Post: #1

The twenty year anniversary of the murder of six year old JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder Colorado is approaching, and there has been a slew of tv specials about it this month. For those of you unfamiliar with the case, it remains unsolved.

There will probably be more media focus as Christmas approaches, since JonBenet was murdered on Christmas 1996.

I think I know who did it. Most people are confused by the evidence and miss who quite obviously killed this girl. The case is a mind fuck with all kinds of evidence that don’t make sense which obscures the obvious.

The father did it and got away with it.



Here’s my theory (well I nicked most of it from an obscure blogger who I think solved the case).

The father was/is a sociopath and a pedophile.

He was molesting his daughter for a long time, and that night, he accidently injured her while molesting her (she probably screamed and tried to get to her mother) and he killed her so he wouldn’t get caught (bashed her on the head with a flashlight). But then he had a problem, it’s the middle of the night and he has a dead body he had to get rid of. If he started his car, the neighbors and/or his wife might notice. Also, his wife might notice if he was gone too long.

So he hid the body and staged a kidnapping to give him the opportunity to get rid of the body the next day. He wrote a ransom note that said “do not call the police.” His wife read the note and called the police anyway, which botched his plan. (His plan would be no police involvement, he’d put the body in the car then get the ransom money, and dump the body along the way).

So he thought of Plan B. Contaminate the crime scene and obfuscate. He invited a whole bunch of friends to the house while they were waiting for the kidnappers call (of course, they never called because there was no kidnappers). The friends contaminated the crime scene with hair and fibers, and even inadvertently disposed of evidence by helping the Ramsey’s in their time of need by cleaning the kitchen and rest of house for them.

Then the father was asked to look through the house. He made a bee line to the room in the basement where the body was hidden, picked the body up and brought her up the stairs, crying over the body and putting a sheet over the body. This completely contaminated the body.

Less than an hour after finding the body, the cops heard Ramsey on the phone making arrangements with his pilot to get out town. The cops told him he couldn't leave town.

He was a wealthy CEO and hired a team of attorneys and media experts. He is also a very savvy liar and manipulator.

I’ll write more if there is interest.

Post: #2

Does Biden have an alibi?

Post: #3

Immediately after the event I thought the same because pimping your daughter out in these expensive, gaudy, and adult outfits and makeup seems one step removed from pedophilia. Later on it seemed like the older brother might have done it. Either way the Mom was definitely in on it and one of the three of them killed her.

Post: #4

Wasn't the note in the mother's handwriting?

Post: #5

(09-17-2016 05:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Wasn't the note in the mother's handwriting?

Forensic handwriting is not science. It is more like astrology.

John Ramsey hired handwriting "experts" before the police or FBI could do an independent analysis, and got his hired guns to rule him out, but not his wife (Patsy). He shared those results with the police and FBI. That was his big break and kept him out of jail. You pay enough money and you get the results you want.

Post: #6

Dusty is this the blog post that you are using?

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.ca/2012/...olved.html

Quote:Before proceeding it's important that I ask my readers to temporarily put everything they've ever read or even thought about this case out of their minds. As I see it, it's the case as a whole, as it developed over months and years, that's confusing, while the identity of the murderer was, or should have been, clear from the start. I'm not asking anyone to agree. In fact I'd be surprised if many did, because admittedly my take on this case is very different from that of just about anyone else. But I am asking you to open your minds and make a sincere attempt, at least for now, to see with fresh eyes.

Taking all the facts together, as presented in the previous post, we can safely conclude there was no intruder. Kolar's new book will, as I understand it, present new evidence debunking certain aspects of the so-called "intruder theory," and as much as I welcome the book and look forward to reading it, as I see it there was never any basis whatsoever for such a theory. It should have been clear from day one that no intruder could have been present in that home on the night of the murder.

First, there was no means for an intruder to enter or leave. As reported by John and confirmed by the police, all the outside doors were locked. All the windows were either locked or barred, with one exception, the notorious broken basement window we've read so much about. I have my own ideas about that window and what it might mean, but for now neither my theory nor anyone else's is relevant. As reported by the police, and clearly evident from examining photos taken the morning after the murder (supplemented by the new video released in association with Kolar's book), there is no sign of disturbance anywhere on the window frame or in fact anywhere in the well or even the grate over the well. Clearly no one had entered or left via that window.

Second, there was no sign of an intruder anywhere on the premises. Attempts have been made to identify such signs, but in literally every case they can be, and have been, explained as innocent artifacts already in the home prior to the crime.

Third, there was no sign that anything had either been introduced into the house or taken from it. Literally everything associated with the crime, from the stick used for the "garotte" to the ransom note itself was identified very early on as originating in the Ramsey household.

Fourth, there was no reason for any intruder, either a kidnapper, a child molester, someone "out to get" John or to frame John, etc., etc., to leave a note behind in his own handwriting, providing investigators with evidence that could be used against him. Such a note could easily have been prepared in advance, printed on a typewriter or computer printer, but that isn't what was found. Nor, if this was a "kidnapping gone wrong," as prosecutor Lacy seems to have believed, would a possibly incriminating note have been left on the premises for no reason, since the victim's body was still in the house. Nor would an intruder have wanted, or had any need, to go to the trouble to hide the body in a remote basement room, latching the door as he left.

It seems obvious, therefore, that there could have been no intruder. Which makes it wonderful indeed that the Ramseys were not arrested or at the very least taken into custody for questioning shortly after the body was discovered.

Which leaves us with two possible suspects: Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey. (Though Burke has many "fans" among followers of this case, one look at the ransom note tells us it was not written by a 9 year old; nor is it likely a child that young and frail could have delivered such a heavy blow to the head; nor is it likely he could have produced the very elegant knot on the so-called "garotte"; nor is it likely his parents would have taken such huge risks to cover for him.)

Now comes the most difficult part, because, thanks to the very strange manner in which the investigation was allowed to proceed, a great many people became fixated on Patsy as writer of the note, to the point that this has become literally an article of faith for probably the great majority of those following the case. Nevertheless, I am convinced, and have been for a very long time, that Patsy could not have written the note. I have many reasons for this conviction, some based on my own analysis of both the handwriting and the content, but for now that is neither here nor there, since I am presently considering only the known facts, not anyone's interpretation of the evidence, including my own.

Once we rule out the possibility of an intruder, then we need to return to the note to understand why it was written. And clearly, since there was no intruder and hence no kidnapping, the note could only have been written by someone inside the house as part of an attempt to stage a phoney kidnapping. While some might consider this an interpretation, I must say I find it impossible to explain the note any other way, so for me staging is clearly a fact and the note was clearly a part of that staging attempt.

In the light of the note and its contents, clearly intended, as I must insist, as staging, the key fact in the case is the fact that Patsy is the one who called the police so early in the morning, while the body was lying the basement waiting to be discovered, not John. This call could not possibly have been made by the person who wrote that note. Calling the police first thing in the morning is exactly what the note says not to do. There is simply no reason why someone would stage a phoney kidnapping, with the clear intention of removing the body from the house prior to calling the police, and then totally blow that staging by calling the police before the body had been removed -- and then handing over an obviously phoney note written in her own hand. Sorry, but that does not compute.

Thus:

Fact: no intruder, telling us this must have been an inside job.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Conclusion: John Ramsey and John Ramsey alone must be the guilty party. Case solved.

This guy has a theory on what John did to write the note, many thought that since both his left and right hand writing samples didn't match the note's, then it absolved him of guilt. Meanwhile, many believed Patsy's writing matched. But the guy from the blog says he thinks John (a pioneer in the computer industry) wrote up the ransom letter on a computer monitor and then traced over the letters by putting the paper from the pad (which was from their kitchen) up to the screen.

***

I remember back when I was a teenager I read this book, The Cases That Haunt Us by FBI Profiler John Douglas. He is the FBI agent who said that the Atlanta Child Killer in 1980 was black, not a KKK member, because all of the victims were young African American boys, and serial killers tend to stay within their own race. He deliberately leaked to the press that the FBI was gathering lots of fiber evidence from rugs, then posted cops up on bridges in Atlanta's rivers. Sure enough, they caught Wayne Williams dumping a body into the river so he could wash away the fiber evidence.
Anyways, Douglas thinks that the Ramsey parents are innocent, He is such a respected mind that I was convinced that he was right, but turns out he was friends with John Ramsey. Sort of ruined my opinion of Douglas, that blog changed my view totally...

Post: #7

Yes, that's the blog.

Post: #8

JonBenet was molested that night. She had a fresh wound on her vagina. There was also evidence (though not conclusive) that she had been chronically molested (her vagina was stretched out and way larger than normal for a six year old).

Who could have access to her to molest her on an ongoing basis? It would almost certainly have to be someone living in the house (the father, mother, or brother). The brother was probably too young to be a molester (and certainly too young and weak to have killed her the way she was killed that night). That leaves the mother and father. Women are not usually molesters. If there was chronic molestation, the father would be the most likely culprit.

The mother Patsy had cancer (she was in remission and healthy at the time of the murders). But when she was being treated, she was not at home. This would have given John easy opportunity to molest JonBenet back then which could have lead to an awful compulsion.

Post: #9

Brother Burke was interviewed for the first time this week by Dr. Phil.





Burke seems

Post: #10

(09-17-2016 04:49 PM)Dusty Wrote:  There will probably be more media focus as Christmas approaches, since JonBenet was murdered on Christmas 1996

The coverage of this 20 year anniversary will be directly related to the election. Who gives a shit about this anymore?

Hillary gets beat in a debate, maybe they find some new leads the same day? Hillary gets indicted, the father confeses on Barbara Walters. You watch.

By the way, wasn't it determined by science that JonBenet is actually now Katy Perry?

Aloha!

Post: #11

(09-17-2016 06:22 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(09-17-2016 04:49 PM)Dusty Wrote:  There will probably be more media focus as Christmas approaches, since JonBenet was murdered on Christmas 1996

The coverage of this 20 year anniversary will be directly related to the election. Who gives a shit about this anymore?

Hillary gets beat in a debate, maybe they find some new leads the same day? Hillary gets indicted, the father confeses on Barbara Walters. You watch.

By the way, wasn't it determined by science that JonBenet is actually now Katy Perry?

Aloha!

Post: #12

(09-17-2016 04:49 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Theres no fucking way the Dad wasn't a pedophile. Dressing a six year old up like that should be a criminal offense.

Post: #13

I knew what was going to be in this thread and I didn't read any of the posts except for the bold in the OP. I think any father in my circumstances would understand it's surely not due to the lack of a stomach for it.

Post: #14

(09-17-2016 06:09 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Brother Burke was interviewed for the first time this week by Dr. Phil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LhalUxT...freload=10

Burke seems

Then I guess JonBenet wasn't the only one getting their hole stretched out.

Post: #15

What a joke they considered the handwriting on the note to be such a crucial piece of evidence, as you can fake or alter your handwriting with a little effort.
Calling in an 'expert' on handwriting to testify they thought it was the mom's handwriting is weak shit and far from scientific. That's like Cochran saying the glove doesn't fit.

Post: #16

Does anyone remember that spindly little bloke in Thailand who confessed to the murder? Talk about disturbed individuals.

Post: #17

Child beauty star bears scars of ongoing sexual assault, is found dead in her home, bashed and strangled. Father undertakes a seemingly professional series of steps to muddy the evidential waters.

My money? File this in the "Is Hollywood run like a satanic cult" thread.

Some big-shot politician was taking his turn with the girl and got a little too rough. That's why the father had good advice on how to cover things up and why the investigation was bumbled and went nowhere.

Post: #18

(09-18-2016 02:54 AM)Recovering Beta Wrote:  Does anyone remember that spindly little bloke in Thailand who confessed to the murder? Talk about disturbed individuals.

John Mark Karr

Post: #19

Damn, I have that same Blue Nautica polo. Now I don't want to wear it anymore.

Post: #20

CBS is doing a two part series on this case tonight and tomorrow.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey/

Post: #21

If the father is a pedo, then likely his daughter wasn't the first and only kid he messed with. Has there been any suspicion that he's still preying? 20 years seems a pretty long time for a pedo to go cold turkey.

Post: #22

I'm watching the cbs special and am reminded of a couple more facts that make the father look suspect.

He disappeared for an hour and a half that morning before the body was found. One cop was at the house and she lost site of Ramsey. I bet he was getting rid of evidence. Remember my theory is Patsy botched his original plan, so he probably had to get rid of evidence. When he came back, cops said he acted agitated and antsy.

Then when he found the body, he opened the room where her body was (basement room with no windows) and said "there she is" and THEN turned on the light. The room was completely dark.

Post: #23

I thought the intruder theory was based on the fact that they found DNA that didn't match any family member, although I could be mistaken. The Grand Jury actually indicted the parents but the DA later published a letter essentially exonerating them.

Post: #24

(09-19-2016 04:06 PM)GreyFFM Wrote:  I thought the intruder theory was based on the fact that they found DNA that didn't match any family member, although I could be mistaken. The Grand Jury actually indicted the parents but the DA later published a letter essentially exonerating them.

Yeah, they found a shit ton of DNA and used that to exonerate the Ramsey's, but it turns out it was from cross contamination. If I recall correctly, they traced some of the DNA to garmet workers in Taiwan who made jonbenet's underwear.

One of the Boulder investigators wrote a book ( his theory is that Burke did it) but his book starts out with a fantastical theory of these teams of people in that home that night involved in the crime which is supported by all the DNA. It just showed how absurd it was to tie all that touch DNA to an intruder theory.

Post: #25

They always made it look like the Ramsey's lived in some big mansion in a fancy part of town.

The always overlook the fact that there were something like thirty registered sex offenders living in a one mile radius, and the neighborhood had hundreds of break ins that month alone. Just odd.

Aloha!