Jon Benet's Family Exhonerated

[Ron Beckett]

The Dingo did it.

Everyone in Australia KNEW that Lindy Chamberlain had killed her baby and the bodgy forensic evidence eventually got her convicted.

The forensic evidence of foetal blood being in the car was later found to be erroneous, it was spray on rust and sound preventative!

But as she did not behave as everyone wanted a bereaved mother to behave they hounded her to prison, until the truth came out during a search for a missing tourist. All of this is like the Ramsay case, people with pre-conceived ideas thinking they know more than anyone else.

I wouldn't like many of the people who post here to serve on a jury in an important case. Miss Marple on page 5 in post # 46 is the most sensible of some obviously one-eyed people who swallow any dregs the media dredge up.

[sdreid]

We have no idea who entered and exited the house during the critical time before the body was discovered. Actually far far before that. We dont even know if JBRs body was even in the basement room until minutes before the discovery.

The crimescene is compromised and this case will never be solved.

The Ramseys remain the prime suspects.

That is my opinion as well.

[RivkahChaya]

Everyone in Australia KNEW that Lindy Chamberlain had killed her baby and the bodgy forensic evidence eventually got her convicted.

The forensic evidence of foetal blood being in the car was later found to be erroneous, it was spray on rust and sound preventative!

But as she did not behave as everyone wanted a bereaved mother to behave they hounded her to prison, until the truth came out during a search for a missing tourist. All of this is like the Ramsay case, people with pre-conceived ideas thinking they know more than anyone else.

I wouldn't like many of the people who post here to serve on a jury in an important case. Miss Marple on page 5 in post # 46 is the most sensible of some obviously one-eyed people who swallow any dregs the media dredge up.

Excellent.

FWIW, I don't dismiss the mother as a suspect. I just wasn't ready to lynch her when the police didn't go beat her with a rubber hose. Anyway, she's dead, and as someone else mentioned, the police never had control of the crime scene, so the forensics are garbage. The case is to all intents and purposes, closed, barring another person coming forward and confessing.

[Abby Normal]

Everyone in Australia KNEW that Lindy Chamberlain had killed her baby and the bodgy forensic evidence eventually got her convicted.

The forensic evidence of foetal blood being in the car was later found to be erroneous, it was spray on rust and sound preventative!

But as she did not behave as everyone wanted a bereaved mother to behave they hounded her to prison, until the truth came out during a search for a missing tourist. All of this is like the Ramsay case, people with pre-conceived ideas thinking they know more than anyone else.

I wouldn't like many of the people who post here to serve on a jury in an important case. Miss Marple on page 5 in post # 46 is the most sensible of some obviously one-eyed people who swallow any dregs the media dredge up.

There are no dingos in Colorado but plenty of coyotes. Maybe one of them killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Sorry, the two cases can't compare, and contrary to your assertion, the truth rarely comes out in cases like these to an absolute certainty-in the JonBenet Ramsey case it was not even given a chance as their was no trial.

[Ally]

I have gone back and forth on who I think killed her but I think probability comes down on it being someone in the family. The thing that has boggled me is that about five years after the murder, the Ramseys claim their house was robbed... because they didn't have their security alarm on. Coincidentally, somehow John arrives home in the afternoon to surprise a burglar who made off with all this stuff. So here's my question: according to their version of events, their daughter was brutally murdered by an intruder who they had no idea was there, an intruder the facts indicate would have had to have hung out INSIDE their home for hours, murdered their daughter without them even being aware of it, while they were there...

.... and they still don't use their security system despite having one? Okay. Sure. That makes sense.

[Abby Normal]

I have gone back and forth on who I think killed her but I think probability comes down on it being someone in the family. The thing that has boggled me is that about five years after the murder, the Ramseys claim their house was robbed... because they didn't have their security alarm on. Coincidentally, somehow John arrives home in the afternoon to surprise a burglar who made off with all this stuff. So here's my question: according to their version of events, their daughter was brutally murdered by an intruder who they had no idea was there, an intruder the facts indicate would have had to have hung out INSIDE their home for hours, murdered their daughter without them even being aware of it, while they were there...

.... and they still don't use their security system despite having one? Okay. Sure. That makes sense.

Totally agree
And interesting point about the alarm.
Are we really to believe an intruder got into their house, roused her from bed, fed her fruit,rooted around for the pen and paper, wrote a ransom note, took her to the basement, sexually assaulted, tortured her, hit her in the head (which I am sure made a noise), came up with a garrot, killed her and then got out of the house, without anyone knowing??? Yeah right.

Oh and the intruder must have been close enough to the family to have known the amount of johns bonus to include in the note.

[Ally]

Yeah, I mean, I was raised by a cop so I understand my level of personal security is somewhat more elevated than most people, and I totally understand not everyone will respond in the same way to events, but I just do not see how anyone, ANYONE, who had an "intruder event" such as the Ramseys claim to have had -one of their children brutally murdered in their home while they slept- ever, EVER relaxing their guard enough to not use their security system AGAIN. Much less just a few years later especially when they STILL have a child in the home at that time. I mean, how COULD you relax enough to go, eh.. security, pff, who cares?

But yes, all the other stuff, the pineapple, the location of the body, all of that has always led me to believe it was someone inside. I just don't see an intruder hanging out and fixing a snack for his intended murder victim, which she would have had to have been from the start, because otherwise, if it was a kidnapping, why not just walk out the front door with her? Why go down in the basement? Why risk hanging out some more and being caught?

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, I mean, I was raised by a cop so I understand my level of personal security is somewhat more elevated than most people, and I totally understand not everyone will respond in the same way to events, but I just do not see how anyone, ANYONE, who had an "intruder event" such as the Ramseys claim to have had -one of their children brutally murdered in their home while they slept- ever, EVER relaxing their guard enough to not use their security system AGAIN. Much less just a few years later especially when they STILL have a child in the home at that time. I mean, how COULD you relax enough to go, eh.. security, pff, who cares?

But yes, all the other stuff, the pineapple, the location of the body, all of that has always led me to believe it was someone inside. I just don't see an intruder hanging out and fixing a snack for his intended murder victim, which she would have had to have been from the start, because otherwise, if it was a kidnapping, why not just walk out the front door with her? Why go down in the basement? Why risk hanging out some more and being caught?

Right.
Who's going to go for a kidnapping and not bring the note already written, let alone as you say hang out for a while, kill her and leave the body.

Also, if your child is missing, what parent wouldn't search every inch-and I mean every inch of their house, looking for their kid? Probably ones who want the police to find the body. They were probably thinking what the hell is taking these stupid police so long to find the body. John actually waited until he was told by the police to take his friend and search downstairs that he found her.

[RivkahChaya]

There are other possibilities besides "intruder" and "immediate family," like John's children from his first marriage, all the couple's close friends, who apparently came over in droves and trampled the crime scene the police failed to secure, and the household staff, and possibly some of John's coworkers.

Some people aren't very smart about picking passwords and security codes. John could have had a coworker who knew he used his anniversary for all his email accounts, his general login, and his locking briefcase. It wouldn't be much of a long shot to try that on his home security system.

Given the lack of crime scene security, we don't know that the body wasn't smuggled in the next morning. People were coming over, and it was Christmas, so someone with a package wouldn't have been suspicious.

I just have trouble coming up with a reasonable scenario where the kid was injured, died, and the parents chose this way of covering it up, instead of something like an accident-- kids do get skull fractures falling downstairs, and if they aren't found right away, they can die. The actual cover-up scenario, if that's what it was, is so bizarre. The only thing that comes to mind is that Patsy Ramsey's cancer had returned, and she had malignant dementia, in which case she probably would have been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, or incompetent to stand trial in the first place.

[Ally]

Some people aren't very smart about picking passwords and security codes. John could have had a coworker who knew he used his anniversary for all his email accounts, his general login, and his locking briefcase. It wouldn't be much of a long shot to try that on his home security system.

The Ramseys have already said that on the night of Jon-Benet's murder their alarm system wasn't activated. But THAT night is not the night I have issue with. What I have an issue with is that, AFTER that, knowing that their lack of security allegedly allowed "an intruder" to come into their home, hang out for hours and brutally murder their child all without them being the slightest bit aware, they STILL continued to be completely lax about their security system, to the point that they were apparently robbed while in Atlanta, and again, claimed they had not turned on their security system. I mean really your child is murdered because you don't turn on your security system (one factor) and you are STILL lax when you have another child? I don't get that. Five years after their child is supposedly attacked inside their home and killed, they are completely lackadaisical about their home security. That's just odd.

Given the lack of crime scene security, we don't know that the body wasn't smuggled in the next morning. People were coming over, and it was Christmas, so someone with a package wouldn't have been suspicious.

Umm..??? You actually think that someone, with as you say police and neighbors and everyone else in the world milling about, would have risked carrying the body back in? For what purpose??

I just have trouble coming up with a reasonable scenario where the kid was injured, died, and the parents chose this way of covering it up, instead of something like an accident-- kids do get skull fractures falling downstairs,

Like maybe Burke or Patsy was the one who pushed her down the stairs? Not intending to kill her, but an argument, they get mad and shove. Or an argument and they get mad and a bop on the head. I can come up with all sorts of scenarios for an accidental killing and a cover-up. What I have a problem with is an intruder who fixes the kid a snack, spends hours there writing a ransom note either before or after he kills her (before, if it was a kidnapping gone wrong, why not just walk out the door with her, why go in the basement, after, you've just murdered a kid, why are you going to stick around composing several drafts of a multi-page ransom note?? Why not just "I have your kid, I will contact you for $$$. Be Ready!"... Especially if you knew you were never going to call because the kid is in the basement dead.)

[RivkahChaya]

I think you missed my point on the last one. If the kidnapping was staged to cover up an abuse death-- which I'm not saying you suggested, but I've seen it many places-- that's a pretty complicated staging when they could just stage a fall down the stairs.

Either the crime being covered up is a real torture death by the brother, or the mother killed her in some really bizarre way that necessitated the cover-up-- or maybe it was even ad hoc; the original cover-up was the kidnapping, and the plan was to dump the body outside the house after the police left to look for the kidnappers. It didn't occur to the parents that the police would hang around for hours, so they had to "find" the body, and the garrote and "molestation" were done in a hurry and o the sly when the police wouldn't leave.

At any rate, IF Patsy was involved, there was some kind of crazy going on. I don't think she was all that stable to begin with, and sometimes cancer survivors have neurological residua, and tripping on something as simple as a combination of Ambien and diet pills. For all we know, the kid may have gotten in the way of an hallucination.

Or, maybe she was buying something illegal like Laetrile, and the kid interrupted a drug deal.

I really don't see Patsy as a cold-blooded killer, because I don't see her as a cold-blooded anything.

[Ally]

I think you missed my point on the last one. If the kidnapping was staged to cover up an abuse death-- which I'm not saying you suggested, but I've seen it many places-- that's a pretty complicated staging when they could just stage a fall down the stairs.

Yeah I realized later I'd missed your point but didn't go back and correct it. But in any case, I don't think there needs to be anything neurological going on. Patsy was a drama queen. I mean look at the lengths and the frou-frou she went through in kiddie pageants. I can totally see her freaking out, going into overblown drama queen mode and coming up with all this to deflect suspicion. If it were just "a fall down the stairs" scenario that they staged, what if the wounds don't match? What if they say, nah it was something round, or what if they say, the force would have required someone to PUSH her. That doesn't let the family off the hook. An alleged intruder, gives them someone else to point the finger at. I agree it's totally crazy but I don't think we can claim anything like brain damage or whatever. She may well have been drugged out of her gourd when she came up with this plot, but I don't think it was an actual physical illness but more a combination of her dramatic nature and shock.

[RivkahChaya]

Well, we don't have to postulate an illness-- she did have cancer. I don't know that it caused any residua, though. What you interpret as her being a "drama queen" could very well be manic episodes of bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder. People with BPD sometimes have very mild psychosis-- nothing like what schizophrenics experience, but they still have difficulty with objective reality.

I guess that actually would explain why she might resort to an over-blown scenario to cover up an accidental killing that would amount to a manslaughter charge. Although, the more I think about it, working on the assumption that the family staged the kidnap as a cover-up, the idea that they thought the police would leave right away, and then they could go dump the body outside the house, and when the police stayed and stayed, they moved on to an ad hoc plan-B that involved finding the body in the house makes some sense. If this were the plot of a novel I were writing, that's what would happen.