Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? POLL

  • John

    Votes: 124 8.4%
  • Patsy

    Votes: 547 37.2%
  • Burke

    Votes: 340 23.1%
  • An Intruder, (anyone including someone known to them)

    Votes: 459 31.2%

  • Total voters
    1,470
Status
Not open for further replies.

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
652
Reaction score
165
There we have it. Now I don't need to share what I think SBTC can stands for and after all that work. I'll just pack-up my toys and go home.

This was in response to a rather odd theory that isn't there anymore. I think DeeDee also responded to it. Please disregard my comment.
 

jslk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
693
Reaction score
994
Hello everyone.

I've not posted in this forum before but have just finished Kolar's book and have been reading around here a little.

It seems to me pretty obvious that there was no intruder. I don't believe there was any way for an intruder to enter and leave the property as I don't think the train room window is viable.

I also am sure there was staging to the crime scene, based upon the RN and the wrist ligatures. The only explanation for staging is to cover up the actions of someone in the house at the time.

I'm not sure beyond that - only that I believe all remaining family members colluded in the cover up. The way Burke was spirited away from the house is suspicious. Plus the points Kolar makes about the subsequent conduct of Burke in interviews.

(I don't really think I've added anything to the debate! And I share the opinion of many that no one will be prosecuted for this murder [emoji17])
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
Hello everyone.

I've not posted in this forum before but have just finished Kolar's book and have been reading around here a little.

It seems to me pretty obvious that there was no intruder. I don't believe there was any way for an intruder to enter and leave the property as I don't think the train room window is viable.

I also am sure there was staging to the crime scene, based upon the RN and the wrist ligatures. The only explanation for staging is to cover up the actions of someone in the house at the time.

I'm not sure beyond that - only that I believe all remaining family members colluded in the cover up. The way Burke was spirited away from the house is suspicious. Plus the points Kolar makes about the subsequent conduct of Burke in interviews.

(I don't really think I've added anything to the debate! And I share the opinion of many that no one will be prosecuted for this murder [emoji17])

jslk,
Welcome, there sure was a staged crime-scene, the whole thing, right down to JonBenet's size-12 underwear, and her asymmetric hair ties give the game away along with the pineapple snack.

Nobody might ever be prosecuted but we think we know who sexually assaulted JonBenet, this could be the same person who dragged JonBenet's body out of the train room and started to stage a crime-scene close to the wine-cellar?

.
 

jslk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
693
Reaction score
994
Hi Ukguy, thanks for replying. I hadn't caught on to the dragging - is that a possible explanation for the 'taser' mark aka the marks the train tracks could have made on the skin?

The pineapple is damning, it means the version of PR, that JBR was asleep the whole time, could not possibly have happened.
 

CorallaroC

New Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
438
Reaction score
2
Hi Ukguy, thanks for replying. I hadn't caught on to the dragging - is that a possible explanation for the 'taser' mark aka the marks the train tracks could have made on the skin?

The pineapple is damning, it means the version of PR, that JBR was asleep the whole time, could not possibly have happened.

Hi Jslk, I like your posts. I had not really focused on the possibility of "dragging" mostly because of JR's claim that he carried her upstairs the night before, after the party. If JBR had been dragged UP OR DOWN any staircase, I would have expected far more abrasions (indicative of rug burns). And hence (sarcasm on my part the word hence) my mind sorta didnt attempt to rationalize beyond that. Yeah, lots of things need to be re-thinked.

I have always wondered how JR or PR could have carried her easily down but especially UP a flight of spiral staircase. She wasnt an infant or toddler, she weighed what 45 lbs? I havent been able to easily carry 45 lbs since I was 40, even then not down a spiral staircase. And certainly NOT UP a spiral staircase or any staircase for that matter!

Sooo, when I read in the autopsy report about multpiple abrasions, yes that would indicate to me there could have been some dragging of her body in addition to direct assaults she suffered. I wish we knew more....

I guess in my mind i focused on an "all or nothing thing" that the PERP either dragged her from bedroom to basement, or she was carried. Silly rationalization, because the "dragging" might (as you theorize) could have been just from train room to wine cellar. A blanket is a good/easy/simple way to drag something. --and her body was found wrapped in a blanket...

interesting....ty
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
Hi Ukguy, thanks for replying. I hadn't caught on to the dragging - is that a possible explanation for the 'taser' mark aka the marks the train tracks could have made on the skin?

The pineapple is damning, it means the version of PR, that JBR was asleep the whole time, could not possibly have happened.

jslk,
Yes I'm theorizing that many of the abrasions on JonBenet's body arrived because she was dragged along the floor? Dragging would produce those taser like marks.

Part of my thinking centers on the train room, why would JR offer an account that placed him and BR so close to the staged crime-scene: to mask any prior forensic evidence.

Then there is the chair being moved around, was that someone moving the chair after depositing JonBenet in the wine-cellar' and the broken window along with the suitcase that JR said he brought downstairs, why?

Many people have speculated that JonBenet's arms were outstretched because she had been hanging, I reckon its because she was dragged out of a room and left lying face down? From memory her head is above her arms, with the latter reaching out, suggesting she lay like this in the post-mortem phase?

Which one of the Ramsey's might drag JonBenet rather carry her?

.
 

LadyTudorRose

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2015
Messages
48
Reaction score
75
This is a hard question for me, and I've seen a lot of others have the same dilemma.

I believe JR and PR were both involved in the murder and cover-up of JB and I believe BR at the very least knows more than he lets on. But I couldn't say who killed JB. My theory is her death was a result of either physical abuse or sexual abuse that led to an injury that couldn't be covered up (likely the head injury) which led to a split-second decision to end her life (likely by strangulation) rather then seek attention for the injury and expose the abuse. Then both parents (regardless of who killed her) conspired to cover it up.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
This is a hard question for me, and I've seen a lot of others have the same dilemma.

I believe JR and PR were both involved in the murder and cover-up of JB and I believe BR at the very least knows more than he lets on. But I couldn't say who killed JB. My theory is her death was a result of either physical abuse or sexual abuse that led to an injury that couldn't be covered up (likely the head injury) which led to a split-second decision to end her life (likely by strangulation) rather then seek attention for the injury and expose the abuse. Then both parents (regardless of who killed her) conspired to cover it up.

LadyTudorRose,
BBM:ITA, remember BR during the 911 phone call what did you find?, e.g. me paraphrasing,
was this the act of someone attempting to dupe his parents into accepting he was not involved in the murder of JonBenet?

.
 

OliviaG1996

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
496
Reaction score
7
LadyTudorRose,
BBM:ITA, remember BR during the 911 phone call what did you find?, e.g. me paraphrasing,
was this the act of someone attempting to dupe his parents into accepting he was not involved in the murder of JonBenet?

.

Add to that, the fact that the Rs completely denied BR was even awake during the 9-1-1 call. What would be the harm in saying he was awake and asking questions? That would be reasonable, considering the supposed amounts of screaming going on throughout the house that morning, according to the Rs. Plus, this wasn't another "I don't remember" from the Rs, they were extremely adamant that BR was not talking near the phone after the 9-1-1 call was made. If BR was completely uninvolved, why bother lying about that?
 

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
652
Reaction score
165
Add to that, the fact that the Rs completely denied BR was even awake during the 9-1-1 call. What would be the harm in saying he was awake and asking questions? That would be reasonable, considering the supposed amounts of screaming going on throughout the house that morning, according to the Rs. Plus, this wasn't another "I don't remember" from the Rs, they were extremely adamant that BR was not talking near the phone after the 9-1-1 call was made. If BR was completely uninvolved, why bother lying about that?

I bolded the question.

The harm would be that if he was awake, he had information about the case. If he was asleep, then there is no information. The harm is that when interviewing a child, the child might inadvertently let something slip like JonBenet walking up the stairs that night on her own. The harm is that something he said might contradict what the parents said. When you have to stick to a story, a story that is questioned because the daughter has something like...oh, I don't know...pineapple in her stomach and all you claim is that she was carried to bed from the car, then you don't want your son changing the story. All of a sudden, there are questions that your story can't answer so you have to cover. The best thing to do is to stick with the original story and deny, deny, deny.

I understand why John was angry when he discovered that Burke was interviewed at the Whites. Now he has to discover what Burke said. Had Burke not had secrets, this may have been a very different case.

God, I'm starting to sound cynical. I've come not to believe what the Ramsey's said about what happened that night and the next morning. I don't need to bicker about the discrepancies in their testimony because I believe they're being deceptive. One of my favorite quotes from Judge Judy, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true." That's not always true, but it's a good rule. Jonbenet had pineapple in her duodenum. There was pineapple in the fridge on the first floor and on the kitchen table. There are specific timelines for digestion that some people here have tried to discredit. Let's not get into an argument here because I'm convinced that the pineapple absolutely puts the Ramseys in a lie. The only thing I question now is what that lie means. I don't have an answer for that. I only have theories and not one of them, not one, gives me any satisfaction.

The 'harm' is that Burke could have inadvertently exposed a lie. From there, John and Patsy would have to come-up with another story and this house of cards could have come-a-tumblin-down.

All in my own opinion.
 

OliviaG1996

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
496
Reaction score
7
I bolded the question.

The harm would be that if he was awake, he had information about the case. If he was asleep, then there is no information. The harm is that when interviewing a child, the child might inadvertently let something slip like JonBenet walking up the stairs that night on her own. The harm is that something he said might contradict what the parents said. When you have to stick to a story, a story that is questioned because the daughter has something like...oh, I don't know...pineapple in her stomach and all you claim is that she was carried to bed from the car, then you don't want your son changing the story. All of a sudden, there are questions that your story can't answer so you have to cover. The best thing to do is to stick with the original story and deny, deny, deny.

I understand why John was angry when he discovered that Burke was interviewed at the Whites. Now he has to discover what Burke said. Had Burke not had secrets, this may have been a very different case.

God, I'm starting to sound cynical. I've come not to believe what the Ramsey's said about what happened that night and the next morning. I don't need to bicker about the discrepancies in their testimony because I believe they're being deceptive. One of my favorite quotes from Judge Judy, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true." That's not always true, but it's a good rule. Jonbenet had pineapple in her duodenum. There was pineapple in the fridge on the first floor and on the kitchen table. There are specific timelines for digestion that some people here have tried to discredit. Let's not get into an argument here because I'm convinced that the pineapple absolutely puts the Ramseys in a lie. The only thing I question now is what that lie means. I don't have an answer for that. I only have theories and not one of them, not one, gives me any satisfaction.

The 'harm' is that Burke could have inadvertently exposed a lie. From there, John and Patsy would have to come-up with another story and this house of cards could have come-a-tumblin-down.

All in my own opinion.

BBM: The voice on the 9-1-1 call states, "Well, what did you find?". That doesn't sound like he had information about the case (at least the cover-up, in my opinion). If the Ramseys said he was awake during the 9-1-1 call, which took place just before 6 A.M., that doesn't equate to, "he was up all night with the murderer(s)". The Ramseys had to know BR was going to be interviewed by LE whether he was awake or not, so why lie about his whereabouts during the 9-1-1 call, specifically?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,446
BBM: The voice on the 9-1-1 call states, "Well, what did you find?". That doesn't sound like he had information about the case (at least the cover-up, in my opinion). If the Ramseys said he was awake during the 9-1-1 call, which took place just before 6 A.M., that doesn't equate to, "he was up all night with the murderer(s)". The Ramseys had to know BR was going to be interviewed by LE whether he was awake or not, so why lie about his whereabouts during the 9-1-1 call, specifically?

OliviaG1996,
How does BR know there is anything to be found, i.e. JonBenet? Did he stage her death only for the parents to clean up on the obvious clues?

.
 

InstantProof

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
67
OliviaG1996,
How does BR know there is anything to be found, i.e. JonBenet?

.

Patsy tells 911 she found a note. I think "what did you find?" is a logical question for a kid that isn't sure what is happening. If he was the one who killed JB, then he would assume they found JB when he hears Patsy upset on the phone, except they are carrying on instead about a note (well did she find JB or a note?). Either way, it fits.

J&P presumably said he was asleep because they wanted to keep his questioning to a minimum, which of course makes no sense for parents who think they are dealing with a real kidnapping and their other child in the home may have seen or heard something.
 

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
652
Reaction score
165
BBM: The voice on the 9-1-1 call states, "Well, what did you find?". That doesn't sound like he had information about the case (at least the cover-up, in my opinion). If the Ramseys said he was awake during the 9-1-1 call, which took place just before 6 A.M., that doesn't equate to, "he was up all night with the murderer(s)". The Ramseys had to know BR was going to be interviewed by LE whether he was awake or not, so why lie about his whereabouts during the 9-1-1 call, specifically?

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. They made sure he was okay...unless they already knew something. So what is it? They didn't care enough about him to make sure that the kidnappers hadn't hurt him? Or is it that they already knew the kidnappers hadn't hurt him? Nope. None of that. They said he was sleeping and they didn't want to wake him up. I don't believe their story. One of those two woke Burke up that morning to see if he was okay and to ask him if he seen or heard anything. To protect him from what was happening, they told him to stay in his room and pretend he was asleep. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

This is my opinion.
 

OliviaG1996

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
496
Reaction score
7
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. They made sure he was okay...unless they already knew something. So what is it? They didn't care enough about him to make sure that the kidnappers hadn't hurt him? Or is it that they already knew the kidnappers hadn't hurt him? Nope. None of that. They said he was sleeping and they didn't want to wake him up. I don't believe their story. One of those two woke Burke up that morning to see if he was okay and to ask him if he seen or heard anything. To protect him from what was happening, they told him to stay in his room and pretend he was asleep. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

This is my opinion.

You're preaching to the choir here. I don't believe their story, either, and I've made that well-known. I just don't understand the point of the Ramseys keeping track of one more lie (BR being asleep) when it would be logically easier for both parents and the child to tell the truth about it. Why not let BR say, "Yeah, I woke up to the sound of my parents screaming and I asked what happened. They sent me right back to bed and I fell asleep."? Is this really that much more difficult to say, when coming up with their original story, to avoid the risk of getting caught? I think it would be common sense to tell the truth as much as possible when lying to sound the most genuine, but this is the Ramsey family we're talking about. JMO.
 

InstantProof

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
67
You're preaching to the choir here. I don't believe their story, either, and I've made that well-known. I just don't understand the point of the Ramseys keeping track of one more lie (BR being asleep) when it would be logically easier for both parents and the child to tell the truth about it. Why not let BR say, "Yeah, I woke up to the sound of my parents screaming and I asked what happened. They sent me right back to bed and I fell asleep."? Is this really that much more difficult to say, when coming up with their original story, to avoid the risk of getting caught? I think it would be common sense to tell the truth as much as possible when lying to sound the most genuine, but this is the Ramsey family we're talking about. JMO.

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.
 

OliviaG1996

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
496
Reaction score
7
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 agree with that. I just believe it's strange that they (most likely) lied about both JBR being asleep and BR being asleep. I see it as a pattern of lying for those involved in the murder. If JR/PR committed the murder alone, I can't see a scenario where they would be quiet as mice unless they're psychopaths, which I don't believe they are. So, who's to say BR didn't wake up a few minutes before the call was made? Unless BR caught JR/PR in the act of the murder/staging, I don't see a logical explanation for protecting him so much, and not just in this instance, other than he was also involved somehow. JMO.
 

SapphireSteel

New Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
6,787
Reaction score
96
There is absolutely no way the crime was committed by either an intruder or Burke, imo.

The things I am currently pondering -

1. two weapons (blow and garrote) traditionally means TWO perps.
2. a garrote is traditionally used to torture - slow strangulation, release, etc
3. a blow implies some sort of panic, or haste - a garrote implies the opposite.

Could the Game have involved Sexual Torture?
 

LadyTudorRose

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2015
Messages
48
Reaction score
75
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. It seems to me JR did not want him questioned and now as an adult apparently he doesn't want to be questioned. If he knew nothing, thought it was an intruder, he would probably be very eager and involved in trying to get justice for his little sister. Usually when a family member doesn't seem interested in solving the case they either did it or know/suspect someone else in the family did.

But I feel like it could be either way with Burke. I don't necessarily think him knowing something means he did anything wrong. Both BR and PR's fingerprints were on the bowl with the pineapple IIRC, so he knew she was awake when his parents claimed she was asleep and he knew they (or at least PR) knew she was awake. He also probably heard something going on the night of the murder, assuming he wasn't around when it happened. He could've been told something like that JB had bumped her head and she was dead and his parents have to pretend a stranger did it so they don't go to jail. I've heard of cases where parents convinced their children to keep quiet or go along with a lie by telling them they'll go to jail otherwise and the kids will end up in foster care or with some relative they don't like. It's also likely (IMO) there was sexual abuse going on in the house against JB or both JB and BR and BR had just grown up with it and was used to lying about what went on in his family.

In my mind I think he knew about JB's death and the need to lie about it but didn't know about the ransom note aspect of the plan. Therefor when he heard PR telling the 911 operator she'd found a note (or even JR and PR discussing it earlier), he was confused. He might not even had heard/understood the word "note" and just heard something was found. I don't think he was talking about JB's body because I think by the time the call was made they'd have already discussed that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top