruin by calling the police in the early hours. The ransom letter achieved nothing at all for them...so why bother to write it - on their own paper, with their own pen with their own hand!

Would it not have been easier just to put her at the bottom of the spiral stairs and say she fell if they wanted a cover up? Who the hell disguises an accident as a murder?

Please.

And why stage a kidnap, leave a letter full of threats to kill if the police are called - and then immediately call the police?

As Judge Judy says, if it makes no sense, it’s because it’s not true. But that ransom letter was written for a reason.

I think this is what happened:

John went to JB’s room after Patsy was asleep. She got upset (of course) and maybe became noisy in her distress. John takes her downstairs to placate her - feeds her pineapple and makes himself tea, as a cover in case Pasty comes down. He tries to calm JB but can’t. She says she’s telling Mummy and in a panic, John hits her with the torch causing immediate unconsciousness.

He thinks she’s dead. This head injury was not survivable so her breathing may have been instantly supressed & her pulse faint, so a panicked man could think this.

He knows his abuse of her earlier could be evident on her body so he cleans her pubic area, discards her underwear and sneaks upstairs for a fresh pair. At this stage he is planning a “she fell down the stairs in the night” accident scene.

He then worries that systemic abuse of her might be evident internally & his DNA may even be inside her body so he changes his plan to one of “sex pervert broke in”. He takes her to the basement, uses the painbrush to try and remove traces of himself by causing bruising & bleeding (which wouldn’t have worked if she was dead, but he didn’t know that) and stages the garrotte to make it look like a sex crime. This actually kills her, which he may or may not have known.

He then goes back to bed having hidden her body but continues to worry - what if the autopsy finds XYZ? He’s no expert, but he doesn’t want to risk it. Seeing that Patsy is fast asleep, he goes back downstairs and writes the ransom letter - his best bet is to make sure that JB’s body never ends up being autopsied at all.

He wants to get her out of the house so fills the ransom letter with dire threats if the police are called, hoping that this will cause Patsy to be willing to delay calling 911. He will send her & Burke to a friends house while he “collects the ransom money” but is really hiding JB’s body far from home.

But, Patsy, in her panic gets to the phone before he can stop her, and his plan is foiled.

What people hear as “We’re not talking to you” at the end of the 911 could have been him saying “Who are you talking to?” as he comes into the kitchen as she’s hanging up. He may have tried to tell her to call the White’s first, or something, but in her state she got confused.

 

[Erasmus]

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to something that John said in the first interview with the media.

He’s asked what he would like to say to the killer of his daughter. He says: We will find you. We will find you. I have that as the sole mission for the rest of my life”.

That’s very odd to me. This is only shortly after the murder...how does he know he’ll need his “whole life” to find this person?

It would be more normal to say what Patsy said to the same question: “Likewise. The police have assured us that this is a case that can be solved. You may be alluding the authorities for a time, but God knows who you are and we will find you”.

Patsy is expecting the police to find the killer - John is not. That’s significant to me.

Really sorry to come on with so many posts - these thoughts have been sitting in my brain for years and there’s nowhere else to dump them. (Not brave enough for Reddit!)

 

[ivegotthemic]

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to something that John said in the first interview with the media.

He’s asked what he would like to say to the killer of his daughter. He says: We will find you. We will find you. I have that as the sole mission for the rest of my life”.

That’s very odd to me. This is only shortly after the murder...how does he know he’ll need his “whole life” to find this person?

It would be more normal to say what Patsy said to the same question: “Likewise. The police have assured us that this is a case that can be solved. You may be alluding the authorities for a time, but God knows who you are and we will find you”.

Patsy is expecting the police to find the killer - John is not. That’s significant to me.

Really sorry to come on with so many posts - these thoughts have been sitting in my brain for years and there’s nowhere else to dump them. (Not brave enough for Reddit!)

Welcome, welcome. I dont blame you about Reddit, Im on Reddit everyday but I comment very rarely, it can be savage over there. I agree there maybe something too Patsy being abusive. For some reason, I always got the vibe that Patsy was jealous of JBR and perhaps it boiled over on day. My biggest issue is the bed wetting, this should have been a huge red flag some kind of trauma was happening and it was pretty much ignored.

 

[UKGuy]

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to something that John said in the first interview with the media.

He’s asked what he would like to say to the killer of his daughter. He says: We will find you. We will find you. I have that as the sole mission for the rest of my life”.

That’s very odd to me. This is only shortly after the murder...how does he know he’ll need his “whole life” to find this person?

It would be more normal to say what Patsy said to the same question: “Likewise. The police have assured us that this is a case that can be solved. You may be alluding the authorities for a time, but God knows who you are and we will find you”.

Patsy is expecting the police to find the killer - John is not. That’s significant to me.

Really sorry to come on with so many posts - these thoughts have been sitting in my brain for years and there’s nowhere else to dump them. (Not brave enough for Reddit!)

Erasmus,
Hey there, very interesting theory you have put together.

I do not care for Reddit's UI or navigation methods at all, I rarely visit the place, plus there is all that self promoted image stuff, it's a weird hybrid site that says its really a news site, duh!

I reckon the JonBenet case is either BDI or JDI with JDI slightly ahead with the realism factor.

Many things in your post can be explained away, e.g. They have to phone 911 early to fake their timeline, i.e. they were acting normal.

JonBenet was relocated to the basement to remove any links with her bedroom. Yet the autopsy report states she was wearing ponytails, i.e. her hair was dressed for bed, yet the parents both say they put her direct to bed asleep

John has many tales to tell about events and stuff in the basement, and they really do not all add up, e.g. he says he put the samsonite suitcase in the basement, now why would he need to do that, you know something he hired a housemaid to do stuff like that?

Then there is the broken window which the housemaids family missed when they were down in the basement moving Christmas decorations from the wine-cellar to upstairs.

How about this one:
June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane

20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well Patsy had gotten a bunch
21 of gifts at FAO Schwartz up in New York in early
22 December, some of which were for them were for
23 Burke's birthday, which was in January. She didn't
24 know they were in the closet exactly,

John is telling you he knew all about the gifts in the wine-cellar, really?

So how would he know, or is he lying to cover for the possibility that it was him that put them including JonBenet into the wine-cellar?

Remember Fleet White looked in the wine-cellar early that morning and never saw JonBenet or any white blanket or pink nightgown, but John did later on!

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

5 PATSY RAMSEY: These were gifts I think I was
6 holding back for Burke's birthday.
7 TRIP DEMUTH: They are in the red and white
8 and yellow FAO Schwartz wrapping?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

Get that Patsy knows all about the stuff in the closet, she never told John though!

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I had -- you know, I
21 stacked up some packages along there (inaudible).
22 Kicked (inaudible) or something. I kind of have it
23 backed up here.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. So the packages in 146,
25 it looks like it is out of place to you?
0392
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh. Yeah. See, that

She even says she put them in the wine-cellar too.

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

14 The location in picture 148 is the correct
15 place for all of the packages to have been?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
17 TOM HANEY: Before we go on, could we just
18 talk briefly about the packages, these were presents
19 for whom, the ones that were left in there?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe for, you know, I
21 held some back for Burke's birthday which is in
22 January.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
24 TOM HANEY: So that could have been that.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't remember what
1 was in them.

Patsy doubles down on knowing what is in the wine-cellar.

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.
9 So like right here it looks like I kind of
10 peeled a little back to see what was in it because I
11 couldn't remember what was in them.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: If the wrapping has been undone
13 partially, that was --
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I probably would have done
15 that to peek to see what was in there.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.

Wow, get that Patsy gift wraps and does not name-tag them at the same time, so she has to open them so who they are meant for, Pinocchio springs to mind here?

So who do we believe about the contents of the wine-cellar the housemaid and her family, John, Patsy or how about Burke who James Kolar alleges:

James Kolar, Foreign Faction, Excerpt

I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke's upcoming January birthday.

I didn?t give much thought about the presence of Christmas presents in the room at the time, but would later think these played a role in some of the events that took place on Christmas day.

So who really opened the gifts and why does it matter?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to something that John said in the first interview with the media.

He’s asked what he would like to say to the killer of his daughter. He says: We will find you. We will find you. I have that as the sole mission for the rest of my life”.

That’s very odd to me. This is only shortly after the murder...how does he know he’ll need his “whole life” to find this person?

It would be more normal to say what Patsy said to the same question: “Likewise. The police have assured us that this is a case that can be solved. You may be alluding the authorities for a time, but God knows who you are and we will find you”.

Patsy is expecting the police to find the killer - John is not. That’s significant to me.

Really sorry to come on with so many posts - these thoughts have been sitting in my brain for years and there’s nowhere else to dump them. (Not brave enough for Reddit!)

Instead of Patsy saying "I loved that child with my whole heart and soul", she says "I loved that child with my whole of my heart and soul". Or perhaps that's "I loved that child with my hole of my heart and soul".

And John actually says We will find you. We will find you. I have that as a sole mission for the rest of my life”.

 

[ivegotthemic]

Instead of Patsy saying "I loved that child with my whole heart and soul", she says "I loved that child with my whole of my heart and soul". Or perhaps that's "I loved that child with my hole of my heart and soul".

And John actually says We will find you. We will find you. I have that as a sole mission for the rest of my life”.

They certainly chose interesting language. If Patsy was abusive as has been suggested, maybe she was telling the truth in that she had no more love to offer. As for John I also find this interesting because as far as I know a "killer" has still not been identified and yet he no longer seems, and hasnt for a very long time, to have active interest in the case. Apparently the rest of ones life isnt as long as we all thought

 

[Erasmus]

Instead of Patsy saying "I loved that child with my whole heart and soul", she says "I loved that child with my whole of my heart and soul". Or perhaps that's "I loved that child with my hole of my heart and soul".

And John actually says We will find you. We will find you. I have that as a sole mission for the rest of my life”.

Huh? I quoted John exactly. And I have no idea what the rest of your post even means.

 

[ivegotthemic]

dbm

 

[icedtea4me]

Huh? I quoted John exactly. And I have no idea what the rest of your post even means.

No, you did not quote John exactly.

"We'll find you. We will find you. I have that as a sole mission for the rest of my life."

 

[Mimsy2]

I have been reading up on this case for a few months now. I think they both knew the presents were in the WC that morning regardless of who moved them there or who directed them to be moved there. I have a few theories in the works and right now I am considering the idea that at some point after the accidental blow to the head, JR followed immediately by PR, carried to JBR to the WC. I believe she was redressed there by JR. I think that a hysterical PR gave her hugs and possibly kissed her in saying goodbye leaving the fibers from her jacket on JBR. IMO it was PR who insisted on the redressing from the waist down and pointed out that the day of the week (size 12) undies were in one of those packages (some or all may have been already opened or he may have opened them in his search for the undies) .

I think JR then possibly sent a still hysterical PR upstairs to calm herself and begin to prepare the RN. JR finished the deed and returned upstairs to assist with the RN and to plot the staging. Soon after finishing the RN, JR and PR began sloppily staging the scene. I feel PR's last act in this was to grab the blanket out of the dryer and wrap JBR up lovingly saying yet another goodbye, unable to finish assisting in the staging. JR continued to stage off and on all night and morning all the way up to finding JBR in the WC. I think PR spent time balling her eyes out and pulling herself together enough to make the 911 call. Obviously at some point JR temporarily finished staging, showered, instructed PR to call 911 along with every friend he could think of to come and unknowingly assist in destroying the crime scene. As the first person arrived the show began. JR took small intermissions to continue fidgeting with the staging as ideas arose about an intruder from the audience in efforts to lead LE in that direction. When it became clear that they were still guessing and they weren't leaving when he along with FW were sent for another search to see what may be out of place...Viola! Oh My God!! He found her....
This is one of a few working theories. I am still unsure of how and who gave the accidental blow in this scenario. I lean towards PR or BR but I do not rule out any possibilities
As far as the undies it could of been either that choose to use the handy size 12's but I think it was john who wiped her clean and dressed her in them due to his shirt fibers being present in that area. I can see the gifts being already open and him noticing them, or PR informing him they are there. I believe they both would have wanted her covered for when she was discovered. I also do not think they thought far enough ahead to realize that an intruder that just sexually assaulted and killed their daughter, would not care if she was dressed or not. IMO The day of the week was chosen simply because it was Wensday and hey if you have day of the week undies you put on the correct day or it looks like you do not change your underwear regularly. At least that was the idea when I was a child with day of the week undies. Whether it was a parent or sibling that saw you with the wrong day the week undies on, there would always be the joke of, "Hey don't you change your underwear everyday?"
ETA ...
The biggest significance of the size 12 undies is the fact of who all knew they existed and who all knew there location. As well as the fact that someone grabbed them and put them on after the assault and cleaning JBR. Again an intruder would not have even thought to look through the gifts to find Christmas undies or ran upstairs to ransack the place and find JBR'S underwear drawer and grab a pair to ensure she was properly covered.
Of course this is all MOO

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Wow, get that Patsy gift wraps and does not name-tag them at the same time, so she has to open them so who they are meant for, Pinocchio springs to mind here?
<snip>

The presents were wrapped and shipped by FAO Schwartz. They would not have labeled them. The gifts are meant for Burke, but the wrapped boxes are similar in size, so she checks which one is which.