Who Killed JonBenét?

[MichaelWinicki]

'someone in the family'
You are sadly ignorant of what family members have done to each other.
Just do a simple search and you will get all the grisly examples to make that comment look very naive

Of course family members can and do evil things to each other...

I've read or watched more stories than I could count about family members doing unspeakable horrors to each other, but this case is different at many levels.

And keep in mind there are many out there that do not think it was a family member... And they're far more convinced about it than I am.

 

[Ranched]

Too much weird from the family for me to buy the outside intruder story. Where there is that much smoke there has to be fire.

Agree. Especially when the glass from the broken window was on the inside.

Upon close examination it is determined that no one could have passed through that window the previous night, as there was no disturbance of the considerable layer of dust and dirt on the very narrow windowsill, and an intact spider web was found in the opening beside the sill.

Looks like someone was trying to stage a window entry, and exit, by an intruder who stood on the suitcase to boost himself out.

And since there was no sign that anyone actually passed through that window, the amateurish staging looks pretty obvious. Clearly, this is an inside job.

 

[terra]

Agree. Especially when the glass from the broken window was on the inside.

Upon close examination it is determined that no one could have passed through that window the previous night, as there was no disturbance of the considerable layer of dust and dirt on the very narrow windowsill, and an intact spider web was found in the opening beside the sill.

Looks like someone was trying to stage a window entry, and exit, by an intruder who stood on the suitcase to boost himself out.

And since there was no sign that anyone actually passed through that window, the amateurish staging looks pretty obvious. Clearly, this is an inside job.

And many think the police were bought off; which when you look at how horrendously bad the so called investigation was, you have to wonder.

 

[CouchCoach]

And many think the police were bought off; which when you look at how horrendously bad the so called investigation was, you have to wonder.

I think it was more against the cop that was sent to the scene than being bought off or in on it. Or maybe my mind cannot accept the fact that any cops would be part of something so horrendous. I already struggle thinking the father did it and wrapping my head around that.

I struggled for a long time with what Susan Smith did and I would find myself lost in watching my two sons and just tearing up at the thought of that and I just couldn't fathom that actually happening.

The biggest lie we tell our children when they're scared is that there is no such thing as monsters. There are more of them than we can even imagine.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Agree. Especially when the glass from the broken window was on the inside.

Upon close examination it is determined that no one could have passed through that window the previous night, as there was no disturbance of the considerable layer of dust and dirt on the very narrow windowsill, and an intact spider web was found in the opening beside the sill.

Looks like someone was trying to stage a window entry, and exit, by an intruder who stood on the suitcase to boost himself out.

And since there was no sign that anyone actually passed through that window, the amateurish staging looks pretty obvious. Clearly, this is an inside job.

I agree on the "inside job" but inside may be a family member but it could also have been someone that knew the family and had been in that house previously– If not many times.

Keep in mind there were many keys to the house that were held by non-family members... Upwards of 20.

And yes the family acted weird, but never losing a child myself and watching enough true crime shows, it seems there is a wide variety of emotions and actions taken by those who have received the sudden shock of a loved one dying... Especially as the result of an act of violence.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Of course family members can and do evil things to each other...

I've read or watched more stories than I could count about family members doing unspeakable horrors to each other, but this case is different at many levels.

And keep in mind there are many out there that do not think it was a family member... And they're far more convinced about it than I am.

You're right. Being related to someone doesn't preclude being cruel to that person. In fact this issue makes me suspect the brother even more. The Ramseys weren't the greatest parents. I know I have a talent for understatement, but here's what I mean specifically. JonBenet was the kid they heaped all their attention and praise upon, while her brother, Burke, was just an afterthought. What I suspect is that Burke's resentment built up, and he began abusing her. Whether he did so sexually or not, I'm not sure, but I think he would go to her at night and hurt her. Then that night something she did or said, or something the parents did or said, must have really triggered him, and he lost it and went in there and assaulted her bad, killing her. He may not even have intended to kill her. I think he was furious at his little sister for some reason and just snapped and went off on her. Then when the parents realized what happened, they didn't want to lose their only remaining kid, so they went into protect mode, dreaming up that stupid kidnapping plot and writing the note to try to cover for him. Therefore, I think when the Ramsey parents claimed they didn't kill her, they were actually telling the truth, but when they claim they don't know who did it, they're lying.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You're right. Being related to someone doesn't preclude being cruel to that person. In fact this issue makes me suspect the brother even more. The Ramseys weren't the greatest parents. I know I have a talent for understatement, but here's what I mean specifically. JonBenet was the kid they heaped all their attention and praise upon, while her brother, Burke, was just an afterthought. What I suspect is that Burke's resentment built up, and he began abusing her. Whether he did so sexually or not, I'm not sure, but I think he would go to her at night and hurt her. Then that night something she did or said, or something the parents did or said, must have really triggered him, and he lost it and went in there and assaulted her bad, killing her. He may not even have intended to kill her. I think he was furious at his little sister for some reason and just snapped and went off on her. Then when the parents realized what happened, they didn't want to lose their only remaining kid, so they went into protect mode, dreaming up that stupid kidnapping plot and writing the note to try to cover for him. Therefore, I think when the Ramsey parents claimed they didn't kill her, they were actually telling the truth, but when they claim they don't know who did it, they're lying.

That's my take anyway. I could be wrong.

You make a good point.

And no matter what the opinion or who's making it, there's no way of saying it's right or wrong.

My reasons for not believing at this point it was Burke...

-According to what information we have the massive 8" skull fracture didn't bleed as much as it should have because the garrote had already been used or was being used which restricted blood flow to the brain

-What kid would have used a garrote to kill his sibling? In addition the knots found on the garrote were reported to be rather advanced, meaning they weren't likely the kind of knot a 9 yo would make

-So you're her brother and you're in the process of strangling her so then you decide to hit her on the head causing the massive skull fracture to finish her off? And make no mistake that was one heck of a whack on the head. Burke may have had the physical mass to do it, but how realistic a scenario is it?

-And then the parents figure out what had happened and pen this ridiculously long ransom letter that contains several "movie-related" or inspired quotes? They would be clear-headed enough to do this?

-And the language found in the ransom letter as it applies to "beheading" the child just doesn't sound like the type of language grieving and shocked parents would use to try covering up the crime.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

You make a good point.

And no matter what the opinion or who's making it, there's no way of saying it's right or wrong.

My reasons for not believing at this point it was Burke...

-According to what information we have the massive 8" skull fracture didn't bleed as much as it should have because the garrote had already been used or was being used which restricted blood flow to the brain

-What kid would have used a garrote to kill his sibling? In addition the knots found on the garrote were reported to be rather advanced, meaning they weren't likely the kind of knot a 9 yo would make

-So you're her brother and you're in the process of strangling her so then you decide to hit her on the head causing the massive skull fracture to finish her off? And make no mistake that was one heck of a whack on the head. Burke may have had the physical mass to do it, but how realistic a scenario is it?

-And then the parents figure out what had happened and pen this ridiculously long ransom letter that contains several "movie-related" or inspired quotes? They would be clear-headed enough to do this?

-And the language found in the ransom letter as it applies to "beheading" the child just doesn't sound like the type of language grieving and shocked parents would use to try covering up the crime.

Those are some good points, and it may very well have been the father. However, the main reason I don't think it was him is I find it unlikely that his wife would defend him after he murdered their daughter. It seems way more likely that Patsy would defend her son, who was just a kid, than her husband who's a grown man and should have known better. I was in the scouts when I was a kid, and by the age of 8, 9, and 10, I could tie some really good quality knots. It's possible for a kid to have learned that, even if he wasn't in the scouts. Another kid could have taught him or he could have read up in the library on how to do it.

There is also evidence of Burke getting revenge on JonBenet, for example, he smeared feces on her Christmas presents. Here's an article by someone who thinks Burke did it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-older-brother-Burke-smeared-feces-wall.html

However, I don't know for 100 percent certain. Maybe the father did it, and for some emotional reason the mother still wanted to defend him. A distant possibility still would be a relative whom they let come over, but didn't mention. Did they have a weird sibling or cousin who had a thing for her? That person would have to be someone they were emotionally bonded with to want to protect him with that ridiculous ransom note.

I'm nearly completely sure that Patsy wrote the note. It's way too literate (with deliberate misspellings), and it takes their feelings into consideration too much. I would expect a real ransom note to be curt and to the point, something like, "We have your daughter. Don't call the cops. We will call between 6 and 7 with further instructions." A real kidnapper would be super brief and may not even demand an amount in the note when they can do so over the phone." It's bizarre that the note included things like this sentence: "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested." The kidnapper is giving them health advice? Right.

The case is bizarre. For me, the strangest thing is that absurd ransom note. Did they really think that was believable and would keep the cops off their trail? You would think a parent who killed their kid, but wanted to cover it up would go off and dispose of the body somewhere, and then do a way better job faking a break-in. You would be better off going with no random note. Just have a windows broken from the outside and a missing daughter. The less evidence the better.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The case is bizarre. For me, the strangest thing is that absurd ransom note. Did they really think that was believable and would keep the cops off their trail. You would think a parent who killed their kid, but wanted to cover it up would go off and dispose of the body somewhere, and then do a way better job faking a break-in. You would be better off going with no random note. Just have a windows broken from the outside and a missing daughter. The less evidence the better.

I agree with this premise.

Unfortunately parents murder their kids, but as you pointed out either the kids disappear totally or the parents blame some "entity" for taking them.

How often do we hear of ransom note? Hardly ever. As a matter of fact I don't recall any other case where the parents were found to be guilty of murdering a child and a ransom note is used– And it this case we get the grand poohbah of ransom notes.

 

[terra]

I agree with this premise.

Unfortunately parents murder their kids, but as you pointed out either the kids disappear totally or the parents blame some "entity" for taking them.

How often do we hear of ransom note? Hardly ever. As a matter of fact I don't recall any other case where the parents were found to be guilty of murdering a child and a ransom note is used– And it this case we get the grand poohbah of ransom notes.

just because you do not hear about it does not mean it never happens.

 

[CyberB0b]

And many think the police were bought off; which when you look at how horrendously bad the so called investigation was, you have to wonder.

Could just be gross incompetence, but I wouldn't rule it out. Policing in the early 90s was in the stone age.

 

[terra]

Those are some good points, and it may very well have been the father. However, the main reason I don't think it was him is I find it unlikely that his wife would defend him after he murdered their daughter. It seems way more likely that Patsy would defend her son, who was just a kid, than her husband who's a grown man and should have known better. I was in the scouts when I was a kid, and by the age of 8, 9, and 10, I could tie some really good quality knots. It's possible for a kid to have learned that, even if he wasn't in the scouts. Another kid could have taught him or he could have read up in the library on how to do it.

There is also evidence of Burke getting revenge on JonBenet, for example, he smeared feces on her Christmas presents. Here's an article by someone who thinks Burke did it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-older-brother-Burke-smeared-feces-wall.html

However, I don't know for 100 percent certain. Maybe the father did it, and for some emotional reason the mother still wanted to defend him. A distant possibility still would be a relative whom they let come over, but didn't mention. Did they have a weird sibling or cousin who had a thing for her? That person would have to be someone they were emotionally bonded with to want to protect him with that ridiculous ransom note.

I'm nearly completely sure that Patsy wrote the note. It's way too literate (with deliberate misspellings), and it takes their feelings into consideration too much. I would expect a real ransom note to be curt and to the point, something like, "We have your daughter. Don't call the cops. We will call between 6 and 7 with further instructions." A real kidnapper would be super brief and may not even demand an amount in the note when they can do so over the phone." It's bizarre that the note included things like this sentence: "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested." The kidnapper is giving them health advice? Right.

The case is bizarre. For me, the strangest thing is that absurd ransom note. Did they really think that was believable and would keep the cops off their trail? You would think a parent who killed their kid, but wanted to cover it up would go off and dispose of the body somewhere, and then do a way better job faking a break-in. You would be better off going with no random note. Just have a windows broken from the outside and a missing daughter. The less evidence the better.

When you panic you do stupid things. As regards wives supporting husbands that kill their children; it happens a lot of times a year. Case after case of a man beating a child to death and the wife or girlfriend denying reality.
The ransom note is another reason I think the Benets did it; and the idea it was an intruder just does not wash. And in all these years no other real suspects have been identified.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

just because you do not hear about it does not mean it never happens.

Of course.

But that's part of the problem in this case...

There are so many contradictions.

No wonder it hasn't been solved.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

When you panic you do stupid things. As regards wives supporting husbands that kill their children; it happens a lot of times a year. Case after case of a man beating a child to death and the wife or girlfriend denying reality.
The ransom note is another reason I think the Benets did it; and the idea it was an intruder just does not wash. And in all these years no other real suspects have been identified.

What about not an unknown intruder, but a different relative whom they let in that night, someone such as a sibling or a cousin? I've wondered if one of them has a relative who watched JonBenet in her shows and developed a sick fascination with her. If he had been there that night, it wouldn't have been from a break-in, but rather he would have been let in. It would need to be someone they felt close to and thus wanted to protect. This scenario isn't my first suspicion. My #1 suspect is the brother, then #2 is the dad. Unknown relative is my #3 suspect, but is in a distant third place. I don't think the mother did it, but I think she was involved in covering it up.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What about not an unknown intruder, but a different relative whom they let in that night, someone such as a sibling or a cousin? I've wondered if one of them has a relative who watched JonBenet in her shows and developed a sick fascination with her. If he had been there that night, it wouldn't have been from a break-in, but rather he would have been let in. It would need to be someone they felt close to and thus wanted to protect. This scenario isn't my first suspicion. My #1 suspect is the brother, then #2 is the dad. Unknown relative is my #3 suspect, but is in a distant third place. I don't think the mother did it, but I think she was involved in covering it up.

If we go down the unknown intruder path the unknown intruder probably wasn't unknown at all... At least to the family.

If it wasn't a member of the immediate family it was someone who they knew and had been in their home IMO.

I think the reason why a non-immediate family member wasn't looked at even more closely was actually two-fold:

1. The police, or the ones that held the most sway focused on an immediate family member and considering anyone else simply wasn't on their radar.
2. The crime scene was so compromised that trying to find anyone connected to this crime (be it immediate family or other) was greatly harmed within the first few hours of the 911 call.

 

[Ranched]

I agree on the "inside job" but inside may be a family member but it could also have been someone that knew the family and had been in that house previously– If not many times.

Keep in mind there were many keys to the house that were held by non-family members... Upwards of 20.

The Ramseys attend a Christmas party at a family friend's house on Christmas day. The Ramseys go home & JonBenét goes to bed. I just can't comprehend on someone sneaking into the home while their out then waiting for them to come home, go to bed, then kill the little girl. And nobody heard a thing.

Many keys yes, but IF it was an intruder, didn't they think of the alarm being set?!
The entire intruder theory just doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true", lol.

And then there's the 911 call December 23rd. They hung up. Cop shows up at house, they wouldn't let him/her in. Why?!

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The Ramseys attend a Christmas party at a family friend's house on Christmas day. The Ramseys go home & JonBenét goes to bed. I just can't comprehend on someone sneaking into the home while their out then waiting for them to come home, go to bed, then kill the little girl. And nobody heard a thing.

Many keys yes, but IF it was an intruder, didn't they think of the alarm being set?!
The entire intruder theory just doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true", lol.

And then there's the 911 call December 23rd. They hung up. Cop shows up at house, they wouldn't let him/her in. Why?!

On the house alarm...

(borrowed from Reddit)

"John explains it on pages 326-328 of Death of Innocence. To sum up, the alarm system was in the house when they bought it. A year after they moved in, JBR, age 3, had touched the buttons on the wall, summoning the police, fire department, and emergency medical services. She was trying to open the garage door, but hit all the buttons on the alarm system instead. It was an ear splitting, unbearably loud noise. Patsy tried to turn it off but did not have the numeric code to disarm the system. When the fire engine, squad car and ambulance came, Patsy was still trying to find the code. She never found it, and 30 min. later it timed out and stopped by itself. After that, they didn't want it turned on because it was too loud. It hadn't been on since. In hindsight, he said he should have changed the interior siren to an exterior siren."

The point being a total stranger wouldn't have known that the alarm wasn't ever turned.

But a non-stranger may have known the history the Ramsey's had with their home alarm system.

 

[chagus]

I would've indicted the parents right off the bat. That's a little girl. A baby. As a parent, you know where she's at 24 damn hours a day. She's either at school (wasnt killed there) or at home with you, the parent. So if ANYONE knows what the heck happened, its the parents. Freegin common sense.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

On the house alarm...

(borrowed from Reddit)

"John explains it on pages 326-328 of Death of Innocence. To sum up, the alarm system was in the house when they bought it. A year after they moved in, JBR, age 3, had touched the buttons on the wall, summoning the police, fire department, and emergency medical services. She was trying to open the garage door, but hit all the buttons on the alarm system instead. It was an ear splitting, unbearably loud noise. Patsy tried to turn it off but did not have the numeric code to disarm the system. When the fire engine, squad car and ambulance came, Patsy was still trying to find the code. She never found it, and 30 min. later it timed out and stopped by itself. After that, they didn't want it turned on because it was too loud. It hadn't been on since. In hindsight, he said he should have changed the interior siren to an exterior siren."

The point being a total stranger wouldn't have known that the alarm wasn't ever turned.

But a non-stranger may have known the history the Ramsey's had with their home alarm system.

I work in the alarm industry, and we see this all the time. Someone moves into a house whose previous resident set up an alarm system, but the new resident never learns how to use it, and in most cases it's no longer even properly hooked up to alert the authorities. It's one of the things that drives me crazy. Someone sells a house and then gives the next owner ZERO information on what they need to do to either hook up and use the alarm system or to get it uninstalled if they don't want to use it.

 

[Creeper]

I have known who killed JB for years. But I can't say. It would be unfair to the real killer.