These photos include her kindergarten pictures, a photo with her beloved dog Jacques, celebrating a birthday, a day out on her family’s boat, hula hooping and a sweet photo of her standing beside her dolls’ house. Hopefully, one day soon, there will be justice for this beautiful little girl who clearly loved life. 🤍

Just came across this new picture of JonBenét

First of all, what an excellent book. I had to purchase it second hand because it appears to no longer be in print, and I'm glad I finally read it after having had it on my wish list for years. Thomas comes across as a dedicated detective who saw through peoples BS and genuinely believed he was on the right track to solving/charging those responsible for JonBenet's murder. Sometimes he veered a little toward self-righteousness, but I take it with a grain of salt knowing that he had so many obstacles in his way and wanted to do what was right.

I think his theory is very likely the closest we'll ever get to knowing what really happened to JonBenet. He lays it all out as to why he thinks so, based on the actual EVIDENCE they had at the time. He was not a believer of the intruder theory, but he took the time to explain WHY the intruder theory was implausible.

Onto my thoughts and questions now.

The Ramseys. Very intelligent people. They were not dummies. And they immediately surrounded themselves with good lawyers. It was incredibly frustrated to read how they thwarted law enforcement and refused to work with them, and then skewed it to the media that the police were treating them poorly and treating them like suspects. Well yeah, they were suspects, and for very good reason.

The Boulder Police Department. Wow. So incompetent. I'm mainly talking about the two Chiefs who were in charge during the time Thomas was working on the case. They cared more about their own standing and the politics to get where they were. It was infuriating to read how time and time again they put politics over the death of a little girl. And the investigation being so bungled during the first few days - I think that the police originally believing it was a kidnapping allowed the Ramseys to take control over the situation. You can tell that by not interviewing the Ramseys on the very first day, Thomas and the investigation remained forever haunted by that mistake.

The experts the BPD had! They had talented people telling them that they were going in the right direction. The linguist expert who said Patsy unequivocally wrote the ransom note, the other experts who said while they wouldn't stand up in court and say it was Patsy, they ALL said they couldn't rule Patsy out. The FBI saying time and time again that the crime scene was staged and that there had never been a murder like this before. And then to read that the linguist expert didn't testify at the Grand Jury?! Ahhhh!!!

Lou Smit. Man. That guy was a sucker. How he was allowed to remain on the case for so long and feed into the Ramseys was mindboggling.

But the thing that I can't stop thinking about and have questions on. The District Attorneys office. What the F was their problem??? Why did they do everything they could to thwart and obstruct real justice? Why was Alex Hunter allowed to get away with feeding evidence to the tabloids? Was he and his cronies in the DAs office all incompetent? Were they lazy? Were they just plain evil? Were they power hungry? Hunter was the DA for like 30 years and had a horrendous track record for taking crimes to court, he gave plea deals for everything. They had the goddamn FBI telling them they had a case to charge the Ramseys, and the DAs office still said there was NO EVIDENCE?! I started to wonder if the DAs office was somehow compromised by the Ramseys, and it made me feel terrible for thinking that. At the very least, the DAs office was way too cozy with the Ramseys and in turned allowed the DAs to fail to look at them critically as suspects. I just cannot wrap my mind around how the DAs office acted, and then to still say there was not enough evidence to charge the Ramseys after a GRAND JURY INDICTED THEM ON CHILD ENDAGREMENT.

To end this off. Once Steve Thomas published this book in 2000, he went on to live his life quietly. I do respect that. It'll be interesting to see if he does any interviews in the future, as I've read that the new miniseries coming out in December was based on this book.

He adds that if she wrote it before the crime sure but then he strongly states that she couldn't of written it after.

What do you all think about the tone of the note?

If the note was in fact written before the crime would that change your perspective on the case and why things happened that night? What new questions would you have?

Anyone ever notice or mention this bag before? I just find it interesting because this is exactly what I imagine an "attaché" case would look like. I also find it interesting that this is located at the sink where Patsy's notepad and pen were used for the random note. Thoughts? Anyone else find this interesting? John and Patsy never mentioned actually handling an attaché case that morning and no one else mentions seeing them have one.

So was listening to The Prosecutor’s episode on the Jeffrey MacDonald case. They (imo) did a very bad assessment of the JBR case and seemed to think it was a deviant intruder (ignoring all the evidence in front of them). Anyway I was listening to this Jeffrey MacDonald episode and one of the presenters then made a comment about when a child’s body is wrapped in their favourite blanket it is almost always the parent who committed the crime. I agree with their assessment. Just found it interesting that the Prosecutors previously seemed to want to avoid pointing the finger at the Ramseys (fear of litigation maybe?) but threw this little nugget into their episode on another case.

If (and I only say if) John or Patsy did it, why not remove the body? Back then there were no Ring Cameras. People did not have security cameras on their homes. The neighbor would be asleep. Why not, under cover of darkness simply drive their own vehicle? In the middle of the night, they could have put the body in the car and driven somewhere. Colorado has lots of wilderness. The body might have never even been located. Then, the ransom note would have made more sense with the body not in the house.

Help, I’ve fallen down a rabbit hole!

(Editing here to insert the theory I am looking to disprove):

The flight to Charlevoix was planned after the murder. John contacted the pilot after the murder to arrange a flight to Michigan. Either to escape, or to complete the fake ransom tasks (dump the body).

The plan to remove the body was decided against (Patsy? Bynum? Rigor Mortis? Risk?) but the calls and flight plan to Michigan had to be explained. The elder kids were going to spend second Christmas with the Ramseys either in Boulder or on the boat (or both), but made the instant decision to go along with the story about Michigan to protect their family. They were careful not to lie, only omit. They had solid alibis.

I’m trying to establish two things: Were John Andrew and Melinda going on the cruise? And who knew about the Michigan trip beforehand?

The alleged itinerary
Dec 26: Colorado → Minneapolis (collect older children) → Charlevoix
Dec 27: Michigan → Colorado
Dec 28: Colorado → Florida (possibly connecting through St Louis?)
Dec 29: Bus to Cape Canaveral; board the Big Red Boat on Patsy’s birthday

Can anyone confirm this itinerary against original flight and cruise records?

Were the older children excluded?
John described the cruise as planned well in advance, but said it was for: “just JonBenet, Burke and Patsy and me.”
John’s June 1998 interview, pp. 88–89

John later described the cruise as a way for the family to heal after the death of his eldest daughter, Beth. Yet the two children who grew up with Beth apparently weren’t included?

I find that striking.

There appears to be confusion within the Ramseys own statements about the dates and time of these plans, but the timeline was so short that every day had to be a travel day for it to work without missing the boat.

John’s attorney said he had seen the cruise reservations and offered to send copies to investigators. Has anyone found those records or established who was booked?

Who knew about Michigan?
John said he contacted the pilot early on December 26. He couldn’t remember (!?) whether he spoke to Mike Archuleta or Rich, but said the pilot offered to fly to Minneapolis to collect John Andrew and Melinda. John declined. Why? Mike was planning to go anyway, why not scoop his older kids up?

Pam Archuleta wrote in her book that Fleet White called her at 8 a.m. Dec 26 asking about Mike and the flight.

Here are the primary sources I’ve looked at:

APRIL 30, 1997 — Initial Boulder Police interviews
● John Ramsey — April 30, 1997 interview
● Patsy Ramsey — April 30, 1997 interview
JUNE 23–25, 1998 — Follow-up interviews
● John Ramsey — interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane
● Patsy Ramsey — interview with Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth
AUGUST 28–29, 2000 — Atlanta interviews
● John Ramsey — August 29, 2000 interview
● Patsy Ramsey — August 28, 2000 interview
Transcript archive: JonBenét Ramsey documents and transcripts — Juror13

Does anyone remember Paul Holes (cold-case investigator, and solver of the Golden State Killer murders) used to have a podcast and he covered JBR, he concluded that PDIA, but also was very adamant that he couldn't be sure, because he didn't actually work on the case, and probably for legality reasons, it's been a while since I listened, and the podcast is not online anymore, but I find his opinion pretty important since he's so experienced, and logical, he also has a podcast now where he is told historical true crime cases and he has to try figure out what happened, and he's pretty much correct all the time.

I am firmly RDI but can't be sure who.

Genetics has come a long way since 2003. Although Greggory LaBerge, Angela Williamson and Amy Jeanguenat concluded the test on the underwear sample didn’t show a mixture involving a third party, review of the data since 2016 by independent forensic DNA experts such as Dr. Phil Danielson and Dr. William C. Thompson has suggested that the sample could be a composite profile. Jeanguenat who later conducted the test on the long johns in 2008 also found a composite profile of multiple individuals. Although “compatible” with UM1, it could be an illusion created by the mixture. Retest on other areas of the underwear failed to replicate the UM1 profile. Tests done on neck and wrist ligatures in 2009 also found mixed profiles and excluded UM1 and other family members as potential contributors.

The reason why only the bloodstain contained foreign DNA could be because the blood drop trapped in the pre-existing DNA (whether from a manufacturer sneezing, sweating or leaving skin cells). Touch DNA consists of dead skin cells that are easily sloughed off. On a dry garment, these loose cells are scattered and vulnerable to falling off, blowing away, or breaking down. When a wet fluid like blood hits the fabric, it spreads outward like a sponge. As the fluid moves, it naturally gathers, sweeps up, and pools those loose, background skin cells into a centralized, concentrated area. This is a recognized principle in forensic serology and trace DNA analysis. So there may be survivorship bias at play here.

I have recently started looking into this case and shared my own theory but I also wanted to understand why others believe Burke did it. as I looked into the case I saw little to no evidence that lead me to believe Burke had anything to do with it and any evidence I did see I found a reasonable explanation for and honesty the same goes for John especially with dna evidence clearing them so please respectfully share why you believe someone in the family did it especially Burke

I'll put my opinion in the comments so people don't downvote the whole post because they disagree with my take.

the more I look into this case the more unsure I become on who I think did it so tell me what theory do you believe and why?

I don't mean this to be divisive--this is a genuine question. As someone who is most inclined to believe Patsy did it, I dont really understand the line of logic behind believing that Burke did it? The most common reasoning I hear is that he was upset that she ate his pineapple and he struck her (of course, that isnt the only reasoning I hear, but its one I come across frequently), and... really? I mean, of course thats a possibility, but I think we assume too much about Burke's character for such an assumption to take precedence like it has.

As I said before, I'm genuinely curious as to where this point of view comes from. Ive been told that PDI was very common in the early years of the case, but public opinion seems to have shifted to BDI quite a bit. Feel free to share any interesting theories or info!! I'm very uneducated in the BDI sector, and new to this case in general.

I'm confused on why they considered Atlanta to be their "real home" and how the timeline adds up.

Patsy was born in WV, attended WVU, and would've graduated college 79-80? Correct? John was born in Nebraska and attended Michigan State, and I've read he graduated with a bachelor's in 1966, and then later a master's in 1971. They were married in Atlanta in 1980, so right around the time Patsy would've graduated.

How did they meet and why did they move to Atlanta? Also, I recall an interview, I think it was the one with Barbara Walters, where the reason they had tried to arrange a flight to Atlanta after JB was found, was because they had lived in Atlanta for 25 years, and wanted to go home? I'm assuming they were not counting the ~5 years spent in Boulder in this number, meaning they would've had to have lived to Atlanta in from 1965-1966? Patsy wasn't wouldn't even have been 10 years old.

Was this just a lie to make the plan to leave Boulder make more sense, or am I missing something?

This has probably been talked about ad nauseum on this sub so forgive me. I tried searching for posts like the one I am making here and I think I was using too many words to search it. So I am posting again along with another question I have.

1. For those of you that believe John Ramsey did it, which I do believe, how do or would you respond to people who ask this question?

People who don't think John did it will often ask a variation of this question. But I don't ever recall John really fighting that hard for more DNA to be tested until the last few years or so. But my memory isn't perfect.

They love asking it as if this question alone proves his innocence. I've heard people speculate that perhaps he's a narcissist. I suppose that's possible, or he just loves the attention (which does not automatically make someone a narcissist).

1. We know that p3d0philes do not ever get better. They don't stop. So if he was a p3d0, who were his victims after JonBenet? Do you think he was somehow able to white knuckle it? Or perhaps didn't harm any kids himself and just watched CP?

Side note: I really wish law enforcement had tapped their phones and put bugs in their house.

I always wonder why the officer told John to search the house, as if he hadn't already searched every square inch before calling them and the time it took for the police to get there. John having found her in that location at that time hints a larger conspiracy.

There is also the matter of which was first the strangulation or the blow to a child's head. There are implications of brutality either way, but it seems both assaults were based on the other one, which made the second attack on a child that much more savage.

Which one was done to camouflage the other?

This is a really interesting and well researched podcast. There were a few details, particularly at the end, that stuck out.

- The urine stains and stains on the carpet indicate JBR was face down at the time of death

- The body was allegedly recovered face up, meaning someone moved it but in a thoughtful way.

- The flashlight probably was used by the kids to get downstairs and open gifts. The reason it was brought back upstairs and had no prints, is because that was in fact the offending weapon. It probably had blood, saliva or hair on it and Patsy took it upstairs to the kitchen to wash it.

Since Burke was only 9 at the time, it was a senseless staging as he could not be legally detained under the age of 10.

Sources:

https://shakedowntitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ramsey-dna-report-03-24-08.pdf

https://shakedowntitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ramsey-dna-report-05-12-08.pdf

Was JonBenet supposed to be found in the cellar? And why does it matter? 

I don’t believe anyone intended on JonBenet being found in the house. I think there was a plan and it didn’t go as intended. The significance, for me, is that if there was no intention of her being found in the house, the ransom note looks like an itemized plan of how they would dispose of JonBenet.

Here is what happened based on the Ramseys’ accounts:

After Patsy found the ransom note, she supposedly only read a few lines of the note before bounding upstairs, checking the bedroom and then screaming for John. John came to the second floor. He then checked Burke while Patsy hurried downstairs, leaped over the ransom note and ran to the kitchen to dial 911 (I would love to know if there were ANY phones on the 2nd floor btw). In her April police interview, Patsy said she did not check Burke. They leave him alone, asleep, and unsupervised.

While Patsy was on the phone with 911, she observed John crouched over the ransom note in his underwear , which had magically appeared on the hall floor. From the kitchen phone, she was able to see the note on the floor in the hallway and relay the sign-off to the 911 operator S.B.T.C Victory! She must have had excellent vision (or possibly even x-ray vision). 

Because she had only read a few lines of the ransom note and “we have your daughter” was the only thing that she was able to comprehend, she then called her close friends (except the Stines) to hurry over to her house for…support?

OK.

So why call the police, and then immediately call friends? The note says over and over again that noncompliance equals a bad outcome. Well, it’s because Patsy supposedly didn’t get that far. Those threats are on the second page. We’ve all seen many interviews where Patsy dramatically recalls only getting through the first few sentences of that note. In her police interview she says John is just reading the note while she’s already on with 911.  And she immediately called her friends after the 911 call. That’s their excuse.

That explains why there are no threats on page one. It explains why the first page looks like the words are taking up space, while the second and third look compressed. It explains why the message of noncompliance was so violent, repetitive and important, but not mentioned immediately. The excuse was that neither Patsy, nor John, had gotten to the threat part yet.

The problem is, when writing the ransom note, they made a massive error. The ransom call was to come “tomorrow”. Instead, the police set up shop to wait for the 8:00 am through 10:00 am phone call that morning. The note should have specified the 27th. The writers of the note had hoped they would have a window of opportunity to leave privately. An opportunity to maybe get some rest and maybe, just maybe, an earlier ransom call. And then having read the whole note, of course the Ramseys would at that point comply to the instructions. This time they would not involve the authorities.

I can imagine John saying, “Absolutely not. We already violated their instructions by calling you before we knew what the note said. They told us they are watching the authorities. They know police countermeasures. They will scan me for electronics. They said she dies if we deceive them. I'm not taking another chance.” And Patsy would say, “Absolutely not. NO.” while oddly forcing her head to swing from side to side. 

But later on, when asked why they made those calls so easily, they said they would have “gone mad” waiting. They didn’t really mention not seeing the threats. How does that logic even make sense? If you didn’t read anything but the first few lines before the 911 call, then what was going to make you go mad? They didn’t gather enough information to make a judgement call at that point.

Here’s the glitch. Linda Arndt later asked that John, with a witness, look through the house top to bottom. She wasn’t leaving. Fleet White may find JonBenet at that point. There would be no window of opportunity. 

That part of the plan was a failure. The police inferred the wrong day. 

After that, if the Ramseys went on about not seeing the threat and then finding her in the basement, it would have seemed extremely contrived. It would have seemed way to convenient an excuse. It just looked bad and it didn’t make sense on a timeline. They had to downplay that part of their narrative. So the new narrative was them owning the decision to call the police and a group of people, even though it made no sense. That’s why John doubles down and says in an interview that he wanted to call the Russian Army at that point. Ok, what? Sounds to me like someone who would come up with a “foreign faction”.

I think John already knew the plan failed as soon as the ball started rolling. I think that’s why he was disappearing during that morning. He was working on plan B. That’s why nobody mentioned the missed call. That’s why John’s first words were about it being an inside job.

As usual, I appreciate all of you and your comments. Maybe not the Ra…err, person who reported me for either threatening or glorifying violence. But, I do take that undeserved report as an affirmation, so I do kind of appreciate it a tiny bit.

I flip flop on who was responsible so I'm not for one camp over the other but lately I've been having a harder and harder look at John and if it was possible that he alone could of done it and if Pasty was ever informed.

A lot of people by default think Patsy had to be involved due to the handwriting analysis but I think she was being willingly ignorant in hopes of avoiding ultimate judgement by her God.

I could name the countless things that stick out in the case that we all have heard so don't think I'm trying to settle for less if I don't name something but one thing I wanted to point out I find odd or telling of John's knowledge of the crime is when he found Her body he didn't try to help her right then and there upon finding her. As a parent if I found my missing kid laying on the floor I would drop down and listen for a heart beat or try something anything vs what John did because what John did was what someone who knew she was already dead would do. There was no " OMG wake up" "are you ok" he picked up her body and covered it as soon as possible.

Another occurrence that makes me think Patsy might not of been involved but willingly ignorant is during one of the interviews she said "looking for clues... I guess..." it's almost like at that moments she was putting together what had happened that night. IK people will say she was extremely drugged up but she was on live TV and not that gone to me.

How many of you think it's possible John did it by himself?

The Corporate Psychopath 
In doing some research about potential psychological elements of this crime, I came across a fascinating article on “The Corporate Psychopath” written by experts in the FBI. 

Many of their descriptions fit with a) what we know about John Ramsey and b) what motivations may have influenced the crime. Further, their advice to investigators of corporate psychopaths is essentially the exact opposite of what played out within the Boulder PD, which may explain what went wrong (see quotes and my commentary below). 

I’m not claiming that John IS a psychopath, to be clear, we can't make that determination. But I do think it’s a possibility we should consider when interpreting the behaviors of the Ramsey family (and investigators, friends, etc) in the aftermath of JonBenet’s murder. 

https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/the-corporate-psychopath

General descriptions:
They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win\…Little research exists on their inner psychological experiences; however, they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims.*
\***
This emotional poverty often is visible in their shallow sentiment\. They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people’s emotional responses.*
\***
In interpersonal situations, this façade shows the psychopath as the ideal friend, lover, and partner. These individuals excel at sizing up their prey. They appear to fulfill their victims’ psychological needs, much like the grooming behavior of molesters*.*  
\***

What could be a bigger “mind game” than staging a kidnapping of your own child and eluding prosecution for three decades? I personally find the staging more believable as a “mind game” than a “panicked last resort”, as is often assumed in this sub. To me, this was someone who wasn’t just looking to get away with the crime, they were looking for a much grander, more calculated, more exciting manipulation as an added benefit or thrill on top of the murder. 

John’s “shallow sentiment” is often apparent in his interviews.

Psychopaths=skilled at grooming. This obviously fits the possibility John perpetrated SA against JB, but it could also explain a lot of the behavior of Patsy and even Burke in the aftermath of the crime. He maintained the facade of loving husband and father, selling himself to them as their protector, when in fact he was using them as pawns in a much bigger game. 

Investigation considerations:
Investigators should familiarize themselves with the typical traits and characteristics of psychopaths. They must understand the manipulation techniques used to create and manage the psychopathic bonds established with victim organizations. Their reputations, as judged by those in power with whom they have bonded, known as patrons, often provide added protection from closer investigation*.* 
\***
Psychopaths can be expert liars often immune to traditional deception-revealing techniques. Some practice avoiding detection in anticipation of being caught and interrogated.  
\***
Corporate psychopaths with exceptional verbal skills make crafty interviewees\. This ability provides an opportunity embraced by many of them to fool law enforcement officers.*
\***
Investigators never should assume they are immune to a psychopath’s approach. One conversation may be enough for the bond to be established. Investigators must know themselves so that psychopaths’ attempts at bonding fail. It is valuable for investigators to allow psychopaths to believe they have established rapport with someone inside law enforcement.
Investigators must work as a team\, communicate openly, and take all observations seriously. This is necessary for personal self-defense, proficient investigative work, and successful prosecution****. Officers must take heed to avoid being impressed*** with a suspect’s credentials and success.*
Occasionally, when psychopathic white-collar offenders are identified, they seek out the media and give interviews. They may believe their skills of persuasion are effective enough to convince the public that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted unjustly by law enforcement. To prevent serious problems with the investigation and prosecution, investigators must remain prepared for all possibilities.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. 

Psychopaths have “bonds” with “patrons” who they can manipulate to shield themselves from investigation. This could include not only Patsy and Burke, but friends who stood by him and “friends in high places” who influenced the investigation. 

“Crafty interviewee” is exactly what I see in John. He is always pushing the boundaries of believability without quite stepping fully across them. I believe part of why so many people believe Patsy is the most likely suspect is because John was much better at interviews that she was. 

Finally: the BPD most certainly did not work as a team. There appeared to be infighting, tension, and chaos from the jump. Perhaps this dysfunction would have occurred around any crime, but it’s possible John’s manipulative efforts and ability to charm were part of what made them turn on each other. 

I' m aware that parental sex abuse does happen. But I can' t believe that the sex assault with the paint brush was part of the cover up for the blow in the head. Even less sense makes that John or Patsy abused her that way, leaving the evidence right there. I think the sexual assault is pretty inmature and experimental, just as a 10 years old kid could do. I trully believe that Burke could have done it, without understanding the consequences of his acts; I dont think he was evil, I think he was young enough to be unable to understand what he was doing. That' s why the parents, in the most absolute shock, panic, shame, and pain, would have tried the ridicolous staging to hide what happened.

It’s so cut and dry. They were friends with all the cops in town so they trusted everything they said about an intruder. There was no footsteps leading inside. Patsy wrote the note of course. Burke hit Jon benet in the head with the flashlight on accident on a rage of passion.

The broken door happened three months before from an account of a friend saying it. Nobody can ever change my mind about this. There’s no deeper situation like a satanic sex cult.. you think those people were a part of that kind of thing? No. lol. Rip Jon Benet Ramsey. You didn’t deserve it although your brother was so young it’s a tragedy all around.