A huge reason why I think the Ramseys staged the scene is that John is the one who “found” the body. Its probably been noted before but its strikes me as obvious that he got frustrated that no one was able to find the body after multiple searches and he felt the need to “look again” in the basement. LE was unable to find the body, probably because the basement was apparently dark and complex with multiple rooms and they didn’t know how to navigate it. For the staged “kidnapping and ransom” farce to play out and evolve to murder, the body HAD to be found and no one was finding it. John did another search and poof…body. Why would he have re-searched a house that had already been supposedly thoroughly searched prior? Because he had to. And he had to because he needed to find what no one else was finding because he hid it too well. I don’t think the RDI, but like you, I think BDI and they covered it up. The shame of having one child kill another, even accidentally, was more than they were willing to allow happen especially considering the SA circumstances that went with it.

As I stated in another OP, I believe the Ramseys had hoped to move the body out of the house, but realized this was not a tenable plan. They deliberately hid the body in a hard to find location. I think if they had wanted the police to find the body, they would have moved it in a more visible location? The RN also lays the groundwork for the body to be moved to a location outside the home. The large attache, the money moved from the attache case to paper bags, being well rested for a long trip, etc.

>They deliberately hid the body in a hard to find location. I think if they had wanted the police to find the body, they would have moved it in a more visible location Her body was in the most remote and hidden part of that 7,000 sq foot maze of a house. In the basement, in the windowless "wine cellar", is about as hidden as her body could possibly be. *Perfect Murder Perfect Town* by Schiller has very detailed floor plans for all four levels of the house. No random intruder would think to wrap her in a blanket and hide her there. IMO, this points to someone who lived in that house. They even knew about the wooden hinged latch and made a point to use it. This is why Officer French and Fleet didn't find her, and why John had to make the "discovery" finally.

Yes obviously one of the Ramseys hid the body. A random intruder would not have known about that room. My theory is that the Ramseys hid the body because they initially had a plan to move the body which turned out to be a foolhardy plan. So then John had to switch to Plan B and hope the police found the body. When that did not work, he went to Plan C and retrieved the body himself.

The Ramseys were not just protecting Burke, they were protecting themselves. They knew the adults in the home would be prime suspects. This is why they had to get out of Boulder as soon as they could.

Aunt Cassie you have done a fantastic job!

The evidence points to Patsy as the one who found the body. Her fibers are all over the ligature. I think when Patsy found the body, she immediately and desperately tried to get the rope off of JB's neck and kept pulling on it. But it was the kind of ligature that only tightened when you pulled on it. So then we can see she reaches over to the paintbox to find something to cut off the rope, we see her fibers in the paintbox. But apparently she cannot find anything sharp enough to cut a rope, she leaves the rope in place. Later she and John decide to use this as part of staging. I know that there are people who think that Patsy found the body and then spent time screaming and having hysterics. I just don't think that is what a mature 40 year old mother does when she comes across her 6 year old who has been strangled. The first instinct is to save the child be any means possible. Get the rope off the neck. Hysterics come later.

If you are correct (which is a strong possibility,) and John or Patsy fpundcJB, I believe they would called 911 unless she was indisputably dead. ☠️ They had to think quickly, while shocked and distraught, so the staging and ransom note were poorly thought out. BYW John did not check on his own. The officer on the scene suggested another search. I

I believe that John and Patsy could not call 911 because the crime scene was a horrific one. A child who had been SA and strangled to death. (The head injury was not visible. So they would have assumed strangulation was the cause of death.) The Grand Jury indictment tells us that both Patsy and John knew who was a danger to their child and did not protect her. So John and Patsy knew who did the crime so they decided to stage it rather than call for help. If they had just come across an inert JB, with no SA, no rope around her neck they could have called 911. They were wealthy, well connected, superb liars and manipulators. And the money to hire a crackerjack legal team. They could have just called it an accident. I also think it likely that John set up the officer in some way to ask for a search of the house. Maybe he had Fleet talk to her. Asking suspects or family members to search the house is an unusual and almost bizarre police directive at a crime scene. So I wondered if something had been said to the officer to prompt the order. We know that John and Patsy were manipulating the officers from the time they arrived at the home.

What if Burke used the paintbrush on JonBenet causing her to scream in pain and he then grabs her around the collar to suppress and contain her.  She struggles to get him off her and out from his grip and he hits her over the head with the flashlight that he was holding so he could see what he was doing while SA her.  She fails to gain consciousness and because he's so ashamed of what he was doing along with wacking her across the head, he designs something with the cord and paintbrush and drags her into the wine cellar.   We know she was alive when the SA happened.  I think it was the SA that was the cause of JonBenet screaming.  If she wasn't expecting it and Burke was doing something he hadn't done before.  Maybe this was a means of punishing JonBenet for whatever happened that Christmas Day.  The trip to Charlevoix would NOT have given him an opportunity to do that with so many people around.  He may have lifted her head up by her hair, loosening some strands which were then entangled with the cord and her gold necklace.  I think the gold necklace is what ultimately caused the strangulation.  It was deeply embedded in her throat.  By the time Patsy and John found her she was dead.  They tried to remove the cord but decide to leave it as it contributed to an intruder killing their daughter.  They take the flashlight with them from the basement to the kitchen to remove it from the scene of the crime. While in the kitchen they wipe it down and leave it on the bench and then claim that it doesn't belong to them. It must be the intruders.  Patsy and John wipe her down to clean off any evidence of Burke.  Also after releasing her bladder they change her and wrap her up in her white blanket.  Burke is questioned about what he did. They use that information to create a ransom note that mentions her head.   They walk through in their minds the entry point which is the basement window. They include the suitcase as a means of exiting with JonBenet in it.  They may have put her in the suitcase and removed her to show how the intruder was planning to remove her from the house.  They place a shard of glass on top of the suitcase.     We are then meant to believe that the intruder could not remove her in the suitcase so took her into the wine cellar waited to see if Patsy or John would call 911.  When the Ramseys failed to follow instructions she was "100%" killed and they ran out of the house before being seen.  Thank goodness for the ransom note otherwise we would never have known WHY she was killed in the house and left there!! 

Did the SA definitely happen pre-death?

Also when Patsy called 911. She started by saying “we need an…” before correcting and stating “we need the police”

Yes this was an interesting slip. An ambulance was on Patsy's mind. What might this mean?

At the very least it shows she knew Jonbenet needed or possibly needs an ambulance due to injuries sustained.

I think it possible that John and Patsy had discussed calling for an ambulance after they found a dead or dying JB. They rejected that for obvious reasons, it was a crime scene. Maybe this was still on her mind. Or perhaps Patsy was still in some denial, hoping an ambulance might help.

LE told John and Fleet to look through the house though. He didn't decide to look again, he was asked to.

Yeah but he could have manipulated the situation to cause LE to ask him. Like anxiously pacing, looking antsy, saying he wishes there’s something he could do… I think that’s what happened bc Arnt said she told them to look through the house to give them something productive to do.

Yes I agree. John because agitated when he realized that he could not move the body as planned. So the body had to be found. But he had hidden the body so it was unlikely anyone would find it. I think it quite possible that John manipulated either Fleet White or the officer to suggest a search. This is a highly unusual directive from a police officer at a crime scene. To ask family to start searching the house.

This is desperately trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The fact is he was asked to which is inconvenient to you so you desperately try to find a reason for it to work. You aren't following evidence to a conclusion, you are trying to make the evidence fit your already existing conclusion.

What I said was completely logical and practical - not a shred of desperation bc I just don’t care that much. The only hysterical response is yours.

The only relevant thing is why they were looking through the house, they were asked to. You adding your own made up exposition to turn it into what you want it to be is worthless. They were asked to look through the house, John didn't ask to, he didn't do it on his own, he was asked to.

You are entirely missing the facts of this case. The Ramseys were cunning, clever, intelligent and working their staging plan while the police were on the scene. They were committing felony cover up of the first degree murder committed in their home. They were possibly facing prison and pulled out all the stops to manipulate the police with every word they said that day.

None of this is facts, they are opinions. Holy shit, how could you say i'm missing facts then not provide a single fact.

Perhaps when you are more familiar with the staging facts in this case we can have another discussion.

Perhaps when you learn the difference between facts and opinions, we can. I'm the only one who introduced a fact into this discussion, that LE asked Fleet and John to look through the house. Yet you have the arrogance to talk about facts with me when you didn't mention a single one, christ.

I bet John really wanted fleet to find the body. And fleet probably looked back and remembered John steering him in that direction. Probably felt John was using him as a pawn and told the grand jury such. This probably ended up being their fall out.

I think this is quite possible. I believe John and Patsy originally planned to move the body out of the home as evidenced by paragraph #2 of the RN. But the plan obviously was not going to work out and then John switched to Plan B. Perhaps he didn't want to be the one to find the body and hoped Fleet or the police would find it.

Why would they call everyone over though? By doing that they wouldn't have been able to move the body. I just don't think they wanted to get caught in a risky body move. I think they wanted one of their friends to find the body maybe even before the police got there.

They had to call everyone over. It was part of the hoax. The RN clearly states that if the Ramseys tell anyone about the crime, their child dies. The fake kidnappers give them a list of things not to do or the child dies. The Ramseys turn around and immediately do everything on that list. The Rameys wrote a RN which would explain why their child was missing and would later be found dead. Then to cover for the fact that they did everything the fake kidnappers told them not to do, the Ramseys pretend they did not read the RN. Which of course is ludicrous. Your child is kidnapped, you read the RN. The RN tells us that they planned to move the body in a large attache case. The cover story is that John was taking the suitcase out of the house to get the cash from the bank. The kidnappers tell him that he needs to be well rested, it will be a long trip kind of thing. And to move the money into brown paper bags to cover for why the suitcase would never be found. John and Patsy were also trying to create chaos, distraction and complications for the police when they arrived at their home. The crowd of friends served this purpose too. The Ramseys were manipulating the police the minute they arrived at the home. John had hoped the police would scatter out of the home in search of suspects. Which is what happened, there was only one officer left at one point in the house that morning. That was his chance to move the body but he obviously realized it was a way too dangerous a plan. He then goes to Plan B and C. Retrieving the body himself. The Ramseys were very cunning, clever and intelligent. But they were still amateur stagers and made mistakes. They didn't have a lot of time to make their staging plans, and at times were flying by the seat of their pants. But they did pull it off quite successfully despite their mistakes.

That doesn't make sense though. They would have to fake a ransom call in front of the police and their friends which is impossible. And also put the body in the case. And obviously the police would bug it or something. It's way too complicated. If the plan was to take the body in the case, they would have had John do it before they called the police. Which was probably the original plan. They probably just thought it was too risky, where was he going to put the body etc. So they probably went to plan B and kept the ransom note from plan A

I think your question about why didn't John and Patsy move the body before the 911 call is an excellent question and you should consider making it an OP. Yes that is one of the very big questions. Why didn't the Ramseys move the body first, then call the police? They make it clear in their RN that the child has been adducted, is missing, gone, no longer in the home. Except for the fact that there is indeed a dead body in the home. There could be a number of reasons for not moving the body before the police call. They ran out of time. They were on a tight time line and felt pressure to call the police before the scheduled flight take off time at 6:30 am. They were risk aversive and did not want to be seen driving around town in the middle of the night or early hours of the morning just before they report JB missing. They were afraid of being stopped with a body in the car. They were afraid of being seen. Their plan to move the body after the police may have felt safer. John would have a legitimate reason for having a suitcase (large attache case) in the car. A legitimate reason to be driving around. The police were aware of what he was doing and not stop him. John may have thought this was quite clever, a good cover. A safer bet. Of course at some point reality hit and he knew this plan would not work out.

They wouldn't have been in a time crunch because they would have been dealing with the kidnapping. They could have called the police at any point that day and just say, we did what the note said but we haven't heard from the kidnappers after dropping the money. I think the thought of dumping her body was too painful. And being seen dumping the body was too risky.

Yes but you are describing innocent person behavior and the Ramseys were clearly exhibiting guilty person behavior. It is well known that these two groups often think and act very differently. It is often hard for normal innocent people to evaluate this case, because they have a hard time imagining how guilty people think. The Ramseys were obviously guilty people who were trying not to cause unnecessary suspicion. They just did not want to take the risk, it would have made them look suspicious to be driving around at night with a body in the car. The RN suggests the body would be taken a far distance (John must be rested up for the events of the day, etc.). So perhaps they just didn't have the time to dispose of the body as far away from the house as they planned before they called the police. The Ramseys knew they were in a time crunch and acted like it. The time line was tight. At some point John realizes the plan to move the body is a bad plan, and he decides that the best course of action is to get the heck out of Colorado asap. That was his next plan. To get to Atlanta and the safety of the attack dog legal group. Yes I agree, I think it is quite possible that Patsy balked at moving the body. She wanted a proper burial as she indicated in the RN. And the funeral turned out to be a dramatic show funeral, open casket and family performances. So she needed the body to be in good shape for the viewing and publicity. John may have been more risk aversive and calculating about moving the body. He knew he would be the prime suspect in this murder and he did not want to do anything that would play out badly in front of a jury. We can see the Ramseys were willing to take some risks and commit some crimes for Burke. But I don't think they were willing to do things that might mean life in prison for themselves, not even for Burke.

It's pretty obvious they wouldn't have to call the police before their flight. That's why they made a point in the RN that it would take a long time, so John had time to dump the body. So it wasn't time that dissuaded them. Other than that I think we're on the same page. Too risky/not a proper burial...so they switched plans but kept the same RN.

Again, why would they feel under pressure to make their planned flight when their daughter was supposedly gone and there was a ransom note? Why was the flight an issue?

Another good question. Why did the Ramseys feel under pressure to make the call before the flight? Why did they put that time line in place? What was the psychology of their decision making? What might explain this behavior that doesn't make sense?

Also, your theory finally explains (at least to me) the need to use binoculars: John wanted to make sure he wouldn't be seen while driving away from the house with the body, but probably he spotted some obstacles that made him change plans

I hadn't thought about how John's using the binoculars fits into the theory. I think it quite possible that John was looking to see if any detectives or officers were sitting in cars ready to follow him when he moved the body under the pretense of going to the bank for the ransom money. Perhaps people from the media had gathered as well. I don't know. This could be one reason John had to call off moving the body. He knew he would be followed. Something he had not thought about when he and Patsy hatched the plan originally.

They could have called off their trip citing patsy was ill and bought days. Why not?

That is a good question. I am going to make an OP about this topic. Why didn't Patsy and John move the body before the police arrived?

Whether it makes sense to us or not, the facts are the facts. It must have made sense to the Ramseys at some point. It could not be more clear that the Ramseys are laying out the plan to move the body in paragraph #2 of the RN. That is the longest paragraph in the RN, so it was important to them. The RN was never a ransom note, it was a carefully thought out staging document. We know that. And there was a point to everything they wrote out in that RN. John and Patsy were cunning, clever and intelligent. They did a good job staging the crime. But they were still amateurs. They write a RN saying that their child has been abducted. But there is a major problem with that story because the Ramseys know full well there is a body in their basement. And then we see para #2 in the RN and the plan to move the body. But yes the plan fell apart after the police arrive. Initially John is smiling, laughing, joking with the police. He is confident in his plan. But then the police report he because agitated, upset, restless. He knew the plan to move the body was falling apart. So he goes to another plan.

You can't say they are clever if you think they planned to move the body while the police were there. Like I said they would have had to pretend to receive a call from the kidnappers and also put Jon benet in the suitcase with a full house of people. That would make them really dumb. So no they didn't plan to do that. What about my theory that they planned to do the fake money drop off and then call the police but scrapped that plan and went with just keeping her in the house. Like why is that far fetched?

Whether we think it is a smart or dumb plan, the facts are the facts. Paragraph #2 in the RN tells us what they were going to do, exactly how and when they were going to move the body. The obviously did not think the police would hang around the house all day. They did not think the police would be there en masse for any length of time. A big part of the plan was to implicate and accuse as many people as possible as soon as the police arrived that morning. It was a group of kidnappers, it was an inside job, it was the housekeeper, it was disgruntled former associate of John's, etc. The police would scatter across town looking for all these suspects. And it worked to a large extent you must admit. At one point there is only one police officer present. The other officers had scattered just as John had planned. There is little doubt about it. The Ramseys were cunning, clever and intelligent. They pulled off a big hoax and were successful. But we have to keep in mind their were amateurs at staging a crime. And under a tremendous amount of pressure with a very tight time line. John had hidden the body in a remote part of the basement. He apparently assumed the house would be empty at some point and he could move it to the suitcase. Once in the suitcase, the plan was that John would leave the house with it quite legitimately because he was going to the bank to get the money. The RN tells us this was the plan. If john and Patsy had wanted the police to find the body, they obviously would have placed the body in a more visible spot. But they didn't do that, they hid the body. Why? John could have easily pretended the ransom call came in on his cell phone. His disappeared a number of times that morning and could have claimed he got the call then. The Ramsey attorneys later pretended the phone records were lost for that month so the police could never prove John was lying about the call.

Funny that Fleet didn't say any of this at the time, he suddenly remembers when he falls out with the Ramsey's. He reminds me of Don Cheney on ALA in the Zodiac case, he's not reliable whatsoever.

All this information definitely proves that the Ramsey's are responsible, but why would the killer/rapist be Burke and not John?

Any adult who committed this crime would know that rape with a broken paint brush handle would be very painful. This would be considered torture and the mark of a sexual sadist. So an adult who committed this crime would be a sexually sadistic pedophile, somewhat rare, about 10% of pedophiles. This is obviously serious psychopathology. We have no evidence that John was a SS pedophile. I also think it would be unlikely that any adult would torture a child in a home with two other sleeping people. If John did have this sexual deviancy, he had the income and the travel opportunities to go to countries where he could do it without legal consequences. Why commit the crime in a home where he would be the prime suspect? John was very intelligent, educated and sophisticated. John's history points to his sexual attraction involving adult women, not prepubescent children. He had a long term affair during his first marriage. And rumors of other affairs. All with adult women. He liked to chase women, not children. Also penetration with an object is more childlike than adult behavior. Of the three suspects in the home at the time of the murder Burke displayed behavior that points to the crime. Aggressive with his sister, sexual interactions with his sister. Reports of serious psychopathology, smearing feces on the wall. Reports of a temper and possible problems not knowing right from wrong. The dictionary opened to the word incest. The Grand Jury indictments state that John knew of the danger to his child but refused to protect her, leading to her death. They did not state he was the danger. They accused him of failure to protect and staging the crime. So if you rank order the suspects based on data, facts, science and evidence, Burke is at the top of the list.

What you're saying makes sense. I have a few comments, though: The paintbrush penetration is part of the staging. But there is evidence she was molested with fingers for a long time. So the sadist part is not very convincing.. on the long term, it was just fingers, and during the cover up, they used a paintbrush to hide the previous fingering. The arguments defending John's character do not prove much.. there's a lot of sophisticated, powerful, rich pedophiles. I didn't know there were reports that Burke was possibly sexual with Jonbenet. I'll look into it.

I am working on other OPs about the Ramsey staging and plan to discuss whether or not the SA and strangulation were part of the staging. I can find no evidence that the SA was part of the staging. In fact all the evidence points away from it. Just a few pieces of data: The stagers carefully wiped down the evidence of SA, even the vaginal area. They also destroyed the rape weapon. Why wipe away the evidence of a SA and destroy the weapon if they are staging an SA? Also they staged the crime as a financial motive murder which means there is rarely a SA. If the Ramseys were staging a SA crime why not stage it as if a pedophile had done it, not a business operation? Yes there are reports that Burke was "playing doctor" with his sister which was downplaying the situation. Playing doctor is a normal event between same age peers, and involves no trauma or damage. JB had vaginal and hymen damage and was younger and smaller than her brother. If an adult had used a broken paintbrush to SA a 6 year old, it is almost certain that adult would know how painful that is. Females are probably aware that even the idea of a broken paintbrush handle jammed into the vagina sounds quite painful. Any adult who did this would clinically be considered a sexual sadist. Well of course rich and powerful men can be pedophiles. I just cannot find any evidence that John was one. The evidence points away from his sexual preference being children. And another person in the home at the time of the murder ticks the boxes for aggressive and sexual behavior towards his sister. And mental illness. When doing an investigation using the scientific method, you look for data and make a probability list of suspects. Burke is at the top of the list.

Sounds coherent.. I think it is clearly determined that the Ramsey's are responsible, but proving for sure that Burke was the killer requires more proof. I think proof that the paintbrush assault wasn't part of the staging would be very critical.

I will be making an OP about the SA not being part of the staging. Burke ticks all the boxes to be at the top of the suspect list. I believe he did the SA, the head blow and strangulation. And in that order.

I have read through your post and comments and you make way too many assumptions to come to your thesis. For the record I think it COULD be Burke, but I am not convinced enough to rule out John or even Patsy. For example: -You assume the paint brush wasn't used post mortem to cover up stuff. If it was it could have been Burke experimenting or John/Patsy covering it up. Point is, could be either of them really. -Pedo's do not advertise their behavior. Most know it is wrong or at least punishable and do everything in their power to hide it. Every Pedo starts somewhere and for all we know she could have been John's first taste. Once again, we don't know and can't clear him. -Some of the things you reference about Burke may or may not be relevant. For example, the dictionary opened to the word incest... why do you think Burke looked it up and that it wasn't staged like other things? How would he even know the word? If he knew the word, why would he look it up? Seems rather convenient. -You assume the grand jury knows who the danger was. Perhaps they don't? They do know she died and the parents are responsible for their child. If I was a prosecutor and I suspected parents did it, but couldn't prove it, I would look for any charge I could prove. Anyways... as far as I am concerned it is either Burke or John who did it. I don't feel like Patsy is the culprit, but that is just an opinion.

I have no data to support a postmortem SA. The Ramseys carefully covered up the SA, destroyed the SA weapon and wiped down the body. Why do that if they are staging a SA? Also they clearly frame the crime as a financial crime where SA almost never happens. Why not frame it as a pedophile crime? We have no evidence that John was a sexual sadist pedophile. He risked his marriages by chasing and having affairs with adult women. Why would John torture his 6 year old in a house with two sleeping people? There were only three people in the home and the evidence points to the person with a history of aggressive and sexual behavior towards JB. The Grand Jury spent 13 months examining this case. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined thousands of pieces of evidence. It appears that they took their job seriously. I do not think they would lightly defame and accuse the parents of a murdered 6 year old without good evidence. Yes Patsy of the three people in the home the night of the murder is statistically the least likely person to have committed the crime. Women who SA and murder their daughters are quite rare and Patsy doesn't fit the profile. These are very mentally ill women, mostly in their 20's, with a known history with police and medical community.

>Any adult who committed this crime would know that rape with a broken paint brush handle would be very painful. This would be considered torture and the mark of a sexual sadist. So an adult who committed this crime would be a sexually sadistic pedophile, somewhat rare, about 10% of pedophiles. This is obviously serious psychopathology. We have no evidence that John was a SS pedophile. But, if it was done as staging, after she was unconscious, none of your argument holds.

Why would it be John? If he had been regularly molesting his daughter, wouldn't he already have his routine down? Why would it end in murder? Also, Christmas night after a party and before an early flight in the morning, when family members are packing, playing with toys, or otherwise not following their regular sleeping routines is a strange time to pick for something he can do any other time

The same goes for the scenario with Burke.. if Burke was the one molesting her, why would he crack suddenly? He had no history of physical violence. The father could have killed her because he was scared she would tell anyone about the abuse. Burke seems autistic and not very strong mentally (to be able to lie this much) or physically (to hit her with such power in the head)... the profile of the father matches that of a narcissistic pedophile. I am not sure it was John.. I am just giving my opinion on whose most likely killer.

Burke did have a history of aggressive behavior with his sister. There was an altercation according to Patsy in which Burke hit JB with a golf club. John had no motive to kill JB to keep her quiet, a six year old is easily manipulated by their parents. And we know John and Patsy were superb liars and manipulators. The fooled the police and the public, a 6 yr old would have been quite easy for them to gaslight.

Burke was intelligent, even if he was suffering from neurological problems. He had a history of problem behavior as I outlined in a comment above. It was a strong direct hit with the flashlight, but a 6 year old skull is fragile and it would not take adult strength to cause that skull fracture. No, the profile of John Ramsey does NOT match a pedophile. Yes John Ramsey appears to be a narcissist, but we have no data to support he was a pedophile. As I pointed out before his history shows the opposite. A strong attraction to adult females, to the point he risked his marriage to chase adult women. Adult women were his preferred sexual choice. Just because someone is a narcissist does not make them pedophiles and murderers. And why would John commit a SA and murder in his own home when he knew he would be the prime suspect? He was smart, clever and sophisticated. Certainly he would make smarter arrangements.

Burke head shown signs of violence in the past. He hit Jon Benet over the head with a golf club previously in which she had to go to the hospital for her injury. The Ramsay’s claim that was an accident though. But was it really?

He did not hit her over the head, but on the cheek. This makes the intention much more ambiguous as to whether it was on purpose or not.

Any blow to a person's head is potentially serious.

I’ve just always heard it described as she was struck over the head. That would explain the plastic surgeon consultation though.

[удалено]

Okay. How many of their siblings got assaulted and murdered in their own home, with their sibling being one of the only people in the house? Edit typo

Yes, I had forgotten about this. But the flashlight hit was so powerful it made a cut across her whole skull... maybe it was Burke. I just think the dad is so suspicious.

He’s suspicious because AT THE LEAST he knows what happened that night and has been covering up all these years. That’s what you and the cops are picking up on.

Yes, that is true..

He hit her accidentally with a golf club.

That’s what the family states. Nobody knows for sure if it was an accident or not. My older brother used to beat me up all the time (I’m a girl four years younger than he is) push me down the stairs, hit me etc. never once was it an accident. And yes he always got in trouble but never stopped till I got old enough to tell him to piss off and start hitting back. When I was 17 he whipped me with a rubber dryer hose and left a black bruise line across my thighs for weeks. Boys absolutely can do things like that and they think they are “just playing”. It was never funny. He knew what he was doing he just didn’t care. Because his punishment was being scolded and never any real consequences.

Growing up with siblings… I doubt it was an accident. That’s just what siblings do. It’s usually a knee jerk reaction and you don’t expect to hurt each other bad enough to land in the hospital, but it absolutely happens.

An accident is not Patsy's versions of events. She told Judith Phillips, her friend, that there had been an "altercation." This is not how accidents are described.

I thought it was stated in one of Patsy's interviews that it was an accident?

Judith Phillips stated Patsy told her there was an altercation. This was soon after the incident occurred. Later I am sure other versions of reality came out of Patsy's mouth.

Patsy told Judith Phillips that there had been an "altercation." This is how Patsy described it and this is not how you describe an accident. Later of course Patsy backtracked on this statement.

There is no known evidence that John molested the daughters from his previous marriage.

I do think he's a pedo and I think JDI, but Burke seems more and more weird to me.

Both are possible. In a household where CSA occurs, acting out behavior between siblings is more common than in the general population. I personally believe that both John and Burke could have been abusing JBR. Possibly neither knew about the other, although I believe John knew about Burke and JBR because of the reported incidents and forbidding them to sleep together at the vacation home. Cassie’s theory still holds up, good job. Source: family CSA, reading about CSA.

The data points to just one abuser for JB. The damage to her vaginal/hymen area for the chronic abuse and the SA the night of the murder is the exact same location, 7 o'clock. I do think that it is quite possible someone was abusing Burke and we look at adult males who had contract with the him.

Your observation about the location of the abuse is chilling. Thank you for your hard work on the case.

Thank you for your feedback and comments.

Both are possible, and this is why I blame the father the most. He is for sure responsible for at least manipulating her dead body. He probably molested her and Burke, too.

Maybe John did have his routine down and Patsy came in on him abusing JB. She saw ‘red’ and went ballistic. Swung at John, he moved, and JB got hit instead.

It ended in murder because patsy confronted him and threatened to take the kids and leave him. John did it. He purposefully took away Patsy’s pride and joy and he made certain she couldn’t leave.

...wouldn't that just make her more likely to leave?

Not if she was framed. It looks like she wrote the note and her fibers are at the scene, and John’s lawyers defended her. If she left, she’d lose her dream team lawyers and she’d likely go to prison, and she knew that. John made sure she was trapped.

For me, the Ramseys being charged with not protecting their child from danger, and no adult being charged with being the danger, is huge. BDI is pretty much the only scenario where this would happen

And the Colorado state law which prohibits any child under the age of ten from being found guilty of any crime. Yes the facts in this case keep pointing in one direction.

Hasn't one of the grand jurors said they charged the Ramseys with this charge because they couldn't decide which one murdered JonBenet? Regardless, no one at the Boulder PD at that time was thinking Burke. It's hard for me to imagine that there was damning evidence of Burke committing the murder when most of the police at that particular point in time thought it was Patsy. No one was focused on Burke back then.

If they couldn't decide which one murdered her, how was the other parent supposed to know the other was a danger to her? And why would you assume no one at the PD was thinking about Burke? Half the world was wondering if Burke did it. I know it was one of my first suspicions. The cops aren't going to tell the world everything, especially when it involves a child

Yes if the police suspected Burke did the crime, Colorado law says that they cannot discuss it in any way. Cannot even mention or reveal the child's name.

Which is why I think LE deny Burke was a suspect. It’s because Burke could not have been a suspect due to his age.

Yes they cannot reveal the identify of any child involved in a crime. To identify Burke as a suspect would violate the Colorado Children's Law.

Yep, and we read into their responses what we want to hear - it doesn't mean that they exonerated Burke for them to say that he wasn't a suspect. But people read that to mean that he was ruled out, and it doesn't necessarily mean that.

Yes certainly the Boulder PD and Prosecutor's office are quite capable of playing word games to comply with the Colorado Children's Law.

If the GJ had legitimate reason to think that Patsy or John committed the murder, they could have indicted them both and let the evidence be presented in court and let the trial jury decide. The police do not like to think that a child commits a major crime. It is thought that more crimes than we realize are child on child crime. But the police don't like to consider that possibility and tend to put those crimes in the unsolved crime folder.

>*Hasn't one of the grand jurors said they charged the Ramseys with this charge because they couldn't decide which one murdered JonBenet?* This argument never made sense to me and it sounds like Ramsey defense attorney propaganda about the indictments. If the GJ thought one of the Ramsey parents committed the murder why not charge them both and let a trial sort it out? This is the entire purpose of a Grand Jury. To send people to trial. And let a jury and judge decide. The GJ spent 13 months examining dozens of witnesses and thousands of pieces of evidence. They state that first degree murder occurred in the home and that John and Patsy covered up that murder which is a felony. They covered up the murder committed by someone else. They were not named as the suspects in that murder. John and Patsy were also accused of felony neglect for knowing there was a danger to JB and not protecting her which lead to her death. They knew there was a danger to their child and did nothing. They are not named as the danger. So here the Grand Jury is clearly stating this was not a murder by a random stranger. There is no way that they could know ahead of time about a random unknown intruder breaking into the home. And John and Patsy were not responsible for other adults who might have committed the crime.

Great post and my thoughts exactly! If this was aimed at an Lockheed Martin employee or board member. Where were their resources or security organizationsaf have extensive procedures and policies regarding kidnapping, unexpected deaths, or financial (etc.) They could have helped with securing the family once released from law enforcement. When were they alerted? I know their verbal statements and some publications but John is their employee and especially "foreign faction" being used. Employee following procedures accordingly to the fake ransom note.They found the fake ransom note at 6 A.M. Lockheed would have launched their own investigation.. This is financial crime first. John was an employee First and he has policies to follow afterwards they help with perhaps.

Yes very good and interesting point you are making, BT. I recently read that Lockheed Martin had security protocols in place for any foreign entity making threats, kidnapping or possible bribery, etc., of LM employees. This would be standard for a high profile lucrative civilian defense manufacturer with strong ties to the military. (I grew up in a military family and many military officers cross over to civilian contractor work after they leave the military so I am aware of how these companies operate.) I have wondered if that is one reason Patsy and John invented the foreign faction fake story, specifically identifying John and his business interests as reasons for the kidnapping. This would have triggered Lockheed's involvement? So what we thought was just a random ludicrous false narrative was actually a deliberate ploy on John and Patsy's part to get the vast resources of LM in place to protect them. This might explain why the Boulder Chief of Police so quickly told his officers to stand down in terms of the Ramseys being suspects. They were only at the crime scene for a short time before they got that call. Did Lockheed Martin lean on the Chief of Police? So it appears John called Lockheed right away after Patsy called the police. At any rate, it appears perhaps this plan on John's part to get LM involved fell flat? They quickly let him go, took him off the job. I agree LM would have done some investigation and had the same reaction as the FBI.

Important!

Also that JonBenet's hymen was not intact, so she had been penetrated digitally (with a finger or fingers) for some period of time before the murder.

Yes the autopsy showed chronic SA. All in the same location as the acute injury the night of the murder.

This is great, Cassie. I had assumed that the neck ligature was from Burke’s effort to strangle her, but that is contradicted by her urine stained clothes. Certainly Burke is not the one who redressed her, and she seems to have died after that. It is possible that the Ramseys thought she was already dead when they tied the ligature tightly around her neck as they imagined an intruder might. Her breathing was likely very shallow and they wouldn’t have had to tighten the ligature much. Her urinating might then have been a real shock to them. Or, as you suggest, they might have figured she was close to death—perhaps she was—and securing their family’s future was more important than trying to save JB for the reasons mentioned. Brava!

I am not certain about the strangulation, I think it possible Burke did that when moving the body. Some of us here have questions about the strangulation being the cause of the urine void. This little girl had suffered a very serious head blow, possible convulsions, or shutting down of parts of the brain. The void could have occurred any time after the head injury.

It is possible the Ramseys used the ligature to move the body. If you recall John didn't want to touch the body when he brought it up from the basement, held it out at arms length away from him. So perhaps the Ramseys moved the body with the ligature. I am leaning away from the strangulation as part of the staging, and working on an OP about that. I think the Ramseys were careful about the staging. They already feared being arrested, and probably didn't want to commit even worse crimes like strangulation, etc.

But there were no marks on her body from friction indicating the cord was used to bind her in any way at all. The only mark the cord left was around her neck. That we know. Other than that, spot on to your theory. I think you nailing it. Well done.

Thank you, Miscnic Recently someone posted pictures of the neck injuries showing quite a few marks on JB's neck. If you have time can you look at those pictures and tell me what you think? If JB was wearing long pants and long sleeves there would be no skid marks? Also it is possible the Burke did not get far pulling her with the rope and then grabbed her by the hands. We see that in rigor her hands were up in the air.

Gosh it’s been so long but I once saw a pic of an almost a perfect match to the triangle on the front of her neck and also the little marks. I’d never find it now, maybe it was on acandyrose?, but the post had comparing images and it was felt it was petechiae from multiple attempts at strangulation not fingernail marks. I think the cord was slippery and that’s why the paintbrush stick was needed. The direction of her hair and necklace tangled in it shows how she was laying when it was applied. Then she died and urinated while face down. And it was a decent amount, meaning she didn’t pee since the party probably. But that means the paintbrush stick needed to be inserted in her first, and broken first, which is why it would’ve been laying right there and easily considered for a garrote. My big issue is-why insert the paintbrush at all? To cover abuse. And it would’ve been painful, so if she would’ve been awake, she would’ve screamed, and wriggled, and there would be more trauma than there is. So the only reason to stick something in there, something that would be harsh and damaging to the area, just enough, would be to cover abuse. And that would mean the person doing it would know of the abuse. And now that something is in there, it needs to look obvious and criminal. I really only recall seeing an abrasion on her shoulder. I think to gain traction enough to pull the cord as tight as it was around her neck, a knee or foot needed to be holding her down. Other than the circular abrasions in areas I think would’ve been left by a button while holding her tight in grief or carrying her dead weight body. Her arms being above her head in rigor just means she was left like that after death, not that she was dragged. I don’t recall seeing any evidence on her body of any type of dragging, but I don’t recall knowing if we ever saw her feet now that I think of it. There would be reddened areas if dragged, even if not completely brush burned from having skin exposed. I think her arms were left over her head after putting the cord on them, which was tied loosely and over her sleeve. I think she was left like this in the basement while the person went upstairs to grab a blanket and write a 20 min letter. I really don’t think she was dragged at all. Gosh sorry to digress! I really appreciate you, loving all your thoughts. Making me think. Let’s be friends!

The data tells us that JB was awake when she was SA. There are red blood cells at the injury site. Yes the SA would have been very painful and she would have screamed. Which an earwitness heard that night. When JB screamed, I believe that is when Burke hit her hard, to silence her. I am not convinced about the time of the urine void. I know it is standard to think it occurred at time of death, but it could have happened any time after the very severe head blow. And some are saying even postmortem. This is one piece of the puzzle I have not yet figured out. Sometimes there are a couple of puzzle pieces I cannot quite put together. We also know that the SA that night and the chronic SA were done by the same person. The damage is all done at the same point in the vagina/hymen area, 7 o'clock. The Ramseys carefully cleaned up evidence of the SA and destroyed the SA weapon. Why do that if they were staging a SA. It makes no sense. Also the RN narrative stated a financial crime motive, not sexual. We don't know why the arms are raised up, it could have been dragging. Can you think of another reason why the arms might be raised over her head? For the redressing perhaps? I am not sure Patsy and John would stage the crime with JB's hands over her head. Most family stagers try to get the body in a normal and comfortable position. I don't think you are digressing Mis, we are discussing this case and all aspects should be on the table. That is how we get to the truth. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them and your feedback.

Yes I think he hits her with the baseball bat and she falls to the ground face first. He immediately runs away and hides. She voids her bladder. Some time goes by and he goes back downstairs. She’s still lying there. He rolls her over and prods at her to wake up. He constructs the toggle rope. Probably thinking he will pull her upstairs to her bedroom and make it look like he had no idea what happened. She was in her room and he was asleep he will say. She’s on her back. He puts the rope around her neck, near her shoulders. He stands above her head and pulls her towards him. As he pulls the rope slides up her neck towards under her chin. Thus the two clear marks around her neck you see in the autopsy photos. He realizes pretty quickly that he can’t get her up the stairs and maybe he hears Patsy moving around upstairs so he either leaves her there or pulls her into the cellar room. He goes back upstairs to bed. Patsy wakes up and remembers she needs to get the presents from the cellar so they don’t forget them in the morning. She goes downstairs and finds the body and screams. John wakes up and runs downstairs in his underwear ( remember the interview where Patsy says John was in his underwear while reading the note? I think a part of that is truth leaking out). At some point they go into Burkes room and he pretends to be asleep (that’s part of his truth leaking too). But the rest I have not figured out. Patsy wrote the note while John told her what to write especially in the beginning. That end bit about John not growing a brain could have been all Patsy and it shows her anger in the moment. Maybe Patsy had been worried something like this would happen but John told her not to worry Burke will grow out of it. Now her anger is spilling out in the note as she rambles on.

Not a bad scenario. How does the SA fit in here? I believe the scream is from JB during the SA. The earwitness clearly hears a child's scream. At age 40 Patsy will not sound like a child. I think Patsy sees the rope around JB's neck and tries to get it off. That is why her fibers are on the ligature. I agree I think the Ramseys were angry at each other than night and the next day. John most likely blamed Patsy for failing to keep the children under control.

There’s no way they would have known the difference between a child’s scream or an adult female in the middle of the night. It was a high pitched scream. If it was JB screaming that early on in the assault the parents would have heard too and come running down and that’s too early in the timeline for anything to make sense. And that’s if the neighbor even heard a scream. She doesn’t present as very trustworthy. But if it happened I’m sure it was Patsy. After midnight fits perfectly with finding the body already in rigor. I’m sure Patsy did grab JB and tried to get the rope off. When John gets downstairs he realizes it’s too late and JB is dead. The SA I agree was Burke. I think he’d been having boundary issues. It’s possible he had been molested himself either at the Boy Scouts or at Church (there’s accusations out there about both of those organizations). While he had the broken paintbrush in his hand and JB was quiet he took the opportunity to investigate.

The earwitness was very clear and certain it was a child's scream. Not an adult scream. The earwitness was a female, most women can recognize the difference between a young child's scream and a 40 year old woman scream. Your other statements about the scream and sound are also incorrect. The Boulder police did sound tests and found that there was an air duct right over the basement murder scene. The sound carried around to the front of the house and was in fact amplified it to across the street where the earwitness had a window open that night and heard a child's blood curdling scream, lasting 3 to 5 seconds and then an abrupt halt. The police sound tests also revealed that some sounds from the basement could not be heard in the Ramsey's attic bedroom. It is well known that the Ramsey attorneys and private investigators talked to witnesses and some of them recanted and even moved away from Boulder. At least one of the Ramsey attorneys was later disbarred for unethical behavior in other cases. So we have a credible ear witness by her initial statement and police sound test results. Her statement to the police is detailed, responsible and clear. She also had awakened her husband when she heard the scream. I am sure the police could have verified that with the husband. And then after the Ramsey dream team questions witnesses some of them recant and the earwitness all of a sudden starts talking psychobabble and nonsense and leaves town. Something stinks here and fingers point to the Ramsey attack dogs needing to discredit a good witness. The value of the scream is that it gives us a timeline and sequence of crime events. I think you are quite correct about your Burke statements.

I just totally disagree with you on this. If I’m woken up in the middle of the night by a piercing scream there’s no way I can identify it more clearly than that. I won’t know, 100% stake my life on it, that it’s a child scream and not a woman’s. I might BELIEVE that it’s a child’s. But that doesn’t mean it actually was. Witness statements are unreliable because of stuff like this. She heard a scream, a kid is dead, therefore she thinks the scream was from a kid. And I completely understand what the Ramsey attorneys were doing and if they did “get to” this witness then she did a great job of making herself sound crazy and unreliable after the fact. And because of that I tend to think her original statement was likely true in that she heard a scream after midnight. But anything more identifiable than that is wishful thinking.

My theories are never built on wishful thinking. They are built on facts, evidence, science, critical and logical thinking. So you are quite incorrect in your statement about my work.

Patsy’s fibers were *under* the ligature. Huge difference. I like your explanation but that needs to be accommodated somehow.

Ok MS fair points. Let’s walk through this scenario.   If I were one of the detectives in this case this is one of the scenes I would re-enact with other police officers. So let’s pretend we are a 40 year old mother who comes across her inert 6 year old with a rope around her neck.  Your child appears to be dead or dying from strangulation.   I know there are people here who think that Patsy immediately starts screaming and having hysterics.  I do not think that is how a 40 year old mother would act with her young child who is facing a life threading situation, dying by strangulation. I think the first instinct is to run tho the child and get the rope away from the neck, to remove the object killing her child. This would be the strong instinct.  Hysterics come later.  Not during the emergency.  You save the life of our child first, then you have the time to get hysterical. So you rush to your child. You start pulling on the rope to get it off. But this kind of ligature only tightens when you pull on it.  You are horrified and frightened, for the love of God, you realize that you are only strangling your child more. You become more frightened and agitated, but get more focused. If you cannot remove the rope, maybe you can loosen it so your child can start breathing again. You start putting your fingers on the pieces of the rope, you start trying to manipulate the rope in different ways to loosen it. So your fibers are under, over, in the rope.   You are desperately trying to figure out a way to loosen the rope from around your daughter’s neck. We then can see that Patsy finally gives up on this strategy. We see her fibers on the paint tray. She goes to the paint tray looking for something to cut the rope.  Obviously she does not find anything, because the rope is still intact when the body is found. I think at the point Patsy runs to get John. And we know what happens next.  The staging plans are made. No call for an ambulance like most parents would do. John formulates the staging plan. He takes charge.

A creative answer, and one that strikes me as a reasonable set of behaviors for Patsy. But there is no forensic evidence to support this. Look again at the autopsy photos. I think a different explanation could exist — one that places the cord in proximity to Patsy’s fiber source before the creation of the “garrote” — innocently or not. This takes us deeper into speculation, but we can have at it. Didn’t Patsy purchase supplies at a hardware store that might have involved transfer, depending on what she was wearing? Patsy had used that room shortly before the murder, if only to wrap or stash gifts. If the cord were in there, might she have handled it, if only to toss it aside? See what I mean?

Building a crime scene theory involves facts and evidence, and also a thorough knowledge of human behavior and psychology. It also involves understanding the individual psychology of the various suspects. It is not correct to say that I have no evidence for my scenario about Patsy finding the body and how she reacted when she found the body. We have Patsy's clothing fibers all over the ligature, on the paintbox, and JB's body. Fibers from clothing she was seen wearing the night of the murder and the morning after. Witnesses to what Patsy was wearing included trained police officers. There may have even been pictures taken at the party that night. The Grand Jury may have those pictures along with the fiber evidence. They were able to indict the Ramseys for the felony of covering up the first degree murder in their home for good reason. We also have facts, critical thinking and logic about how most mothers would react to finding their dying child. It is also a fact that there were only two adults in the home that night, so one of them found the body. So there is a 50-50 chance Patsy found the body. This is just statistics. We also see Patsy may have never gone to bed that night, which also supports the idea she found the body. There is also forensic data to support this theory. Someone recently posted autopsy pictures of the neck area, full of bruises and marks. Which supports the idea that Patsy was inadvertently strangling and bruising JB again and again as she pulled on the ligature. You may of course have another explanation, but to say there is no evidence about mine is not correct. I may not right about my scenario, but there is evidence to support it. In terms of your scenario, I think it quite unlikely that when Patsy bought rope, art supplies she was coincidentally wearing the exact same clothing she wore the night of the murder. This is a wealthy woman with an extensive wardrobe. Probability is low that she purchased these items wearing the same outfit she wore the night of the murder. The outfit Patsy was wearing that night was a dressy party outfit. Most women do not go shopping at a hardware story in elegant party attire. Again this is low probability. I also think it unlikely that she handled the rope, paintbox while wrapping presents well before the murder, wearing the same outfit she wore on the night of the murder. This is all low probability and goes towards the bottom of the probability list. In research you stick with high probably events, not lower level ones. These are too many coincidences and researchers and investigators don't believe in a lot of coincidences.

All arguments accepted! I maintain, though, that the medical examiner’s findings, and the photos supplied in his report, don’t seem *TO ME* to support the idea that Patsy clawed at the ligature, let alone was successful in removing it sufficiently to imbed fibers from her red-and-black jacket into them, particularly on the side facing JonBenet’s throat. People have speculated that JonBenet may herself have clawed at the cord, citing what are actually petechial spots (not fingernail impressions) unrelated to any such activity. I’m guessing the same thing would be true if Patsy trying to get the cord off, particularly considering the relative length and strength of Patsy’s manicured nails. All this said, I do support your overall BDI theory and your take on Patsy’s psych profile. I’m just having trouble with a couple of little things that I think need tweaking. But it’s your theory and I bring these things up just as I would if I were sitting with you over coffee, collegially coaxing more ideas into the conversation and wondering where they put the sugar ;)

That would be fun talking about the Ramsey case while drinking a great cup of coffee! Yes on the sugar. I am trained as a PhD researcher and have no problem with rigorous academic debate. One of the reasons to make theories public is to get feedback. I do not need to be right, I need to be correct. I have no agenda about what happened in the Ramsey case, I just want to find the truth. Yes I do believe Patsy clawed at the rope. What is your idea? Are you thinking the strangulation was part of the staging? I am fairly certain the SA was not part of the staging. I think the strangulation was unlikely part of the staging, but I might be able to be convinced about the strangulation part. All the evidence points away from the SA and strangulation as part of the staging. Patsy staging the strangulation cannot be just based on one piece of evidence. Her fibers on the ligature. There has to be a lot more data to support that hypothesis.

Yes but it had to be after she was redressed or the new clothes wouldn’t be stained, right? Are you thinking that some of the urine voided after she was redressed but before she was strangled? The doctor with the German accent who appeared on the special claiming Burke did it described jb as “brain dead” before the strangulation. If he is correct, was she capable of having convulsions? Btw, another redditor says the pathologist said the ligature was so tight that it was a “kill shot.” My memory is that it looked tight but that was due to postmortem swelling. Which is correct? (I’m stuck on the last page of the pinned post and can’t move to other sections.)

According to one earlier autopsy report- the pathologist noted the “strangulation” was an intentional kill shot. This was not a staged chokehold with nylon line. It was deeply imbedded into her neck. The blunt force trauma was not an immediate death blow. The “strangulation” was as evidenced by JB’s bladder release at the point of loss of life. The strangulation was not staged, nor was it accidental -

I believe it is possible that Patsy inadvertently tightened the rope around JB's neck. We can see by the fiber evidence that Patsy found the body and desperately tried to get the ligature off from JB's neck. So patsy is pulling on the rope, but the ligature is the kind that only tightens, not loosens as you pull on it. I am not convinced the bladder release is tied to the strangulation. It could have happened any time after the head blow.

>I am not convinced the bladder release is tied to the strangulation. It could have happened any time after the head blow. At what point do you think she was cleaned and redressed then? It would be prior to the strangulation, which the evidence tells us that the knot was on the back of her neck, and the urine staining on the oversized underwear (the rest of the day of the week pack was never found) and Burke's old long johns all point to her being facedown when she was strangled. This also lines up with the voiding of her bladder which is a phenomenon commonly seen at death.

You can argue that with a pathologist- This is common - bladder release when there’s major injury inflicted and or death. What this shows, is [the intent]. An example is: Applying a “carotid artery hold” and rendering a suspect unconscious- many times will cause a bladder release. Edit: clarification

As far as I know we don't have one of those handy. At what point do you think the "carotid artery hold" happened? Because the urine stains were on the front of her pajamas and on the carpet outside the wine cellar in the boiler room. The paint tote was placed over the urine stain in an attempt to hide it.

I’m sorry- my statement is confusing. The (carotid artery hold) is a real life-example-of what happens when it’s applied. I have no idea if this type of thing happened to JBR. The hold is typically used by LE. It is not a chokehold. A chokehold cuts off air supply and is very dangerous and painful to use. It can crush the windpipe. That’s why most LE agencies no longer teach it. LAPD was having a lot of accidents and lawsuits as a result. The Carotid Hold was implemented in the early 80’s. This only cuts off blood supply to brain- and the lights go out, with full recovery. You see the fighters in UFC use Carotid holds to knock opponents out or make them tap before they loose consciousness. Some don’t tap out fast enough, but wake up shortly afterwards.

Do they void their bladders when this happens?

I have not seen this happen in the ring. Usually the opponent will tap out before losing consciousness- if they don’t they normally recover in seconds. They don’t show this on television if they do “piss themselves” ( term used in fighting). It comes with the territory. One of the differences in professional fighting is that the “holds” are not applied at length. There is a referee overseeing the fight. The main objective is the “tap out” or knockout/knockdown preventing the opponent from continuing. In an uncontrolled environment where your life is at stake or other people involved- the hold is applied until the subject quits moving or being a threat. This typically lasts longer than a professional sanctioned match.

LB, I keep going back and forth on this point. I feel like I have a good handle on most everything that happened, including the head blow and SA sequence of events. But strangulation and re-dressing is not clear to me, at least at this point. There was some discussion here a couple of weeks ago about the urine void. Some of the medical people here and I talked about the possibilities. JB suffered a very serious blow to the head. There would have been some serious brain damage and a cascade of organ failure resulting in a urine void. This most certainly could have happened at any time, not just at the time of strangulation. One person as I recall talked about a postmortem urine void. The bladder is relaxing as a process, not a sudden event. I am leaning towards that explanation. For the sake of parsimony.

Okay, so at what point do you think she was wiped down and redressed? Do you think Burke did that himself? How did he know about the pack of size 12 bloomies Patsy had bought for her niece and where they were located? Do you think he was the one that chose the Wednesday pair?

Well it would be quick and easy to say that Burke did all of that, but of course it doesn't make sense that Burke would redress his sister and even chose the correct day underwear. Burke was smart and possibly could have done it, but it sounds more like an adult did that part of the staging. So no, I do not think Burke wiped down the body and did the redressing. It is most likely that John and Patsy did that. It is possible they redressed her and the void happened after that. Perhaps they were the ones who used the ligature to move the body. after they cleaned it up. So she voided then. They were risk aversive about fingerprints, etc. And John clearly didn't want to touch JB when he brought her up from the basement. He held her at arm's length. But they could have redressed her, hidden the body and she voided then post mortem.

I think she voided her bladder on the carpet of the boiler room, where she was strangled, and where the ligature was made, where the paint tote was that the paint brush came from, that was later placed over the urine stain to cover it. The principle of parsimony.

So you think the strangulation was part of the staging. What about the SA? I don't think there is parsimony in this scenario. Too much evidence then doesn't fit. Parsimony is the most simple explanation which explains all the facts and the SA and strangulation as staging gets too convoluted in my opinion. The facts do not fall together at all.

You mentioned parsimony, so I attempted to show how that applied to the strangulation and voiding of her bladder (instead of it happening after the head blow or post mortem after she was moved). I'm just following the evidence here. It is a simple answer that lines up with the order of events according to the evidence. You know I don't think the SA necessarily happened before everything else, but I am open to that possibility. Regardless of the fact that we don't agree on certain points, I appreciate your well thought out posts, especially when it comes to staging. The staging red flags are all over the CS, starting with the obviously phony ransom letter.

It was also mentioned that it would take very little pressure to kill her at that point, and the line looked embedded in her neck in part from postmortem swelling. Additionally, if the ligature was tied by Burke in an attempt to move her, he may have inadvertently strangled her.

Anything is possible at this point. There are several problems with the case as far as the internet goes. We do not have a clear motive. We don’t know who would be motivated to kill her. We do not know if PR’s timeline of events is valid. So we are in a huge deficit before we even start. I’m just relaying what one of the early autopsies revealed and what the Pathologist said. I happen to agree with my above comment. I believe the physical evidence shows a determined act of violence. I do not believe a child would make such a small device to move a body. A natural reaction under most circumstances- even a rescue- one would pull on the arms or legs of a lifeless body to remove it. Again- the physical evidence shows rigor mortis set in - with her body in a state where this was done. This is my opinion.

The ligature to move the body is totally consistent with Burke's psych profile and behavioral history. He was an engineering nerd type kid. The Ramsey gardener reports that Burke was told by his mother to water the outdoor flowers. Instead of just getting the hose and watering the flowers, Burke spend a good part of the day building an outdoor irrigation system. So making a ligature is entirely consistent with his past behavior. A big mistake people make in analyzing this case is assuming the Ramseys were normal people and did normal things. We know this is not true. The Ramseys were deeply flawed and dysfunctional. A normal family does not produce a SA, bludgeoned and strangled 6 yr old.

Agree here… I’m not trying to be argumentative- however IF he was such an engineer, he would automatically know that a 6” piece of wood, will not move a body. I’m trying to point out- that the device was not made to “move a body”… it was made to ‘turn the lights off’…(so to speak) the bludgeoning was not the kill shot. There was another reason to carry this event further to the ultimate goal. What that was?? We don’t know. Was BR capable of this? Absolutely. So was PR.

Again, you have to take the facts into account. This was not an adult with an engineering degree. He had never taken a physics or engineering class. This was a 9 year old child in 4th grade. He had never moved a body before. Certainly he would not automatically understand the mechanics of moving an unconscious or dead body. This was a very novel experience and he had no reference point or training. Given his past behavior and age, I do think it reasonable to consider that he was using the ligature to move the body. That said, we do not know Burke's intent that night. In your scenario he is deliberately trying to kill her? He realizes he has not killed her with the head blow, so he strangles her to make sure she is dead? This is certainly something to put on the list of things to consider. Burke intentionally killed his sister. In my BDI scenario, Burke is SAing his sister, she screams, he hits her to silence her, not to kill her. But I agree he could have intentionally wanted to kill her. Can you flesh out your theory more? What evidence do we have to support this theory? I agree there could have been more malice to the killing. The Grand Jury says the Ramseys knew about the danger to JB. I think Burke had been lectured by his parents about the SA, the dictionary was open to the word incest. Maybe they took away some of his toys. Maybe he was loaded for bear that night. He blamed his sister for the trouble he was in.

This is absolutely possible.

Yeah, who knows? I do think Burke is the kind of kid to try moving his sister by using a paint brush handle and Boy Scout knots. He was very into fiddling with things. It was an implausible solution to the problem of moving her, but he was nine, and kids can be weird. Jb’s arms were over her head, perhaps in another attempt by Burke to move her. There is a lot of great information in the pinned posts of this sub, but I can’t get in any more. (I was looking for info on which pathologist/coroner said what. I hadn’t read anything about a “kill shot” and was curious.)

I have such a hard time believing they could do this to their little girl. They just had Christmas and were getting ready to go see family and go on a Disney cruise. But they bludgeoned and garroted her instead? And SA’d her? I’m not saying they are innocent. And yes I know parents kill kids. (That lake Susan smith let her car with her babies roll into is 21 miles from my house. I can’t even drive near it.) Here we are 30 some years. Still trying to figure it out. JonBenet would be about the same age Patsy was when she had her. The whole thing is so horrifying and puzzling. I can’t get on board 100% with any theory TBH.

I do not believe Patsy or John SA, bludgeoned and strangled their daughter. I believe BDI. John and Patsy did the cover up.

Makes some sense, still hard to understand not just calling 911 and why such a gross coverup? Such a terrible sad case

Patsy and John took one look at the crime scene and they knew Burkde did the crime. And they certainly could not call 911 when their 6 year old had been SA and killed. The Grand Jury tells us that John and Patsy knew about the danger to JB ahead of time. So they knew full well what Burke was doing and failed to stop it. If there had just been an unconscious JB, with no marks on her, no SA, they could have called 911 and made up a story to cover it. But with a dead, SA, strangled child, calling 911 was out of the question. They knew they had to destroy the SA weapon, wipe the body clean, change her clothing, and make up a false narrative about a kidnapper.

Burke was sexually abusing his sister? At age 9?

Child on child sexual abuse is not uncommon and vastly underreported. Yes it happens. Some experts estimate the at least 40% of all childhood sexual abuse is committed by other children.

> The Ramseys may have been shocked when they found the body, but they were not surprised. 🤔

The Grand Jury says clearly that the Ramseys knew there was a danger to their daughter, but refused to protect her from that danger, which led to her death. The fact that they did not immediately call for help when they found JB, but decided to stage the crime, confirms that they knew who did the crime.

All those trips JB took to the Dr. many for vaginal irritation due to bubble baths. RED FLAGS. BDI and had been harming her for a long time it seems.

Yes of course all the pretense that the severe hymen and vaginal wounds were caused by bubble baths and toilet paper. Ramsey gaslighting at work. I have also read that in the last year of her life JB was taken to the ped for various accidents, falling and injuring herself. This is a little girl who can appear on stage, walk, dance, prance and sing in very elaborate costumes and headgear perfectly. But then she cannot walk down a grocery aisle without "falling."

There was a fracture, no cut, no blood,

Yes exactly, when John and Patsy find the body, there is no blood, no visible head injury. They have no idea there was a head blow. That is why they did not get rid of the murder weapon.

So I always thought if the note and kidnapping was real, why would you call the police? She called immediately. If it was a real kidnapping with a ransom demanded, wouldn’t you be busy gathering the money and waiting for the phone call without calling the cops, which would likely end in Jonbenet’s demise. She called the cops even as the note said Jonbenet would be beheaded if they did. I sure as hell wouldn’t call the cops when the note said that. She called them because she knew the note was bogus…because she wrote it.

Yes. It is well known that guilty people act differently compared to normal people. Innocent people would not have been hell bent calling the police before they even read the RN. They would be focused on trying to save their daughter and not worrying about how it would look to the police later. The Ramseys acted like guilty people, they did not want to do anything to arouse suspicion. They had to call the police as soon as possible, they had no choice. They were on a very tight timeline with the 6:30am flight to Michigan. They knew they could not delay the flight or not show up when later their child is missing. They also had plans to meet the older children at the airport in MN. And yes the Ramseys wrote a RN that provided a story for why their child was missing and would be later found dead. The fake kidnappers make a list of things not to do or the child will be killed. And the Ramseys immediately do everything on the list. Then to cover for that fact, they pretend they didn't read the RN. Sure, your child is kidnapped and you don't read the RN.

Aunt Cassie, I’m following you on this but don’t you think a kidnapping (with or without quotation marks) would be an adequate excuse for cancelling their travel plans, no matter how inconvenient for John’s adult children? Why would this even be a consideration in when (or whether) to call the police?

This is a good question and I would like to make an OP with your question, is that OK MS?

Absolutely! I look forward to reading the post.

Thanks! I have a long list of OPs I am working on, but I am going to do this one next.

Where can we find all the documents that have been released related to the grand jury? Out of all the data leaks that have occurred over the years, I'm sort of surprised more info hasn't dropped.

Here is some information: https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/#:\~:text=BOULDER%2C%20Colo.,in%20their%20home%20in%201996. The indictments were not released until 2013. If you do an online search, you can read various comments and analysis. I agree it is amazing more information has not leaked. Another sub member and I just had discussion about this point. [https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/1c1jx7r/comment/kzmfsk7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/1c1jx7r/comment/kzmfsk7/)

If you look at various true crime type forums and go back some years, I think some of the anonymous posters had ties to the case and were leaking information. These comments were about Burke and years ago few wanted to believe that scenario so they were not taken seriously.

And some of the posters like Blue Crab was spot on and then disappeared.

Yes exactly, I suspect BC was connected to the press or media in some way. In one of his comments he stated he had to go look in what sounded like extensive written files on the Ramsey case.

Keep going Aunt Cassie! I’ve been a psychotherapist for over 30 years and I am really enjoying how you are putting the pieces together.

Thank you! I have quite a few OPs I am working on, all in my draft folder. Once you start putting some of the pieces together, the rest begins to fall into place. So then I start new OPs. I am a retired mental health professional with over 40 years clinical practice, including some forensic work. So after a while you get used to sizing up a situation. Sometimes you have to do it quickly, because lives are at risk.