Jon Benet's Family Exhonerated

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RivkahChaya]

My point wasn't about forgiveness, nor was it about doubt. It was about a rational decision by the police not to hound a woman in poor physical health, fragile mental health, and taking psychotropic drugs, because anything she told them would probably be ruled inadmissible in court. I remember how she came across in TV interviews-- she looked stoned out of her mind. She swayed even when she was sitting down. Her husband had his arm around her most of the time, probably to keep her from falling out of her chair.

Yes, I realize that police take confessions from alcoholics and drug addicts all the time, but they are usually homeless, or at least poor, alcoholics and drug addicts, who will have public defenders, and who were using street drugs, and whose BAC was not on the record.

Patsy Ramsey would have a team of gold-plated lawyers, and documentation of every Halcion, compazine, and Seroquel, phenobarb, or whatever else she'd been prescribed. Nothing she said would ever get to a jury. She could re-enact the murder with finger puppets, or make a series of dioramas with shoe boxes and Barbie dolls, and none of it would make it to a jury.

They needed her to decompress, and be sober and rational, or at least reach a baseline of functioning while medicated, and they also needed something besides a confession, if they were going to a jury.

I don't think the police believed at that point that they needed to worry about it, though. I don't think they thought Patsy Ramsey would be clever enough not to leave them a boatload of forensic evidence, and they'd be able to get her to plea bargain.

In the end, they never had much of any kind of evidence, because the police mishandled the crime scene. I don't know why. Maybe they were inexperienced enough to take a one-direction approach, and see it as just a kidnapping, and tap the phone while waiting for further contact from the kidnappers, so that by the time it was clear that it was both a murder, and the kidnapping was a hoax, the crime scene was thoroughly contaminated. Maybe they suspected Patsy from the very beginning, but thought if they let her be herself, she'd incriminate herself, whereas if they took her into custody right away, she'd shut up, and they might never even find the body.

I just don't know. I don't believe with certainty that she did it (I did at first, let me tell you). I do think she was a very strange person, though, whose motives and ideas are beyond me. I can't imagine why she'd kill her daughter on purpose, especially considering the degree to which she seemed to over-identify with her, but I can't imagine that she'd try to cover it up that way, if she killed her accidentally. In fact, I'm not sure why she'd cover it up at all-- she seemed like the kind of woman who would turn to her husband to "fix" things, and it doesn't seem like the sort of cover-up he would concoct. In the end, I'm just scratching my head.

[louisa]

That 'stalker' theory has been proved to be rubbish. The police investigated over 200 'suspects' but their investigations kept them coming back to the Ramseys.

JonBenet was not sexually molested. It appeared - from the autopsy - that a piece of Patsy's paintbrush had been inserted into the vagina, probably to give the impression that it was a sexual motif. No DNA was found.

Are we to believe that a person broke into (or was already hiding) in the Ramsey home on Christmas night - ready to come out when everyone was in bed, then write a rambling ransom note (having had a few previous attempts on the same notepad) - replace the pen neatly back in it's jar - leave the note on the stairs - then abduct JonBenet (events not necessarily in that order of course) - tie her hands loosely, crush her skull (not noticeable until the autopsy), then strangle her and insert a paintbrush. Then after JonBenet was dead he put a piece of duct tape over her mouth.


Then of course he would have to leave the premises without leaving a trace of himself behind....squeezing back out of the small window in the basement, climbing up out of the well and replacing the grid - and not leaving any footprints in the snow.

As an amateur criminologist I'm sure you know that most murders committed within the home are perpetrated by family members. That is where the police should have started instead of allowing the crime scene to be trampled over.

Everything pointed towards Patsy but the Ramseys were shielded by their lawyers and by the District Attorney. They refused to be interviewed. Does that sound normal behaviour? You would have thought they'd be doing every possible to find the killer and tormentor of their precious child.

The Ramseys were religious nuts who I think believed that God would forgive this terrible act of anger that Patsy accidentally perpetrated on their daughter. When John Ramsey was asked what the killer should receive, if he was ever found, John replied 'Forgiveness'.

Forgiveness! ffs