By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

Cottonstar · Nov 3, 2017

I dont know who killed JonBenét. But, to say BR being responsible for her death is preposterous, is well, preposterous itself.

PDI hero, Steve Thomas was on Tricias True Crime Radio with Chief Kolar back in December of 2012.

Ive detailed a few quotes from the show with Mr. Thomas below:

I just am very impressed with his book, and what hes put forth.

I didnt think much surprised me about the case anymore until, I read his book, and read, you know, some profound and staggeringly, significant revelations that he made about things that went on, and a couple of items of evidentiary nature.

Regardless if, Chief Kolar, and I, may have some differences in opinion within the case, I think we share more things in common, then we do apart, as far as the case goes.

One of the things Chief Kolar mentioned in his book that may prove quite helpful, is subpoenas, or demands on perhaps, certain medical or psychiatric records or any number of things.

Has Steve Thomas changed his who-dun-it? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But thats not really the point Im trying to make.

The point is that, Steve Thomas respects and values Kolars Investigative work and vision on the case. He knows the childrens medical and psychiatric records are important.

Why did someone break into the department of Social Services and pilfer Burke Ramseys records in June of 1997?

One thing I know for sure is that all three Rams are involved and are responsible for the ongoing cover-up. So, if your rooting for BR/JR to win his lawsuit against CBS, then yes, you are a Ramsey apologist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

s(he) be(lie)ve(d) · Nov 3, 2017

Cottonstar said:
I don’t know who killed JonBenét. But, to say BR being responsible for her death is preposterous, is well, preposterous itself.

PDI hero, Steve Thomas was on Tricia’s True Crime Radio with Chief Kolar back in December of 2012.

I’ve detailed a few quotes from the show with Mr. Thomas below:

“I just am very impressed with his book, and what he’s put forth.”

“I didn’t think much surprised me about the case anymore until, I read his book, and read, you know, some profound and staggeringly, significant revelations that he made about things that went on, and a couple of items of evidentiary nature.”

“Regardless if, Chief Kolar, and I, may have some differences in opinion within the case, I think we share more things in common, then we do apart, as far as the case goes.”

“One of the things Chief Kolar mentioned in his book that may prove quite helpful, is subpoenas, or demands on perhaps, certain medical or psychiatric records or any number of things.”

Has Steve Thomas changed his who-dun-it? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But that’s not really the point I’m trying to make.

The point is that, Steve Thomas respects and values Kolar’s Investigative work and vision on the case. He knows the children’s medical and psychiatric records are important.

Why did someone break into the department of Social Services and pilfer Burke Ramsey’s records in June of 1997?

One thing I know for sure is that all three Rams are involved and are responsible for the ongoing cover-up. So, if your rooting for BR/JR to win his lawsuit against CBS, then yes, you are a Ramsey apologist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Excellent post! :takeabow:

archieil · Nov 3, 2017

I think that there was some external molestation but I am not sure if it was direct or indirect.

Situation after the crime can suggest that you were overreacting for publicity or someone (or some group) wanted to clean any evidence pointing to him/them.

I am not eager to check reports and I do not have access to most of them probably. I doubt they are available somewhere.

I can only push some ideas so knowledgeable ones could rethink their thesis.

This was not an average situation and I do not have access to any statistics which could clear something.

Access to her medical past and what was done for health reasons to her and to her close surroundings could be helpful.

UKGuy · Nov 3, 2017

Peppermintswirlz said:
Why would believing the perpetrator was Burke have cause the Ramsey's pediatrician to hide evidence of sexual abuse?

I couldn't count how many cases there have been that have been discussed right here on Websleuths that involved a child ending up dead after mandatory reporters repeatedly ignored obvious signs of abuse and most of the parents in those cases didn't have the kind of wealth and social standing that surrounded The Ramsey's as a protective shield.

From Ann Louise Bardach's Vanity Fair article (October 1997): Dr. Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic pathologist, has no doubt that the 45-pound child was molested. If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested, he has said. The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. The genital injuries indicate penetration, he says, but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation.

Note that Wecht, one of the world's most noted and experienced forensic pathologists, refers to "the father," and not "the brother." I don't think it even occurred to him that Burke could have been responsible for those injuries.

Peppermintswirlz.
Oh you left Steve Thomas out. He viewed all the magnified photographs of JonBenet's genitals, he knew she had been assaulted, no doubt about. Steve Thomas, Just like James Kolar will have read over Dr Andrew Sirotnak's second medical examination of JonBenet, so they know one way or the other!

Yet Steve Thomas in his book is saying the case is PDI and its really a bedwetting case gone wrong?

One thing I know is that these books are not allowed to publish the truth only theories, otherwise the authors get sued by their ex-employers.

What does that tell you ?

.

icedtea4me · Nov 3, 2017

UKGuy said:
*snip*One thing I know is that these books are not allowed to publish the truth only theories, otherwise the authors get sued by their ex-employers.

What does that tell you ?

.

And what about the authors who have not been sued?

singularity · Nov 4, 2017

Peppermintswirlz said:
Why would believing the perpetrator was Burke have cause the Ramsey's pediatrician to hide evidence of sexual abuse?

I couldn't count how many cases there have been that have been discussed right here on Websleuths that involved a child ending up dead after mandatory reporters repeatedly ignored obvious signs of abuse and most of the parents in those cases didn't have the kind of wealth and social standing that surrounded The Ramsey's as a protective shield.

From Ann Louise Bardach's Vanity Fair article (October 1997): “Dr. Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic pathologist, has no doubt that the 45-pound child was molested. ‘If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested,’ he has said. The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. ‘The genital injuries indicate penetration,’ he says, ‘but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation.’”

Note that Wecht, one of the world's most noted and experienced forensic pathologists, refers to "the father," and not "the brother." I don't think it even occurred to him that Burke could have been responsible for those injuries.

Burke was ruled out fairly quickly(of murder anyways) by LE. The experts were more concerned with the murder/assault that night and with Burke ruled out, little to no attention was going to be aimed in his direction by anyone.

They didn't focus on JAR either and statistically speaking he was a much more likely abuser of children in the house than the surviving younger sibling. Why didn't they focus on him either in this regard? Because like with Burke there's no evidence he killed her so he was ruled out.

When taking these two siblings out of the equation for better or worse, by default it leaves John.

IMO the overlapping crimes(murder and molestation) in this case threw a spanner in the works and out of all the reasons the case was never solved, it's fairly high on the list.

Why would believing the perpetrator was Burke have cause the Ramsey's pediatrician to hide evidence of sexual abuse?

Due to the fact they were six and nine year olds, it could've been chalked up as child's play/playing doctor without any need to hide anything.

Swirlz · Nov 4, 2017

singularity said:
Due to the fact they were six and nine year olds, it could've been chalked up as child's play/playing doctor without any need to hide anything.

Kids playing doctor? JonBenet's vaginal opening was twice the size of a normal vagina of a child her age..

singularity · Nov 4, 2017

Peppermintswirlz said:
Kids playing doctor? JonBenet's vaginal opening was twice the size of a normal vagina of a child her age..

I'm aware of that. They didn't think he did that...and neither do I. Which is why any contact between the two(such as the LHP incident) can be chalked up as kids playing doctor. Anything her pediatrician might have noticed would've been during her last physical exam(if he checked), not at autopsy.

UKGuy · Nov 5, 2017

singularity said:
I'm aware of that. They didn't think he did that...and neither do I. Which is why any contact between the two(such as the LHP incident) can be chalked up as kids playing doctor. Anything her pediatrician might have noticed would've been during her last physical exam(if he checked), not at autopsy.

singularity
My understanding is that De Beuf says he never did a full genital examination on JonBenet EVER ! He has to say that since if prior chronic sexual assault on JonBenet can be demonstrated then he is in trouble since he missed it and he is not paid to do that?

Another take is multiple concurrent abuse by family members, with one proving fatal?

.

s(he) be(lie)ve(d) · Nov 6, 2017

Singularity,

Yes, I did get caught up in poop gate MANY months ago (not a shining moment). I haven’t brought it up since, but you yet again have. Here’s an example of twisting my words or putting words in my mouth.

My Post. Would parents who were abusing their children put them in therapy? It’s doubtful.

Your response. You're actually saying that children in therapy have never been abused? WOW

Would the abusing parent put the abused child in the position to tell a therapist? It’s just too absurd to entertain. Where did I say NO abused child goes to therapy?

And again

My post. Parents are abusing the kids and none of the court mandated reporters report, really?

Your response. So not only do you believe children placed in therapy aren't being abused but you also believe court reporters always detect and report it.

I was referencing the many court mandated reporters in the childs/childrens lives and the fact that not ONE of them reported. Where did I say they ALWAYS detect and report? There was a Pediatrician,therapist/s, school administrators, teachers, school nurses, I think there was even a school psychologist (?) I could be wrong about that. I’m not referring to just the sexual abuse, but physical abuse as well. They however wouldn’t have reported it, if it was a child and he was getting help already. He was in therapy prior to12/25/96 why? Equally important, why was the six y/o in therapy. Either P/JR were personally abusing her, or they were getting her help, but they weren’t doing both. Interestingly enough’ P/JR weren’t indicted for sexual abuse. Huh, wonder who the GJ thought was responsible for that?

Your Post. I'm not twisting your words or putting words in your mouth. I quote your words...and not out of context either.

Well I think I’ve proven this to be untrue.

I’m not going to talk about the feces, but I will correct you on it. More than LHP talked about the feces, there was also the nanny Geraldine Vodicka. There’s evidence of a POSSIBLE fecal issue.

Your post. Statute of limitations for all charges except murder is long pastexpired. In the event of BDI, investigation should've closed eons ago.

Not true, who applied the garrote? That’s the person who killed her. The GJ’s, who did what dilemma. The adult R’s were looking at charges either way and JR still could be, if he tied the garrote. Again, I don’t believe BR was in this by himself. And none of them want to beknown for doing any of it.

Your post. These extreme emotional reactions and feelings I supposedly have towards any specific 'DI' exist only in your head.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sorry that I asked for your experience. However, I didn’t ask for anything I’m not willing to give. I was a Social and Human Services Assistant for fifteen years. I worked specifically as a social worker assistant for D.C.F.S. After that, I gave five years to CASA. The last four years I’ve spent countless hours with child psychologists, therapists,and support groups for abused and abusive children. This doesn’t make my theory right or me a know it all, because I don’t know it all. I asked for yours, because it seems like you do.

I don’t know for sure who killed that poor little girl, but my experience tells me BR was involved. If I’m wrong, I’ll take my crow with ketchup and a nice Chianti.

TheMwhisperer · Nov 15, 2017

Tricia said:
After watching the programs for the past week and a half it will be interesting to see if people have changed their mind as to what happened with JonBenet Ramsey.

Please vote and then comment if you like.

Thank you for your participation.

Tricia

Certainty an accident. I looked at the mother, and I saw in her eyes actually looking at it as it was happening...

TheMwhisperer · Nov 15, 2017

TheMwhisperer said:
Certainty an accident. I looked at the mother, and I saw in her eyes actually looking at it as it was happening...

Let me explain further..like everyone, I always wondered 'Who Did It'. But just recently, I happen to come up with a new technique that can pinpoint who did it. So, when I looked at this case, I decided to give it a try and see if now if I can tell who did it.

I first scanned the Father (i always suspected he was the one), and to my surprise he is completely innocent.
He might have known who done it but he had nothing to do with it...he did not see it happen. He did not commit the crime. So, he's out as a suspect. Then I scanned the Mother...and it hit me like a ton of bricks!

I said to myself, "OMG, she did it!" Not only did my scan pointed her out, but I was even able to see in her eyes her looking at the crime scene as it was happening in her mind.

I don't think she meant to do it, these things happen...I can understand her not wanting to go to jail.

It was disturbing for me to continue to look at her, she was in so much pain over what happen.

I cannot look at her anymore, it's just to painful. I didn't know I was capable of seeing so much in her.

I do scans all the time now with photos or videos. So far I have been 100 percent accurate.

I would like to transfer my abilities to artificial programs so that others can use it.

Hopefully it can be used to keep innocent people out of jail.

TheMwhispherer

BBB167893 · Nov 21, 2017

TheMwhisperer said:
Let me explain further..like everyone, I always wondered 'Who Did It'. But just recently, I happen to come up with a new technique that can pinpoint who did it. So, when I looked at this case, I decided to give it a try and see if now if I can tell who did it.

I first scanned the Father (i always suspected he was the one), and to my surprise he is completely innocent.
He might have known who done it but he had nothing to do with it...he did not see it happen. He did not commit the crime. So, he's out as a suspect. Then I scanned the Mother...and it hit me like a ton of bricks!

I said to myself, "OMG, she did it!" Not only did my scan pointed her out, but I was even able to see in her eyes her looking at the crime scene as it was happening in her mind.

I don't think she meant to do it, these things happen...I can understand her not wanting to go to jail.

It was disturbing for me to continue to look at her, she was in so much pain over what happen.

I cannot look at her anymore, it's just to painful. I didn't know I was capable of seeing so much in her.

I do scans all the time now with photos or videos. So far I have been 100 percent accurate.

I would like to transfer my abilities to artificial programs so that others can use it.

Hopefully it can be used to keep innocent people out of jail.

TheMwhispherer

That would be awesome.

Sailor Haumea · Dec 9, 2017

SecretaryGal said:
Interesting. I see 5 folks believe IDI. I would love to hear the theory on this.

Did they/he/she:

(1) Write RN first, then try to kidnap (but things go wrong?) so, set up an elaborate crime scene instead and leave the body behind? or

(2) Try to kidnap first, things go wrong, and then write up an elaborate, totally worthless RN (to what end?)

I'm really trying to see how this can even be plausible....

Speaking as an IDIer, any of these scenarios:

1. The ransom note is written first. He intends to kidnap JonBénet but return her unharmed when the ransom is paid, but in the process accidentally kills her. He panics and flees.

2. The ransom note is written first. He never intended to kidnap JonBénet. He went in with the intent to murder this girl, and the note was just a way to torment the family.

3. A combination of the above. He planned to return her...dead. Just like William Edward Hickman tormented the parents of Marion Parker by giving them false hope, the kidnapper intended to give JonBénet back upon the payment of the ransom, but deceased.

4. The ransom note is written afterwards. He botched the kidnapping.

5. The ransom note is written afterwards. He never intended to take her alive, and this was his way of further tormenting them.

6. He didn't write the note - Patsy did, thinking that Burke or John did it and was covering for him. Botched kidnapping.

7. He didn't write the note - Patsy did. He went in, killed her, and left.

There's many, many different ways that an intruder could have gone about this. It's not even necessary for him to have written the letter at all - it's entirely possible that Patsy wrote it, thinking she was covering up a murder committed by Burke or John.

I can't see any member of this family committing such a violent crime towards JonBénet. No history of violence before or after the crime? Come on.

All the Ramseys are guilty of is being found guilty in the court of public opinion, or perhaps covering up a crime they think one of their own did but which they didn't.

UKGuy · Dec 9, 2017

Sailor Haumea said:
Speaking as an IDIer, any of these scenarios:

1. The ransom note is written first. He intends to kidnap JonBénet but return her unharmed when the ransom is paid, but in the process accidentally kills her. He panics and flees.

2. The ransom note is written first. He never intended to kidnap JonBénet. He went in with the intent to murder this girl, and the note was just a way to torment the family.

3. A combination of the above. He planned to return her...dead. Just like William Edward Hickman tormented the parents of Marion Parker by giving them false hope, the kidnapper intended to give JonBénet back upon the payment of the ransom, but deceased.

4. The ransom note is written afterwards. He botched the kidnapping.

5. The ransom note is written afterwards. He never intended to take her alive, and this was his way of further tormenting them.

6. He didn't write the note - Patsy did, thinking that Burke or John did it and was covering for him. Botched kidnapping.

7. He didn't write the note - Patsy did. He went in, killed her, and left.

There's many, many different ways that an intruder could have gone about this. It's not even necessary for him to have written the letter at all - it's entirely possible that Patsy wrote it, thinking she was covering up a murder committed by Burke or John.

I can't see any member of this family committing such a violent crime towards JonBénet. No history of violence before or after the crime? Come on.

All the Ramseys are guilty of is being found guilty in the court of public opinion, or perhaps covering up a crime they think one of their own did but which they didn't.

Sailor Haumea,
One thing we do know is how dysfunctional the family was, so really the children were neglected unless they were included in Patsy's Project portfolio.

The dynamic at play might include JR and BR with Patsy looking on? JonBenet might have learned intimate behaviour from one family member and displayed it with another?

What we need to see is Dr Andrew Sirotnak's second medical examination write up since that will confirm if her genital injury was staged or was for real?

Do intruders stage sexual assaults on abductees?

.

juli99 · Apr 2, 2018

Sailor Haumea said:
Speaking as an IDIer, any of these scenarios:

1. The ransom note is written first. He intends to kidnap JonBénet but return her unharmed when the ransom is paid, but in the process accidentally kills her. He panics and flees.

2. The ransom note is written first. He never intended to kidnap JonBénet. He went in with the intent to murder this girl, and the note was just a way to torment the family.

3. A combination of the above. He planned to return her...dead. Just like William Edward Hickman tormented the parents of Marion Parker by giving them false hope, the kidnapper intended to give JonBénet back upon the payment of the ransom, but deceased.

4. The ransom note is written afterwards. He botched the kidnapping.

5. The ransom note is written afterwards. He never intended to take her alive, and this was his way of further tormenting them.

6. He didn't write the note - Patsy did, thinking that Burke or John did it and was covering for him. Botched kidnapping.

7. He didn't write the note - Patsy did. He went in, killed her, and left.

There's many, many different ways that an intruder could have gone about this. It's not even necessary for him to have written the letter at all - it's entirely possible that Patsy wrote it, thinking she was covering up a murder committed by Burke or John.

I can't see any member of this family committing such a violent crime towards JonBénet. No history of violence before or after the crime? Come on.

All the Ramseys are guilty of is being found guilty in the court of public opinion, or perhaps covering up a crime they think one of their own did but which they didn't.

I can't see it either. The one thing I cannot believe is that a parent would strangle a child after an unintentional head injury. I have come to the belief that there were at least two intruders, maybe more.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

AndHence · Apr 3, 2018

Sailor Haumea said:
Speaking as an IDIer, any of these scenarios:

1. The ransom note is written first. He intends to kidnap JonBénet but return her unharmed when the ransom is paid, but in the process accidentally kills her. He panics and flees.

2. The ransom note is written first. He never intended to kidnap JonBénet. He went in with the intent to murder this girl, and the note was just a way to torment the family.

3. A combination of the above. He planned to return her...dead. Just like William Edward Hickman tormented the parents of Marion Parker by giving them false hope, the kidnapper intended to give JonBénet back upon the payment of the ransom, but deceased.

4. The ransom note is written afterwards. He botched the kidnapping.

5. The ransom note is written afterwards. He never intended to take her alive, and this was his way of further tormenting them.

6. He didn't write the note - Patsy did, thinking that Burke or John did it and was covering for him. Botched kidnapping.

7. He didn't write the note - Patsy did. He went in, killed her, and left.

There's many, many different ways that an intruder could have gone about this. It's not even necessary for him to have written the letter at all - it's entirely possible that Patsy wrote it, thinking she was covering up a murder committed by Burke or John.

I can't see any member of this family committing such a violent crime towards JonBénet. No history of violence before or after the crime? Come on.

All the Ramseys are guilty of is being found guilty in the court of public opinion, or perhaps covering up a crime they think one of their own did but which they didn't.

1) Why write a note in his own handwriting (volunteering vital forensic evidence) instead of just bringing a typewritten note in advance?

2) Again, why is the note handwritten? Why not take the body and taunt them with phone calls to draw out the torment?

3) If he wanted to kill her AND receive the ransom, why didn't he take the body with him in order to achieve that?

4) If the kidnapping is botched (presumably by killing JonBenet), why stick around to write a lengthy fake ransom note? You left no other evidence of yourself behind, why make this mistake?

5) Again, how long could the torment reasonably be expected to go on for? He literally just moved JonBenet from her room to the cellar. He had to assume she'd be found immediately (she wasn't, but this was due to a series of errors).

6) So Patsy happened to get up in the middle of the night, went down to the basement for no reason, and found JonBenet dead and thought, "I bet my son or husband did this. Welp, better write a ransom note covering for them!" Highly improbable.

7) My answer is the same as for #6 because in this scenario Patsy must still think someone in her family did it. Perhaps you are implying she knew the intruder and covered for him? If she was in cahoots with the intruder, why not plan this murder while John was on a business trip or something? Christmas night? Really? Again, highly improbable.

icedtea4me · Apr 3, 2018

juli99 said:
I can't see it either. The one thing I cannot believe is that a parent would strangle a child after an unintentional head injury. I have come to the belief that there were at least two intruders, maybe more.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Are you talking about one parent doing both the blow to the head and the strangulation? If so, I can't see it either.

juli99 · Apr 3, 2018

icedtea4me said:
Are you talking about one parent doing both the blow to the head and the strangulation? If so, I can't see it either.

Yes. I can actually see Patsy doing everything else, but not the strangulation. And I struggle to see John letting Patsy write that ransom note (among other things), which is why I don't see him as involved.

juli99 · Apr 3, 2018

AndHence said:
1) Why write a note in his own handwriting (volunteering vital forensic evidence) instead of just bringing a typewritten note in advance?

2) Again, why is the note handwritten? Why not take the body and taunt them with phone calls to draw out the torment?

3) If he wanted to kill her AND receive the ransom, why didn't he take the body with him in order to achieve that?

4) If the kidnapping is botched (presumably by killing JonBenet), why stick around to write a lengthy fake ransom note? You left no other evidence of yourself behind, why make this mistake?

5) Again, how long could the torment reasonably be expected to go on for? He literally just moved JonBenet from her room to the cellar. He had to assume she'd be found immediately (she wasn't, but this was due to a series of errors).

6) So Patsy happened to get up in the middle of the night, went down to the basement for no reason, and found JonBenet dead and thought, "I bet my son or husband did this. Welp, better write a ransom note covering for them!" Highly improbable.

7) My answer is the same as for #6 because in this scenario Patsy must still think someone in her family did it. Perhaps you are implying she knew the intruder and covered for him? If she was in cahoots with the intruder, why not plan this murder while John was on a business trip or something? Christmas night? Really? Again, highly improbable.

I think there was more than one intruder. One wrote the ransom note, someone else was with JonBenet. And yet possibly another accomplice was at home, but the mastermind.

The person who was with Jonbenet hit her on the head with the flashlight when she screamed, screwing up all their plans. The person who wrote the ransom note had to fix the situation, by strangling her. JMO

By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

By Accident or on Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

An Intruder Killed JonBenet and Covered Up the Crime

Patsy Ramsey Acted Alone in Killing JonBenet and Covering Up the Crime

John Ramsey Acted Alone in Killing JonBenet and Covering Up the Crime

Burke Killed JonBenet with Patsy and John Helping to Cover Up the Crime

John and Patsy Acted Together in Killing JonBenet and Covering Up the Crime

Other/I Don't Know

Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes

Member

On Time Out

Well-Known Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics