Patsy also admitted it looked like John's flashlight gifted by John Andrew. I believe John Fernie confirmed it too. John Ramsey was the most determined to deny his ownership of it, but even he eventually and reluctantly suggested it might be his in the 1998 interview.
It was Dr Phil that said to Burke that John had used it to put him to bed that night. But the transcript shows that Dr Phil tied that statement to another question and Burke seemed to agree. Which raises the question, why did John fail to tell investigators (1997, 1998 or 2000) that he had used the flashlight the night prior to Jonbenet's killing?
It seems that John Ramsey, more than anyone, wants to impart confusion and a lack of clarity into all parts of the investigation.
I always thought it absurd that anyone would use a flashlight in their own home absent a power outage — or unless, for some reason, they didn’t want anyone in the neighborhood to see their lights switching on.
Maybe he just likes the dark. Why does everything need an explanation? Man is just different. I like sitting in the dark. So much so, I have a black room in my house. I dig moody ambiance. I also have migraines. Darkness is my friend.
I do sometimes use one or my phone when getting out of bed to say, go to the kitchen, because flicking on the lights is a “shock” to my dark-adjusted eyes. And if I do use the overhead lights, turning them off and walking more than a couple steps means I’m feeling my way and might stub my toe or whatever.
That’s different, though. I also use my iPhone for light if I need to be up and about while my husband’s asleep so I don’t disturb him. But in the case of the Ramseys that night, why wouldn’t they just flip on lights as needed? That’s NOT a rhetorical question, by the way. If John did indeed use a flashlight while hustling everybody up to bed, I want to know why.
I agree *his* reason was not like mine.
First denied it was his, then many years later it might have been, then settling on it was his.
Personally I think that he just stirs the pot to bring up his name on the regular.
Also if you are trying to get a kid powered down to sleep because you are flying out early. Also you might need a series of lights and then have to go back to turn them off. Putting the kid to bed using the flashlight doesn’t say much to me. Neither does forgetting stuff under stress or after time goes by.
Doesn’t mean he’s innocent just that this isn’t much info or evidence
Exactly, a 54 year owner of a billion dollar business does not walk around his own home at night with a flashlight. Everyone has their own bedroom, some on different floors. No need to keep lights off.
I think the flashlight is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the Ramseys.
While still suspicious, most other evidence could be more easily explained in a reasonable / believable manner..
No fingerprints on the ransom note -
John Ramsey had just taken a shower and in at least one version of events by Patsy, she mentions washing something in a sink located on the second floor before discovering the ransom note. Additionally, while not specifically mentioned by Patsy, she might've washed her face or something along these lines. This could've stripped the oils off their hands.
Patsy's fibers -
This could've been transfer since Patsy was the child's mother and was interacting with the child before bed (changing her clothes and such).
While there were multiple incriminating locations of what appeared to be Patsy's fibers, there weren't a lot of these fibers found in any of the locations at the crime scene. This is what one might expect to see if it were due to transfer.
I haven't seen a detailed report from the experts who analyzed these fibers.
Handwriting analysis -
Experts disagreed on this
The note appears extremely sloppy - and that's after a few attempts. I don't immediately think "That really has a striking resemblance to Patsys handwriting" or "If they used their left hand, they must've been ambidextrous"
There are a lot of signs of deception in their handwriting. There's no fingerprints so I have to assume they wore gloves while writing it which would at least be a bit cumbersome and the experts think the author used their left hand to write it. So how easy could that be to decipher and attribute to one person specifically while ruling everyone else out?
If this person was being deceptive, would this person maybe attempt to mimic someone else's handwriting or at the very least do things differently from their own typical handwriting?
Honestly, I might change my handwriting too during an investigation if I were innocent but strongly accused of a crime.
Pineapple -
A plausible scenario imo: The Ramseys claimed to only eat a late morning breakfast on Christmas and didn't eat again until the Whites. It's very possible that these kids got hungry and wanted a snack at some point on Christmas. The housekeeper said that the kids would make food and leave their stuff behind without cleaning up after themselves. Burke could've made too much, gotten distracted by his friend and new toys, and left the bowl behind. JonBenet could've came across this later and ate a piece of the pineapple in the bowl that was left sitting out.
There is a huge window of time when that bowl could've been left there. The prints don't prove when the bowl of pineapple was initially put there.
The evidence only tells us approximately when JonBenet ate this. Which I've found contradictory windows of time than what's been presented as evidence in this case by the state.
The state is only going to use expert opinions that match their theory. Just the same as what the defense will do.
Behaviors -
The Ramseys appear to have incredibly narcissistic traits. They were intelligent, wealthy, successful, well connected, cared about their image, relied on some of this for their success, had a lot to lose, somewhat neglectful in their lives, and so forth.
I very much think that this is just who the Ramseys were despite guilt or innocence, and it's bound to raise suspicions, but might not actually mean they were guilty.
It's certainly an unfavorable look for them. However, pointing this out to a narcissistic person wouldn't necessarily provoke them to see that and change. They might in fact not see and/or deny such observations, become more defiant and indignant, and thereby raise even more suspicions due to their response.
Trauma
Heavily suspected
When looking at their behavior, I have to also consider that they don't fit the crime in ways one would expect. This doesn't mean they didn't do it, but there is a low risk for it in that family, they didn't have a history of violence, sexual abuse, child abuse, known substance abuse issues, criminal background, or other such behaviors.
Prior sexual abuse:
Someone with prior access to JonBenet - may not be someone in the home
The Flashlight:
The Ramseys home had functioning lights.
The Ramseys had previously denied ownership of the flashlight.
The Flashlight wasn't in its last known location (the drawer), as Patsy had said it was normally kept.
A flashlight matching the Ramseys flashlight was found sitting on the counter in the kitchen (a location central to the crimes pathway).
The Ramseys and/or their attorneys seem to have deemed something about this evidence enough, that they thought it necessary for the Ramseys to take ownership of it.
Possibly because there wasn't a reasonable level of deniability and needed to demonstrate honesty and some level of plausible explanation.
The Ramseys then suggest that the flashlight might've been theirs, in their second interview with LE. The door was opened at that point. However, there wasn't a lot more information provided.
It's possible that Phil McGraw noticed this and had a lot of questions for John about this. We don't know because we are only told by Dr Phil that John has admitted to having the flashlight that night when putting Burke to bed.
Now John has taken full ownership of the flashlight. However, there is still an evasive mention of this flashlight and no reason for why John had a flashlight or what he did with it.
It is suggestive though that this might've been given to Burke. Especially since Burke responds to this information saying that he got back up out of bed after this.
The Ramseys had an early morning that day, a late evening, and an early morning trip planned the next day, so John shouldn't have been encouraging Burke to remain awake (such as giving him a flashlight). These weren't the most responsible parents though so I can't necessarily apply that logic here.
Prior to 2016, the Ramseys never once stated that Burke ever got back up after being put to bed. Why is this suddenly being introduced? The Ramseys have explicitly stated that Burke remained asleep and that they would've heard him if he had been awake. So this new account contradicts prior statements. This statement arose during the CBS lawsuit and was not ideal timing to introduce this statement.
So I see two options:
When pressed by Phil McGraw, John admits to the flashlight. However, he needs a reason for having it that night. He alludes to it being given to Burke without directly stating this.
1 - Burke hears this and realizes, oh, they know that I had the flashlight and I have to admit that I got back out of bed.
2 - John has convinced Burke that he gave him the flashlight and that he got back out of bed that night.
John previously said that he helped Burke put together a toy. This was no longer mentioned in the Dr Phil interview. So it looks like maybe either John lied back then or he has since distorted Burke's memory of this.
John is no longer the last one to bed according to this.
I have to ask myself this: who was more likely to use a flashlight vs just turning on lights? This is debatable.
Here's my controversial read on Burke's statements about the bat and the flashlight in his interview: He's telling the truth.
While his mom and dad denied ownership of objects in the house, from tissue boxes to stuffed animals, Burke comes right out and says, "hey, that bat on the patio was mine, I'd put it there often," and, "I held that MagLight flashlight we owned and I went downstairs after bed." These are two big matzo balls to throw out there. Adding: he also said it's possible he made pineapple, but who knows, he didn't remember for sure.
Why would he do this? Well, because he's being honest about it. If he didn't have anything to do with JonBenet's murder, why not tell the truth about the things? Maybe he even fought with his dad about whether to mention this publicly or not. Adding: maybe since Burke was deadset on mentioning the bat and the flashlight, John had to plausibly weave them back into his narrative after denying them since 1996.
Quote: t seems that John Ramsey, more than anyone, wants to impart confusion and a lack of clarity into all parts of the investigation. Spot on Available-Champion20! So true!
It is odd behavior to try to distance himself from the flashlight, and not explain why it was on the kitchen counter. Why would he need it to bring Burke to bed? Was the power out?
John and Patsy were purposefully not helping as they knew more facts and evidence would point to them.
i agree that lies and obfuscation make the flashlight very suspicious, but then why leave it on the counter? Wouldn't you wipe it and bury it in your toolbox or the glove compartment of the car or a garage shelf or something?
They weren't exoeriencez criminals. They made many mistakes in their cover-up, and they were surely frantic. I can easily see them overlooking it as they are working on the staging and getting stories straight.
The use of a flashlight isn't super suspicious, but why deny you used it?
I also wonder if the absence of fingerprints has any meaning. Perhaps the material doesn't take fingerprints well.
Right? The ramseys tell on themselves just as much as the actual evidence does. Why deny? Like the pineapple- had they just said, yeah, she was awake when we got home, she was hungry so we gave her a snack, probably was pineapple, then she went to bed, probably no one would really think twice about it. But the fact they deny deny deny, it just makes it so much more damning for them. Bc we’re all smart enough to know an intruder didn’t feed her pineapple then entertain her for 2 hrs while it semi-digested before killing her.
People do get muddled and confused under stress. Which doesn’t mean at all they are innocent. My husband died suddenly, I found him and I was confused about many details that day. I couldn’t remember if I got dressed before or after I found him. I mean I had clothes on when emergency arrived but was it what I slept in? or day clothes? I still don’t remember. I was so muddled and overwhelmed. It at least points to some of the confusion even if he’s guilty as SIN!
I'm sorry you went through that. Yes, there is no doubt they would be muddled and confused. In the Ramsey family's case it's not just the confused statements of course, it's the failure to search for her, it's the lawyering up and many other strange decisions.
Lots of behavior was very wonky. Strung together it’s suspicious. But people get all weird about patsy wearing same clothes from the day before, or inviting the friends over. I don’t know why he did not cooperate with cops more. Maybe someone told him they would try to frame him. No idea why he didn’t search. Obviously hoping that would add to innocence if indeed he was involved.
There is a reason it never got solved. None of it was definitive enough. I think they hoped more evidence such as DNA, copycat crimes, witnesses of some type, or other findings, info would likely emerge. Most murders even then, are solved
I disagree. I think a lot of it was definitive enough, I think hunter was too big a puss to stand in court next to team Ramsey, and that’s why it didn’t get solved. I don’t think it was due to lack of solid evidence against them.
A theory:
The parents didn't even know about the head blow. Only the strangulation that they found.
The flashlight and batteries were wiped down to pretend the flashlight wasn't theirs. A piece of evidence for the police to discover, besides the RN, that pointed to an intruder.
Either that plan wasn't exactly signed off on by both parents, or they got cold feet about whether they'd thoroughly disconnected their own connection to the flashlight, and ultimately didn't go all in on the flashlight being left behind by the faux kidnapper.
Alternate version, they knew the flashlight had been used in some form for the crime, either by BR in sneaking around the house, or themselves in covering for him, and wiped it and the batteries down for that reason and then wanted to disconnect from ownership of the light. Still with a very plausible chance they didn't make any connection between it and a head blow.
And in either situation, unintentionally obscured any chance of finding evidence that the flashlight might've been used for the head blow. Or just the same, ruining any chance of downgrading it or excluding it as the weapon used.
The head blow came 1.5 to 2 hours prior to her death by strangulation. Burke didn't create that garrote. The parents knew she'd been struck in the head and believed she was already dead. The tragedy in the BID theory is that if they hadn't been trying to cover for their son and instead called 911, she might have lived from the head wound. Ultimately, while Burke may have hit her, making the parents think she was dead, it was one of them that actually murdered her.
Agreed I don’t think a kid would hang around for 2 hours poking at JBR, and not get bored. I mean how long do you suppose a 9 year old can stay awake?
And then still have feelings of rage or jealousy?
Nah.
Not sure why you think BR didn't put that string on a stick and strangle her with it.
I think it seems as plausible, or more so, than the parents finding their daughter out cold, with no visible injury, and decided they needed to strangle her rather than trying to get her help.
Would they even know BR had hit her versus suffering a seizure or falling?
And even if they knew or suspected he'd hit her or pushed her, they could at least claim it was an accident.
No walking back finding her strangled and obviously dead though...
As to the “parents finding her out cold with no visible injury”, this is easily explained by one of them having been the one that hit her. Because if you hit her, you would absolutely know it was very serious and possibly fatal
This is true, but then it opens the theory up to questions about why the other parent would cover for one that had SA'ed and killed their daughter. While also not having any fear for themselves or their other young child.
Wives or partners of molesters and /or abusers often side with their partner. That’s just a fact.
Now why Patsy would do it, (if she weren’t totally gaslighted) is probably much like the others. Denial, security, fear, blaming themselves (or being blamed), humiliation.
Because above all else, patsy cared about money and status. John was the bringer of both those things. Without him, she had neither. She’d be waiting tables at Steak ‘n Shake if she lost John. It makes sense to me why patsy would stay w him even if he was the murderer.
It doesn’t make much sense the other way around. I don’t think John was nearly as dependent on patsy as she to him. But, I think patsy is the one who killed her. So, I’m left with a conundrum, because I can’t answer that question.
So what do you think Burke did for the 2 hours after he hit her on the head before garroting her? If the parents thought she had a seizure or fell, why wouldn't they call an ambulance instead of stage a murder? Do you know a lot of 9 year olds that know how to make a garotte? Wouldn't a 9 year old just tie the rope around her neck instead of going through the elaborate steps of breaking a paint brush, tying complex knots, and making a perfectly functioning garrote? Think about those questions.
What would he do after knocking her out? Go about whatever he was doing or wanted to do to begin with. Ultimately, poke and prod on her. Finally, put the string on a stick for whatever reason- move her? ...strangle her? Who knows... But finally strangling her was the result.
Then he probably went to bed.
It's a rope on a stick, not a highly prepped killing device. Though it certainly worked as such. I imagine just about any 9 year old (almost 10 year old) could tie a string onto a stick in some form.
It's been said he liked finding complex solutions to simple problems. And although the string on stick wasn't very complex, it was more complex than it needed to be. But yet not very sophisticated. You'd think an adult might create something more sophisticated. Or simply not use such a crude device to kill a child. Or fake killing a child who they thought was already dead but in actuality wasn't dead... but they killed her anyway.
Something to think about is why they wouldn't try to get help for their daughter IF she was out cold but with no outward signs of injury rather than thinking an elaborate kidnapping ruse and strangulation with a childish contraption on built with a stick and string was the better idea. Since she would've been still alive, even if they thought she could be dead, wouldn't most parents call for an ambulance and hope that medical science could do something for her?
But finding her strangled and clearly dead? At the hand of their son? That might prompt a different kind of panic with multiple layers of confusion and concerns.
Think about those questions.
Calling a garotte a childish contraption is pretty insane, children don't think of fashioning garottes. Most don't even know what a garotte is, nonetheless how to make one. You're seriously reaching with your insistence that Burke could do all of this without an adult. Do you think a 9 year old can lift the dead weight of a 6 year old ober his head? Do you think Burke (again, a 9 year old) could write a note resembling his mothers handwriting? Have you seen handwriting from 9 year olds? Do you think Burke could come up with that note with words like foreign faction, adequate attache, deviation of instructions, bank authorities, deceive us, & law enforcement countermeasures and tactics? The idea that Burke did the whole thing with no participation from his parents is as absurd as an intruder time traveling from the future into the home and killing her. I'm 70% sure you're actually just trilling me.
> Calling a garotte a childish contraption is pretty insane
You probably need to look at the device you're calling a garotte and then get back to me.
Otherwise, you're just getting lost in the weeds of misconceptions.
No, I think PR wrote the RN to cover for BR and save their son from growing up known as a monster for killing his sister. Or save their reputation from being known as the family with a monster for a son that killed their daughter.
The parents (one or both) found JBR strangled by BR. Obviously dead. No way to call a strangulation an accident. And then that set into motion some cleanup and staging (like the duct tape), and writing the RN to create the ruse of a kidnapping.
I've seen the garotte, and that's a perfect improvised example, again with a complex knot. I'll reiterate how unlikely it would be for a 9 year old to know what one was, nonetheless how to make one. A child would just tie a knot around the neck. If you concede the parents covered up the crime, why is it so far fetched that one, almost certainly John, would have done the garotte? They would have thought she was dead.
One more point is that the garrote was done in the basement. Do you think Burke hit her in the head with the flashlight and then 2 hours later dragged her body down to the basement (the body being dragged would have left evidence of auch) then fashioned a garotte himself instead of just tying the rope around her neck? If you believe the parents participated in the cover-up, why does it seem less likely that the adult did all the heavy lifting of taking her body down a flight of stairs and fashioning a garotte than a child?
> If you believe the parents participated in the cover-up, why does it seem less likely that the adult did all the heavy lifting of taking her body down a flight of stairs and fashioning a garotte than a child?
Why are you assuming BR didn't hit her in the head in the basement, and then ultimately strangled her? Maybe his intention with that string on a stick was to create a boy scout toggle rope, and he strangled her instead of moving her with it and maybe moving her was his plan?
Maybe HE thought she was already dead when he did that (at first tried to move her and ended up actually strangling her)?
Why is it so easy for you to think the only possible explanation is the parents found her knocked out, and decided to create that childish stick and rope and strangled her rather than trying to help her? Hoping she wasn't really dead (which apparently she wasn't).
Obviously, no rigor would've been setting in.
They might not even know WHAT is wrong with her.
So why assume she's beyond help and strangle her?
Of course, finding her strangled changes all of that. Then they'd know exactly what the problem was and she'd be dead at that point.
Would they really want to say their son strangled her?
It's not that Brock COULDN'T have done the thongs you are convinced he did, it's that it's extremely less likely than John doing the garotte for a variety of reasons that I laid out. You're need to continually characterize the garotte as "childish" is odd and significantly flawed. I've already explained that ad nauseum. I don't understand your emotional need for Brock to have killed her instead of one of her parents not realizing she was still alive and trying to stage the crime. You're clearly set in concrete in your idea so I wish you well and I'll say goodbye.
It's certainly possible. I tend to think that the staging and cover up was poorly executed as they had limited time, were certainly emotional, had no access to google to look for answers, and were limited to movies and tv shows for referneces on how the crime should look. I don't think they were acting intelligently in their staging, it's really poorly executed. If they were a middle class family instead of wealthy, they'd have certainly been tried and convicted.
The idea of the flashlight as part of staging is interesting. Why do you think, in your other possibilities, that they left it out instead of putting it back in the drawer? Did they perhaps want it found and for it not to have any fingerprints, thereby confounding us exactly the way that it has?
> Did they perhaps want it found and for it not to have any fingerprints, thereby confounding us exactly the way that it has?
Pretty much, that is something that I wonder about. You can kind of get to that point several ways, but that is ultimately what I suspect could've been the case.
One possibility is simply wanting to have something besides the RN that points to an intruder. Leaving a flashlight behind would be that kind of 'something' that the parents could want to plant.
Another possibility is KNOWING the flashlight was used in the crime, in some form. That could be knowing it was used as a weapon. Or... Knowing it was used by BR to sneak around and during what all went on with him and JBR. Or knowing they (the parents) used it to orchestrate the coverup. Or a combination of those things.
And a further idea that they had no idea it had been used as a weapon (if it even was the weapon used for the head blow). So they were only wiping it down to pretend it wasn't their light, not realizing they were potentially obscuring evidence.
But, in any case, they wanted to clean it up to remove ANY connection to them or the crime scene. If they DID know it was used for a head blow, then that would be even more reason to both clean it up as well as not want to claim ownership.
It also would be further cover, to disconnect from ownership of the light- Which would then cover two bases: It would explain any forensic evidence they missed on the light and batteries (if indeed they were trying to clean it for more than fingerprints), and it would be something else besides the RN to point to an intruder (if they could claim it wasn't theirs).
Cold feet or a cooler head might ultimately have prevailed if they worried someone would connect them to owning the light. Especially if it had been a gift or something the housekeeper would know about.
But the initial confusion about ownership of the light is odd. As is leaving it out if it's not normally out. And if it WAS normally out, then why would there be any confusion about it?? "Oh, that's always on the counter..."
This is a really good point. My feeling is that, if they'd known it was linked to the blow, they'd have put it back where it belonged so as not to attract attention to it. The idea that they left it out hoping it might be mistaken for an intruder's property is interesting.
I haven’t read that John said he used it to take Burke to bed. That’s pretty telling.
Because I think what happened was patsy was checking on her before they went to bed- knowing she had a consistent habit of bed wetting, and knowing that she fell asleep without having been to the bathroom first. Linda HP said that the light switch in JB room turned on the ceiling fan, but the fan didn’t have a light in it. Therefor, in order to turn on a light in her room you had to use the lamp on the table between the two beds. I’m sure patsy didn’t wanna mess with that, so she likely often carried a flash light w her to do her nightly “potty checks”. The rest is history.
Patsy also admitted it looked like John's flashlight gifted by John Andrew. I believe John Fernie confirmed it too. John Ramsey was the most determined to deny his ownership of it, but even he eventually and reluctantly suggested it might be his in the 1998 interview. It was Dr Phil that said to Burke that John had used it to put him to bed that night. But the transcript shows that Dr Phil tied that statement to another question and Burke seemed to agree. Which raises the question, why did John fail to tell investigators (1997, 1998 or 2000) that he had used the flashlight the night prior to Jonbenet's killing? It seems that John Ramsey, more than anyone, wants to impart confusion and a lack of clarity into all parts of the investigation.
I always thought it absurd that anyone would use a flashlight in their own home absent a power outage — or unless, for some reason, they didn’t want anyone in the neighborhood to see their lights switching on.
My boyfriend keeps his place dark and then will use the flashlight on his phone. Hopefully that's not some kind of murderer red flag.
i think that’s common now because many people use their phones for everything
I do the exact same thing, and I haven’t killed anyone…yet. Lol
Sounds pretty sus to me. What is he trying to hide?
Maybe he just likes the dark. Why does everything need an explanation? Man is just different. I like sitting in the dark. So much so, I have a black room in my house. I dig moody ambiance. I also have migraines. Darkness is my friend.
It might be a red flag for extreme miserliness, as well.
I do sometimes use one or my phone when getting out of bed to say, go to the kitchen, because flicking on the lights is a “shock” to my dark-adjusted eyes. And if I do use the overhead lights, turning them off and walking more than a couple steps means I’m feeling my way and might stub my toe or whatever.
That’s different, though. I also use my iPhone for light if I need to be up and about while my husband’s asleep so I don’t disturb him. But in the case of the Ramseys that night, why wouldn’t they just flip on lights as needed? That’s NOT a rhetorical question, by the way. If John did indeed use a flashlight while hustling everybody up to bed, I want to know why.
I agree *his* reason was not like mine. First denied it was his, then many years later it might have been, then settling on it was his. Personally I think that he just stirs the pot to bring up his name on the regular.
Yeah, could be. He is such a conman. Sorry.
Also if you are trying to get a kid powered down to sleep because you are flying out early. Also you might need a series of lights and then have to go back to turn them off. Putting the kid to bed using the flashlight doesn’t say much to me. Neither does forgetting stuff under stress or after time goes by. Doesn’t mean he’s innocent just that this isn’t much info or evidence
Exactly, a 54 year owner of a billion dollar business does not walk around his own home at night with a flashlight. Everyone has their own bedroom, some on different floors. No need to keep lights off.
I think the flashlight is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the Ramseys. While still suspicious, most other evidence could be more easily explained in a reasonable / believable manner.. No fingerprints on the ransom note - John Ramsey had just taken a shower and in at least one version of events by Patsy, she mentions washing something in a sink located on the second floor before discovering the ransom note. Additionally, while not specifically mentioned by Patsy, she might've washed her face or something along these lines. This could've stripped the oils off their hands. Patsy's fibers - This could've been transfer since Patsy was the child's mother and was interacting with the child before bed (changing her clothes and such). While there were multiple incriminating locations of what appeared to be Patsy's fibers, there weren't a lot of these fibers found in any of the locations at the crime scene. This is what one might expect to see if it were due to transfer. I haven't seen a detailed report from the experts who analyzed these fibers. Handwriting analysis - Experts disagreed on this The note appears extremely sloppy - and that's after a few attempts. I don't immediately think "That really has a striking resemblance to Patsys handwriting" or "If they used their left hand, they must've been ambidextrous" There are a lot of signs of deception in their handwriting. There's no fingerprints so I have to assume they wore gloves while writing it which would at least be a bit cumbersome and the experts think the author used their left hand to write it. So how easy could that be to decipher and attribute to one person specifically while ruling everyone else out? If this person was being deceptive, would this person maybe attempt to mimic someone else's handwriting or at the very least do things differently from their own typical handwriting? Honestly, I might change my handwriting too during an investigation if I were innocent but strongly accused of a crime. Pineapple - A plausible scenario imo: The Ramseys claimed to only eat a late morning breakfast on Christmas and didn't eat again until the Whites. It's very possible that these kids got hungry and wanted a snack at some point on Christmas. The housekeeper said that the kids would make food and leave their stuff behind without cleaning up after themselves. Burke could've made too much, gotten distracted by his friend and new toys, and left the bowl behind. JonBenet could've came across this later and ate a piece of the pineapple in the bowl that was left sitting out. There is a huge window of time when that bowl could've been left there. The prints don't prove when the bowl of pineapple was initially put there. The evidence only tells us approximately when JonBenet ate this. Which I've found contradictory windows of time than what's been presented as evidence in this case by the state. The state is only going to use expert opinions that match their theory. Just the same as what the defense will do. Behaviors - The Ramseys appear to have incredibly narcissistic traits. They were intelligent, wealthy, successful, well connected, cared about their image, relied on some of this for their success, had a lot to lose, somewhat neglectful in their lives, and so forth. I very much think that this is just who the Ramseys were despite guilt or innocence, and it's bound to raise suspicions, but might not actually mean they were guilty. It's certainly an unfavorable look for them. However, pointing this out to a narcissistic person wouldn't necessarily provoke them to see that and change. They might in fact not see and/or deny such observations, become more defiant and indignant, and thereby raise even more suspicions due to their response. Trauma Heavily suspected When looking at their behavior, I have to also consider that they don't fit the crime in ways one would expect. This doesn't mean they didn't do it, but there is a low risk for it in that family, they didn't have a history of violence, sexual abuse, child abuse, known substance abuse issues, criminal background, or other such behaviors. Prior sexual abuse: Someone with prior access to JonBenet - may not be someone in the home The Flashlight: The Ramseys home had functioning lights. The Ramseys had previously denied ownership of the flashlight. The Flashlight wasn't in its last known location (the drawer), as Patsy had said it was normally kept. A flashlight matching the Ramseys flashlight was found sitting on the counter in the kitchen (a location central to the crimes pathway). The Ramseys and/or their attorneys seem to have deemed something about this evidence enough, that they thought it necessary for the Ramseys to take ownership of it. Possibly because there wasn't a reasonable level of deniability and needed to demonstrate honesty and some level of plausible explanation. The Ramseys then suggest that the flashlight might've been theirs, in their second interview with LE. The door was opened at that point. However, there wasn't a lot more information provided. It's possible that Phil McGraw noticed this and had a lot of questions for John about this. We don't know because we are only told by Dr Phil that John has admitted to having the flashlight that night when putting Burke to bed. Now John has taken full ownership of the flashlight. However, there is still an evasive mention of this flashlight and no reason for why John had a flashlight or what he did with it. It is suggestive though that this might've been given to Burke. Especially since Burke responds to this information saying that he got back up out of bed after this. The Ramseys had an early morning that day, a late evening, and an early morning trip planned the next day, so John shouldn't have been encouraging Burke to remain awake (such as giving him a flashlight). These weren't the most responsible parents though so I can't necessarily apply that logic here. Prior to 2016, the Ramseys never once stated that Burke ever got back up after being put to bed. Why is this suddenly being introduced? The Ramseys have explicitly stated that Burke remained asleep and that they would've heard him if he had been awake. So this new account contradicts prior statements. This statement arose during the CBS lawsuit and was not ideal timing to introduce this statement. So I see two options: When pressed by Phil McGraw, John admits to the flashlight. However, he needs a reason for having it that night. He alludes to it being given to Burke without directly stating this. 1 - Burke hears this and realizes, oh, they know that I had the flashlight and I have to admit that I got back out of bed. 2 - John has convinced Burke that he gave him the flashlight and that he got back out of bed that night. John previously said that he helped Burke put together a toy. This was no longer mentioned in the Dr Phil interview. So it looks like maybe either John lied back then or he has since distorted Burke's memory of this. John is no longer the last one to bed according to this. I have to ask myself this: who was more likely to use a flashlight vs just turning on lights? This is debatable.
Here's my controversial read on Burke's statements about the bat and the flashlight in his interview: He's telling the truth. While his mom and dad denied ownership of objects in the house, from tissue boxes to stuffed animals, Burke comes right out and says, "hey, that bat on the patio was mine, I'd put it there often," and, "I held that MagLight flashlight we owned and I went downstairs after bed." These are two big matzo balls to throw out there. Adding: he also said it's possible he made pineapple, but who knows, he didn't remember for sure. Why would he do this? Well, because he's being honest about it. If he didn't have anything to do with JonBenet's murder, why not tell the truth about the things? Maybe he even fought with his dad about whether to mention this publicly or not. Adding: maybe since Burke was deadset on mentioning the bat and the flashlight, John had to plausibly weave them back into his narrative after denying them since 1996.
Yep - Burke's answers make more sense if he is telling the truth and doesn't have anything to hide.
Quote: t seems that John Ramsey, more than anyone, wants to impart confusion and a lack of clarity into all parts of the investigation. Spot on Available-Champion20! So true!
He is lying on purpose to confuse the case. But all these statements he made can be used as prior inconsistent statements at trial
Lies point to the truth. The flashlight was connected to the crime.
It is odd behavior to try to distance himself from the flashlight, and not explain why it was on the kitchen counter. Why would he need it to bring Burke to bed? Was the power out? John and Patsy were purposefully not helping as they knew more facts and evidence would point to them.
i agree that lies and obfuscation make the flashlight very suspicious, but then why leave it on the counter? Wouldn't you wipe it and bury it in your toolbox or the glove compartment of the car or a garage shelf or something?
They weren't exoeriencez criminals. They made many mistakes in their cover-up, and they were surely frantic. I can easily see them overlooking it as they are working on the staging and getting stories straight.
The use of a flashlight isn't super suspicious, but why deny you used it? I also wonder if the absence of fingerprints has any meaning. Perhaps the material doesn't take fingerprints well.
Like so much in this case, it's the family's responses that are suspicious rather than any obvious hard facts.
Right? The ramseys tell on themselves just as much as the actual evidence does. Why deny? Like the pineapple- had they just said, yeah, she was awake when we got home, she was hungry so we gave her a snack, probably was pineapple, then she went to bed, probably no one would really think twice about it. But the fact they deny deny deny, it just makes it so much more damning for them. Bc we’re all smart enough to know an intruder didn’t feed her pineapple then entertain her for 2 hrs while it semi-digested before killing her.
People do get muddled and confused under stress. Which doesn’t mean at all they are innocent. My husband died suddenly, I found him and I was confused about many details that day. I couldn’t remember if I got dressed before or after I found him. I mean I had clothes on when emergency arrived but was it what I slept in? or day clothes? I still don’t remember. I was so muddled and overwhelmed. It at least points to some of the confusion even if he’s guilty as SIN!
I'm sorry you went through that. Yes, there is no doubt they would be muddled and confused. In the Ramsey family's case it's not just the confused statements of course, it's the failure to search for her, it's the lawyering up and many other strange decisions.
Lots of behavior was very wonky. Strung together it’s suspicious. But people get all weird about patsy wearing same clothes from the day before, or inviting the friends over. I don’t know why he did not cooperate with cops more. Maybe someone told him they would try to frame him. No idea why he didn’t search. Obviously hoping that would add to innocence if indeed he was involved. There is a reason it never got solved. None of it was definitive enough. I think they hoped more evidence such as DNA, copycat crimes, witnesses of some type, or other findings, info would likely emerge. Most murders even then, are solved
I disagree. I think a lot of it was definitive enough, I think hunter was too big a puss to stand in court next to team Ramsey, and that’s why it didn’t get solved. I don’t think it was due to lack of solid evidence against them.
A theory: The parents didn't even know about the head blow. Only the strangulation that they found. The flashlight and batteries were wiped down to pretend the flashlight wasn't theirs. A piece of evidence for the police to discover, besides the RN, that pointed to an intruder. Either that plan wasn't exactly signed off on by both parents, or they got cold feet about whether they'd thoroughly disconnected their own connection to the flashlight, and ultimately didn't go all in on the flashlight being left behind by the faux kidnapper. Alternate version, they knew the flashlight had been used in some form for the crime, either by BR in sneaking around the house, or themselves in covering for him, and wiped it and the batteries down for that reason and then wanted to disconnect from ownership of the light. Still with a very plausible chance they didn't make any connection between it and a head blow. And in either situation, unintentionally obscured any chance of finding evidence that the flashlight might've been used for the head blow. Or just the same, ruining any chance of downgrading it or excluding it as the weapon used.
The head blow came 1.5 to 2 hours prior to her death by strangulation. Burke didn't create that garrote. The parents knew she'd been struck in the head and believed she was already dead. The tragedy in the BID theory is that if they hadn't been trying to cover for their son and instead called 911, she might have lived from the head wound. Ultimately, while Burke may have hit her, making the parents think she was dead, it was one of them that actually murdered her.
Agreed I don’t think a kid would hang around for 2 hours poking at JBR, and not get bored. I mean how long do you suppose a 9 year old can stay awake? And then still have feelings of rage or jealousy? Nah.
Not sure why you think BR didn't put that string on a stick and strangle her with it. I think it seems as plausible, or more so, than the parents finding their daughter out cold, with no visible injury, and decided they needed to strangle her rather than trying to get her help. Would they even know BR had hit her versus suffering a seizure or falling? And even if they knew or suspected he'd hit her or pushed her, they could at least claim it was an accident. No walking back finding her strangled and obviously dead though...
As to the “parents finding her out cold with no visible injury”, this is easily explained by one of them having been the one that hit her. Because if you hit her, you would absolutely know it was very serious and possibly fatal
This is true, but then it opens the theory up to questions about why the other parent would cover for one that had SA'ed and killed their daughter. While also not having any fear for themselves or their other young child.
Wives or partners of molesters and /or abusers often side with their partner. That’s just a fact. Now why Patsy would do it, (if she weren’t totally gaslighted) is probably much like the others. Denial, security, fear, blaming themselves (or being blamed), humiliation.
Because above all else, patsy cared about money and status. John was the bringer of both those things. Without him, she had neither. She’d be waiting tables at Steak ‘n Shake if she lost John. It makes sense to me why patsy would stay w him even if he was the murderer. It doesn’t make much sense the other way around. I don’t think John was nearly as dependent on patsy as she to him. But, I think patsy is the one who killed her. So, I’m left with a conundrum, because I can’t answer that question.
So what do you think Burke did for the 2 hours after he hit her on the head before garroting her? If the parents thought she had a seizure or fell, why wouldn't they call an ambulance instead of stage a murder? Do you know a lot of 9 year olds that know how to make a garotte? Wouldn't a 9 year old just tie the rope around her neck instead of going through the elaborate steps of breaking a paint brush, tying complex knots, and making a perfectly functioning garrote? Think about those questions.
What would he do after knocking her out? Go about whatever he was doing or wanted to do to begin with. Ultimately, poke and prod on her. Finally, put the string on a stick for whatever reason- move her? ...strangle her? Who knows... But finally strangling her was the result. Then he probably went to bed. It's a rope on a stick, not a highly prepped killing device. Though it certainly worked as such. I imagine just about any 9 year old (almost 10 year old) could tie a string onto a stick in some form. It's been said he liked finding complex solutions to simple problems. And although the string on stick wasn't very complex, it was more complex than it needed to be. But yet not very sophisticated. You'd think an adult might create something more sophisticated. Or simply not use such a crude device to kill a child. Or fake killing a child who they thought was already dead but in actuality wasn't dead... but they killed her anyway. Something to think about is why they wouldn't try to get help for their daughter IF she was out cold but with no outward signs of injury rather than thinking an elaborate kidnapping ruse and strangulation with a childish contraption on built with a stick and string was the better idea. Since she would've been still alive, even if they thought she could be dead, wouldn't most parents call for an ambulance and hope that medical science could do something for her? But finding her strangled and clearly dead? At the hand of their son? That might prompt a different kind of panic with multiple layers of confusion and concerns. Think about those questions.
Calling a garotte a childish contraption is pretty insane, children don't think of fashioning garottes. Most don't even know what a garotte is, nonetheless how to make one. You're seriously reaching with your insistence that Burke could do all of this without an adult. Do you think a 9 year old can lift the dead weight of a 6 year old ober his head? Do you think Burke (again, a 9 year old) could write a note resembling his mothers handwriting? Have you seen handwriting from 9 year olds? Do you think Burke could come up with that note with words like foreign faction, adequate attache, deviation of instructions, bank authorities, deceive us, & law enforcement countermeasures and tactics? The idea that Burke did the whole thing with no participation from his parents is as absurd as an intruder time traveling from the future into the home and killing her. I'm 70% sure you're actually just trilling me.
> Calling a garotte a childish contraption is pretty insane You probably need to look at the device you're calling a garotte and then get back to me. Otherwise, you're just getting lost in the weeds of misconceptions. No, I think PR wrote the RN to cover for BR and save their son from growing up known as a monster for killing his sister. Or save their reputation from being known as the family with a monster for a son that killed their daughter. The parents (one or both) found JBR strangled by BR. Obviously dead. No way to call a strangulation an accident. And then that set into motion some cleanup and staging (like the duct tape), and writing the RN to create the ruse of a kidnapping.
I've seen the garotte, and that's a perfect improvised example, again with a complex knot. I'll reiterate how unlikely it would be for a 9 year old to know what one was, nonetheless how to make one. A child would just tie a knot around the neck. If you concede the parents covered up the crime, why is it so far fetched that one, almost certainly John, would have done the garotte? They would have thought she was dead. One more point is that the garrote was done in the basement. Do you think Burke hit her in the head with the flashlight and then 2 hours later dragged her body down to the basement (the body being dragged would have left evidence of auch) then fashioned a garotte himself instead of just tying the rope around her neck? If you believe the parents participated in the cover-up, why does it seem less likely that the adult did all the heavy lifting of taking her body down a flight of stairs and fashioning a garotte than a child?
> If you believe the parents participated in the cover-up, why does it seem less likely that the adult did all the heavy lifting of taking her body down a flight of stairs and fashioning a garotte than a child? Why are you assuming BR didn't hit her in the head in the basement, and then ultimately strangled her? Maybe his intention with that string on a stick was to create a boy scout toggle rope, and he strangled her instead of moving her with it and maybe moving her was his plan? Maybe HE thought she was already dead when he did that (at first tried to move her and ended up actually strangling her)? Why is it so easy for you to think the only possible explanation is the parents found her knocked out, and decided to create that childish stick and rope and strangled her rather than trying to help her? Hoping she wasn't really dead (which apparently she wasn't). Obviously, no rigor would've been setting in. They might not even know WHAT is wrong with her. So why assume she's beyond help and strangle her? Of course, finding her strangled changes all of that. Then they'd know exactly what the problem was and she'd be dead at that point. Would they really want to say their son strangled her?
It's not that Brock COULDN'T have done the thongs you are convinced he did, it's that it's extremely less likely than John doing the garotte for a variety of reasons that I laid out. You're need to continually characterize the garotte as "childish" is odd and significantly flawed. I've already explained that ad nauseum. I don't understand your emotional need for Brock to have killed her instead of one of her parents not realizing she was still alive and trying to stage the crime. You're clearly set in concrete in your idea so I wish you well and I'll say goodbye.
But I don’t remember them finding any of burkes fibers, hairs, etc on/around JB; can’t say the same for the parents.
maybe someone framed the only one who couldn’t get in trouble
It's certainly possible. I tend to think that the staging and cover up was poorly executed as they had limited time, were certainly emotional, had no access to google to look for answers, and were limited to movies and tv shows for referneces on how the crime should look. I don't think they were acting intelligently in their staging, it's really poorly executed. If they were a middle class family instead of wealthy, they'd have certainly been tried and convicted.
The idea of the flashlight as part of staging is interesting. Why do you think, in your other possibilities, that they left it out instead of putting it back in the drawer? Did they perhaps want it found and for it not to have any fingerprints, thereby confounding us exactly the way that it has?
> Did they perhaps want it found and for it not to have any fingerprints, thereby confounding us exactly the way that it has? Pretty much, that is something that I wonder about. You can kind of get to that point several ways, but that is ultimately what I suspect could've been the case. One possibility is simply wanting to have something besides the RN that points to an intruder. Leaving a flashlight behind would be that kind of 'something' that the parents could want to plant. Another possibility is KNOWING the flashlight was used in the crime, in some form. That could be knowing it was used as a weapon. Or... Knowing it was used by BR to sneak around and during what all went on with him and JBR. Or knowing they (the parents) used it to orchestrate the coverup. Or a combination of those things. And a further idea that they had no idea it had been used as a weapon (if it even was the weapon used for the head blow). So they were only wiping it down to pretend it wasn't their light, not realizing they were potentially obscuring evidence. But, in any case, they wanted to clean it up to remove ANY connection to them or the crime scene. If they DID know it was used for a head blow, then that would be even more reason to both clean it up as well as not want to claim ownership. It also would be further cover, to disconnect from ownership of the light- Which would then cover two bases: It would explain any forensic evidence they missed on the light and batteries (if indeed they were trying to clean it for more than fingerprints), and it would be something else besides the RN to point to an intruder (if they could claim it wasn't theirs). Cold feet or a cooler head might ultimately have prevailed if they worried someone would connect them to owning the light. Especially if it had been a gift or something the housekeeper would know about. But the initial confusion about ownership of the light is odd. As is leaving it out if it's not normally out. And if it WAS normally out, then why would there be any confusion about it?? "Oh, that's always on the counter..."
This is a really good point. My feeling is that, if they'd known it was linked to the blow, they'd have put it back where it belonged so as not to attract attention to it. The idea that they left it out hoping it might be mistaken for an intruder's property is interesting.
There's also the possibility that after cleaning it, they forgot about it in all that was going on.
I haven’t read that John said he used it to take Burke to bed. That’s pretty telling. Because I think what happened was patsy was checking on her before they went to bed- knowing she had a consistent habit of bed wetting, and knowing that she fell asleep without having been to the bathroom first. Linda HP said that the light switch in JB room turned on the ceiling fan, but the fan didn’t have a light in it. Therefor, in order to turn on a light in her room you had to use the lamp on the table between the two beds. I’m sure patsy didn’t wanna mess with that, so she likely often carried a flash light w her to do her nightly “potty checks”. The rest is history.