• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

This is what I posted on topix forum about the JonBenet Ramsey case in 2009 and I stand by this now:

I think JonBenet's murderer came from the inner circle. It wasn't a Ramsey or a Stine or somebody who was out of state at the time, or a vagrant who hardly knew the Ramseys. It was an 'inside job' as John Ramsey once remarked.

It might have been Fleet White and one of his accomplices. I could never comprehend why the Boulder cops always were and probably still are only fixated on the Ramseys.

In my opinion, either the Boulder cops haven't a clue how to solve a difficult murder and develop leads and suspects or one or two of them were involved in the murder themselves in order to make money by writing Ramsey case books and leaking confidential information to the media. All supported by the FBI and Justice Department.

Any half-suspicion about a pedophile ring in the JonBenet murder was, and still is, ignored by the Boulder cops for no good reason.
Click to expand...
 
This is odd and suspicious.

In theory there should have been no visitors to the crime scene at all and both John and Fleet should have had a police escort at all times in the house.

This is what was written about the matter in the Schiller PMPT book:

"A strip of black “duct” tape, estimated to be about 5” in length, was found covering the child’s mouth by the father when he discovered JonBenet’s body in the windowless room. In the ensuing frantic moments, he removed the tape and laid it aside on top of the white blanket. Shortly thereafter, Fleet White returned to the windowless room, where he also picked up the tape, felt the adhesive side noting that it felt sticky, and laid it back down on the white blanket (PMPT, p.18, 21, PB, Schiller)."
 
Patsy called a whole bunch of people and asked them to come right over. While the Boulder PD failed to keep the scene contained, all those adults should have known better then to wander around the house.
 
Last edited:
One aspect of this case that I have wondered about is the garrote. It seems very unlikely that a 9 year old boy would have familiarity with this kind of weapon and I suspect many adults don't even know what it is.

I looked at some pictures of the garrote here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm

It certainly looks like it was made by an adult and I would guess an adult male based on the notion that I would expect many more males would be familiar with this kind of weapon than females and that most violent crime is committed by males.

After reading through much of this thread, I have about the same view as before I did this reading: I lean a bit to the idea that it was an intruder. The garrote seems to support the intruder theory a bit. Of course, it doesn't rule out any of the Ramseys, but it certainly would be very strange for anybody in the house to have made it and used it. But it doesn't rule out one proposed scenario that the boy killed Jon Benet and his father attempted a cover up by creating the garrote. Supposedly Jon Benet was alive when she was garotted and it seems wildly unlikely that either the father or mother killed Jon Benet while she was alive to me.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
One aspect of this case that I have wondered about is the garrote. It seems very unlikely that a 9 year old boy would have familiarity with this kind of weapon and I suspect many adults don't even know what it is.

I looked at some pictures of the garrote here: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm

It certainly looks like it was made by an adult and I would guess an adult male based on the notion that I would expect many more males would be familiar with this kind of weapon than females and that most violent crime is committed by males.

After reading through much of this thread, I have about the same view as before I did this reading: I lean a bit to the idea that it was an intruder. The garrote seems to support the intruder theory a bit. Of course, it doesn't rule out any of the Ramseys, but it certainly would be very strange for anybody in the house to have made it and used it. But it doesn't rule out one proposed scenario that the boy killed Jon Benet and his father attempted a cover up by creating the garrote. Supposedly Jon Benet was alive when she was garotted and it seems wildly unlikely that either the father or mother killed Jon Benet while she was alive to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a couple of key pieces of evidence from being solved. If there was credible evidence of prior abuse of Jonbenet and Patsy didn't claim to help clean up the broken basement window glass months prior we could safely conclude John Ramsey killed his daughter. If we had a stronger DNA sample we could safely conclude an intruder. I'm 50/50 between the two. Don't really buy the kind/mom angle. Doesn't look solvable at this point.
 
DNA under the fingernails might be "Bob's"

I have written a few comments in the thread about a possible intruder; some are titled with a variation of "what about bob?" The presence of fingernail DNA is suggestive of an intruder.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I have written a few comments in the thread about a possible intruder; some are titled with a variation of "what about bob?" The presence of fingernail DNA is suggestive of an intruder.
Click to expand...

I read through many of your posts with particular interest. I had heard that the evidence proved the intruder theory. But it doesn't seem to measure up to that. My take away was that there were several touch DNA samples that didn't match each other. The most significant result perhaps was the DNA from the blood sample on JBR's panties. But was that the blood of a theoretical intruder or was it the blood of Jon Benet? If it was the blood of Jon Benet an incidental deposition of DNA seems plausible, there just happened to be some blood there.

FWIW, as I've thought about the case since I made my last post my opinion has changed to leaning towards the possibility that it was a family member. It is an annoying situation where it seems like there is a lot of relevant evidence so that it seems like at least a good guess one way or the other should be supported, but based on what I know of the evidence that doesn't seem to be true.

Several people in this thread expressed strong opinions one way or the other. Maybe if I understood the case as well as they do I would share their opinion.

ETA: Sample of one test of my theory that most women wouldn't know what a garrote was: My wife didn't know what a garrote was.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Several people in this thread expressed strong opinions one way or the other. Maybe if I understood the case as well as they do I would share their opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't know about people in this thread, but the people over at solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com believe John Ramsey is guilty so strongly because they believe the evidence of prior sexual abuse against Jonbenet is significant and credible. So we can at least see where the strong opinion stems from there. But the evidence of prior abuse seems ambiguous at best, which is consistent with the prosecutor's decision to not charge the family after the GJ indictments.
 
If there was any prior sexual abuse, and there are grave doubts about that, then there is not a shred of evidence that it was caused by any Ramsey. Burke Ramsey is innocent and CBS must be made to pay for their libel against the Ramseys.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that the Ramsey case psychiatrist Dr Pitt has been recently murdered. It may be it is connected to JonBenet, and that he knew too much about the case. There is a fair and just article about the JonBenet on the internet, which does not, however, mention the prime suspect Fleet White, but does mention his possible accomplices:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...s/news-story/c921605802d5086911a1a34780225a4d

In a recent interview, 29-year-old Burke denied that he harmed his sister, and said he suspected a paedophile who stalked child beauty pageants was the killer. He also denounced the CBS documentary theorising he killed his sister as a “false and unprofessional television attack” that is riddled with “lies, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions.”
The new program suggests a third possibility. What if someone familiar with the family, who had access to the house, committed this heinous crime?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
There is an interesting website, which makes a change from the usual 'Burke did it' crap theories at:

https://www.inquisitr.com/4314668/j...ng-responsible-killer-protected-by-plea-deal/

“Her killer may have protected himself from prosecution by going to jail!” a source told the outlet. “At least one Ramsey investigator had this man’s name on his suspect list.”

The unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey has been garnering some national attention in recent months, thanks in part to documentaries from CBS and A&E on her murder and the subsequent investigation. These came under criticism, with Rolling Stone noting that they offered no new evidence but instead relied on new interpretations of details that have been public for nearly two decades.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There is a fair and just article about the JonBenet Ramsey case and the CBS case with regard to Burke at:

http://www.thefederalist.com/2016/09/20/cbss-jonbenet-ramsey-documentary-was-complete-garbage/

It went on and on like this. Really, “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey” allowed experts to rehash old evidence and offer a theory that was no more informed than one made by anyone who could use Google. The only thing the series proves is that JonBenét will never have her justice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
for what it's worth

The article is fair to Burke, but it is unfair to the Ramseys. "Longtime Ramsey reporter Paula Woodward stresses in A&E's Killing of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered that 'no handwriting expert has ever concluded that Patsy wrote the [ransom] notes.'" Link.
 
Deposition on discrete dissemination of disinformation

A Romper article quoted attorney L. Lin Wood as follows: "However, I acknowledge that the conclusion by District Attorney Lacy is difficult for many uninformed viewers to accept as the media with the active assistance of the Boulder Police Department disseminated lies about the family and the evidence for many years in a calculated public relations plan to apply pressure to John and Patsy. That plan was undertaken at the suggestion of the FBI and I confirmed that involvement and the existence of the plan as undisputed fact when I deposed former District Attorney Alex Hunter in past litigation related to the investigation."
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
I was unaware the being rich or mot being rich would constitute exculpatory or inculpatory evidence.
Click to expand...

The point is that the American media have always portrayed Fleet White as a quite wealthy oil tycoon, rather than him being involved in child prostitution. That is patently untrue like all this crap from CBS that Burke was supposed to have done it, or the ridiculous Fleet White theory without facts that JonBenet could have fallen down the spiral staircase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom