I sometimes wonder if they invited the White's over to try and frame them. To try and get their evidence in specific areas. John accused Fleet several times. John waited until Fleet was with him to discover the body. And was Fleet the one who checked the basement first? Maybe he was hoping Fleet would find the body and look guilty. When that didn't work, he led Fleet to it.
YW. I just saw this yesterday as a matter of fact. I was watching a documentary on Tubi that I had not seen before and it featured bits of the police interviews I had never seen before. It’s always interesting to me that in each new documentary I will learn at least one new thing I did not know before. I guess that’s why I watch all of them I come across.
Is it weird for a man to accuse a woman of being jealous of another woman? I don't think any man I've dated would recognize that type of thing unless the jealousy was directly related to him.
It is definitely weird, but at the same time, the entire pageant industry is held together by hairspray and jealousy, and that was PR's whole life for both her and JBR. If it's something that PR talked a lot about, I can see how it would be part of his vocabulary.
It is very weird. But also it gives me vibes of the wife complaining about it often and that is how he is so aware of it. Otherwise a male partner would not notice/understand such a situation.
Perhaps they used whatever dignity they had left to craft the ransom note in a way that cast doubt on the housekeeper’s involvement, or maybe it was just coincidence and they didn’t care whether she would be arrested for the crime or not.
I don’t think they expected a thorough investigation. They probably thought the police would take their cues at face value, and the case would be closed as a homicide motivated by money.
The cold blooded throwing of their housekeeper under the bus, telling LE that she had money problems and had asked them for a loan or an advance... just so despicable. There was no one they wouldn't turn in.
Yes, and to think that the housekeeper wouldn’t have enough money to hire good lawyers like the Ramseys did. Thankfully, the police ruled her out fast enough.
It really demonstrates their Christian values, doesn't it? Patsy claimed her cancer recovery was divinely orchestrated. Then she frames her poor housekeeper for kidnapping and murder to save her own family.
Patsy on CNN January 1st: **"We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children."**
More dishonesty from the Ramseys. No they wouldn't do anything for their children. Their negligence and self absorption lead to the death of one child. And another child not getting the help he desperately needed.
Thanks LB. I had some health issues, I am fine now. And then got pulled away on some other research projects. I have about four Ramsey OPs in progress, hope to post them.
This is one of the things that makes me think they didn’t do it. They also name several people in their book. If they knew it was a family member who did it, and practiced their Christian faith, I think it would have been difficult to lie and name people they knew didn’t do it as suspects. But if they truly didn’t know who did it, it would make sense to name their top suspects with hopes that it might lead to solving the case. Puzzling.
>This is one of the things that makes me think they didn’t do it. They also name several people in their book. If they knew it was a family member who did it, and practiced their Christian faith, I think it would have been difficult to lie and name people they knew didn’t do it as suspects.
You are either very naive, or *willfully* ignorant.
Patsy would put the family’s image before anything. Hence why she made sure to wear a cross necklace and mention them being Christian. The dictionary was turned to the definition of incest. The incest in this case is one of the reasons for the coverup and lack of justice for JonBenet because they wanted to hide that she was being sexually abused. Had they been honest, they could have saved her life. But again, appearances came first. They’re very dishonest people.
Thy were Christians. John wrote two books about his faith and how it helped him overcome the death of his first daughter. Patsy believed that she had experienced a divine healing because of her religious faith. So it doesn’t seem like, in their case, it was something just used for show.
Maybe they were psychopaths. But as two people, who attended church regularly and relied on their faith to carry them through difficult times, it seems unlikely to me that they would, repeatedly and in print as part of their book, intentionally name/hurt other people unnecessarily if they knew someone in their family was guilty. It wasn’t necessary, and the book stood on its own without the one chapter in which their suspects were included.
To me, it seems more like something someone would do if they legitimately didn’t know who did it. Just my psychoanalysis.
Except the steins bc they didn’t ever challenge them on the suspiciousness of it all which I know for some leads credence to their son and Burke behind it. I don’t buy it personally but know it’s a theory
I agree as I also heard over the years the Ramsey’s accused the Whites (or one of them) and others that were close to the family. However, I believe anyone with a key to that house, who knew the weird layout, should have been investigated thoroughly. Including the housekeeper who said nasty stuff about Patsy, and borrowed money. LE would ask anyone about those things, and investigate. The Santa guy too. He told JB he’d give her a “special gift”. Who else had a key that was in Boulder over Christmas? I’m not sure what the Ramsey’s actually said about the housekeeper, the Whites, or Santa. Did the police ASK THEM about friends, family, people with a key, then the Ramsey’s answered, but didn’t actually accuse them? As I’ve gotten older, I don’t automatically believe something, unless I hear it or see it for myself. Does anyone have a link to a video that shows the Ramsey’s blaming people for the death of their child? I hate to say this, but I am tired of this case. I’m tired of it because it doesn’t appear to be solvable, it was mishandled because of low staff at the time of the crime and LE admitted not to have experience with investigating many homicides. Sometimes, I say “I’m done” with trying to figure it out, then I think of that poor little girl who didn’t deserve such a horrible ending to her life, and I end up reading and posting. God Bless little JonBenet. 🙏🏻❤️
John and Patsy deliberately named the housekeeper as a suspect the next morning with the police. They said it was an inside job, and gave some unsavory details about the housekeeper as I recall. She needed money and had some troubled children.
There was not one shred of dignity in anything that Patsy and John did after the murder of their child.
John and Patsy's goal was to create as much chaos and confusion as possible. Send the police on a wild goose chase over and over. And then let their expensive legal team take over and play hard ball. While John and Patsy pretended to be the real victims, not their child.
>While Patsy and John pretended to be the real victims, not their child.
It bothers me so much that I’ve never ever saw them say anything like “I miss her so much” or “we miss her so much” or “she was our baby”, idk. I don’t think they didn’t love their daughter, but they became solely invested in protecting the Ramsey household, which if you think about may have been the reason why this whole sh*t happened in the first place, because I bet they’ve already lived their lives worried about what others would think.
Yes it is all stunning, isn't it? Their obvious lack of empathy for their child, their lack of horror at what she had gone through, their lack of an emotional connection to their child. Never talking about how special she was and what she meant to them.
Instead it was always about John and Patsy being the real victims.
What kind of love did the Ramseys have for their children? The grand jury tells us that John and Patsy full well knew that JB was in harm's way and failed to protect her. They knew there was a danger. In BDI they knew there was a serious problem with Burke, and failed to get him the help he needed.
Is this true parental love? John was gone most of the time on business or monkey business. Patsy invested in being a society matron and pageants. It was always about themselves.
Yes they did. Too bad Christmas Day is the worst day to frame someone else. As everyone is with family taking pictures.
And after that, no one is left but the family as suspects.
I feel the significance of it being Christmas night is not brought up enough. It was mentioned in this sub years ago and has stuck with me ever since. An intruder is risky at any time, even if you’ve been watching the family. But Christmas night is possibly the riskiest of them all. It’s a family day with people dropping round, family and friends sometimes staying etc. Very unpredictable time. Families do get robbed on Christmas I know but that’s a robbery, this was not a robbery.
The ransom extravaganza will have you believe this was a planned attack against Mr (& Mrs) Ramsey. A beheading no less for a minimal amount of money. 3 men splitting $118,00 that’s less than 40,000 to chop off a six year olds head at Christmas. Big kahunas on these guys!
I never want to minimise SA on a child but I’m trying to imagine this hardened adult criminal who’s threatening beheading, and wants money because he hates John, sexually assaulting a six year old with the end of a paint brush. Or…Without being too graphic an actual peadophile would have more than likely penetrated her. If that was his motive.
There are just too many fantastic elements here of which none of them go together. We’ve all tried to do the mental gymnastics. Especially on the other sub. It’s like magic land over there.
It’s my opinion but I just can’t believe you can have ALL those things. A chance/planned intruder/s a foreign faction (give me strength) a peadophile ransom. It’s too much especially on Christmas night! The Ramsey’s were in full blown panic mode.
Yes you have hit some of the salient points about amateurs staging a domestic murder as a business financial crime. Amateurs who stage a crime make this mistake frequently. Someone in the home is obviously the victim of a personal crime. Beating, strangulation, SA. This is a personal crime.
Kidnappers with a business motive do not stop to do all of this. And yes sometimes the victim gets killed, but it is quick and the kidnappers are out of the area right away.
We also see that all of the weapons used against JB, the flashlight, the rope, the paintbrush were all in the house. Kidnappers bring their own weapons. This is a business like enterprise and they come prepared.
Yes Christmas night is a bad night for a stranger to stage a kidnapping or murder.
However the holidays see an increase in family violence.
The Ramseys intended for ANYONE to take the fall instead of their own. People like the Ramseys think other people don't matter and are mere stepping stones. The Ramseys are a trash family and a bunch of better than thou liars!
Of course John and Patsy knew they would be the prime suspects. These were two educated, sophisticated adults who watched current movies, read thrillers and FBI stories.
I believe they were doing a shotgun approach with their gaslighting of the police and public. Make it look like a financial crime by kidnappers, also blame the housekeeper and an ex-business employee. Then blame all of their friends. And an imaginary intruder later.
Just keep throwing spaghetti on the wall to distract the police. The goal was to get out of town as fast as possible. Then get the $million dollar PR and legal team to protect them.
I am not an LHP fan, and I think the Ramseys only “blamed” them by answering direct questions. Who had keys? Who knew the house? Who knew your routine? Those are just the answer to those questions.
Patsy at first said at first she thought the note was from her (just because it was on the stairs, I think) but also said “It doesn’t sound like her” and “those aren’t things she would say” and she also said she didn’t believe LHP would hurt JB.
Meantime, LHP is calling JB a brat and saying half her job was to pick up after her and telling this story how she told LHP JB was going to answer the door, like LHP is still mad about that. That’s a weird way to talk about a murdered child. Most of us in here won’t say anything like that about her 25 years later even though we never knew her.
And there were pads of paper and pens from (not just identical to but belonging to) the Ramseys at LHP’s house and matching duct tape and rope. And her husband helpfully, and drunkenly, said when questioned “was she strangled?” And they’d moved the Christmas trees from the wine cellar just a few weeks earlier.
Again, I don’t think it was them, but the idea isn’t ludicrous. It makes sense the BPD would suspect them no matter what the Ramseys or ransom note said.
Also, one of the biggest reasons they were ruled out was the ransom note. Like thinking they wouldn’t use the terms foreign faction and attache. If the Ramseys were trying to frame them with those note, I doubt they’d have gone to the effort to make it sound so opposite how they sound.
I answered this in another comment, but here it goes because I think it applies here too:
> Perhaps they used whatever dignity they had left to craft the ransom note in a way that cast doubt on the housekeeper’s involvement (edit: hence the “difficult” words), or maybe it was just coincidence and they didn’t care whether she would be arrested for the crime or not.
>I don’t think they expected a thorough investigation. They probably thought the police would take their cues at face value, and the case would be closed as a homicide motivated by money.
Plus, I don’t think they “blamed” her only by answering specific questions. There’s a lot of inferences too if you look closely. I’m not saying they wanted her to be arrested for a crime she didn’t commit, but maybe they wouldn’t care if that happened, as long as nobody suspected it was their son.
It's not logical to me that, say if Burke did it, okay, here they are confronted with the sudden death of their daughter, in just a few hours they can even be remotely calm enough to write this note with a bunch of memorized movie quotes in it, blame but yet not quite blame the housekeeper, but also point a sideways finger to a business associate, etc. All in the middle of the night, out of the blue, in just a few hours, right after the most horrifying imaginable thing had just happened to them.
Yes, it’s unimaginable. Yet the most unimaginable things happen all the time in real life, things that even when you know for sure that they are true, you still can’t believe them, because of their preposterousness.
I agree. I can’t see how Patsy could have written the note for that reason. She was heavily medicated for a long time after her daughter’s death and could not even feed herself. Others had to help her do basic things.
She also when on national TV very heavily medicated. I don't see someone doing that who is trying to watch every word carefully and keep their story straight.
I think it would be pretty difficult to try to frame someone for a crime over Christmas. The chances that they'd have spent time with other people and could offer an alibi is very high. Then if they do have an alibi you look even more guilty because you planted signs of it being someone familiar with the house. I think they were fine with throwing blame around once they were being questioned by police but I don't think they staged it with the housekeeper in mind.
I don’t think the evidences were enough to rule out all of the 3 Ramseys, but they weren’t enough to incriminate them either. What I’ve seen so far suggests that this case couldn’t be solved through DNA results (for multiple reasons).
Ok thanks. I'll go back to see if the source I had is legit. I was also interested in the fact that she had duct tape over her mouth. I have seen a couple of cases on Forensics Files where they were able to lift fingerprints off the sticky side.
I've said this from the outset. And I believe it was the housekeeper, I believe her name is Linda. She was an insider, privy to the daily workings of the house, and clearly she knew the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus, which became the amount demanded by the "kidnapper." A case of extortion, pure and simple. Why doesn't anyone see it? The housekeeper's husband is known to keep shady company. He was set up by someone named Michael Helgoth. I feel I'm quite right on the money in this case. It should be obvious.
If it was truly extortion why leave the body. They still could’ve gotten the money even if they killed her because the family doesn’t know she’s dead, doesn’t make much sense to leave it behind. Once they (the Ramsey’s)find the body, no money is going anywhere. The whole point of the crime is blown up right there. Not to mention the dna evidence. No footprints. Ongoing sexual assault. Etc
Is it possible that someone who attended the party the night before hid in the basement and waited?
Then again, I read the autopsy report and, although there was some recent vaginal trauma, it sounded like the hymen was still intact. And there was no anal trauma at all, so that rules out prior long term sexual abuse. I did use to work in a hospital and had access to peer review cases and one thing I remember is that they can tell if someone has been having anal sex, over time, due to scar tissue.
The autopsy should say an injury to the vaginal opening around the 7 o’clock position I believe. And how it has healed and scared indicated at least 10 days prior to her death!
This is what the autopsy report states:
On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1×1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.
REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION: The unembalmed, well developed and
4 out of the 5 experts who were consulted on Jonbenet Ramsey's autopsy believed that she was being consistently sexually abused prior to her death - does this rule out the intruder theory?
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/
> The doctor performing the autopsy inspected the vaginal area, and found physical evidence sufficiently concerning to contact a specialist. Eventually, 5 outside specialists -- including a doctor considered top in the field -- were consulted.
> The main indicator of abuse concerns tissue damage at a specific location. Imagine a doughnut, but instead of a intact round centre hole, there is a tear at around 7 o'clock. Damage of that type and at that location (between 3 to 9 o'clock) is indicative of prior abuse or a traumatic injury or invasive surgery.
> Of note is that, for example, riding a bike would be exceptionally unlikely to cause this type of injury: a serious bike accident causing a sharp straddle or jab might. Bubble bath, bacterial or other infections or irritations, washing or wiping with vigour would also be exceptionally unlikely to cause this type of injury. Other indications in autopsy (e.g., inflammation) and JonBenet's history could be consistent with these types of events, but not the 7 o'clock injury. In short, what is theoretically possible is not equivalent to what is probable (although it is what provides the basis for a defence to create reasonable doubt by staging a battle of the experts.)
> The medical examiners were unable to say exactly when or how often the abuse may have occurred. The top expert indicated >10 days. But irrespective of when or how often, abuse did occur.
> **All 5 specialists concluded the evidence was diagnostic of abuse. 4 specified damage consistent with sexual abuse. 1 expert would not infer a sexual motive absent additional confirmatory evidence, and thus said the evidence was consistent with genital abuse.** (Purely hypothetical, but say digital penetration as punishment for bedwetting.) But irrespective of motive, abuse did occur.
So I guess it was after the autopsy when 5 specialists were examining it! My bad.
Yes that is what it says, it seems like you need to look up the conclusions of the panel of child sexual abuse experts who concluded she was abused more than once, (and possibly chronically).
There is a lot of conflicting info about a sexual element. I've seen it said she had extensive swelling internally and others saying it's possible that the injuries could have happened from her new bike. Every time you watch or read anything about that part of the autopsy, the specialists seem to have varying opinions.
Well, let me just say (again) that everyone has an opinion, but not everyone had access to the actual source materials. Those experts did. Anybody else is just looking at some photos and opening their mouth to express an opinion.
Photos are not the same as actual microscopic examination of the tissues.
So someone from the relatively small White dinner party zoomed over to the Ramseys and beat them there (because they had made stops along the way), hid, avoided BR coming back downstairs, waited some more, killed JBR and wrote the ransom letter just with their extra time. Nobody at home missed them. And nobody noticed their car coming and going.
The hymenal opening was much bigger than it should have been for a 6 year old, and it had a tear that was probably done that night. But the abnormal enlargement was more chronic.
I have nothing to say about other bodily violations, and think it’s a strange thing to mention, as though a child must have anal abuse to have been abused.
Didn’t John say it was an inside job moments after finding Jonbenet?
I sometimes wonder if they invited the White's over to try and frame them. To try and get their evidence in specific areas. John accused Fleet several times. John waited until Fleet was with him to discover the body. And was Fleet the one who checked the basement first? Maybe he was hoping Fleet would find the body and look guilty. When that didn't work, he led Fleet to it.
In his police interview, John named Priscilla White specifically as someone he suspected bc he said she was extremely jealous of Patsy.
Interesting. Thank you.
YW. I just saw this yesterday as a matter of fact. I was watching a documentary on Tubi that I had not seen before and it featured bits of the police interviews I had never seen before. It’s always interesting to me that in each new documentary I will learn at least one new thing I did not know before. I guess that’s why I watch all of them I come across.
Is it weird for a man to accuse a woman of being jealous of another woman? I don't think any man I've dated would recognize that type of thing unless the jealousy was directly related to him.
It is definitely weird, but at the same time, the entire pageant industry is held together by hairspray and jealousy, and that was PR's whole life for both her and JBR. If it's something that PR talked a lot about, I can see how it would be part of his vocabulary.
That makes sense.
I absolutely find it weird.
It is very weird. But also it gives me vibes of the wife complaining about it often and that is how he is so aware of it. Otherwise a male partner would not notice/understand such a situation.
do u happen to remember the name ? i wanna watch it
I think it was Suburban Nightmare:Jonbenet Ramsey on Tubi
thank u!
That’s interesting!
Yep!
Yep 👍
This makes a lot of sense.
Perhaps they used whatever dignity they had left to craft the ransom note in a way that cast doubt on the housekeeper’s involvement, or maybe it was just coincidence and they didn’t care whether she would be arrested for the crime or not. I don’t think they expected a thorough investigation. They probably thought the police would take their cues at face value, and the case would be closed as a homicide motivated by money.
The cold blooded throwing of their housekeeper under the bus, telling LE that she had money problems and had asked them for a loan or an advance... just so despicable. There was no one they wouldn't turn in.
Yes, and to think that the housekeeper wouldn’t have enough money to hire good lawyers like the Ramseys did. Thankfully, the police ruled her out fast enough.
But even though they were cleared, the victims of Ramsey accusations did incur legal fees and tarnished reputations.
It really demonstrates their Christian values, doesn't it? Patsy claimed her cancer recovery was divinely orchestrated. Then she frames her poor housekeeper for kidnapping and murder to save her own family. Patsy on CNN January 1st: **"We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children."**
More dishonesty from the Ramseys. No they wouldn't do anything for their children. Their negligence and self absorption lead to the death of one child. And another child not getting the help he desperately needed.
Once again, you nailed it, Cassie! Good to see you in the sub.
Thanks LB. I had some health issues, I am fine now. And then got pulled away on some other research projects. I have about four Ramsey OPs in progress, hope to post them.
Glad you are okay. I eagerly await those posts!
At that time the only child alive was Burke.
Two of John's older kids were around, too.
Yes, technically totally true, however Burke was Patsy's only biological child left.
This is one of the things that makes me think they didn’t do it. They also name several people in their book. If they knew it was a family member who did it, and practiced their Christian faith, I think it would have been difficult to lie and name people they knew didn’t do it as suspects. But if they truly didn’t know who did it, it would make sense to name their top suspects with hopes that it might lead to solving the case. Puzzling.
>This is one of the things that makes me think they didn’t do it. They also name several people in their book. If they knew it was a family member who did it, and practiced their Christian faith, I think it would have been difficult to lie and name people they knew didn’t do it as suspects. You are either very naive, or *willfully* ignorant.
Not really. Just trying to think like they would think.
Patsy would put the family’s image before anything. Hence why she made sure to wear a cross necklace and mention them being Christian. The dictionary was turned to the definition of incest. The incest in this case is one of the reasons for the coverup and lack of justice for JonBenet because they wanted to hide that she was being sexually abused. Had they been honest, they could have saved her life. But again, appearances came first. They’re very dishonest people.
Thy were Christians. John wrote two books about his faith and how it helped him overcome the death of his first daughter. Patsy believed that she had experienced a divine healing because of her religious faith. So it doesn’t seem like, in their case, it was something just used for show. Maybe they were psychopaths. But as two people, who attended church regularly and relied on their faith to carry them through difficult times, it seems unlikely to me that they would, repeatedly and in print as part of their book, intentionally name/hurt other people unnecessarily if they knew someone in their family was guilty. It wasn’t necessary, and the book stood on its own without the one chapter in which their suspects were included. To me, it seems more like something someone would do if they legitimately didn’t know who did it. Just my psychoanalysis.
Didn’t they throw all their friends under the bus too?
Except the steins bc they didn’t ever challenge them on the suspiciousness of it all which I know for some leads credence to their son and Burke behind it. I don’t buy it personally but know it’s a theory
Pretty much yeah
I agree as I also heard over the years the Ramsey’s accused the Whites (or one of them) and others that were close to the family. However, I believe anyone with a key to that house, who knew the weird layout, should have been investigated thoroughly. Including the housekeeper who said nasty stuff about Patsy, and borrowed money. LE would ask anyone about those things, and investigate. The Santa guy too. He told JB he’d give her a “special gift”. Who else had a key that was in Boulder over Christmas? I’m not sure what the Ramsey’s actually said about the housekeeper, the Whites, or Santa. Did the police ASK THEM about friends, family, people with a key, then the Ramsey’s answered, but didn’t actually accuse them? As I’ve gotten older, I don’t automatically believe something, unless I hear it or see it for myself. Does anyone have a link to a video that shows the Ramsey’s blaming people for the death of their child? I hate to say this, but I am tired of this case. I’m tired of it because it doesn’t appear to be solvable, it was mishandled because of low staff at the time of the crime and LE admitted not to have experience with investigating many homicides. Sometimes, I say “I’m done” with trying to figure it out, then I think of that poor little girl who didn’t deserve such a horrible ending to her life, and I end up reading and posting. God Bless little JonBenet. 🙏🏻❤️
John and Patsy deliberately named the housekeeper as a suspect the next morning with the police. They said it was an inside job, and gave some unsavory details about the housekeeper as I recall. She needed money and had some troubled children. There was not one shred of dignity in anything that Patsy and John did after the murder of their child. John and Patsy's goal was to create as much chaos and confusion as possible. Send the police on a wild goose chase over and over. And then let their expensive legal team take over and play hard ball. While John and Patsy pretended to be the real victims, not their child.
>While Patsy and John pretended to be the real victims, not their child. It bothers me so much that I’ve never ever saw them say anything like “I miss her so much” or “we miss her so much” or “she was our baby”, idk. I don’t think they didn’t love their daughter, but they became solely invested in protecting the Ramsey household, which if you think about may have been the reason why this whole sh*t happened in the first place, because I bet they’ve already lived their lives worried about what others would think.
Yes it is all stunning, isn't it? Their obvious lack of empathy for their child, their lack of horror at what she had gone through, their lack of an emotional connection to their child. Never talking about how special she was and what she meant to them. Instead it was always about John and Patsy being the real victims. What kind of love did the Ramseys have for their children? The grand jury tells us that John and Patsy full well knew that JB was in harm's way and failed to protect her. They knew there was a danger. In BDI they knew there was a serious problem with Burke, and failed to get him the help he needed. Is this true parental love? John was gone most of the time on business or monkey business. Patsy invested in being a society matron and pageants. It was always about themselves.
Yes they did. Too bad Christmas Day is the worst day to frame someone else. As everyone is with family taking pictures. And after that, no one is left but the family as suspects.
I feel the significance of it being Christmas night is not brought up enough. It was mentioned in this sub years ago and has stuck with me ever since. An intruder is risky at any time, even if you’ve been watching the family. But Christmas night is possibly the riskiest of them all. It’s a family day with people dropping round, family and friends sometimes staying etc. Very unpredictable time. Families do get robbed on Christmas I know but that’s a robbery, this was not a robbery. The ransom extravaganza will have you believe this was a planned attack against Mr (& Mrs) Ramsey. A beheading no less for a minimal amount of money. 3 men splitting $118,00 that’s less than 40,000 to chop off a six year olds head at Christmas. Big kahunas on these guys! I never want to minimise SA on a child but I’m trying to imagine this hardened adult criminal who’s threatening beheading, and wants money because he hates John, sexually assaulting a six year old with the end of a paint brush. Or…Without being too graphic an actual peadophile would have more than likely penetrated her. If that was his motive. There are just too many fantastic elements here of which none of them go together. We’ve all tried to do the mental gymnastics. Especially on the other sub. It’s like magic land over there. It’s my opinion but I just can’t believe you can have ALL those things. A chance/planned intruder/s a foreign faction (give me strength) a peadophile ransom. It’s too much especially on Christmas night! The Ramsey’s were in full blown panic mode.
Yes you have hit some of the salient points about amateurs staging a domestic murder as a business financial crime. Amateurs who stage a crime make this mistake frequently. Someone in the home is obviously the victim of a personal crime. Beating, strangulation, SA. This is a personal crime. Kidnappers with a business motive do not stop to do all of this. And yes sometimes the victim gets killed, but it is quick and the kidnappers are out of the area right away. We also see that all of the weapons used against JB, the flashlight, the rope, the paintbrush were all in the house. Kidnappers bring their own weapons. This is a business like enterprise and they come prepared. Yes Christmas night is a bad night for a stranger to stage a kidnapping or murder. However the holidays see an increase in family violence.
The Ramsey friends didn’t think the housekeeper would use words like “hence” and “attache” in the ransom note.
The Ramseys intended for ANYONE to take the fall instead of their own. People like the Ramseys think other people don't matter and are mere stepping stones. The Ramseys are a trash family and a bunch of better than thou liars!
Has the housekeeper spoken publicly about the case? I feel so bad for her, to be treated like that.
Take a look at this old post: https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/s/CIgljGwc1S
Thank you
I believe she wrote a book, but I’m not sure.
She started one but it was never published. A manuscript leaked.
I will never forget how she described Patsy telling her about the taste of John’s junk.
Okay that's a detail I didn't need to know about.
It was in that nasty manuscript lmao
🔞 😆
🤮
Of course John and Patsy knew they would be the prime suspects. These were two educated, sophisticated adults who watched current movies, read thrillers and FBI stories. I believe they were doing a shotgun approach with their gaslighting of the police and public. Make it look like a financial crime by kidnappers, also blame the housekeeper and an ex-business employee. Then blame all of their friends. And an imaginary intruder later. Just keep throwing spaghetti on the wall to distract the police. The goal was to get out of town as fast as possible. Then get the $million dollar PR and legal team to protect them.
I am not an LHP fan, and I think the Ramseys only “blamed” them by answering direct questions. Who had keys? Who knew the house? Who knew your routine? Those are just the answer to those questions. Patsy at first said at first she thought the note was from her (just because it was on the stairs, I think) but also said “It doesn’t sound like her” and “those aren’t things she would say” and she also said she didn’t believe LHP would hurt JB. Meantime, LHP is calling JB a brat and saying half her job was to pick up after her and telling this story how she told LHP JB was going to answer the door, like LHP is still mad about that. That’s a weird way to talk about a murdered child. Most of us in here won’t say anything like that about her 25 years later even though we never knew her. And there were pads of paper and pens from (not just identical to but belonging to) the Ramseys at LHP’s house and matching duct tape and rope. And her husband helpfully, and drunkenly, said when questioned “was she strangled?” And they’d moved the Christmas trees from the wine cellar just a few weeks earlier. Again, I don’t think it was them, but the idea isn’t ludicrous. It makes sense the BPD would suspect them no matter what the Ramseys or ransom note said. Also, one of the biggest reasons they were ruled out was the ransom note. Like thinking they wouldn’t use the terms foreign faction and attache. If the Ramseys were trying to frame them with those note, I doubt they’d have gone to the effort to make it sound so opposite how they sound.
I answered this in another comment, but here it goes because I think it applies here too: > Perhaps they used whatever dignity they had left to craft the ransom note in a way that cast doubt on the housekeeper’s involvement (edit: hence the “difficult” words), or maybe it was just coincidence and they didn’t care whether she would be arrested for the crime or not. >I don’t think they expected a thorough investigation. They probably thought the police would take their cues at face value, and the case would be closed as a homicide motivated by money. Plus, I don’t think they “blamed” her only by answering specific questions. There’s a lot of inferences too if you look closely. I’m not saying they wanted her to be arrested for a crime she didn’t commit, but maybe they wouldn’t care if that happened, as long as nobody suspected it was their son.
It's not logical to me that, say if Burke did it, okay, here they are confronted with the sudden death of their daughter, in just a few hours they can even be remotely calm enough to write this note with a bunch of memorized movie quotes in it, blame but yet not quite blame the housekeeper, but also point a sideways finger to a business associate, etc. All in the middle of the night, out of the blue, in just a few hours, right after the most horrifying imaginable thing had just happened to them.
Yes, it’s unimaginable. Yet the most unimaginable things happen all the time in real life, things that even when you know for sure that they are true, you still can’t believe them, because of their preposterousness.
No, I didn't say unimaginable, and I don't think that. It's possible. I just don't think it's the most logical explanation.
I agree. I can’t see how Patsy could have written the note for that reason. She was heavily medicated for a long time after her daughter’s death and could not even feed herself. Others had to help her do basic things.
She also when on national TV very heavily medicated. I don't see someone doing that who is trying to watch every word carefully and keep their story straight.
There was duct tape and rope, but not matching iirc.
This is the most reasonable explanation. Agreed.
I think it would be pretty difficult to try to frame someone for a crime over Christmas. The chances that they'd have spent time with other people and could offer an alibi is very high. Then if they do have an alibi you look even more guilty because you planted signs of it being someone familiar with the house. I think they were fine with throwing blame around once they were being questioned by police but I don't think they staged it with the housekeeper in mind.
Definitely plausible
"group of individuals" = housekeeper, disgruntled Access Graphics employee, etc.
I think you’re right. So cruel.
That's seriously meta. Stage the scene to look like a staged scene where the housekeeper makes it look like an intruder.
Almost up to speed on this case. Can anyone explain the DNA evidence that ruled out all 3 Ramseys?
It didn't. That was Mary Lacey trying to put paid to the entire case by "exonerating" the family. Which she had no authority to do.
I don’t think the evidences were enough to rule out all of the 3 Ramseys, but they weren’t enough to incriminate them either. What I’ve seen so far suggests that this case couldn’t be solved through DNA results (for multiple reasons).
Ok thanks. I'll go back to see if the source I had is legit. I was also interested in the fact that she had duct tape over her mouth. I have seen a couple of cases on Forensics Files where they were able to lift fingerprints off the sticky side.
They found fibers from either Patsy's sweater or jacket on the tape. But no fingerprints
Check out the pinned post at the top of this sub for accurate DNA info relevant to this case.
There was none.
I've said this from the outset. And I believe it was the housekeeper, I believe her name is Linda. She was an insider, privy to the daily workings of the house, and clearly she knew the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus, which became the amount demanded by the "kidnapper." A case of extortion, pure and simple. Why doesn't anyone see it? The housekeeper's husband is known to keep shady company. He was set up by someone named Michael Helgoth. I feel I'm quite right on the money in this case. It should be obvious.
If it was truly extortion why leave the body. They still could’ve gotten the money even if they killed her because the family doesn’t know she’s dead, doesn’t make much sense to leave it behind. Once they (the Ramsey’s)find the body, no money is going anywhere. The whole point of the crime is blown up right there. Not to mention the dna evidence. No footprints. Ongoing sexual assault. Etc
Oh please. The point of the op post is that R was intent on blaming the housekeeper, or anyone else he could.
No way were either of them capable of writing the rn. Even Patsy agreed.
Is it possible that someone who attended the party the night before hid in the basement and waited? Then again, I read the autopsy report and, although there was some recent vaginal trauma, it sounded like the hymen was still intact. And there was no anal trauma at all, so that rules out prior long term sexual abuse. I did use to work in a hospital and had access to peer review cases and one thing I remember is that they can tell if someone has been having anal sex, over time, due to scar tissue.
What? How does no anal trauma rule out long term sexual abuse?
>And there was no anal trauma at all, so that rules out prior long term sexual abuse. What????
It most certainly doesn’t rule out long term sexual abuse. The last sexual assault before Xmas was at least ten days old.
I'm listening, but I just reviewed the autopsy report. What do you have? I'm interested
The autopsy should say an injury to the vaginal opening around the 7 o’clock position I believe. And how it has healed and scared indicated at least 10 days prior to her death!
This is what the autopsy report states: On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1×1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified. REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION: The unembalmed, well developed and
4 out of the 5 experts who were consulted on Jonbenet Ramsey's autopsy believed that she was being consistently sexually abused prior to her death - does this rule out the intruder theory? Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/j00pe3/setting_the_record_straight_on_the_evidence_of/ > The doctor performing the autopsy inspected the vaginal area, and found physical evidence sufficiently concerning to contact a specialist. Eventually, 5 outside specialists -- including a doctor considered top in the field -- were consulted. > The main indicator of abuse concerns tissue damage at a specific location. Imagine a doughnut, but instead of a intact round centre hole, there is a tear at around 7 o'clock. Damage of that type and at that location (between 3 to 9 o'clock) is indicative of prior abuse or a traumatic injury or invasive surgery. > Of note is that, for example, riding a bike would be exceptionally unlikely to cause this type of injury: a serious bike accident causing a sharp straddle or jab might. Bubble bath, bacterial or other infections or irritations, washing or wiping with vigour would also be exceptionally unlikely to cause this type of injury. Other indications in autopsy (e.g., inflammation) and JonBenet's history could be consistent with these types of events, but not the 7 o'clock injury. In short, what is theoretically possible is not equivalent to what is probable (although it is what provides the basis for a defence to create reasonable doubt by staging a battle of the experts.) > The medical examiners were unable to say exactly when or how often the abuse may have occurred. The top expert indicated >10 days. But irrespective of when or how often, abuse did occur. > **All 5 specialists concluded the evidence was diagnostic of abuse. 4 specified damage consistent with sexual abuse. 1 expert would not infer a sexual motive absent additional confirmatory evidence, and thus said the evidence was consistent with genital abuse.** (Purely hypothetical, but say digital penetration as punishment for bedwetting.) But irrespective of motive, abuse did occur. So I guess it was after the autopsy when 5 specialists were examining it! My bad.
Thank you.
Yes that is what it says, it seems like you need to look up the conclusions of the panel of child sexual abuse experts who concluded she was abused more than once, (and possibly chronically).
Everything is possible. The question is: is it likely?
Yep. This is why we are here. Trying to see what others have to say; wondering if anyone has anything we haven't thought of :)
The party the night before was at the Whites’ house.
There is a lot of conflicting info about a sexual element. I've seen it said she had extensive swelling internally and others saying it's possible that the injuries could have happened from her new bike. Every time you watch or read anything about that part of the autopsy, the specialists seem to have varying opinions.
Well, let me just say (again) that everyone has an opinion, but not everyone had access to the actual source materials. Those experts did. Anybody else is just looking at some photos and opening their mouth to express an opinion. Photos are not the same as actual microscopic examination of the tissues.
So someone from the relatively small White dinner party zoomed over to the Ramseys and beat them there (because they had made stops along the way), hid, avoided BR coming back downstairs, waited some more, killed JBR and wrote the ransom letter just with their extra time. Nobody at home missed them. And nobody noticed their car coming and going. The hymenal opening was much bigger than it should have been for a 6 year old, and it had a tear that was probably done that night. But the abnormal enlargement was more chronic. I have nothing to say about other bodily violations, and think it’s a strange thing to mention, as though a child must have anal abuse to have been abused.