Who Killed JonBenét?

[Flamma]

When they did handwriting analysis Patsy was the only family member who's handwriting kinda/sorta was comparable.

But keep in mind on the scale that professionals use to judge handwriting comparisons her handwriting did not rank very high on the scale... So while it was closer than other family members it was still far off from being a match.

The other two issues I have with Patsy writing the note is that I still can't believe any mother would use the term "beheading" in connection to their child.

And then you have the length and content of the note itself...

So, you've just killed your daughter and you have the clear-mindset to write the world's longest ransom letter? And you've cleverly included 4 or 5 movie references?

No... I just don't buy it.

Patsy was a drama-queen but she loved the kid... Jon Benet had been to the doctor 27 freaking times over the previous 3 years!

Also killing the kid with a garrote is brutal. And then you bash her skull in? The garrote itself could kill her, but then then you fracture her skull while/after garroting her?

No... Again I just don't buy Patsy, John or the son doing this.

Again. My wife is sleeping right now. I'll ask her shortly. It could have been just the note she connected to the mother. She found a connection in the note she hadn't seen anyone else notice.

 

[jnday]

That's interesting. So maybe it was some sicko outside the family who became obsessed with her from her talent shows. If that's the case, however, what explains that ridiculous ransom note?

I don’t know. Just when you think that the evidence supports one theory or another, they find evidence that contradicts everything that they thought they knew. There is only one thing that can be proven in this case, the cops totally screwed the investigation up to the point where it is just about impossible to convict anybody for the murder.

 

[Mannix]

I think it was Burke...I've read articles which alluded to the advanced size of his "you know what" when he was young...some family member had a pic and was passing it around.....google it if you think that I am joking. I think the kid was sexually advanced for his age and was molesting Jon Benet. Parents covered up something that went very wrong.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

There are parts of the ransom letter that seem to lead toward someone very close to the child writing the letter and then there are other parts that would lead you to believe that it was someone outside of the child's immediate family who wrote it.

A friend of mine analyzed the letter and it was part of a book she wrote. She is a handwriting analyst. Michelle Dresbold. The book is Sex, Lies, and Handwriting. It is a good book. If I remember correctly, she said there is a greater than 95% probability that the mother wrote the ransom letter. There were no fingerprints, only a palm print, on the letter and it was written on a notepad in the kitchen the day of the crime. Kidnappers don’t write notes at the scene of crime in real time.

The mother wrote the letter. The ransom letter is a lie. The ransom letter had info only the mother and father would know, such as the bonus amount. The mother is at minimum, involved in the coverup of murder or manslaughter.

The police were atrocious in this investigation from beginning to end. They interrogated the mother and father together which never happens in a situation like this.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

No parent would have killed that child in that terrible manner. The family was horrible, but I don't suspect the parents. And, I'm good at this stuff. I watch a lot of TV.

Start with the ransom letter. The mother wrote it. Ask yourself why the mother would write that? She was involved or she knew exactly who did what and lied.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

A friend of mine analyzed the letter and it was part of a book she wrote. She is a handwriting analyst. Michelle Dresbold. The book is Sex, Lies, and Handwriting. It is a good book. If I remember correctly, she said there is a greater than 95% probability that the mother wrote the ransom letter. There were no fingerprints, only a palm print, on the letter and it was written on a notepad in the kitchen the day of the crime. Kidnappers don’t write notes at the scene of crime in real time.

The mother wrote the letter. The ransom letter is a lie. The ransom letter had info only the mother and father would know, such as the bonus amount. The mother is at minimum, involved in the coverup of murder or manslaughter.

The police were atrocious in this investigation from beginning to end. They interrogated the mother and father together which never happens in a situation like this.

There have been several hand-writing "experts" who have reviewed that letter and the follow-up hand writing samples submitted by the Ramsey's and the answers, like the everything else about this case are all over the board.

According to the DNA testing results of 2008, the DNA found on the child did not match either the parents nor the brother.

I have stated in several posts within this thread why I do not believe any of the immediate family were involved in the child's murder.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

There have been several hand-writing "experts" who have reviewed that letter and the follow-up hand writing samples submitted by the Ramsey's and the answers, like the everything else about this case are all over the board.

According to the DNA testing results of 2008, the DNA found on the child did not match either the parents nor the brother.

I have stated in several posts within this thread why I do not believe any of the immediate family were involved in the child's murder.

Michelle Dresbold is the real deal when it comes to handwriting experts. Trained by the secret service.

The mother wrote the letter. Start with that fact and work back. Only a few possibilities why she would write that letter. She knows exactly what happened and tried to cover it up. Only question is who is she covering up for? Her husband, her son, or herself are most likely. I doubt she would cover up the murder of her daughter to protect a friend or other person unless she was in on the crime some way.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Michelle Dresbold is the real deal when it comes to handwriting experts. Trained by the secret service.

The mother wrote the letter. Start with that fact and work back. Only a few possibilities why she would write that letter. She knows exactly what happened and tried to cover it up. Only question is who is she covering up for? Her husband, her son, or herself are most likely. I doubt she would cover up the murder of her daughter to protect a friend or other person unless she was in on the crime some way.

I just don't think so.

 

[nobody]

There have been several hand-writing "experts" who have reviewed that letter and the follow-up hand writing samples submitted by the Ramsey's and the answers, like the everything else about this case are all over the board.

According to the DNA testing results of 2008, the DNA found on the child did not match either the parents nor the brother.

I have stated in several posts within this thread why I do not believe any of the immediate family were involved in the child's murder.

Sadly, the investigation was so botched that you can't even trust the DNA found and tested later. There could be no real conviction from it because there's always reasonable doubt because of terrible police work.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Sadly, the investigation was so botched that you can't even trust the DNA found and tested later. There could be no real conviction from it because there's always reasonable doubt because of terrible police work.

Oh I agree.

The police were (or most of them) were hyper-focused on one of the family members doing it– there was virtually no consideration to someone outside the immediate family unit committing the crime.

 

[khiladi]

There have been several hand-writing "experts" who have reviewed that letter and the follow-up hand writing samples submitted by the Ramsey's and the answers, like the everything else about this case are all over the board.

According to the DNA testing results of 2008, the DNA found on the child did not match either the parents nor the brother.

I have stated in several posts within this thread why I do not believe any of the immediate family were involved in the child's murder.

And both Dr. Lee and Dr. Spitz disagreed with Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy’s decision to exonerate the Ramseys in 2008 based on new DNA tests which revealed the presence of unidentified male DNA from a single source on both JonBenét’s underwear and leggings. Dr. Lee explained how touch DNA is so easily transferred that it can show up on a brand new pair of underwear straight out of its sealed packaging, so his belief that the presence of unidentified male DNA on a little girl’s underwear could have come from a factory worker was convincing.

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-got-it-wrong-112062/

The following article also discusses the problems with the DNA matching, among them, it was actually composite DNA and one of them was unidentified, meaning it’s impossible to exonerate or implicate anyone from the family via DNA.

https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10...alysis-challenges-das-exoneration-of-ramseys/

 

[Ranched]

This is one murder case I'd like to see get solved before I pass on. https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/www.boston.com/news/national-news/2022/05/02/jonbenet-ramseys-father-wants-outside-agency-to-test-dna/?amp=1

 

[NorthoftheRedRiver]

I thought the dad had died years ago. Maybe it was the mom.

 

[SlammedZero]

This is one murder case I'd like to see get solved before I pass on. https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/www.boston.com/news/national-news/2022/05/02/jonbenet-ramseys-father-wants-outside-agency-to-test-dna/?amp=1

Oh, I saw something about this pop up on MSN and I meant to read it and forgot to go back to it. Thanks for the reminder. I, too, would be super curious to see some substantial evidence come to light on this case.

I thought the dad had died years ago. Maybe it was the mom.

It was the mom.

 

[Creeper]

One thing I do know, never judge a person who has just lost a child based on their behavior shortly after the child's death. I worked with a guy who 2 year old died of meningitis over a weekend. This guy was really close to his kid, bringing in new pictures to put in his office all the time. But that Monday he came back into work and acted perfectly normal. One of my co-workers had seen him that Monday morning and asked him how was his weekend and his reply was, "not so great. My son died". Otherwise he acted like nothing happened. He was obviously in shock and had not yet processed what had happened. It was weird. But everyone processes tragedy differently.

I am not saying the parents didn't do it or they did, only that some people may not react to a tragedy the way you might expect. Too often the media draws attention to the emotional reactions of the suspects but the conclusion that the family members of a victim should act one way or another or they are guilty is completely wrong.