JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Harry D]

Louisa - So what you're saying, is that instead of calling emergency services to save their child and risk an investigation into the head injury (which given their wealth and influence would've been hard to make stick), they chose to brutally strangle JonBenet to death and stage an elaborate murder scene and ransom letter to cover it all up. I'm sure you can see the problem with this scenario.

[louisa]

Louisa - So what you're saying, is that instead of calling emergency services to save their child and risk an investigation into the head injury (which given their wealth and influence would've been hard to make stick), they chose to brutally strangle JonBenet to death and stage an elaborate murder scene and ransom letter to cover it all up. I'm sure you can see the problem with this scenario.

That's exactly what I think happened, Harry. Here's my own thoughts...(with some help from the book by Steve Thomas)

Patsy could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the 'accident' and called the police. However, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder, but I believe panic overtook her.

Chaotic thoughts overtook logic. She may have had an overriding sense of guilt, that she alone had caused the injury that caused her daughter's death. She may have thought her friends would know this as well. Appearances were everything to Patsy Ramsey. If she lost her friends and her millionaire lifestyle then she would have nothing.

Those thoughts may have been on what people were going to think once they heard that Patsy's daughter had been found dead, her skull crushed, in her own home. How would they, the Ramseys hold their heads up in the community, with their well-to-do friends and supporters of the church all knowing she had killed her daughter? The death would take some explaining.

Then somewhere in that panic stricken muddled brain another thought occurred.....there was a way out, a way to save face.

The death could be staged to look as though an intruder had murdered JB. Patsy knew that without an 'intruder' then she and John would be the only two suspects.

She returned upstairs to the kitchen and grabbed her tablet and a pen, flipped to the middle of her tablet and started a ransom note. By doing so she created the government's best piece of evidence.

She then faced the major problem of what to do with the body. Leaving the house carried the risk of possibly being seen by a neighbour or a passer-by. Leaving the body in the distant, almost inaccessible basement room was the best option.

Patsy returned to the basement to stage the scene, choking JB from behind (as described previously). Then the staging continued to make it look like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's hand in front of her, not in the back, for otherwise the arms would not have been in that overhead position. But with a fifteen inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was symbolic to make it appear the child had been bound.

It makes a lot more sense than a kidnapper who also happened to be a murderer and a sex fiend, who left no bodily fluids or fingerprints and managed to escape without leaving a trace, and has never been seen or heard of since.

And who also happened to have handwriting extremely similar to the woman sleeping upstairs.

[louisa]

By the way all my posts contain my own theories and opinions, which may not be that of others.

[Billiou]

Let's not forget the theory propounded in the tv doco.

1) The wound in the head was caused by the torch. (Does it seem strange to anyone else that the torch found on the kitchen counter revealed no prints whatsoever - even on the batteries?)
2) The undigested pineapple found in the gut. (So, did the "intruder" feed her pineapple??) Refer to previous comments about the son's reaction during an interview to the photo of the bowl of pineapple and his refusal to say "pineapple".
3) The son caused the head injury by lashing out at his sister because she "stole" some of his pineapple.
4) A "cover up" therefore would have the intention of protecting the son and the family.

[louisa]

Let's not forget the theory propounded in the tv doco.

1) The wound in the head was caused by the torch. (Does it seem strange to anyone else that the torch found on the kitchen counter revealed no prints whatsoever - even on the batteries?)
2) The undigested pineapple found in the gut. (So, did the "intruder" feed her pineapple??) Refer to previous comments about the son's reaction during an interview to the photo of the bowl of pineapple and his refusal to say "pineapple".
3) The son caused the head injury by lashing out at his sister because she "stole" some of his pineapple.
4) A "cover up" therefore would have the intention of protecting the son and the family.

For a while I thought that Burke was the culprit but I've switched back to Patsy now.

Burke is certainly a strange one. I read something today that said he used to smear faeces around the house, including in JonBenet's room.

As to the pineapple, there was no intruder. I think it's possible that once the family went to bed Burke and JB got up, got the pineapple out of the fridge and they both ate some.

And yes, the parents would be very likely to cover for him if he killed her.

If that is true and Burke killed JB then it would be good if he would man up and confess, if only to clear his mother's name.

[Wickerman]

It's ludicrous for an intruder to do it also.
If the Ramsey's killed their daughter than staging a kidnapping gone wrong is one way to obviously obfuscate and point the finger away from themselves.

Agreed, but staging a kidnapping does not include garrotting your daughter, and it does not include planting evidence to suggest she was murdered when no-one is expected to find her body - she was kidnapped!

It may include hiding her body in the furthest room hoping no-one will look down there, but why all the planted evidence to suggest murder?

Planting evidence to suggest a kidnapping, and a murder, at the same time is preposterous.

[Wickerman]

Parents kill their children for all sorts of reasons Jon-the reasons you mention and a myriad of others also, like to cover up another crime, like sexual abuse, pure accidents, accidental deaths due to abuse, anger, jealousy, for attention, etc. etc. etc.

To rule out the Ramsey's based on this idea is ludicrous. As a matter of fact the opposite is true-why else are family members de facto always the first to be suspects? Because most children are murdered by family members!

Add to that the number of children found murdered in their own home WHILE THE PARENTS ARE HOME by an intruder is so rare that alone is a huge red flag.

Yet, we both know about the intruder who was discovered in another house in the neighbourhood, who sexually abused a young girl asleep in her bedroom.
The mother caught him fleeing the house - it's a related incident, and he was never caught either.
Rare or not, it happened.

Neither John or Patsy Ramsey had a history of child abuse, either before they married or after.
Child abusers leave a pattern - that is well understood.

A second incident in the same neighbourhood is potential evidence of a pattern, by someone.

[Wickerman]

But Wicksy - I absolutely AGREE that there is no logic to leaving a ransom note AND a body. Why would anyone do this?

There is no logic in an intruder doing this either, is there?

(We've been through all this before btw)

If you can explain to me why you think intruder would do all the things you have stated then I would be interested.


I've just noticed Abby has asked the same question.

Yes, we did go over this before, the question remains to be addressed.

Having the Ramsey's change their mind, from first deciding to stage a murder, then changing their mind to stage a kidnapping is hardly feasible, with the body still in the house.

On the other hand, an intruder writes the ransom note first, while he waits.
Then while everyone's asleep he tries to get her out of the house, whether JB started to make a fuss or noise, she wouldn't comply, that's when the assault takes place.

It's easier to associate a murder in a kidnapping gone bad, with an intruder, than it is to associate a ransom note with a staged murder.

[Wickerman]

I see Abby has already replied to this post too, but I am going to add my pennysworth anyway.

While it would seem normal for most parents to call 911 you have got to remember that these parents were NOT normal.

In what way do you mean "they were not normal"?

Wicksy - You have carefully given the Ramseys excuses for other abnormal behaviour on the day their child was murdered, but now you are saying they should have reacted as most parents would.

Can you point out where?
I don't recall justifying any odd behaviour.

Surely it would be normal behaviour for most parents to sit together, giving eachother comfort, whilst waiting for that dreaded phonecall from the kidnapper. And would most certainly be comforting eachother once the child's body had been found, murdered in such a horrific way.

I've known cases where the father is the restless one, pacing up and down, and the mother is in pieces always sat down.
People grieve in different ways, the male is typically the one in control, in a situation like this he is restless because he cannot do what is expected of him. He feels he failed his daughter.

The mother is the one who gives affection and comfort, and she can't function so retreats into herself.

Why would anyone say this is unusual, perhaps the ones who made that suggestion at the house were the ones who do not know how parents react in these situations.
Having both parents cuddle each other for comfort is more typical of Hollywood than real life.

According to one of the officers the Ramseys sat in separate room and actually gave the impression they hated eachother.

It's difficult to judge an opinion when it comes from someone who believes they are guilty. Of course they are going to describe the Ramsey's in that way - it supports their belief.

What parent, upon seeing a ransom note, would not search their house from top to bottom before calling the police? The house had been locked down for the night, John told police he had done this himself.

They did, or at least John said so, then the two patrol officers searched the house from top to bottom.

The note was written in Patsy's childish hand but could have been written by Burke just as a bit of fun for all they knew. It would have been worth their looking all over the house. I think most 'normal' parents would do so.

I read something on-line (I need to find it) that Michael Helgoth had a T-shirt with S.B.T.C. on it, and a pair of pants with "Victory" on them. These items of clothing were found in his van.
The article also said the handwriting on the ransom note suited notes he left at his grandmothers house.
I can't offer it as an argument until I locate the source, to see if it looks legit.

[Wickerman]

That's exactly what I think happened, Harry. Here's my own thoughts...(with some help from the book by Steve Thomas)

Can I ask you a personal question?

Are you a mother?

[Wickerman]

Let's not forget the theory propounded in the tv doco.

1) The wound in the head was caused by the torch. (Does it seem strange to anyone else that the torch found on the kitchen counter revealed no prints whatsoever - even on the batteries?)
2) The undigested pineapple found in the gut. (So, did the "intruder" feed her pineapple??) Refer to previous comments about the son's reaction during an interview to the photo of the bowl of pineapple and his refusal to say "pineapple".
3) The son caused the head injury by lashing out at his sister because she "stole" some of his pineapple.

The above is perfectly feasible to me, the older brother lashing out and accidentally caused an almost fatal injury to the head.

4) A "cover up" therefore would have the intention of protecting the son and the family.

That's what I cannot see.
Burke was only 9, he wouldn't have been found guilty at that age, especially as it could never have been shown to be intentional.

A mother would have called an ambulance, a loving mother will always hold out hope that something can be done.

[Wickerman]

Burke is certainly a strange one. I read something today that said he used to smear faeces around the house, including in JonBenet's room.

Faeces were found on JB's bed, and on a box of chocolates JB received for xmas.

[Pcdunn]

Covering for Burke

Hi Pat,

I don't think I'm following you. Could you be a bit more specific and give an example of what you mean. I don't really see how the note could be covering up something else that had occurred? Unless you're thinking more 'outside the box' than I am?

One thing I am convinced of - No intruder was in the house that night:

Why must the letter have been written by Patsy as the killer? Couldn't John and Patsy collaborated on the letter in an effort to protect their youngest son? Think of the shame and loss if the truth came out-- even if Burke was too young to be charged in JonBenet's death, surely they'd have to send him away somewhere for treatment, and the secret would be out, ruining their social reputation.

I like the Burke scenario... BUT, there IS evidence of an intruder which doesn't fit in with the rest, and I'm not sure if it was all the result of staging. What about the salvia, which didn't match that of either parent or Burke? What about the DNA which was found, yet not presented to the Grand Jury? The stuff stowed under the bed in a guest room? The suitcase and the flashlight, and so forth.

Remember, when Burke was first questioned, it was by a child psychologist, several weeks after the death of his sister. The Ramseys held off on letting him talk to the police until he was nearly eleven, by then old enough to watch what he said. Even at nine, Burke said he supposed he had secrets, but wouldn't tell the questioner.
I was taken by how he imitated a blow with his fist when asked what he thought had happened to his sister. Also, how he said he'd mostly passed the time playing his video games.

Just saying the author doesn't have to be the killer, that's all.

[louisa]

Agreed, but staging a kidnapping does not include garrotting your daughter, and it does not include planting evidence to suggest she was murdered when no-one is expected to find her body - she was kidnapped!

It may include hiding her body in the furthest room hoping no-one will look down there, but why all the planted evidence to suggest murder?

Planting evidence to suggest a kidnapping, and a murder, at the same time is preposterous.

But you are saying the 'intruder' did exactly that!

[louisa]

Yet, we both know about the intruder who was discovered in another house in the neighbourhood, who sexually abused a young girl asleep in her bedroom.

A second incident in the same neighbourhood is potential evidence of a pattern, by someone.

What happened to JB was not part of a 'pattern' - it was a one-off.

The so-called 'intruder' who killed JB had a specific modus operandii - he did some weird things didn't he? Staging it to look like a kidnapping etc., then undressing and dressing the body - the garrotting, the paintbrush business, etc.

This particular 'intruder' has never been seen or heard of again. No modus operandii of any other intruder/paedophile/rapist/murderer has been quite like this one.

Funny that.

I don't believe the Ramseys were child abusers. Not unless you call dressing your 6 year old daughter up like a hooker and making her saunter alluringly on a stage can be called abuse?

And...tampering with your child's body, even if you think she is already dead, must surely be classed as abuse of a child?