Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

At the time of the incident, they in fact did not ( they do now) but thats not the point.

Many departments dont have their own K9 units indigenous but there are always a department close by that does and the state does. Its common practice to borrow them and doesnt take long to get them there.

At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping. Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit. They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated. How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper?
 
At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping. Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit. They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated. How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper?

>>>At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping.

Note or no note- procedure 1 is a search for the vic- house and grounds

>>>Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit.

You have no clue as to how an investigation actually works do you?

>>>They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

Rule # 1 in Law Enforcement- You never know what to expect- follow the procedures

>>>On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated.

I know, I've run them a many a time

>>>How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper

The same way they do everywhere else. They are given a sample ( preferably recently worn clothes, shoes or a hairbrush) and get the scent of the body and skin cells and off they go.
 
Thats all well and good and whatever. I have in my "mind" actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with missing children reports. I've never seen one that wasnt climbing the wall.

Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes. You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.

The call allegedly went in around 5:30 and the body was discovered at approximately ONE PM. Thats SEVEN and ONE HALF HOURS.

Now you want me to believe that a family with a ransom note AND a missing daughter ( she was already dead thus she wasnt there for breakfast, play with the Christmas toys or even got out of bed) didnt prompt a MOTHER, FATHER and BROTHER to at least "wonder" where JB is and not at least go to her bedroom and see she wasnt there then look thru the house? ( not to mention the law enforcement first responders but thats another story because maybe there was a zillion to 1 chance the entire family was in shock or silly- there is no excuse for trained LEO's not to have)

That conduct is beyond all reason.

They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -- and called the police. The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the house (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive.
 
Last edited:
Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes. You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.



They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -- and called the police. The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the crime scene (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive.

You need to stick with whatever it is you do and leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals

>>>Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes.

good- then you know exactly what I'm saying

>>>You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

Thats correct but I've been there for several missing ( basically the same thing)

>>>When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

you were there?

>>>My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.

Stay on point and dont deviate from the main point. I dont know or care her mental state at incident zero- logic, common sense and normal care and concern would predicate looking for a child.

>>>They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -

And a ransom note is always 100% trustworthy? LOL

>>>The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the crime scene (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yeah i know- but thats a subject for another thread.

>>>Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive

I never said it wasnt- go back and read carefully this time
 
You need to stick with whatever it is you do and leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals

It's probably best not to make assumptions about what complete strangers have or haven't done for work. In any event, here is exactly your problem: we're not talking about law enforcement professionals. We're talking about an average family who had a child kidnapped, and how they reacted to it.

good- then you know exactly what I'm saying

If you're saying that her reaction was generally reasonable, then yes, I agree.

you were there?

It was one of the most reported on crimes in the past century. Of course, you admitted you haven't been at any kidnappings, so your analysis is therefore equally unfounded, if not more so (at least the Lindbergh kindapping account was a first-hand account of what occurred at a kidnapping).

I respect that you have experience with parents whose children are missing. But the presence of a ransom note is the exact difference that could make a parent react differently. If your child is missing and you have no idea where he/she is, then yes, you are probably going to search anywhere and everywhere. If your child is missing and you have a note that tells you where he/she is, there's a good chance you may not search the entire house right away.

Stay on point and dont deviate from the main point. I dont know or care her mental state at incident zero- logic, common sense and normal care and concern would predicate looking for a child.

Firstly, you brought up mental state, noting that you'd never seen a parent not "up the wall." So don't bring up subjects if you don't want to talk about them.

Secondly, by all accounts she did look for the child, where the child was supposed to be -- in her room. When you have a combination of a ransom note and a missing child, "logic, common sense, and normal care" would predicate calling the police, which is what she did.

Of course, it's also odd that you on the one hand expect the mother to be "up the wall" and on the other hand expect her to behave consistent with "logic, common sense, and normal care." (From what I read, she was shocked but kept it together enough to stay calm and call the police).

And a ransom note is always 100% trustworthy? LOL

To someone who has never dealt with criminals before, yes. I don't think most average parents, however, would automatically think, "Well, my daughter is missing from her room. There's a ransom note here that says she was kidnapped.... but maybe, she's really dead in the basement!"

I never said it wasnt- go back and read carefully this time

No clue what your point is then. So what she did was reasonable. What are you arguing about?
 
Last edited:
Who killed her?

Mommy did it? Daddy? A stranger?

Ideas...
Moved from "education" to a more correct forum. It may eventually wind up in "conspiracy theories" depending on how this goes.
Posted By: Tricky
I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.
 
>>>How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper

The same way they do everywhere else. They are given a sample ( preferably recently worn clothes, shoes or a hairbrush) and get the scent of the body and skin cells and off they go.

Works fine for a kid who wanders away into the woods on their own two feet. In this case, you are starting from a the victims house. She lived here, played in the yard and quite likely took walks around the neighborhood with her parents. All of which would leave a much better scent trail than a child being carried.
 
Works fine for a kid who wanders away into the woods on their own two feet. In this case, you are starting from a the victims house. She lived here, played in the yard and quite likely took walks around the neighborhood with her parents. All of which would leave a much better scent trail than a child being carried.

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles
 
I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.

I tend to agree but dont let the DNA fool you. DNA under nails isnt proof positive it came from the perp. It could have come from anywhere.
 
I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.

Did you see any evidence backing up the claims that they were involved in child porn?

If not, what justification do you have for believing such a rumor is true?
 
I will say whatever the R's did or didn't do they worked hard to be unhelpful in any way.

How helpful do you think their lawyers should have advised them to be after several days complete and open cooperation - while in a state of shock - and then finding that all the police wanted to do was implicate them?
 
How helpful do you think their lawyers should have advised them to be after several days complete and open cooperation - while in a state of shock - and then finding that all the police wanted to do was implicate them?

Their lawyers would have advised them to cooperate regardless. ( reminds me of a case I did have a hand in for one of the defense that involved a Lax team in NC where the DA was clearly out to frame them along with LE)

There are a lot of good reasons for the parents to be prime suspects in this case.

That doesnt excuse the shoddy investigation under any circumstance
 
I'm not a fan of the whole "how they should have reacted" stuff because it seems like sometimes it is given too much weight while other times I find the reaction well within reason, but I certainly appreciate that it's a factor that should be considered. That aside, I would be wondering how the person got into my house and then got my daughter out of the house. I'd be looking at every possible entrance/exit. I'd also be looking for signs that she may have been injured.

Then again, the police arrived within 7 minutes. I can certainly see them being in shock for that long and waiting on the police. Do we know for a fact that the Ramseys didn't run around the house checking windows and exit doors during that time? JB was found in a room in the basement. If there was no window in that room, would they automatically check it anyway? Maybe, but if your focus is on "how did they get in and out?" I can see skipping areas that don't lead outside.

Once the police arrived, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to defer to their expertise, however misplaced it turned out to be. If the police mindset was, "She's missing and we're waiting to hear from kidnappers" would parents counter with, "Hey, lets go check every nook and cranny of the house to see if we can find her corpse!"
IIRC that is how the body was found. After the police arrived and they had waited to hear from the kidnapper, John Ramsey and a friend started searching the house. None of the police who were present went with them, for some unexplained reason. After they found JonBennet, John untied her and carried the body upstairs. IMO if the police had conducted a search of the house, that evidence wouldn't have been comprimised as badly as it was.
 
( reminds me of a case I did have a hand in for one of the defense that involved a Lax team in NC where the DA was clearly out to frame them along with LE)

Was that where also the Dru team in HY tried to frame the JS along with SH?

I appreciate that you're probably a professional, but most of us are not. Could you please remember that most here are civilians and many don't have English as their first language? I'm sure you have an insight into things most here don't, but for me most of it is lost in your 'shop talk'. I hope you don't talk like that in real life.
 
Did you see any evidence backing up the claims that they were involved in child porn?

If not, what justification do you have for believing such a rumor is true?
back when this story first came out the police suspected the ramseys were part of a child porn ring using the childrens beauty pageant as a front but time has passed and no evidence for this has turned up. To appearances the ramseys are innocent of any wrong doing.
 
Which makes a lot of good reasons for their lawyers to advise them only to speak to anyone - including LE, through them (the lawyers).
Agreed.

Well,( not to split hairs but you raise a good point in 2 directions) you first referenced cooperation now speaking.

My advice to EVERYONE who is accused of a crime is to SAY NOTHING and let your lawyer do ALL the talking. ( thats what his job is and what you pay him for) Its not a sign of guilt- its a protected RIGHT- USE IT!!!

Now, that said, "cooperation" takes several forms- run everything thru the attorney.

Its completely normal to view the immediate family as suspects in a variety of cases.

In this case- there are a lot of flags that would cause them to be suspect. ( personally, I still havent totally ruled them out as accessories)

It all goes back to the botched investigation- we will never know what evidence was destroyed that could have solved this case
 
IIRC that is how the body was found. After the police arrived and they had waited to hear from the kidnapper, John Ramsey and a friend started searching the house. None of the police who were present went with them, for some unexplained reason. After they found JonBennet, John untied her and carried the body upstairs. IMO if the police had conducted a search of the house, that evidence wouldn't have been comprimised as badly as it was.

Thats basically the version I remember.

Why did JR search the house if they "believed" the note and she wasnt there but kidnapped?

Why the police didnt search it? ( thats its own separate issue)

Then, when found- why the hell did he disturb the scene? ( he doesnt have to be a detective- watching 1 episode of any TV show would tell you that)
 
Then, when found- why the hell did he disturb the scene? ( he doesnt have to be a detective- watching 1 episode of any TV show would tell you that)

You're seriously asking this? He "disturbed" the scene because he isn't a cop, he was a father who just found the dead body of his 6 year-old daughter. He tore the duct tape off her face to check if she was still alive. Then he took the dead body of his daughter out of the dirty basement where it was lying.

I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order.
 

Back
Top Bottom