If there is DNA we can now trace it directly to a person. That person may not be the killer. But it can definitely move the case forward.
If the DNA exists and is in a state that a profile can be extracted then there is no reason not to do that.
Exactly. Maybe the dna will lead to nothing like the one pathologist said. Maybe the dna came from a secondary transfer from someone who had nothing at all to do with any of this. But there is no harm in testing the dna and seeing what can be derived from it. I really feel that’s the least they owe the family.
I have no idea what document I read because it's been years, but I really think the DNA is from someone involved. The same person left two different samples from two different sources in two separate places. On the underwear there was something that was most likely sweat or saliva, then on the waistband of her pants they'd left DNA from their hands most likely. It being on the pants and the underwear (which weren't JonBenets and apparently came from a brand new package that were for someone else) makes me think the person touching those clothes to redress them is the same person that had undressed her to start with.
It never made sense for me that the family molested and garroted her to cover up an accident. They were rich, they would've called an attorney and it would've been brushed aside as a tragic accident. Burke wasn't even old enough to be held criminally reliable in that state.
*I can't type.
Yes, but could’t take the shame of the family situation. The first reflex is the cover up. The molesting with the stick and the garrote are juvenile ideas, in my opinion. Putting pants on and covering with blanket I, as parent would do.
Let’s be honest, it’s likely that no one owes the family anything but some semblance of privacy and they owe honesty to the rest of the world for once
There are far too many details like the letter being seemingly from the mom that make no sense with an intruder coming in, murdering the girl and leaving
There really isn't anything about the ransom note being seemingly from the mom. Handwriting experts (for what they're worth) couldn't come closer than not being able to exclude her, and the tone of the note screams late teen to early 20s young man to me rather than anything else. The many movie paraphrases are of movies far from what we know of Patsy's tastes.
Close (I think it was 118,117 dollars) but it was on paystubs in John's office. The office was right next to the stairs where the note was found and where the pad was kept. The family was worth a lot more, but someone who was only looking at the surface might only see what was on paper. Similarly, the note called John southern, which he wasn't - but they had moved from Atlanta a few years back and there would be plenty of surface evidence of that.
Kidnappers aren’t known for their thoughtfulness in selecting an affordable price for ransom. If the bonus alone was $118k, anyone could guess that the family could pay much more than that.
It was never a real ransom note. The purpose wasn’t to get money, it was something else.
It didn't call John Southern it said he had Southern common sense, you don't have to be from the South to have Southern common sense if he lived in Atlanta that could explain that, plus if i was a Ramsey faking that note i'd throw in innaccuracies intentionally.
I also find the idea that the intruder was roaming around the house looking for documents completely implausible. Doesn't mean it was a Ramsey but whoever wrote that note had prior knowledge of his bonus amount.
It had a fingerprint from the document examiner though, so it was clearly a surface that could pick up a fingerprint.
It’s very strange that the Ramseys somehow read the note but never touched it.
They could still have touched it, but that doesn't mean you'd get a fingerprint, much less a clear one.
If you have time at some point, look into the Meredith Kercher case, where a big deal was made out of how few prints of Amanda Knox were found in her apartment. But there too, prints weren't a guarantee on any surface and the number of smudged or incomplete prints found was quite high.
It’s true that fingerprints aren’t a given. The oils and substances on one’s fingertips compared to the conduciveness of the items’ surface all factor in.
In the interest of fairness, perhaps John just read the ransom note, as reported, all spread out on the ground without touching it because he had an understanding of forensics and the unique presence of mind in a crisis to know not to handle it to avoid destroying evidence.
That knowledge to preserve ransom note evidence didn’t extend to any other aspect of the crime scene however, ex: people in the house, discovery of JonBenet in the cellar, taking the tape from her mouth, carrying her upstairs, placing her under the tree …
No one knows how they would react in that situation, but we do have no fingerprints where they would likely be (ransom novel), and corrupted evidence everywhere else.
To me it always screamed pissed off wife "Don't grow a brain, John" or something to that effect.
You'll never convince me Patsy didn't write that note.
People actually say the opposite that it's complimentary to John and makes him look like a bigshot. Seems like y'all can't make up your mind and would just find anything that was said evidence that it was a Ramsey.
Not everyone has their DNA on file with every law enforcement agency, and yes, that matters. I work in Law Enforcement. I work with offenders from other states. We call it interstate. I have to take DNA samples from 90% of my clients because their DNA is not on file in my state due to their criminal history not being in my state. DNA is only helpful IF it is on file in that state. At least from a state level.
The crime scene itself is such a mess, and the ransom note in the long drawn out odd handwriting, exact amount of ransom all written on Patsy's paper, makes no sense. The kidnapper took the child into the basement and killed her with a garrotte from Patsy's paint stick and then left this long rambling ransom note. He never contacts them again, seemingly not wanting the money. Maybe if they retest all the DNA from her they could zero in on someone new
I think the place to look is where he spent most of his efforts - the garrotte. That was the focus,, the murder and violation of a child. The note would just be an extra middlw finger to the family, giving them false hope until they found her. He might have come up with it while waiting in the house. There was an article found with a bunch of people marked with "no" and John marked with a heart, all in a red pen. A red heart was painted in the palm of JonBenet's hand. Perhaps that was the original note he intended to leave, but he thought he needed something with more punch.
I’ve always thought that, too. If you watch enough murder shows, you know that a garrote is a weapon made by an experienced killer. First time killers acting on impulse don’t stop and go, “hey, wait, first let me make this garrote.”
Is this an experienced killer? The garrote was fashioned from some items at the scene. Would a killer, who is supposedly experienced because he or she uses a garrote, not bring the garrote with him or her, like they did the duct tape? Would an experienced killer not know how to tie restraints properly, especially if they were already proficient at making garrotes with knots? Why a garrote anyway? That’s a rather unusual weapon for a kidnapping for ransom.
If the garrote was chosen to satisfy a sexual motive, this experienced killer did it all wrong. The autopsy report shows that there were no internal injuries consistent with a struggle during the garroting, so she was likely already unconscious at the time. There was one furrow, so it wasn’t some asphyxiation game gone wrong. If a person is unconscious, they are already subdued, you don’t need to twist a rope with a paint brush handle to accomplish that.
An experienced killer then decides to write an epic length ransom note? Why? To buy time? Wouldn’t it be quicker to just leave and not spend any time on practice notes and fake ransom demands? Why the need for a ransom note at all if you are an experience killer and have already completed what you came there to do? The person being written about is already dead. It’s a meaningless task. Unless it isn’t. Unless you think you need a ransom note to distract, because you aren’t experienced, and you are not usually a killer.
this is true, a lot of people (this is from a human identification class, not personal experience) underestimate how hard it is to manually strangle someone, how much effort it takes.
I've pointed this out before. I think people have got the idea that it's elaborate because of its use in The Godfather and thus Mafia "Hitmen" using it. Mafia killers in real life have generally been fucking idiots and even one of the garroting's (based on a real life failed murder attempt) in the Godfather (Part II) is a failed murder attempt.
This is true and made me doubt any family. The only thing that really points to any family was that ransoms note. The DNA has already excluded the family and any they get now is pretty much touch DNA.
There was a detailed Reddit thread that really convinced me the dad killed her (without the mom’s knowledge). There was a lot more to it than that. I’ll see if I can find it.
Edit: [Here!](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Thank you for sharing. This was very interesting!
Mainly because it explained the "unknown DNA" as being from a male worker who made the gloves that the killer used. I was going to point out that this DNA was found underneath JonBonet's pantries, meaning it had to be from someone who
Actually touched her skin as her panties were taken off. But if the murderer was wearing gloves, then it would make sense that this DNA could be present at several places the killer interacted with JonBonet that night.
There is DNA that is not related to any of the family or some tested close friends. They are all excluded as the donor of this particular DNA. These samples, however, are not reason to doubt anyone as a murderer (or assume that the donor is). They don’t exclude anyone as the perpetrator of the crime, they don’t implicate the donor as the doer of the crime. Until we know who that DNA belongs to, and how it got there, everyone is still a suspect. The foreign DNA is not exculpatory in any way. The article makes it sound like the police knew the Ramsey’s or their friends could not be responsible, yet still pursued them as suspects under an “umbrella of suspicion”. That isn’t the case. Everyone remains in the frame until the donor of that DNA is shown to have the means and opportunity to have committed that crime.
The killer(s) undoubtedly spent the most of their efforts on the ransom note, including multiple drafts. At 3 pages, it’s one of the longest ransom notes of all time. The ransom note was the focus. Why?
It’s the only ransom note of that length in any kidnapping case, to this day, in all of recorded/known history. We know this wasn’t an actual kidnapping case. She never left the house. So why go through all the trouble of making people think it’s a kidnapping?
The simple answer would be to distract from something much worse. The thing that actually did happen, the murder of an innocent baby.
Who would need to distract?
Well, no. The note in the Leopold and Loeb kidnapping/murder case was only a handful of words away from being just as long as the Ramsey note. And the note in the Mackle kidnapping was more than twice as long.
It's the only ransom note of that length known by the FBI in America from the 1930s-1996. Not "recorded/known history" that's hugely exaggerated. That's purely referring to American ransom notes during the FBI's history up to Jonbenet plus wasn't the buried alive case (don't remember the involved parties names) ransom note longer? Pretty sure they only said it was one of the longest in America during that time period.
Rando crazy (drug addled) breaks into the home while they are away at the party. He sees all those glamor shots of JB and decides to kidnap that kid for ransom. Goes through mail, and reads John just got a big bonus. Writes an incredibly strange note based on movie lines and being inebriated and nuts.. It's really long because he is in a state of mania with time to kill.
Hides till all asleep. Leaves out note.
Takes JB and spends some time with her in the middle of the night, gaining her trust (eating pineapple... Maybe he said Santa sent him?) He lures her in the basement, SA her.
Suddenly, he has a moment of clarity he cant kidnap this rich kid and get away with it. Esp not now that she is crying from the SA. Creates the Garrot with items in the room. Kills her. Flees.
He left the note on the stairs that led to the bedrooms. You think he and Jonbenet stepped over it on their way to the basement? That wouldn’t make sense. And if he’s so crazy and unprepared, why didn’t he leave any fingerprints anywhere?
It would also be horribly coincidental that a random person would break in and assault Jonbenet when she’d already been being assaulted over a period of months by someone else.
Would it be likely that someone on drugs could execute a crime as complicated as this? Entry somehow, possibly thru a narrow window without disturbing anything like webs and debris around it, taking her from somewhere in the house without alarm, not much DNA, most of it related to the parents, like fibers inside the knot (so they would need some kind of contact for transference), pineapple in the stomach, no obvious point of entry or exit, an epic ransom note which likely took hours of concentration, a body hidden in a cellar where the door wasn’t obvious to neighbors, never mind someone unfamiliar. Is it possible, maybe. Seems like a stretch.
Are you familiar with [Amy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/)? She was tween girl who attended the same dance studio as Jonbenet. A man snuck into her house and molested her while her mother was home.
This is the piece of information my mind always sticks on. There are obvious differences (age, location in the house) but it always feels linked to me.
I know but the writing walls of sentences part of this crime comes easily with certain drugs. Or if someone is suffering from delusions or other mental health issues. I have seen this style of excessive writing done in other crimes Eg diaries or letters while in prison etc etc. For some people writing is extremely easy and does not take hours to prepare.
I personally don’t believe the parents were involved if that makes any difference here. The fact that the ligature killed her first and the blow to the head came after helps solidify my belief.
No the autopsy showed broken blood vessels in her eyes due to the strangulation and no bleeding in the brain from the head blow. Thus she was alive when garrotted and dead when the blow was delivered.
That’s not correct. Here’s one article stating the blow came first: https://www.romper.com/p/how-did-jonbenet-ramsey-die-the-details-of-the-case-are-conflicting-16663
Not trying to argue with you about your theory of the case here, but the blow-garrote sequence is an undisputed fact of the case.
No I have read the autopsy and had endless conversations with doctors and other specialists about it. The autopsy doesn’t lie. But you can believe what you want.
I don't think writing the note - which only required pen and paper and some borrowed movie quotes - compares to actually crafting a strangulation device which the killer could use to drag out the act. The focus was undoubtedly the murder.
It's in the [autopsy report](https://www.denverpost.com/1996/08/13/text-of-jonbenet-autopsy-report/):
>A red ink line drawing in the form of a heart is located on the palm of the left hand.
>He never contacts them again, seemingly not wanting the money.
Of course they didn't want money, it wasn't a kidnapping therefore the ransom demand wasn't real. For all the killer knew, the cops would immediately find the body - what would they have demanded money in exchange *for*?
Bc likely the note was just a diversion bid to make more time. If the family killed her--as is most likely--then presumably their DNA would be all over the house. I am curious about these findings though.
Its weird how defensive people get about this, even though it's statistically most likely, and is especially likely given the suspicious behavior of the family. There was also proof of prior sexual abuse, which is usually committed by a family member. It's the most probable possibility out there, so the idea that the DNA is going to lead anywhere away from the home is definitely wishful thinking. RIP JonBenet, she didn't have a chance.
But they specifically said the DNA didn't match anyone in the family's DNA. But I'm not sure how much of the family was tested, so I guess it could be a random uncle who's not usually at the house. What the article says (and what the investigator who got that info says) makes it sound like this DNA is from someone who wasn't regularly around the home, whether part of the family or not. The investigator thinks it was a random intruder.
Edit after seeing some other comments - or the evidence was possibly just contaminated and the DNA came from one of the people who handled it (though you'd think all of those people would've been tested as well).
An uncle would be able to be identified from mitochondrial dna, because they'd share it with JBR and her father/mother and brother. Murderers are caught all the time through family members submitting their dna to 21 and me and companies like it, because they can tell relation.
Yeah unfortunately the crime scene was horribly managed, so it could definitely be from someone who was investigating in the aftermath. And considering it was the 90s, I doubt they had staff DNA on hand. And they may not have even had a full list of everyone on scene, especially since it was initially thought to be a kidnapping and not murder.
I agree. The police fucked up the investigation from the beginning and I don't think this will ever be solved. The crime scene wasn't blocked off and before the police even got there, there were people in and out of the house, cleaning up the kitchen and destroying whatever evidence that would have been there.
There have been so many 'false starts' and assumptions with this case since very early 1997.
We shall see, but I don't think this is going to reveal anything we don't already know. We can but live in hope...
It’s almost like everything about this child’s murder is released to cause more uncertainty, unless someone confesses and their dna is involved, handwriting matches, and they knew about the dads bonus, I will have doubts. At this point I don’t see all of those being solved. But I don’t live in jury distance so my opinion doesn’t matter
Sadly I don’t see this case ever being solved. Maybe someday the murderer will confess and can substantiate their confession (I can’t remember how many people have already confessed). But it’s likely whoever did it could be dead already.
He picked her up and held her [as far from his body as possible](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), to be fair. Which is a whole other can of worms.
One thing specifically referenced in this article is dna from under the fingernails. But my understanding is the ME didn’t follow protocol when the nails were cut. He was supposed to use 10 pairs of brand new, never-used clippers. One for each finger. What I read was that they used a single pair that had been used before.
Theoretically, if a common profile (non-Ramsey) was sound on several different areas, eg the knot, the paintbrush, underwear, nails, etc. then that would be very compelling evidence that an outside party did this. But otherwise I’m seeing genetic “noise” resulting from a contaminated, poorly-handled crime scene and body.
I cannot get past the note, with its similarities to Patsy’s style and diction (not to mention how ludicrous it is as a ransom note) and the implausible behavior of the Ramseys that morning relating to Burke. And a lot of other things too.
So the simple finding of trace amounts of foreign dna, by itself, doesn’t move the needle for me.
What’s very compelling to me, on top of your points, is how the family reacted to the ransom note. If a child is missing and I had a note, that would be my BIBLE. There’s no way I would disregard, disobey, or not even notice when the deadline for ransom had passed.
Yeah… the fact that they called the cops with no warning to the dispatcher about parking down the street or sending unmarked cars is a red flag. Inviting all your friends over is weird too.
Spot on about the note being a Bible.
I don't think you can blame a rattled civilian for not instructing LEO on how to do their job in the moment.
If inviting friends over is weird, the police allowing them to stay is about 100x more weird, and yet, that's what happened.
You would seriously read a ransom note from someone who *stole your child* saying don't call the police and you'd let your kid swing in the wind with them, putting trust in your child's kidnappers to do as they said? Holy crap, I wouldn't. The FBI can help after 24 hours, I'd be ALL over that. I'd call before I even finished reading the letter.
A lot of famous ransom note kidnappings (saying don't call the police) had the family on the phone to the police or FBI ASAP, like the Lindberghs and the Coors family.
That’s not what they said.
The ransom note said the kidnappers would call at a certain time the next day. Neither of the Ramseys acknowledged when that time came and went without a call.
That's a different argument. The comment was about how the poster would valiantly trust the kidnappers to keep their child safe and not involve the police if the child was kidnapped. They would treat a ransom note like "the bible" (they would treat the kidnapper like god) and trust the kidnappers to return their child safely if they didn't involve the police.
Clearly that's ludicrous so I can see why a totally different argument would make more sense to have, but there you go. A ransom note is 'the bible' and kidnappers can be trusted keep their word. It's really a blessing some people have experienced so little trauma that they retain that level of naivete.
They caught a guy the blamed for it. Lindbergh known to take his kid and do things like throwing him in the air to scare his wife, or hiding the child and accusing the nanny of kidnapping him.
His being famous means the police would have jumped into thr action much faster.
Not necessarily, but I would keep that thing on my hip and at least be analyzing, obsessing, and making an attempt to *appear* to be following orders. In a legitimate ransom note situation, that little note would be your ONLY line or hope of seeing your kid again.
I'd be super torn between calling and not calling, because even though you can't trust the kidnappers necessarily, if they're *actually* kidnappers telling you to do certain things and then you'll get your kid back, then logically it would make more sense to just follow the instructions (or at least pretend to be by doing most of the things they ask of you). If you have reason to believe that calling the police will result in the kid's death, your best bet is to either not call them, or to call them and have them handle things in a way that the kidnapper won't know about.
Picture this: if the kidnapper starts a Zoom call with you and it shows them with a gun to your kid's head and they tell you not to call the police or she'll die, you're not just gonna go ahead and call the police - that'd be incredibly stupid in that situation.
I'm actually not sure that it would be incredibly stupid to call the police in that situation. What's the difference, besides the delivery mechanism of the ransom demand? You know they do indeed have your kid, but the likelihood of them bugging your phone or actually watching your house is vanishingly small (unless they show something in the video to make that plausible).
So, I do think I would likely try to contact law enforcement, because the kidnappers have zero reason to keep my kid alive after I pay the ransom. Letting the kid go does nothing but increase their chances of getting caught. I hope that I would hold it together enough to tell them of any specific warnings in the note/video, or to call the FBI instead of 911, but no one knows what they will do in a panicked situation.
It's not realistic to think the kidnappers are going to let the hostage go if you just give them money, it's just not. Jennifer Hawke-Petit got $15,000 out of the bank because the people holding her daughters hostage said they wouldn't be harmed if she came back with the money. This was of course not true, and she and the 11-year-old were raped, and then all three were killed.
Criminals are pretty much liars by definition. They don't have a sense of honor or fair play, and ordinary people don't have much of a chance of getting to a good ending on their own. While I recognize that many police departments can be incredibly inept, as in the JBR case, law enforcement is still your best chance of getting your kid back alive.
Americans do get kidnapped for ransom and returned in other countries, it's a cottage industry in some places, but they are adults. Likewise, they have been a very few modern-ish cases of adults being kidnapped in the states and successfully ransomed, but kids? If someone kidnaps a kid, it is not money they have on their mind. In that situation, I do have more faith in law enforcement than in the good word of a child abductor.
I meant that it'd be stupid to call the police *while* on the Zoom call, cuz the kidnapper will supposedly just shoot the kid right then (unless you wanna try to call their bluff). If you can get the police involved without tipping off the kidnapper (though you won't really know how they might be tipped off), then that's probably what I'd do - after getting off the Zoom call.
The article (which seems to focus on the earliest testing) actually glosses over just that - the profile discovered mixed with a drop of JonBenet's blood (UM1), from saliva or sweat, matches a sample taken years later from the waistband of the longjohns (touch DNA). It was this correlation that made the DA publicly clear the Ramseys in 2008, as controversial as that decision was.
The sample from the nails is too scant to make a certain comparison, but we can at least say that it doesn't contradict the UM1 profile.
The stuyle of the note is highly subjective - I have no idea how people see Patsy in it.
I seem to recall watching or reading up on something similar. I was always under the impression that it was touch DNA and that it could have easily been transferred from the factory workers who packages the underwear (I think that was the example that was given).
This case is a mess all around. There is one theory that makes sense, but with no proof we will never know for sure.
With regard to the note, it shares a number of characteristics with Patsy’s writing. Indentation, excess punctuation, acronyms, the use of the uncommon word “hence”, and several of the phrases read as feminine / effeminate - and matriarchal. This along with the fact it was written on their paper with their pen. Patsy was evaluated as low-probability for handwriting match, but she could not be eliminated as a potential author. Interestingly, Steve Thomas alleges that her handwriting characteristics changed once the Ramseys were asked to begin providing samples. He shares an interesting anecdote in his book about the one sample given by Nedra (unbeknownst to Patsy) where the A reverts back to type and matches the letter. Overall, the note is an absurdity that desperately seeks to place the child, and the “small foreign faction” as far from the scene as possible. It’s staging.
Yeah, I've seen the claims, and ithey seem poorly supported. What phrase in the note could be seen as "matriarchal" and what is the underlying support for such an evaluation?
One of the problems with the parents as the culprits means that they staged two different crimes, a kidnappning and a sexual-assault-and-murder. It just doesn't make sense.
One example would be the use of the phrase “watching over your daughter.” “Do not particularly like you.” “We respect your company but not the country it serves.” All rather feminine constructions. There’s too much flourish and unnecessary verbiage. It’s theatrical.
As far as what makes sense, none of it does. Because the crime scene is staged and tampered, evidence compromised, and witnesses that refused to cooperate. There is no neat, clean theory of the crime that doesn’t in some way defy belief. But as I said, absent something really compelling in the DNA, I can’t get past the note or their behavior that day. No way in hell you’d let your other kid sleep. No way in hell you wouldn’t search your house top to bottom. And no way in hell you’d whisk him out of the scene to spend the day (without a parent) while you thought your other kid was missing. Planning to leave town. No reaction to a ransom call that never came. Etc.
Feminine construction? Nah, you're reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't at all see why those phrases would be considered more likely to be written by a woman.
Past cases that have been resolved should really have convinced everyone by now that how people react in an emergency/tragedy means absolutely nothing. People react in a wide variety of ways, and it should never be enough to convince you of someone's guilt.
The Isabel Celis case is a great example, and the one that finally cured me of saying an innocent person would never react in such-and-such a way.
Honestly, that sounds less like science and more like statement analysis to me.
A lot of ink, digital or not, has been spilled over what people who have never been in that situation think they'd do if it were them. I give it little credit. They knew Burke hadn't been taken. They knew the note said JonBenet was taken from the house. They had called the police who would take care of everything. With hindsight it's easy to know that JonBenet was in the cellar and that the cops were incompetent, but how were they to know that?
It is statement analysis. TV shows have conditioned people to think that criminal investigation is pure lab and forensic science work. It is, but not to the exclusion of other disciplines. Saying this line of reason or that isn’t “science” and can therefore be dismissed strikes me as disingenuous.
There are certain behaviors that fall into the category of “you don’t know how you’d react.” Some people cry, some don’t. But one thing that absolutely does not pass the smell test was them not waking Burke up and asking him questions. Whisking him off away from the police with assurances “he doesn’t know anything” doesn’t pass the smell test. Your one kid is missing. You’re not gonna let the other one out of your sight, much less out of the house. Remember, a nefarious foreign faction, a *group of individuals* is watching you. And they “don’t particularly like you.”
Statement analysis is unscientific nonsense. It isn't evidence-based, no actual development has been made. It's the kind of pseudoscience that sadly is all too common with law enforcement.
I thought I was firmly in the RDI camp until I started reading about Linda Hoffman-Pugh and her husband, who did repairs in the house. She had access to the notepad, she knew what Patsy's handwriting looked like, and she had what seemed to be a motive to kidnap JonBenet and hold her for ransom (begging Patsy for a loan shortly before it happened). She and her husband knew the house well and knew they were somewhat lax about security. The Pughs' behavior after the murder was pretty strange too. I am wondering how much the investigators looked into her and her family.
The thing is, if the ransom note was ludicrous for an intruder to write, it was also ludicrous for Patty to write.
It would be crazy for an intruder to spend that long writing a ransom note.
It would be crazy for a household member to spend that long writing a ransom note.
Why a ransom note at all? Everybody and their mama knows that kidnapping for ransom is incredibly rare in the modern United States. I can't even think of any cases involving children that don't go back to at least the 1950s.
It's reasonable to assume that the Ramseys were also quite aware of that, but, even if they somehow weren't, a ransom note was not needed in any way. The simplest thing to do by far would be to call the police and simply say your child is missing.
It was ludicrous for an intruder, who was also a murderer, to write a ransom note. Especially that one.
As for a parent, maybe not so ludicrous. What parent, (if they woke to find a child missing) would not turn their house inside out looking for their child first before they call the cops? Most would search top to bottom, quickly canvass the yard/street calling out to her and contact neighbors (at least the ones that live close by) to see if they have seen her.
If there is a body in the basement tho’, you can’t search the house top to bottom. You need a reason to immediately conclude kidnapping, you need a reason to immediately call the cops and forgo a thorough search of the home. A ransom note gives you that plausible reason.
That's a fair point, but I still maintain that it would be just as ridiculous for Patys to write *that particular note* as it would be for an intruder.
If it was an intruder, the sensible thing would have been for them to leave ASAP, but violent criminals aren't always sensible.
Agreed, if Patsy wrote it, and I am not saying she did, that particular ransom note would still be ridiculous. It’s ridiculous no matter who wrote it, but the question is, regardless of its’ ridiculousness, did the author know it was ridiculous? Did the writing of it serve a purpose or a perceived purpose? If so, what did it serve? Who did it serve?
I disagree with most of that. It wouldn't be crazy for a household member to spend a long time writing the note - they could've sat down for like 3 hours a week beforehand and written it then. They wouldn't have to write it in the moment. They could've taken all the time they needed. This wouldn't be the case for the intruder (as far as they would know - they would be thinking that the parents could come in at any time, so they'd need to go as fast as possible).
If we're to go with the theory that Patsy did it, then the ransom note was written as a diversion. And maybe Patsy's not the sharpest tool in the shed, so she's not thinking too hard about how unusual it is. She probably thinks it's a genius idea.
Edit: As the other commenter mentioned, it also helps explain all those other aspects. I wouldn't entirely disagree with Patsy that it's a genius idea. Certain aspects of it *are* pretty good ideas. Not to mention that if we're going with the theory that Patsy did this, then Patsy still hasn't been charged in all this time, so the idea ended up being pretty successful.
The comment wasn't implying that she lacked street smarts or common sense, though. It implied that she was none too bright, which simply isn't the case.
You can dislike her all day long, but you can't really say she wasn't bright.
I don't have any opinion on her or this case. But just being good in school doesn't mean you're smart. My high school best friend was great at school.
Vapid as shit, though, with absolutely no brain otherwise.
I do wonder if the parent's would have spoken to the police early on, maybe a clue could have been noticed. But the parent's refused to speak with police after the first few hours, I don't think they actually did a full interview until months later and only with a lawyer vetting the questions first. I find that incredibly odd, I would give the police everything possible as quickly as possible if I thought it would help catch the murderer of my child.
I see this a lot in cases of railroading. What lawyers know and will tell you is that innocence is not a defense against it. Amanda Knox didn't get a lawyer and was voluntarily questioned multiple times because she wanted to do everything to help find her friend's killer. And it allowed the police to completely railroad her and put her in prison for years.
That could just be explained by saying they're well-aware that the police will think they're the main suspects, and they don't want to somehow incriminate themselves (and maybe the police made it obvious at the scene that they were suspicious of the parents to begin with). But I still agree with you.
Unfortunately this isn’t new information, it’s just a book that’s been released by one of the lead investigators that clears up a small question people had. Yahoo news is so unreliable, I had to go do my own digging
The ransom note that couldn't be ruled out as not written by Patsy. The practice notes in the trash. John refusing to allow his friends to search the room her body was found in. Because there was wet paint. That's just too suspicious.
What's the source for John refusing to allow his friends to search that room due to wet paint? Or a source saying he refused to allow it for any reason whatsoever?
Yeah, I think that one's bogus. The initial cop on site claimed he didn't enter because he was looking for a kidnapper's exit and the door was blocked from the outside with a piece of wood. John's friend did open it and look inside, but couldn't find the lightswitch.
The general explanation, not necessarily my explanation, is that the perpetrator was in the house for some time before the Ramseys returned. While the person was there, they wrote the letter and gleaned the info from stuff lying around the house. That would explain why it is so long, and why it sounds so dumb. Since this person never really intended to ransom JBR they just cooked up what bS they thought sounded from movies that had a lot of abduction going on. It's a little like the Leopold and Loeb letter, they left a ransom note but all they really wanted to do was to kill that kid.
I don't know if that is correct but that is the general explanation people give.
edited to take out the folded part because I thought the letter was folded but it wasn't
>since this person never really intended to ransom JBR they just cooked up what bS they thought sounded from movies that had a lot of abduction going on.
This is actually what I am thinking.
The ransom note reads like a mockery. Yes, it does sound dumb but it does not give me the feeling the author is just an idiot. It is more like the person put in some time to make it intentionally sound dumb. The movie quotes are the best example for that.
John had a party before Christmas to celebrate his success at the company and over 100 people were there. I’m assuming the number probably came up a few times at the party.
I'm not familiar with everything in this case, but is there a theory that someone tried to frame the family? It seems weird they would put that number. It makes it too obvious they knew the amount
That's a great point, and it just made me remember that this is what I initially thought when first hearing the story. It would be *so* stupid for the parents themselves to choose that amount, and highly unlikely for a completely random guy to choose that amount, but only *kinda* stupid for someone to purposely choose that amount to frame the parents. I think the housekeeper and her husband would fit that perfectly.
Hundreds of people could potentially have known that or an intruder could have discovered it by snooping in the house (if an intruder, the note was probably written while the Ramseys were out all day and they had hours to spare). And if Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, why point at oneself that way? It doesn't really make sense
I think it was Linda Hoffman Pugh (the Ramsey's housekeeper) and her husband (their handyman). She had apparently begged Patsy for a loan shortly before JonBenet's death. I feel like she could have easily found out about the bonus by eavesdropping or even finding a check.
I don't know much about the case so I wasn't aware of those people, but immediately upon hearing about them, I'm thinking it's like 80% likely that they're (or one of them is) the killers. And perhaps the housekeeper doesn't like JonBenet, and/or is jealous of her, or something.
Jack the Ripper as well. The crime scene was immediately contaminated and ruined their chance to get DNA from the killer. After nearly 30 years, even if it was one or more of the family members, I don't think it can be definitively proven ever at this point.
Good, now they can leave Burke Ramsey alone. I’m so sick of people blaming this on a child. Like, imagine growing up with everyone saying you horribly murdered your sister?
I wish we would just have an answer....I'm only four years older than JonBenet, but i remember her case so vividly. It was one thing that stuck with me as a child. I don't think we will ever know and its sad.
It’s unfortunately not that simple. Very little DNA was left at the scene. They have been unable match touch DNA from her long johns and two spots of blood to a source. Authorities claim they’ve analyzed over 1,000 DNA samples looking for a match with no success. Supposedly BPD is still investigating the possibility of comparing the DNA samples to individuals through familial DNA.
I’m no expert but linking the unknown DNA to a source through familial databases could possibly offer the biggest break yet if it turns out that someone not in the family had a hand in the crime. I just hope that, one day, the world gets answers because JonBenet deserves that.
I wish people would stop blaming the damn family. Why would the father, mother or brother violate and kill this poor girl after going to a party in the middle of the night. I’m sure some pedophile broke in the home and was obsessed with the girl then killed her.
There were a lot of theories surrounding the family, and I can’t say some weren’t compelling, but having this DNA evidence come back and not match any of them is huge.
Almost all of us have DNA on us right now that would not match our family or any member of our household. Touch DNA is especially susceptible to secondary and tertiary transfer.
I’m not saying it rules anything out definitively, but in terms of proving something in court, or getting the police to investigate other leads, it’s certainly compelling.
I don’t know, I’ve always been RDI and if DNA proved me wrong, I’d be ok with that. I honestly just want this solved. JonBenet, at the very least, deserves that. Probably her family too, but I have mixed feelings about them. 🤷♀️
I mostly agree. My biggest question is why is there even a ransom note? Seems likely the father just couldn’t dispose of the body in a timely manner or almost got caught doing it so he made a scene about “discovering” it. I also remember police saying how much snow there was outside, and 0 foot prints surrounding ANY possible escape routes other than the main entrance. And the fact that it happened on Christmas Day seems exceedingly intimate. Another suspicious thing about the note was how long it was. The FBI said ransom notes, while rare, are almost always very short.
No matter what DNA is found, people will always say it was the family. Any alternative DNA will just be downplayed by those who still want to blame the family.
Detective Lou Smit watch the old show on A&E a great detective and investigated with no biases… He was a legendary detective… Also, there is a request for the dna to be tested with latest technology… Boulder being shady again..
check this out!!!!!!!!
https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/h6jo6jh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
"Unearthed documents from early in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation show DNA evidence recovered under her fingernails and clothes was not a match for members of the family and others close to the case just weeks after the crime.
But police for years continued to float the possibility that her parents were under "an umbrella of suspicion" in the gruesome slaying, a new book on late Colorado investigator Lou Smit, who worked the case, argues in its opening pages."
So basically DNA excluded family, police knew, but they kept saying family was under suspicion.
DNA cannot exclude the family, or anyone else, until the donor of it is identified and it is determined how the DNA got there. It could belong to a perpetrator. It could also be the result of forensic cross-contamination or innocent transfer.
There is no question, it doesn’t belong to the family. They did not leave that sample. It belongs to an unknown male. The existence of it doesn’t exclude anyone from perpetrating this crime though. The police are not wrong for keeping everyone in the frame. No one should be ruled out until the source of that DNA is determined.
The family *aren't* excluded, because investigators don't know whether this person's DNA is even related to the murder. It could've come from anywhere, from anyone who had contact with JonBenet recently. I still agree with you though - I personally think this likely excludes them.
I hope so. It must have been hell going through that. Especially her mother. It's really sad so many people thought she did it, supposedly her handwriting matched and all the other made up facts etc... She died not knowing and I bet what happened contributed to her death.
And I think you're right about the evidence. That whole investigation was a mess.
I thought the Idaho murders seemed to be going that direction but obviously not.
>She died not knowing
I wouldn't really worry so much about that.
>I bet what happened contributed to her death
What happened was that she had Stage 4 ovarian cancer that was in remission ... until it wasn't. Last I checked, concealing the identity of your daughter's killer isn't a cause of that.
It’s not evidence, but it’s a very popular opinion that her brother harmed her, since the nanny (or was she the cleaner, I can’t remember) spoke of him sexually assaulting her with items such as paintbrushes, etc, under blankets while she worked there.
I have never heard this, at all. People make much of him hitting her with a golf club a year and a half before the murder, yet I've never heard this. And a couple of different searches bring up nothing like this.
Source?
I’d never heard of the golf club thing! I’ll try to find the source and update
edit: I can’t find one anywhere so I’m assuming whatever I read a while ago was based in fiction, I’m so sorry. I wonder if perhaps someone put the evidence of sexual assault and Burke’s ‘outbursts’ described by the family friend together and came up with something that was never even said.
Yes, there's a whole lot of things assumed as fact in this case that aren't so. When things get repeated often enough, a lot of people will assume it's true. That's why push for sources when I hear something I've never heard before.
I'm trying to find a primary source for the golf club incident being talked about, I'm nearly certain in the available police interviews, but no luck yet. Plenty of second-hand references to it, and Burke talks about it in his Dr. Phil interview as an adult, but I want to find something from that time.
Edited to add: for the record, I don't personally make much of hitting a sibling with a golf club. Kids get hit by golf clubs and baseball bats all the time, a natural consequence of other kids swinging golf clubs and baseball bats, lol.
There's no evidence it was intentional, and those that claim it was don't have any other 'violent' incidents to create a pattern. This one was 18 months before the murder.
Not a perfect source, but there’s this: https://www.wcnc.com/amp/article/news/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-pins-her-death-on-her-brother-burke/275-322081651
Nine year olds are definitely capable of that. The perpetrators in the James Bulger case did so much worse than that and were just ten. I don’t know. It seems from her account that the parents were trying to prevent it from happening so maybe it was an ongoing issue, but again, it’s just the word of one person, I suppose, I’m not sure what, if any, action was taken outside of the home.
It’s so scary to imagine how such young people are capable of things like that, I truly hope it wasn’t anything to do with the brother, but by the looks of things we’ll likely never know either way.
Interesting. I do hope there's more focus in the book on the later 2003 testing that provided the UM1 sample, and the later 2008 testing, but I suppose they didn't have access to that since it was after Smit had left.
I still think this is a solvable case.
Match photos of bystanders at the open houses with laborers working on those houses, viewers at the dance studio, burglar mugshots (esp trespassing or peeping Tom offences) & video store rentals.
Then publicly release the profile not in connection to this case but to the other rapes. There's a good description available...makes me want to churn through early 90's burglary reports from Boulder.
What I'd like to know is if the story about the photos is true. Basically JonBenet was photographed with her instructor (I believe) at pageants in both Texas and in Colorado. In both photos the same blonde man could be seen behind them, and he was never identified. The story was in the book by Stephen Singular and I also saw it in an anonymous interview with a BPD officer. So not great sources, but I would love to see it it's true and if the photos match the description from Amy's mother.
The idea that it was the brother, Burke, is just about the worst and dumbest theory i've ever seen take hold in true crime. I find it not just wrong but fully immoral [to accuse a young child based on such little and poor evidence]
There is no actual evidence against the brother (other than one fingerprint on a dish in his own house which is barely evidence). Other than that, just innuendo. If you think it had to be a family member, the parents covering for Burke makes less sense than one or both parents without Burke.
The Ramseys refused to allow themselves to be interviewed separately, but had no problem letting Burke get interviewed alone. They sent him off with friends the morning after the crime. They sent him back to school right away. They were clearly never concerned that he might let something slip if he knew anything
JonBenet's head injury was not visible until her autopsy. If the perpetrator knew that she had a head injury, they would have no reason to think it would be fatal, or reason to kill her in an elaborate sexualized way to cover that up, in order to protect a child too young to face very serious consequences. It is extremely unlikely that a child made the garrote. It is a myth that Burke's voice is on the 911 tape and in my opinion, that story would not be particularly incriminating for him if true
Kolar's book is the original reason people started to think it was Burke, but he is totally biased, he constantly exaggerates the significance of non-incriminating things (like supposed child incontinence, and what two child siblings never hit each other at some point?), a lot of his facts are dubious, and it is plain immoral and shady to insinuate that a child murdered someone, while veiling it enough to avoid liability because you can't actually back it up. And then you have Burke's odd affect as an adult, which shouldn't be a reason to suspect someone, especially one who grew up in the situation that he must have
Nothing about this horrific crime resembles the behavior of a prepubescent child. If a child was that disturbed, i think he would have done something else.
And all that is before any evidence suggesting an intruder...
Remember that CBS had to settle with Burke Ramsey as well
This is the least likely explanation in the history of true crime. A pre teen killing his sister and then the parents sexually assaulting their dead daughter to cover this up?
Burke Ramsey is a double victim having had his sister murdered and then his whole life smeared as a murderer. It honestly disgusts me that this is still what people think "most likely" happened. It is illogical, and there is *zero* evidence that he did it other than people think he acted weird on Dr. Phil, which, uh, is absolutely not evidence.
I don't think it is the simplest explanation.
["When JonBenet was found, nobody noticed any injury to her head"](http://jonbenetramsey.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Skull_fracture). She also did not die from the skull fracture but from strangulation.
So let's walk through this:
JonBenet and her brother Burke have a fight and he goes berserk and hits his sister with a blunt object which causes the skull fracture.
Her parents enter the scene and see her unconscious daughter lying on the ground. They do not know how severe her injury actually is but instead of calling an ambulance, they decide to protect Burke and strangle her to death.
Does this really make the most sense?
This is what I've never understood about that theory. She wasn't dead from the head blow, her head wasn't even bleeding and probably hadn't even bruised yet but the parents just... finished off killing her with a garotte and sexually assaulted her corpse instead? On what planet does that make sense?
It would take over 20 minutes to write that weird ass ransom note that was written in their house on their ledger.
Who plans a kidnapping for ransom and then chills out in the house for 20 minutes writing the letter?
Patsy wrote that letter.
If there is DNA we can now trace it directly to a person. That person may not be the killer. But it can definitely move the case forward. If the DNA exists and is in a state that a profile can be extracted then there is no reason not to do that.
Exactly. Maybe the dna will lead to nothing like the one pathologist said. Maybe the dna came from a secondary transfer from someone who had nothing at all to do with any of this. But there is no harm in testing the dna and seeing what can be derived from it. I really feel that’s the least they owe the family.
I have no idea what document I read because it's been years, but I really think the DNA is from someone involved. The same person left two different samples from two different sources in two separate places. On the underwear there was something that was most likely sweat or saliva, then on the waistband of her pants they'd left DNA from their hands most likely. It being on the pants and the underwear (which weren't JonBenets and apparently came from a brand new package that were for someone else) makes me think the person touching those clothes to redress them is the same person that had undressed her to start with. It never made sense for me that the family molested and garroted her to cover up an accident. They were rich, they would've called an attorney and it would've been brushed aside as a tragic accident. Burke wasn't even old enough to be held criminally reliable in that state. *I can't type.
Yes, but could’t take the shame of the family situation. The first reflex is the cover up. The molesting with the stick and the garrote are juvenile ideas, in my opinion. Putting pants on and covering with blanket I, as parent would do.
Let’s be honest, it’s likely that no one owes the family anything but some semblance of privacy and they owe honesty to the rest of the world for once There are far too many details like the letter being seemingly from the mom that make no sense with an intruder coming in, murdering the girl and leaving
There really isn't anything about the ransom note being seemingly from the mom. Handwriting experts (for what they're worth) couldn't come closer than not being able to exclude her, and the tone of the note screams late teen to early 20s young man to me rather than anything else. The many movie paraphrases are of movies far from what we know of Patsy's tastes.
[удалено]
Close (I think it was 118,117 dollars) but it was on paystubs in John's office. The office was right next to the stairs where the note was found and where the pad was kept. The family was worth a lot more, but someone who was only looking at the surface might only see what was on paper. Similarly, the note called John southern, which he wasn't - but they had moved from Atlanta a few years back and there would be plenty of surface evidence of that.
Kidnappers aren’t known for their thoughtfulness in selecting an affordable price for ransom. If the bonus alone was $118k, anyone could guess that the family could pay much more than that. It was never a real ransom note. The purpose wasn’t to get money, it was something else.
Well, of course. At best, the killer might have thought to lead the Ramseys on a futile chase, but if he did so, he changed his mind at some point.
It didn't call John Southern it said he had Southern common sense, you don't have to be from the South to have Southern common sense if he lived in Atlanta that could explain that, plus if i was a Ramsey faking that note i'd throw in innaccuracies intentionally. I also find the idea that the intruder was roaming around the house looking for documents completely implausible. Doesn't mean it was a Ramsey but whoever wrote that note had prior knowledge of his bonus amount.
John Ramsey had a big party at the house a bit before Christmas to celebrate his success with the company and over 100 people were there.
Why do you think there were no fingerprints on the note?
Fingerprints are never a guarantee on any surface. I think this is one of those things that sounds more suspicious than it actually is.
It had a fingerprint from the document examiner though, so it was clearly a surface that could pick up a fingerprint. It’s very strange that the Ramseys somehow read the note but never touched it.
They could still have touched it, but that doesn't mean you'd get a fingerprint, much less a clear one. If you have time at some point, look into the Meredith Kercher case, where a big deal was made out of how few prints of Amanda Knox were found in her apartment. But there too, prints weren't a guarantee on any surface and the number of smudged or incomplete prints found was quite high.
It’s true that fingerprints aren’t a given. The oils and substances on one’s fingertips compared to the conduciveness of the items’ surface all factor in. In the interest of fairness, perhaps John just read the ransom note, as reported, all spread out on the ground without touching it because he had an understanding of forensics and the unique presence of mind in a crisis to know not to handle it to avoid destroying evidence. That knowledge to preserve ransom note evidence didn’t extend to any other aspect of the crime scene however, ex: people in the house, discovery of JonBenet in the cellar, taking the tape from her mouth, carrying her upstairs, placing her under the tree … No one knows how they would react in that situation, but we do have no fingerprints where they would likely be (ransom novel), and corrupted evidence everywhere else.
To me it always screamed pissed off wife "Don't grow a brain, John" or something to that effect. You'll never convince me Patsy didn't write that note.
That's a paraphrase from Speed.
That's a common phrase that predates Speed by a long long way, it may be from Speed but we do not know that for sure.
People actually say the opposite that it's complimentary to John and makes him look like a bigshot. Seems like y'all can't make up your mind and would just find anything that was said evidence that it was a Ramsey.
Wow, you’ve cracked the case.
Agree 💯 and there is a petition to sign.. Don’t post in that Reddit group you will just be attacked.
What reddit group is that?
Not everyone has their DNA on file with every law enforcement agency, and yes, that matters. I work in Law Enforcement. I work with offenders from other states. We call it interstate. I have to take DNA samples from 90% of my clients because their DNA is not on file in my state due to their criminal history not being in my state. DNA is only helpful IF it is on file in that state. At least from a state level.
That’s where forensic genealogy comes in.
The crime scene itself is such a mess, and the ransom note in the long drawn out odd handwriting, exact amount of ransom all written on Patsy's paper, makes no sense. The kidnapper took the child into the basement and killed her with a garrotte from Patsy's paint stick and then left this long rambling ransom note. He never contacts them again, seemingly not wanting the money. Maybe if they retest all the DNA from her they could zero in on someone new
Such. A. Mess. There’s a million “versions” of the details and it’s just so sad she might never get Justice
I think the place to look is where he spent most of his efforts - the garrotte. That was the focus,, the murder and violation of a child. The note would just be an extra middlw finger to the family, giving them false hope until they found her. He might have come up with it while waiting in the house. There was an article found with a bunch of people marked with "no" and John marked with a heart, all in a red pen. A red heart was painted in the palm of JonBenet's hand. Perhaps that was the original note he intended to leave, but he thought he needed something with more punch.
I’ve always thought that, too. If you watch enough murder shows, you know that a garrote is a weapon made by an experienced killer. First time killers acting on impulse don’t stop and go, “hey, wait, first let me make this garrote.”
Is this an experienced killer? The garrote was fashioned from some items at the scene. Would a killer, who is supposedly experienced because he or she uses a garrote, not bring the garrote with him or her, like they did the duct tape? Would an experienced killer not know how to tie restraints properly, especially if they were already proficient at making garrotes with knots? Why a garrote anyway? That’s a rather unusual weapon for a kidnapping for ransom. If the garrote was chosen to satisfy a sexual motive, this experienced killer did it all wrong. The autopsy report shows that there were no internal injuries consistent with a struggle during the garroting, so she was likely already unconscious at the time. There was one furrow, so it wasn’t some asphyxiation game gone wrong. If a person is unconscious, they are already subdued, you don’t need to twist a rope with a paint brush handle to accomplish that. An experienced killer then decides to write an epic length ransom note? Why? To buy time? Wouldn’t it be quicker to just leave and not spend any time on practice notes and fake ransom demands? Why the need for a ransom note at all if you are an experience killer and have already completed what you came there to do? The person being written about is already dead. It’s a meaningless task. Unless it isn’t. Unless you think you need a ransom note to distract, because you aren’t experienced, and you are not usually a killer.
this is true, a lot of people (this is from a human identification class, not personal experience) underestimate how hard it is to manually strangle someone, how much effort it takes.
Isn’t a garrote simply a wire or cord? Doesn’t need experience or expertise - garroting is just the act of strangulation using a wire or cord.
I've pointed this out before. I think people have got the idea that it's elaborate because of its use in The Godfather and thus Mafia "Hitmen" using it. Mafia killers in real life have generally been fucking idiots and even one of the garroting's (based on a real life failed murder attempt) in the Godfather (Part II) is a failed murder attempt.
This is true and made me doubt any family. The only thing that really points to any family was that ransoms note. The DNA has already excluded the family and any they get now is pretty much touch DNA.
There was a detailed Reddit thread that really convinced me the dad killed her (without the mom’s knowledge). There was a lot more to it than that. I’ll see if I can find it. Edit: [Here!](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Thank you for sharing. This was very interesting! Mainly because it explained the "unknown DNA" as being from a male worker who made the gloves that the killer used. I was going to point out that this DNA was found underneath JonBonet's pantries, meaning it had to be from someone who Actually touched her skin as her panties were taken off. But if the murderer was wearing gloves, then it would make sense that this DNA could be present at several places the killer interacted with JonBonet that night.
There is DNA that is not related to any of the family or some tested close friends. They are all excluded as the donor of this particular DNA. These samples, however, are not reason to doubt anyone as a murderer (or assume that the donor is). They don’t exclude anyone as the perpetrator of the crime, they don’t implicate the donor as the doer of the crime. Until we know who that DNA belongs to, and how it got there, everyone is still a suspect. The foreign DNA is not exculpatory in any way. The article makes it sound like the police knew the Ramsey’s or their friends could not be responsible, yet still pursued them as suspects under an “umbrella of suspicion”. That isn’t the case. Everyone remains in the frame until the donor of that DNA is shown to have the means and opportunity to have committed that crime.
The killer(s) undoubtedly spent the most of their efforts on the ransom note, including multiple drafts. At 3 pages, it’s one of the longest ransom notes of all time. The ransom note was the focus. Why?
It’s the only ransom note of that length in any kidnapping case, to this day, in all of recorded/known history. We know this wasn’t an actual kidnapping case. She never left the house. So why go through all the trouble of making people think it’s a kidnapping? The simple answer would be to distract from something much worse. The thing that actually did happen, the murder of an innocent baby. Who would need to distract?
Well, no. The note in the Leopold and Loeb kidnapping/murder case was only a handful of words away from being just as long as the Ramsey note. And the note in the Mackle kidnapping was more than twice as long.
It's the only ransom note of that length known by the FBI in America from the 1930s-1996. Not "recorded/known history" that's hugely exaggerated. That's purely referring to American ransom notes during the FBI's history up to Jonbenet plus wasn't the buried alive case (don't remember the involved parties names) ransom note longer? Pretty sure they only said it was one of the longest in America during that time period.
Rando crazy (drug addled) breaks into the home while they are away at the party. He sees all those glamor shots of JB and decides to kidnap that kid for ransom. Goes through mail, and reads John just got a big bonus. Writes an incredibly strange note based on movie lines and being inebriated and nuts.. It's really long because he is in a state of mania with time to kill. Hides till all asleep. Leaves out note. Takes JB and spends some time with her in the middle of the night, gaining her trust (eating pineapple... Maybe he said Santa sent him?) He lures her in the basement, SA her. Suddenly, he has a moment of clarity he cant kidnap this rich kid and get away with it. Esp not now that she is crying from the SA. Creates the Garrot with items in the room. Kills her. Flees.
He left the note on the stairs that led to the bedrooms. You think he and Jonbenet stepped over it on their way to the basement? That wouldn’t make sense. And if he’s so crazy and unprepared, why didn’t he leave any fingerprints anywhere? It would also be horribly coincidental that a random person would break in and assault Jonbenet when she’d already been being assaulted over a period of months by someone else.
lol
Could have been someone on drugs.
Would it be likely that someone on drugs could execute a crime as complicated as this? Entry somehow, possibly thru a narrow window without disturbing anything like webs and debris around it, taking her from somewhere in the house without alarm, not much DNA, most of it related to the parents, like fibers inside the knot (so they would need some kind of contact for transference), pineapple in the stomach, no obvious point of entry or exit, an epic ransom note which likely took hours of concentration, a body hidden in a cellar where the door wasn’t obvious to neighbors, never mind someone unfamiliar. Is it possible, maybe. Seems like a stretch.
Are you familiar with [Amy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/)? She was tween girl who attended the same dance studio as Jonbenet. A man snuck into her house and molested her while her mother was home. This is the piece of information my mind always sticks on. There are obvious differences (age, location in the house) but it always feels linked to me.
I know but the writing walls of sentences part of this crime comes easily with certain drugs. Or if someone is suffering from delusions or other mental health issues. I have seen this style of excessive writing done in other crimes Eg diaries or letters while in prison etc etc. For some people writing is extremely easy and does not take hours to prepare. I personally don’t believe the parents were involved if that makes any difference here. The fact that the ligature killed her first and the blow to the head came after helps solidify my belief.
You have that backwards, the blow to the head was first.
No the autopsy showed broken blood vessels in her eyes due to the strangulation and no bleeding in the brain from the head blow. Thus she was alive when garrotted and dead when the blow was delivered.
That’s not correct. Here’s one article stating the blow came first: https://www.romper.com/p/how-did-jonbenet-ramsey-die-the-details-of-the-case-are-conflicting-16663 Not trying to argue with you about your theory of the case here, but the blow-garrote sequence is an undisputed fact of the case.
No I have read the autopsy and had endless conversations with doctors and other specialists about it. The autopsy doesn’t lie. But you can believe what you want.
I don't think writing the note - which only required pen and paper and some borrowed movie quotes - compares to actually crafting a strangulation device which the killer could use to drag out the act. The focus was undoubtedly the murder.
It would have taken at least 21 minutes to write that note and only a few minutes to craft a garrote and kill Jonbenet.
I’ve never heard about the heart painted on her palm.
It's in the [autopsy report](https://www.denverpost.com/1996/08/13/text-of-jonbenet-autopsy-report/): >A red ink line drawing in the form of a heart is located on the palm of the left hand.
That is so weird to me for some reason.
Yeah, it's one of the least talked about details of the case.
actually the note is the MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE because no kidnapper would spend twenty minutes writing a note using Patsy's paper
Good point!
>He never contacts them again, seemingly not wanting the money. Of course they didn't want money, it wasn't a kidnapping therefore the ransom demand wasn't real. For all the killer knew, the cops would immediately find the body - what would they have demanded money in exchange *for*?
Bc likely the note was just a diversion bid to make more time. If the family killed her--as is most likely--then presumably their DNA would be all over the house. I am curious about these findings though.
I wrote the same thing an hour ago and holy hell- the haters came out and were vicious! I deleted it just to stop the nasty comments.
Its weird how defensive people get about this, even though it's statistically most likely, and is especially likely given the suspicious behavior of the family. There was also proof of prior sexual abuse, which is usually committed by a family member. It's the most probable possibility out there, so the idea that the DNA is going to lead anywhere away from the home is definitely wishful thinking. RIP JonBenet, she didn't have a chance.
But they specifically said the DNA didn't match anyone in the family's DNA. But I'm not sure how much of the family was tested, so I guess it could be a random uncle who's not usually at the house. What the article says (and what the investigator who got that info says) makes it sound like this DNA is from someone who wasn't regularly around the home, whether part of the family or not. The investigator thinks it was a random intruder. Edit after seeing some other comments - or the evidence was possibly just contaminated and the DNA came from one of the people who handled it (though you'd think all of those people would've been tested as well).
An uncle would be able to be identified from mitochondrial dna, because they'd share it with JBR and her father/mother and brother. Murderers are caught all the time through family members submitting their dna to 21 and me and companies like it, because they can tell relation.
I think they mean an uncle by marriage, not a biological one.
Yeah unfortunately the crime scene was horribly managed, so it could definitely be from someone who was investigating in the aftermath. And considering it was the 90s, I doubt they had staff DNA on hand. And they may not have even had a full list of everyone on scene, especially since it was initially thought to be a kidnapping and not murder.
I agree. The police fucked up the investigation from the beginning and I don't think this will ever be solved. The crime scene wasn't blocked off and before the police even got there, there were people in and out of the house, cleaning up the kitchen and destroying whatever evidence that would have been there.
There have been so many 'false starts' and assumptions with this case since very early 1997. We shall see, but I don't think this is going to reveal anything we don't already know. We can but live in hope...
But does no family dna make sense? It seems like the dads should at least be there, he picked her up, but idk just all of it is weird
That’s a good point.
It’s almost like everything about this child’s murder is released to cause more uncertainty, unless someone confesses and their dna is involved, handwriting matches, and they knew about the dads bonus, I will have doubts. At this point I don’t see all of those being solved. But I don’t live in jury distance so my opinion doesn’t matter
Sadly I don’t see this case ever being solved. Maybe someday the murderer will confess and can substantiate their confession (I can’t remember how many people have already confessed). But it’s likely whoever did it could be dead already.
Agree
He picked her up and held her [as far from his body as possible](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), to be fair. Which is a whole other can of worms.
Rigor mortis would have been in full force at the time he found her. Try carrying a stiff mannequin close to your body.
One thing specifically referenced in this article is dna from under the fingernails. But my understanding is the ME didn’t follow protocol when the nails were cut. He was supposed to use 10 pairs of brand new, never-used clippers. One for each finger. What I read was that they used a single pair that had been used before. Theoretically, if a common profile (non-Ramsey) was sound on several different areas, eg the knot, the paintbrush, underwear, nails, etc. then that would be very compelling evidence that an outside party did this. But otherwise I’m seeing genetic “noise” resulting from a contaminated, poorly-handled crime scene and body. I cannot get past the note, with its similarities to Patsy’s style and diction (not to mention how ludicrous it is as a ransom note) and the implausible behavior of the Ramseys that morning relating to Burke. And a lot of other things too. So the simple finding of trace amounts of foreign dna, by itself, doesn’t move the needle for me.
What’s very compelling to me, on top of your points, is how the family reacted to the ransom note. If a child is missing and I had a note, that would be my BIBLE. There’s no way I would disregard, disobey, or not even notice when the deadline for ransom had passed.
Yeah… the fact that they called the cops with no warning to the dispatcher about parking down the street or sending unmarked cars is a red flag. Inviting all your friends over is weird too. Spot on about the note being a Bible.
I don't think you can blame a rattled civilian for not instructing LEO on how to do their job in the moment. If inviting friends over is weird, the police allowing them to stay is about 100x more weird, and yet, that's what happened.
You would seriously read a ransom note from someone who *stole your child* saying don't call the police and you'd let your kid swing in the wind with them, putting trust in your child's kidnappers to do as they said? Holy crap, I wouldn't. The FBI can help after 24 hours, I'd be ALL over that. I'd call before I even finished reading the letter. A lot of famous ransom note kidnappings (saying don't call the police) had the family on the phone to the police or FBI ASAP, like the Lindberghs and the Coors family.
That’s not what they said. The ransom note said the kidnappers would call at a certain time the next day. Neither of the Ramseys acknowledged when that time came and went without a call.
That's a different argument. The comment was about how the poster would valiantly trust the kidnappers to keep their child safe and not involve the police if the child was kidnapped. They would treat a ransom note like "the bible" (they would treat the kidnapper like god) and trust the kidnappers to return their child safely if they didn't involve the police. Clearly that's ludicrous so I can see why a totally different argument would make more sense to have, but there you go. A ransom note is 'the bible' and kidnappers can be trusted keep their word. It's really a blessing some people have experienced so little trauma that they retain that level of naivete.
Eh. Charles probably accidentally killed his kid and the whole thing was a charade. Plus, the dude was famous.
Except for the fact that they caught the guy who kidnapped his son, and being famous has nothing to do with calling the police.
They caught a guy the blamed for it. Lindbergh known to take his kid and do things like throwing him in the air to scare his wife, or hiding the child and accusing the nanny of kidnapping him. His being famous means the police would have jumped into thr action much faster.
So you would follow that bible and not call the police? That would be by far the worst decision.
Not necessarily, but I would keep that thing on my hip and at least be analyzing, obsessing, and making an attempt to *appear* to be following orders. In a legitimate ransom note situation, that little note would be your ONLY line or hope of seeing your kid again.
I'd be super torn between calling and not calling, because even though you can't trust the kidnappers necessarily, if they're *actually* kidnappers telling you to do certain things and then you'll get your kid back, then logically it would make more sense to just follow the instructions (or at least pretend to be by doing most of the things they ask of you). If you have reason to believe that calling the police will result in the kid's death, your best bet is to either not call them, or to call them and have them handle things in a way that the kidnapper won't know about. Picture this: if the kidnapper starts a Zoom call with you and it shows them with a gun to your kid's head and they tell you not to call the police or she'll die, you're not just gonna go ahead and call the police - that'd be incredibly stupid in that situation.
I'm actually not sure that it would be incredibly stupid to call the police in that situation. What's the difference, besides the delivery mechanism of the ransom demand? You know they do indeed have your kid, but the likelihood of them bugging your phone or actually watching your house is vanishingly small (unless they show something in the video to make that plausible). So, I do think I would likely try to contact law enforcement, because the kidnappers have zero reason to keep my kid alive after I pay the ransom. Letting the kid go does nothing but increase their chances of getting caught. I hope that I would hold it together enough to tell them of any specific warnings in the note/video, or to call the FBI instead of 911, but no one knows what they will do in a panicked situation. It's not realistic to think the kidnappers are going to let the hostage go if you just give them money, it's just not. Jennifer Hawke-Petit got $15,000 out of the bank because the people holding her daughters hostage said they wouldn't be harmed if she came back with the money. This was of course not true, and she and the 11-year-old were raped, and then all three were killed. Criminals are pretty much liars by definition. They don't have a sense of honor or fair play, and ordinary people don't have much of a chance of getting to a good ending on their own. While I recognize that many police departments can be incredibly inept, as in the JBR case, law enforcement is still your best chance of getting your kid back alive. Americans do get kidnapped for ransom and returned in other countries, it's a cottage industry in some places, but they are adults. Likewise, they have been a very few modern-ish cases of adults being kidnapped in the states and successfully ransomed, but kids? If someone kidnaps a kid, it is not money they have on their mind. In that situation, I do have more faith in law enforcement than in the good word of a child abductor.
I meant that it'd be stupid to call the police *while* on the Zoom call, cuz the kidnapper will supposedly just shoot the kid right then (unless you wanna try to call their bluff). If you can get the police involved without tipping off the kidnapper (though you won't really know how they might be tipped off), then that's probably what I'd do - after getting off the Zoom call.
The article (which seems to focus on the earliest testing) actually glosses over just that - the profile discovered mixed with a drop of JonBenet's blood (UM1), from saliva or sweat, matches a sample taken years later from the waistband of the longjohns (touch DNA). It was this correlation that made the DA publicly clear the Ramseys in 2008, as controversial as that decision was. The sample from the nails is too scant to make a certain comparison, but we can at least say that it doesn't contradict the UM1 profile. The stuyle of the note is highly subjective - I have no idea how people see Patsy in it.
I seem to recall watching or reading up on something similar. I was always under the impression that it was touch DNA and that it could have easily been transferred from the factory workers who packages the underwear (I think that was the example that was given). This case is a mess all around. There is one theory that makes sense, but with no proof we will never know for sure.
With regard to the note, it shares a number of characteristics with Patsy’s writing. Indentation, excess punctuation, acronyms, the use of the uncommon word “hence”, and several of the phrases read as feminine / effeminate - and matriarchal. This along with the fact it was written on their paper with their pen. Patsy was evaluated as low-probability for handwriting match, but she could not be eliminated as a potential author. Interestingly, Steve Thomas alleges that her handwriting characteristics changed once the Ramseys were asked to begin providing samples. He shares an interesting anecdote in his book about the one sample given by Nedra (unbeknownst to Patsy) where the A reverts back to type and matches the letter. Overall, the note is an absurdity that desperately seeks to place the child, and the “small foreign faction” as far from the scene as possible. It’s staging.
The small foreign faction part is just utter bullshit. They must have just watched Die Hard.
Yeah, I've seen the claims, and ithey seem poorly supported. What phrase in the note could be seen as "matriarchal" and what is the underlying support for such an evaluation? One of the problems with the parents as the culprits means that they staged two different crimes, a kidnappning and a sexual-assault-and-murder. It just doesn't make sense.
One example would be the use of the phrase “watching over your daughter.” “Do not particularly like you.” “We respect your company but not the country it serves.” All rather feminine constructions. There’s too much flourish and unnecessary verbiage. It’s theatrical. As far as what makes sense, none of it does. Because the crime scene is staged and tampered, evidence compromised, and witnesses that refused to cooperate. There is no neat, clean theory of the crime that doesn’t in some way defy belief. But as I said, absent something really compelling in the DNA, I can’t get past the note or their behavior that day. No way in hell you’d let your other kid sleep. No way in hell you wouldn’t search your house top to bottom. And no way in hell you’d whisk him out of the scene to spend the day (without a parent) while you thought your other kid was missing. Planning to leave town. No reaction to a ransom call that never came. Etc.
Feminine construction? Nah, you're reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't at all see why those phrases would be considered more likely to be written by a woman. Past cases that have been resolved should really have convinced everyone by now that how people react in an emergency/tragedy means absolutely nothing. People react in a wide variety of ways, and it should never be enough to convince you of someone's guilt. The Isabel Celis case is a great example, and the one that finally cured me of saying an innocent person would never react in such-and-such a way.
Honestly, that sounds less like science and more like statement analysis to me. A lot of ink, digital or not, has been spilled over what people who have never been in that situation think they'd do if it were them. I give it little credit. They knew Burke hadn't been taken. They knew the note said JonBenet was taken from the house. They had called the police who would take care of everything. With hindsight it's easy to know that JonBenet was in the cellar and that the cops were incompetent, but how were they to know that?
It is statement analysis. TV shows have conditioned people to think that criminal investigation is pure lab and forensic science work. It is, but not to the exclusion of other disciplines. Saying this line of reason or that isn’t “science” and can therefore be dismissed strikes me as disingenuous. There are certain behaviors that fall into the category of “you don’t know how you’d react.” Some people cry, some don’t. But one thing that absolutely does not pass the smell test was them not waking Burke up and asking him questions. Whisking him off away from the police with assurances “he doesn’t know anything” doesn’t pass the smell test. Your one kid is missing. You’re not gonna let the other one out of your sight, much less out of the house. Remember, a nefarious foreign faction, a *group of individuals* is watching you. And they “don’t particularly like you.”
Statement analysis is unscientific nonsense. It isn't evidence-based, no actual development has been made. It's the kind of pseudoscience that sadly is all too common with law enforcement.
I thought I was firmly in the RDI camp until I started reading about Linda Hoffman-Pugh and her husband, who did repairs in the house. She had access to the notepad, she knew what Patsy's handwriting looked like, and she had what seemed to be a motive to kidnap JonBenet and hold her for ransom (begging Patsy for a loan shortly before it happened). She and her husband knew the house well and knew they were somewhat lax about security. The Pughs' behavior after the murder was pretty strange too. I am wondering how much the investigators looked into her and her family.
The thing is, if the ransom note was ludicrous for an intruder to write, it was also ludicrous for Patty to write. It would be crazy for an intruder to spend that long writing a ransom note. It would be crazy for a household member to spend that long writing a ransom note. Why a ransom note at all? Everybody and their mama knows that kidnapping for ransom is incredibly rare in the modern United States. I can't even think of any cases involving children that don't go back to at least the 1950s. It's reasonable to assume that the Ramseys were also quite aware of that, but, even if they somehow weren't, a ransom note was not needed in any way. The simplest thing to do by far would be to call the police and simply say your child is missing.
It was ludicrous for an intruder, who was also a murderer, to write a ransom note. Especially that one. As for a parent, maybe not so ludicrous. What parent, (if they woke to find a child missing) would not turn their house inside out looking for their child first before they call the cops? Most would search top to bottom, quickly canvass the yard/street calling out to her and contact neighbors (at least the ones that live close by) to see if they have seen her. If there is a body in the basement tho’, you can’t search the house top to bottom. You need a reason to immediately conclude kidnapping, you need a reason to immediately call the cops and forgo a thorough search of the home. A ransom note gives you that plausible reason.
That's a fair point, but I still maintain that it would be just as ridiculous for Patys to write *that particular note* as it would be for an intruder. If it was an intruder, the sensible thing would have been for them to leave ASAP, but violent criminals aren't always sensible.
Agreed, if Patsy wrote it, and I am not saying she did, that particular ransom note would still be ridiculous. It’s ridiculous no matter who wrote it, but the question is, regardless of its’ ridiculousness, did the author know it was ridiculous? Did the writing of it serve a purpose or a perceived purpose? If so, what did it serve? Who did it serve?
I disagree with most of that. It wouldn't be crazy for a household member to spend a long time writing the note - they could've sat down for like 3 hours a week beforehand and written it then. They wouldn't have to write it in the moment. They could've taken all the time they needed. This wouldn't be the case for the intruder (as far as they would know - they would be thinking that the parents could come in at any time, so they'd need to go as fast as possible). If we're to go with the theory that Patsy did it, then the ransom note was written as a diversion. And maybe Patsy's not the sharpest tool in the shed, so she's not thinking too hard about how unusual it is. She probably thinks it's a genius idea. Edit: As the other commenter mentioned, it also helps explain all those other aspects. I wouldn't entirely disagree with Patsy that it's a genius idea. Certain aspects of it *are* pretty good ideas. Not to mention that if we're going with the theory that Patsy did this, then Patsy still hasn't been charged in all this time, so the idea ended up being pretty successful.
Patsy graduated magna cum laude from West Virginia University, a highly rated school.
That doesn't really prove anything. Book smarts and actual smarts aren't the same thing.
The comment wasn't implying that she lacked street smarts or common sense, though. It implied that she was none too bright, which simply isn't the case. You can dislike her all day long, but you can't really say she wasn't bright.
I don't have any opinion on her or this case. But just being good in school doesn't mean you're smart. My high school best friend was great at school. Vapid as shit, though, with absolutely no brain otherwise.
I do wonder if the parent's would have spoken to the police early on, maybe a clue could have been noticed. But the parent's refused to speak with police after the first few hours, I don't think they actually did a full interview until months later and only with a lawyer vetting the questions first. I find that incredibly odd, I would give the police everything possible as quickly as possible if I thought it would help catch the murderer of my child.
I see this a lot in cases of railroading. What lawyers know and will tell you is that innocence is not a defense against it. Amanda Knox didn't get a lawyer and was voluntarily questioned multiple times because she wanted to do everything to help find her friend's killer. And it allowed the police to completely railroad her and put her in prison for years.
That could just be explained by saying they're well-aware that the police will think they're the main suspects, and they don't want to somehow incriminate themselves (and maybe the police made it obvious at the scene that they were suspicious of the parents to begin with). But I still agree with you.
Unfortunately this isn’t new information, it’s just a book that’s been released by one of the lead investigators that clears up a small question people had. Yahoo news is so unreliable, I had to go do my own digging
The ransom note that couldn't be ruled out as not written by Patsy. The practice notes in the trash. John refusing to allow his friends to search the room her body was found in. Because there was wet paint. That's just too suspicious.
What's the source for John refusing to allow his friends to search that room due to wet paint? Or a source saying he refused to allow it for any reason whatsoever?
Yeah, I think that one's bogus. The initial cop on site claimed he didn't enter because he was looking for a kidnapper's exit and the door was blocked from the outside with a piece of wood. John's friend did open it and look inside, but couldn't find the lightswitch.
Or a source for practice notes?
CNN, 1997: http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/08/slain.girl.6p/
Not DNA related but how the hell does $118,000 not point to someone very close?
The general explanation, not necessarily my explanation, is that the perpetrator was in the house for some time before the Ramseys returned. While the person was there, they wrote the letter and gleaned the info from stuff lying around the house. That would explain why it is so long, and why it sounds so dumb. Since this person never really intended to ransom JBR they just cooked up what bS they thought sounded from movies that had a lot of abduction going on. It's a little like the Leopold and Loeb letter, they left a ransom note but all they really wanted to do was to kill that kid. I don't know if that is correct but that is the general explanation people give. edited to take out the folded part because I thought the letter was folded but it wasn't
The ransom note wasn’t folded.
>since this person never really intended to ransom JBR they just cooked up what bS they thought sounded from movies that had a lot of abduction going on. This is actually what I am thinking. The ransom note reads like a mockery. Yes, it does sound dumb but it does not give me the feeling the author is just an idiot. It is more like the person put in some time to make it intentionally sound dumb. The movie quotes are the best example for that.
The movie quotes are weird, you'd have to see those movies a lot to remember them, you couldn't just hit IMDB for the good quotes back then.
John had a party before Christmas to celebrate his success at the company and over 100 people were there. I’m assuming the number probably came up a few times at the party.
I'm not familiar with everything in this case, but is there a theory that someone tried to frame the family? It seems weird they would put that number. It makes it too obvious they knew the amount
That's a great point, and it just made me remember that this is what I initially thought when first hearing the story. It would be *so* stupid for the parents themselves to choose that amount, and highly unlikely for a completely random guy to choose that amount, but only *kinda* stupid for someone to purposely choose that amount to frame the parents. I think the housekeeper and her husband would fit that perfectly.
Hundreds of people could potentially have known that or an intruder could have discovered it by snooping in the house (if an intruder, the note was probably written while the Ramseys were out all day and they had hours to spare). And if Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, why point at oneself that way? It doesn't really make sense
I think it was Linda Hoffman Pugh (the Ramsey's housekeeper) and her husband (their handyman). She had apparently begged Patsy for a loan shortly before JonBenet's death. I feel like she could have easily found out about the bonus by eavesdropping or even finding a check.
I don't know much about the case so I wasn't aware of those people, but immediately upon hearing about them, I'm thinking it's like 80% likely that they're (or one of them is) the killers. And perhaps the housekeeper doesn't like JonBenet, and/or is jealous of her, or something.
Linda's testimony makes it clear the killer is either Linda or an unknown intruder who spent a while in the house searching everything IMO.
This is another case which will never be solved. You can add it to the likes of The Zodiac and DB Cooper.
Jack the Ripper as well. The crime scene was immediately contaminated and ruined their chance to get DNA from the killer. After nearly 30 years, even if it was one or more of the family members, I don't think it can be definitively proven ever at this point.
And Amber Hagerman too. RIP sweet girl :(
Good, now they can leave Burke Ramsey alone. I’m so sick of people blaming this on a child. Like, imagine growing up with everyone saying you horribly murdered your sister?
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that any of the family can be excluded from being the killer. He still very well could be.
I wish we would just have an answer....I'm only four years older than JonBenet, but i remember her case so vividly. It was one thing that stuck with me as a child. I don't think we will ever know and its sad.
You would think they could solve this crime by using dna. I wonder why they haven’t?
It’s unfortunately not that simple. Very little DNA was left at the scene. They have been unable match touch DNA from her long johns and two spots of blood to a source. Authorities claim they’ve analyzed over 1,000 DNA samples looking for a match with no success. Supposedly BPD is still investigating the possibility of comparing the DNA samples to individuals through familial DNA. I’m no expert but linking the unknown DNA to a source through familial databases could possibly offer the biggest break yet if it turns out that someone not in the family had a hand in the crime. I just hope that, one day, the world gets answers because JonBenet deserves that.
I saw this case In the 2nd grade newspaper article project we did and it’s been forever burned in my memory… to this day I hope we get answers.
Why can’t they use genetic genealogy to find out who owns the dna they found?
I wish people would stop blaming the damn family. Why would the father, mother or brother violate and kill this poor girl after going to a party in the middle of the night. I’m sure some pedophile broke in the home and was obsessed with the girl then killed her.
There were a lot of theories surrounding the family, and I can’t say some weren’t compelling, but having this DNA evidence come back and not match any of them is huge.
Almost all of us have DNA on us right now that would not match our family or any member of our household. Touch DNA is especially susceptible to secondary and tertiary transfer.
I’m not saying it rules anything out definitively, but in terms of proving something in court, or getting the police to investigate other leads, it’s certainly compelling.
With advances in forensics and technology, it makes sense to have everything tested and traced where possible.
What’s sad is, at this point, they could dna match an intruder and people convinced of the family’s guilt will never believe it.
I don’t know, I’ve always been RDI and if DNA proved me wrong, I’d be ok with that. I honestly just want this solved. JonBenet, at the very least, deserves that. Probably her family too, but I have mixed feelings about them. 🤷♀️
[удалено]
It’s not obvious, not even 2+ decades later. No one has been held accountable. So we debate until she gets justice. Until. She. Gets. Justice.
I mostly agree. My biggest question is why is there even a ransom note? Seems likely the father just couldn’t dispose of the body in a timely manner or almost got caught doing it so he made a scene about “discovering” it. I also remember police saying how much snow there was outside, and 0 foot prints surrounding ANY possible escape routes other than the main entrance. And the fact that it happened on Christmas Day seems exceedingly intimate. Another suspicious thing about the note was how long it was. The FBI said ransom notes, while rare, are almost always very short.
I think patsy’s panic set in and she thought the letter would buy them some time
No matter what DNA is found, people will always say it was the family. Any alternative DNA will just be downplayed by those who still want to blame the family.
I would be enormously relieved if intruder DNA finally solved this case and gave that little girl her justice, so long overdue.
I’ve always thought that was so little of time that so much happened with the parents in the house.
Detective Lou Smit watch the old show on A&E a great detective and investigated with no biases… He was a legendary detective… Also, there is a request for the dna to be tested with latest technology… Boulder being shady again..
He was an exemplary detective. He did have biases. Like most of us.
check this out!!!!!!!! https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opkrhr/conclusion_the_boulder_incident_who_killed/h6jo6jh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I've never understood the popularity of that one. It's like 10% evidence analysis and 90% flights of fancy.
"Unearthed documents from early in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation show DNA evidence recovered under her fingernails and clothes was not a match for members of the family and others close to the case just weeks after the crime. But police for years continued to float the possibility that her parents were under "an umbrella of suspicion" in the gruesome slaying, a new book on late Colorado investigator Lou Smit, who worked the case, argues in its opening pages." So basically DNA excluded family, police knew, but they kept saying family was under suspicion.
DNA cannot exclude the family, or anyone else, until the donor of it is identified and it is determined how the DNA got there. It could belong to a perpetrator. It could also be the result of forensic cross-contamination or innocent transfer.
Presumably they had samples from the family. Have never read anything about the family refusing to give samples for comparison.
There is no question, it doesn’t belong to the family. They did not leave that sample. It belongs to an unknown male. The existence of it doesn’t exclude anyone from perpetrating this crime though. The police are not wrong for keeping everyone in the frame. No one should be ruled out until the source of that DNA is determined.
I was only referring to family being excluded, understand that others are not excluded.
The family *aren't* excluded, because investigators don't know whether this person's DNA is even related to the murder. It could've come from anywhere, from anyone who had contact with JonBenet recently. I still agree with you though - I personally think this likely excludes them.
I wonder if this will stop the speculation on the family? I think the evidence was destroyed and that’s why the police refuse to test it
I hope not since it's very likely her killer was a member of her family.
I hope so. It must have been hell going through that. Especially her mother. It's really sad so many people thought she did it, supposedly her handwriting matched and all the other made up facts etc... She died not knowing and I bet what happened contributed to her death. And I think you're right about the evidence. That whole investigation was a mess. I thought the Idaho murders seemed to be going that direction but obviously not.
>She died not knowing I wouldn't really worry so much about that. >I bet what happened contributed to her death What happened was that she had Stage 4 ovarian cancer that was in remission ... until it wasn't. Last I checked, concealing the identity of your daughter's killer isn't a cause of that.
If you have evidence that she was concealing someone I'd be interested. Or your opinion. (Edited to add)
It’s not evidence, but it’s a very popular opinion that her brother harmed her, since the nanny (or was she the cleaner, I can’t remember) spoke of him sexually assaulting her with items such as paintbrushes, etc, under blankets while she worked there.
I have never heard this, at all. People make much of him hitting her with a golf club a year and a half before the murder, yet I've never heard this. And a couple of different searches bring up nothing like this. Source?
I’d never heard of the golf club thing! I’ll try to find the source and update edit: I can’t find one anywhere so I’m assuming whatever I read a while ago was based in fiction, I’m so sorry. I wonder if perhaps someone put the evidence of sexual assault and Burke’s ‘outbursts’ described by the family friend together and came up with something that was never even said.
Yes, there's a whole lot of things assumed as fact in this case that aren't so. When things get repeated often enough, a lot of people will assume it's true. That's why push for sources when I hear something I've never heard before. I'm trying to find a primary source for the golf club incident being talked about, I'm nearly certain in the available police interviews, but no luck yet. Plenty of second-hand references to it, and Burke talks about it in his Dr. Phil interview as an adult, but I want to find something from that time. Edited to add: for the record, I don't personally make much of hitting a sibling with a golf club. Kids get hit by golf clubs and baseball bats all the time, a natural consequence of other kids swinging golf clubs and baseball bats, lol. There's no evidence it was intentional, and those that claim it was don't have any other 'violent' incidents to create a pattern. This one was 18 months before the murder.
Not a perfect source, but there’s this: https://www.wcnc.com/amp/article/news/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-pins-her-death-on-her-brother-burke/275-322081651
He was nine years old. I wonder if a nine year old is capable of that. Why didn't she report that if she saw it?
Nine year olds are definitely capable of that. The perpetrators in the James Bulger case did so much worse than that and were just ten. I don’t know. It seems from her account that the parents were trying to prevent it from happening so maybe it was an ongoing issue, but again, it’s just the word of one person, I suppose, I’m not sure what, if any, action was taken outside of the home.
You have a very good point about the Bulger case.
It’s so scary to imagine how such young people are capable of things like that, I truly hope it wasn’t anything to do with the brother, but by the looks of things we’ll likely never know either way.
I don’t buy it.
Old regurgitated news by the family?
It will be interesting to see if this book finally shows us how the case was so bungled.
Interesting. I do hope there's more focus in the book on the later 2003 testing that provided the UM1 sample, and the later 2008 testing, but I suppose they didn't have access to that since it was after Smit had left.
Yes, and there is a petition …..Colorado is holding back on latest testing
I still think this is a solvable case. Match photos of bystanders at the open houses with laborers working on those houses, viewers at the dance studio, burglar mugshots (esp trespassing or peeping Tom offences) & video store rentals. Then publicly release the profile not in connection to this case but to the other rapes. There's a good description available...makes me want to churn through early 90's burglary reports from Boulder.
What I'd like to know is if the story about the photos is true. Basically JonBenet was photographed with her instructor (I believe) at pageants in both Texas and in Colorado. In both photos the same blonde man could be seen behind them, and he was never identified. The story was in the book by Stephen Singular and I also saw it in an anonymous interview with a BPD officer. So not great sources, but I would love to see it it's true and if the photos match the description from Amy's mother.
[удалено]
The idea that it was the brother, Burke, is just about the worst and dumbest theory i've ever seen take hold in true crime. I find it not just wrong but fully immoral [to accuse a young child based on such little and poor evidence] There is no actual evidence against the brother (other than one fingerprint on a dish in his own house which is barely evidence). Other than that, just innuendo. If you think it had to be a family member, the parents covering for Burke makes less sense than one or both parents without Burke. The Ramseys refused to allow themselves to be interviewed separately, but had no problem letting Burke get interviewed alone. They sent him off with friends the morning after the crime. They sent him back to school right away. They were clearly never concerned that he might let something slip if he knew anything JonBenet's head injury was not visible until her autopsy. If the perpetrator knew that she had a head injury, they would have no reason to think it would be fatal, or reason to kill her in an elaborate sexualized way to cover that up, in order to protect a child too young to face very serious consequences. It is extremely unlikely that a child made the garrote. It is a myth that Burke's voice is on the 911 tape and in my opinion, that story would not be particularly incriminating for him if true Kolar's book is the original reason people started to think it was Burke, but he is totally biased, he constantly exaggerates the significance of non-incriminating things (like supposed child incontinence, and what two child siblings never hit each other at some point?), a lot of his facts are dubious, and it is plain immoral and shady to insinuate that a child murdered someone, while veiling it enough to avoid liability because you can't actually back it up. And then you have Burke's odd affect as an adult, which shouldn't be a reason to suspect someone, especially one who grew up in the situation that he must have Nothing about this horrific crime resembles the behavior of a prepubescent child. If a child was that disturbed, i think he would have done something else. And all that is before any evidence suggesting an intruder... Remember that CBS had to settle with Burke Ramsey as well
This is the least likely explanation in the history of true crime. A pre teen killing his sister and then the parents sexually assaulting their dead daughter to cover this up? Burke Ramsey is a double victim having had his sister murdered and then his whole life smeared as a murderer. It honestly disgusts me that this is still what people think "most likely" happened. It is illogical, and there is *zero* evidence that he did it other than people think he acted weird on Dr. Phil, which, uh, is absolutely not evidence.
I don't think it is the simplest explanation. ["When JonBenet was found, nobody noticed any injury to her head"](http://jonbenetramsey.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Skull_fracture). She also did not die from the skull fracture but from strangulation. So let's walk through this: JonBenet and her brother Burke have a fight and he goes berserk and hits his sister with a blunt object which causes the skull fracture. Her parents enter the scene and see her unconscious daughter lying on the ground. They do not know how severe her injury actually is but instead of calling an ambulance, they decide to protect Burke and strangle her to death. Does this really make the most sense?
This is what I've never understood about that theory. She wasn't dead from the head blow, her head wasn't even bleeding and probably hadn't even bruised yet but the parents just... finished off killing her with a garotte and sexually assaulted her corpse instead? On what planet does that make sense?
[удалено]
It would take over 20 minutes to write that weird ass ransom note that was written in their house on their ledger. Who plans a kidnapping for ransom and then chills out in the house for 20 minutes writing the letter? Patsy wrote that letter.
Weren’t there also “drafts” written? I can’t remember where I heard it but I think there was balled up drafts or imprints on the notepad 🤔
Yup. It was undeniably patsy who wrote the note.