It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The JonBenet Ramsey case

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 01:49 AM

this just amazes me, i guess the police department is out searching for the real killers like O.J. Simpson?

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 02:46 AM
There is no doubt that the Christmas-time murder of the 6-year old JonBent Ramsey was indeed a dreadful event.
And awash with conspiracy and cover-ups, incest, religious mania, Aryan supremacy, psychics and every nut on the tree.
And a reminder that the media 6 tears ago were little worse than they are to-day.
If I may, however, hippie-D, I'd suggest that you begin a thread with perhaps a slightly more transparent title and perhaps accompany a mere link with a hint of what it's about and why it's a "conspiracy" issue. Not every poster's memory is as long as Old Estragon's.
It's a deep and rich mine of conspiratorial speculation and deserves some illumination:
"Still unsolved after 6 years-Why? JonBent..." and, " with the pace of to-day's media appalling events are swiftly forgotten. Refresh your memories about this case: a Black Christmas in America.. at www...." etc. blah..yawn.
With so many dull and drivel-rich threads presently about, it's a shame to waste a potentially fruitful one.
As I say -merely a respectful suggestion and feel free to think otherwise.

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 02:19 PM

If this turns into a discussion about the media hype (& quick toss onto the back-burner afterwards) & the possible conspiracies involved, then this thread would do well in this topic...

If it turns out to be a discussion of the the people themselves who were involved in the case, wouldn't it go better in the People topic?

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 10:40 PM
Sound point, Midnight-D: it's an excellent candidate for political scandalism and for "Religion".

posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 11:45 PM
...I wasn't aware of any religious tie-ins to that case...But then again, I never followed it closely anyway. The most information I've actually seen concerning that case was the headlines, not the content of info that followed it.

...Whatever the actual *truth* was, I never researched or contemplated the events.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 12:57 PM
The first images of JonBenet Ramsey that were broadcast to the world showed a pretty little girl in heavy make-up and flamboyant costumes parading across a stage. At the time, the media described her as being "a painted baby, a sexualized toddler beauty queen."

From the day in 1996, when JonBenet was found dead in the basement of her home in Boulder Colorado, the Boulder police and a large proportion of the world's media believed that her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were responsible for her death.

According to the Ramsey's testimony, they drove home the few blocks from a party at a friend's house on Christmas night. JonBenet had fallen asleep in the car so they carried her up the stairs to her room and put her to bed at 9:30 p. m. Shortly after, Patsy and John went to bed as they planned to get up early to prepare for a trip to their holiday home on Lake Michigan.

The next day, Patsy woke just after 5: 0 am and walked down the stairs to the kitchen. At the foot of the staircase, she found a two-and-a-half page ransom note that said that JonBenet had been kidnapped by a "small local faction" and was being held for a ransom of $118,000. She was to be exchanged for the money later the same day. The letter warned that if the money was not delivered, the child would be beheaded. Patsy yelled to John as she ran back up the stairs and opened the door to JonBenet's room. Finding she wasn't there they made the decision to phone the police. The 911 dispatcher recorded Patsy's call at 5:25 am. The police arrived at the house seven minutes later.

The uniformed police officers that attended were openly suspicious from the start. The Ramseys, treating the demand seriously, were already taking steps to raise the ransom. The note said that the kidnappers would call John Ramsey between 8-10 am but no call came. It was while the police were waiting for the call that they made several critical mistakes. They did not conduct a proper search of the house, the area was not sealed off and friends were allowed to walk in and out at their leisure. No moves were made to protect any forensic evidence. The scale of their mistakes became apparent later that afternoon when a detective asked Fleet White, a friend of the Ramseys, to take John and search the house for "anything unusual." They started in the basement. Later, during the documentary Who Killed JonBenet?, made by Channel Four in London, John Ramsey describes what they found: -

"As I was walking through the basement, I opened the door to a room and knew immediately that I'd found her because there was a white blanket - her eyes were closed, I feared the worse but yet - I'd found her."

While the Ramseys went to stay with friends, their home became a major crime scene. Being the only murder in Boulder that year, the investigating police had little experience in that type of crime, with very few of them having conducted a murder investigation at all. Regardless, they immediately assumed the Ramseys were guilty. The fact that JonBenet had been found in her own home by her father was considered highly suspicious. By the time her body had been taken from the house that evening, some of their suspicions had been passed to a local journalist.

On December 27, the Rocky Mountain News quoted an Assistant District Attorney as saying, "It was very unusual for a kidnap victim's body to be found at home - it's not adding up." According to Charlie Brennan, the journalist who wrote the story, the police had also indicated to him that they held a strong belief that the parents were responsible. Julie Hayden, a television reporter for Denver's Channel 7, also covered the story on the same day and drew the same conclusion. She later explained that from her first exposure to the case, the police had made it very clear that they were not scouring the area looking for "some mad kidnapper" but instead, concentrating their efforts on John and Patsy Ramsey.

From that day on, a clear pattern emerged in the coverage of the case. While police chief, Tom Koby, made little comment, reporters had their own sources, which tended to implicate the Ramseys. At that point, John and Patsy were placed under police protection but were largely unaware of the mounting suspicion against them. One man, however, saw the early warning signs and acted. Mike Bynum, a lawyer friend of John's hired Brian Morgan to act as their personal council. In the same documentary he defended his appointment, stating: -

"It is foolish to blindly throw oneself into the maw of the justice system and to trust the result. One simply must be thoughtful about the way one acts, especially in a case of media attention that reaches the point of near hysteria and especially in a case of media attention which, from the outset, portrays certain people as clearly guilty."

He also defended the need for legal representation: -

"If you're guilty, you want to think about having a lawyer, and I want to tell you what, if you're innocent you better have a lawyer - there is no difference."

(14) more pages of evidence here.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 10:38 PM
News from October 2001 to February 5, 2003

Patsy and John Ramsey (AP)

Investigative analysis, retired detective Lou Smit presented his evidence on why he believed that JonBenet was killed by an intruder.

Smit had a number of key points to make:

The Ramseys are loving parents with no motive for killing their child and no history of criminal or abusive behavior.
Lovely JonBenet was a "pedophile's dream." Her visibility in the community made her a target. Likewise, the Ramsey's wealth and visibility made them potential targets of a kidnapper.
Three suspicious events point to an intruder: unknown vehicles parked outside the Ramsey home near the time of the crime; JonBenet's comment to people that she was going to get a "special visit from Santa," even though Patsy never heard JonBenet say anything about a visit from Santa.
Police statements about there being no footprints in the snow were misleading as there was no snow around most of the perimeter of the house.
The open basement window, movement of the window well grate and the presence of leaves and debris in the basement below the open window and a number of other clues point to the window being the entry point for the intruder.
Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the wine cellar where JonBenet's body was discovered.

Train room with the suitcase by the window (police evidence)

The suitcase below the open window, which was moved there by someone other than the Ramseys, appeared to be the way an intruder boosted himself up to the open window to exit the house.
Many hairs and fibers connected to the crime do not belong to the Ramseys or any other family member.

Stun gun marks on the body

Stun gun marks on the body.

Marks on JonBenet's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun which would have kept her quiet while she was removed from her bedroom.
Fresh unidentified footprints which were visible in the mold on the wine cellar floor did not belong to any family member.
Tests showed that a scream reported by a neighbor could have come from the basement without the Ramseys hearing it.

The garrotte (police evidence)

The expertly constructed garrote used on JonBenet indicates an experienced sexual sadist.
JonBenet's vicious injuries occurred before her death and were not part of some post-mortem staging.
Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties.
The ransom note was written before JonBenet's killer by a brutal, calm and deliberate person.
Experts concluded that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note and it cannot be concluded that Patsy did.

On November 19, 2002, The Rocky Mountain News reported the unknown male DNA recovered from JonBenet's panties could have been left on the garment at the time the clothing was manufactured. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured in the plant in Southeast Asia, tested them and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.

At the end of 2002, the Boulder Police Department announced that it will no longer investigate the case, despite new leads and new information. The Boulder investigators have transferred the investigation to the district attorney's office.

The Denver Post wrote on January 8, 2003, that the Ramseys settled their defamation suit against the New York Post. Terms were not disclosed, but the Ramseys had sought $4 million in damages against the paper.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 10:39 PM
Who Did It?

The next question to be answered is, if the Ramseys didn't do it, who did? There are two main theories. The first is that JonBenet was murdered by an unknown assailant who entered the house, presumably via the basement window. JonBenet was found lying in the middle of the basement floor wrapped in a blanket. She had duct tape across her mouth. She lay with her arms above her head and a white cord was wrapped tightly around her neck. The same cord was tied loosely to her wrists. The broken handle of a paintbrush, measuring approximately 4.5 inches in length, had been looped into the cord to form a garrote.

"Garrote" (POLICE)

The evidence suggests that either someone took the girl from her bedroom by force, or lured her to the kitchen with the promise of food, which would explain the undigested remnants of pineapple found in her stomach at the time of her death. She was then taken to the basement, had tape placed over her mouth and bound with the nylon cord. She was then sexually assaulted after which she was strangled with the garrote and bashed about the head. The killer or killers then wrote out a two and a half page "ransom" note on a pad from the house demanding $118,000 and left it at the foot of the staircase.

If this theory is correct, then the killer would have to be someone who:

is familiar with the layout of the house.
knows the Ramseys personally enough to know that John Ramsey received a bonus of $118,000.
is small enough to have gained entry via a narrow basement window and possibly exited the same way.
was confident enough to spend the time to not only commit the offence, but have the presence of mind to write a long note in an attempt to draw suspicion away from himself.
Former FBI agent and expert criminal profiler, Robert Ressler believes that: -

JonBenet knew her killer
the killer could have come from a small circle of friends around the Ramsey home in Boulder
the circle would include family, neighbors, and employees of the Ramseys.
Ressler's analysis is further strengthened by an excerpt from a letter of resignation that Detective Lou Smits, a veteran investigator of thirty-two years experience, sent to District Attorney Alex Hunter:

"The case tells me that there is substantial, credible, evidence of an intruder and lack of evidence that the parents are involved."

The evidence observed by police at the scene strongly suggests that the attack came from someone outside the house, for instance:

A footprint was found in the concrete dust of the wine cellar by a Hi-Tec stamped hiking boot. The boot has not been connected to any of the Ramseys or to the 400 people or more, which have been to the Ramsey house.
An unidentified palm print was found on the door of the wine cellar. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
A pubic hair was found on the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped in. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
A piece of broken glass was found under a basement window. The window was open and the sill showed signs of disturbance.
There was a scuff-mark on the basement wall below the window. Someone had to have climbed in or out of this window ( however, no footprints were found outside the window).
The duct tape and the cord used in the murder were not found in the Ramsey house. The offender must have brought them in and taken them out when he/she left the house after the murder.
The list of possible suspects in this case is enormous. Not only did the Ramseys have hundreds of guests through their home at various times, they also had a large number of trades people that worked on an extensive remodeling project on the house. One theory suggested that because the Ramseys had given out a number of house keys to friends, one of them may be responsible. If that is true, why then would the killer bother to enter via a basement window? (Assuming that is where the entry was made)

One possibility is that the killer wanted to give that impression.

A basic method of homicide investigations is to draw up a list of possible suspects and concentrate on eliminating them, either by comparison with physical evidence or by checking their whereabouts at the time of the offence. Using this method, the investigative body does not become side-tracked by suspects who "seem" suitable at the time. By using this process of elimination, the list of suspects is narrowed considerably. The only draw back with this method is that in a case like that of JonBenet Ramsey, the large number of suspects would take a great deal of time to examine in the necessary detail, even with a large task force.

Another possibility would be a person with a history of child sex offenses who may have frequented the pageant circuit to select future victims. Given the Ramsey's penchant for entertaining, it would not be difficult for a prospective perpetrator to insinuate himself into the Ramsey's social circle to gain the necessary information required to commit the offense. Presumably, the police have cross checked offenders of this type with anyone who knew the family or had access to the house.

Another side theory is that the killer may have been involved in a child pornography ring that operated in or around Boulder and had earmarked JonBenet as a likely subject. The connection of child pornography with child sex murders isn't new. In 1997, eighteen-year-old Jeremy Strohmeyer, stalked a seven-year-old girl in a Las Vegas casino before raping and murdering her in a restroom. Strohmeyer was a self-confessed devotee of child pornography on the Internet. If the pornography connection is true, then the murder may have been committed by more than one person as part of a conspiracy to possibly kidnap JonBenet -- a plan that was later abandoned when the victim died before she could be removed from the house.

A factor to consider is the time that JonBenet died. The normal body temperature of a human is 98.6 degrees F. The body gradually cools after death and the rate of cooling is determined by the ambient temperature around the body, the victim's body size and clothing. The temperature of the body is normally taken rectally by the medical examiner as the buttocks, being the largest area of a body's mass, are the last area to retain body heat. Body heat dissipates from a deceased person at approximately 1.5 degrees per hour, but will often vary according to the temperature in the room, and age and gender of the victim.

The rate of advancement of rigor mortis is another method used to determine time of death. Rigor mortis is the stiffening of the muscles caused by chemical changes in the muscle tissue after death. The onset of rigor mortis normally begins within 2 to 4 hours after death and takes between 6 to 12 hours for the entire body to be affected. Normally after 24-36 hours after death, the affects of rigor mortis have dissipated.

According to the police report, JonBenet was last seen alive at approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 25, 1996. John Ramsey, in company with Fleet White, found JonBenet dead in the basement at approximately 1:05 p.m. on December 26, 1996. When police first sighted the body, they observed that the body was affected by advanced rigor mortis. Rigor mortis is known to spread through the lesser muscled parts of the body first and gradually spreads through the body affecting the larger body parts last. John Ramsey found JonBenet at 1:05 p.m. and her body was completely set with rigor mortis, which indicates that she had died between 10:00 p.m. on December 25 and 6:00 a.m. on December 26.

The police also reported a smell of decomposition on the body. Again, the rate of decomposition depends on room temperature and the body's levels of bacteria and enzyme activity. Typically, for every ten-degree increase in room temperature, the rate of decomposition is doubled. For the odor of decomposition to have been detected by the police, JonBenet would have had to have died near the beginning of the estimated time frame. If that was the case, the perpetrator would have had ample time for the commission of the offense, write a ransom note and effect his or her escape.

The second theory is that the murder was committed by someone in the house. Given that the evidence implicating the Ramseys had been largely based on rumor and innuendo and all physical trace evidence has failed to prove their involvement, there aren't too many other possibilities. Police never seriously considered Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's brother, a suspect..

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 08:14 PM
This story has been updated today and it now looks like there was infact another case similar too the Ramsey case. New evidence now points to new DNA found that indicates the parents may have had nothing at all to to with the case.

Why does that not surprise me?

Authorities have DNA evidence that could reveal JonBent Ramsey's killer, who private investigators believe was an intruder who stalked and raped another Boulder girl in her home nine months later, according to a Saturday evening CBS News program.

A police crime lab has produced a DNA composite of JonBent's killer, and Boulder authorities have a list of "people of interest," CBS's "48 Hours Mystery" reported. Authorities are contacting people to collect saliva samples, but more than 100 names are on the list, "48 Hours" said.


posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:49 AM
You know, with all the talk of VIPs and their pedophilia and the like, it would not surprise me if JonBenet was a victim of that. It could be that her parents know who it is, but are too afraid to rat this person out, and are hoping that the police will discover who it is on their own.

Just a theory I'm tossing out. I saw it on a site, I forget where, and they seemed to hint at it, but I never bothered to dig into that.

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 05:58 AM
Though this is an "Cold Case" people are still discussing it as a hot topic on various Crime Fan boards. In addition, the Lifetime channel recently screened Lawrence Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, which is a pretty good dramatization of the crime.

What's surprising to me is that no one seems to see the 'Elephant' in the cheesecake in this case.

We have a child that was trotted out as a pageant princess, sexualized early, and who showed signs of abuse (soiling her undergarments is one sign).

Everyone seems to agree that the child was abused and many agree that it was on-going, or chronic.


When you look at cases of abuse the important aspect to rule in or out is the idea of Generational Abuse.

This means that the family has a deep dark secret and that abuse of the children has been on-going.

Now, this is not meant to indict anyone and some of the actors in this case are already passed on (in particular, PR, who died of Ovarian cancer a year or so ago). It's just a theory.

When those familiar with the care talk about the possibility of abuse they do a surprising thing, in my opinion.

They look at the mother. Ok, that's fine, but what's surprising is that they stop there.

What would be the normal process is to look at the mother and her siblings for signs of abuse also.

Of course it's true that females can abuse their children in both violent and sexual ways. But typically, they are not the root cause of this abuse.

So where do you look?

At least one of her sisters and PR were involved, as children, in the beauty pageant scene. In fact PR was Miss West Virginia in 1977. Her sister Pamela also won the Miss West Virginia title in 1980.

You'll note if you look at pictures of Pamela, that she gained a lot of weight after her pageant days.

Now, normally this isn't an indication of abuse; lots of girls win pageants and gain weight.

But these women were intimately involved in a child's death, and a child that may have been systematically abused.

The next step should be obvious. In fact there is some indication that the grandmother and the grandfather may have been at the house in the days leading up to Christmas back in 1996. One indication is that the Boulder PD went to Charlevoix Michigan to interview and -allegedly- take sample from them. Not much else is known. We have no interviews, no results of tests, although there is a report that they were 'cleared'.

But, as many know, the BPD didn't do a very good job on this case.

In addition, one question that I ask myself is 'who would PR and JR cover up for in relation to this crime'.

Well it turns out that the grandfather was instrumental in getting JR his start in business. It goes without saying that a grown daughter would cover up for her mother. In addition the children will often coverup abuse out of shame and embarrassment.

We also know that one thing that permits abusers to go on is that they are often accompanied by 'enablers'. Those are people that either cover up the crimes (including whitewashing and misdirecting), or are in deep denial about it.

To make a long story short, this theory of 'generational abuse' is an important one, and as I said, I was always puzzled that normally smart people completely neglect to focus on the history of this family, which, to me, would focus all eyes on the Maternal grandmother and grandfather as an abuser/enabler pair.

What is not clear to me is who the abuser was and who the enabler was. PR's mother (NP) was described as "an Intrusional Narcissist". Check wiki for an examination of this:

...narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they do not respond adequately to the parents’ needs. This punishment may take a variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the parents’ narcissistic needs

In this theory, the probable scenario is that one of these people is found in the midst of an abusive ritual and the other one, discovering this, became violent. It's not unknown that the enabler often blames the victim.

It's not hard to speculate from this that an accident may have occurred which was irreversible, and the next several hours (until dawn when the police were called via 911) were spent staging a crime scene that seemed top point to both an intruder and back at the R family as wel.

As I mentioned, the chief actors in the staging seemed to be the mother, and the "ransom note" which was written by a female, possibly the mother, has been analyzed, but findings are inconclusive. I get the feeling that they inadequately investigated the grandmother as a potential participant in creating this obviously bogus note.

What's interesting to me is that when you examine the case from the perspective 'the mom did it' there are many confusing and contradictory aspects.

But when you look at it as a case of 'Generational Abuse', and coverup and denial, and you look back one more generation, a lot of things seem to fall into place!

Well, that should be enough to stimulate a discussion.

As I mentioned, these people were ruled out, but this shouldn't prevent some speculation. It seems to me that it's do obvious that this could have been a major scenario, and it's puzzling to me that nobody has looked at this possibility.

Again, just a theory, the case is well-cold and many of the actors and potential participants are passed away.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Badge01]

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 12:51 AM
she was wrapped in a blanket? usually that means it was someone who
"cared" about her and did not want to "disrespect" her body. they wanted her to be"comfortable" and yeah i think it was someone who knew her...i heard about them kinda thinking about the bro. the only motive i could think of is that she was getting more attention than he was because she did the whole beauty pagent thing. but how old was he when she was killed?

anyway this is like one of thebiggest mysteries of all time i wonder if it will ever be solved.. i would love to review the evidence full on and see what i can come up with.

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by TheBadge
she was wrapped in a blanket?

The father was allowed to 'search' the house with the cops (major no-no). He is the one that 'found' her. He put a blanket on her and carried her up the stairs. He disrupted the crime scene.

The cop in charge screwed up big time.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:32 AM

originally posted by: Estragon
There is no doubt that the Christmas-time murder of the 6-year old JonBen�t Ramsey was indeed a dreadful event.
And awash with conspiracy and cover-ups, incest, religious mania, Aryan supremacy, psychics and every nut on the tree.

High time for a "10 Stupidest JonBenét Case Theories" list. This one really takes the cake!

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:07 AM
It would take a ton of evidence to convince me anyone outside immediate family members present in the home that night did this. A ton--not meaning false confessions by psychos--more like stopping just short of entering an alternate reality.

To elaborate:
1. Patsy did it.
2. Patsy wrote the ransom note to cover for whoever did do it. Who else but John or Burke would she protect?
3. The most evil, sick, twisted genius of a pervert on the planet somehow had access to all of Patsy's most private correspondence and conversations, to be able to imitate her patterns of speech, unique use of certain words, reference pet names in the family, movies they were known to have watched, at least one recently enough for there to be a record of it, the amount of John's Christmas bonus, on and on and on, broke into the house leaving no footprints or marks of forced entry, and then was clever enough to use a pen and paper from the house in a good enough imitation of Patsy's handwriting to divide experts as to whether she could be ruled out as the writer. Then the intruder took a Swiss Army knife the housekeeper had taken from Burke and left in the linen closet where Patsy (and no intruder) would find it, planted it next to the body, wrapped the body in a blanket which came out of a dryer situated in such an obscure location only someone familiar with the home could find it, a blanket so recently in the dryer that JonBenét's favorite nightgown still clung to it, arranged all this to frame the family, leaving no additional evidence except a footprint (from a type of shoe worn by half the Police Department who tracked all over the place), a palm print (which could have been left at any time by a workman in the house), a mark which may or may not have come from a stun gun, and even if it had John could have owned such a gun and had time to get rid of it afterwards, and two little spots of DNA transferred by some undetermined method which John had plenty of time to find and plant. Anyone fiendishly brilliant enough to set up this murder scene in such a way as to completely implicate the Ramseys would have not botched the kidnapping in the first place. And never mind the Ramseys' own behavior--this is just what an intruder would have had to do! Which do you think is most likely?

In 100 years, people will be talking about this case and wonder how late 20th Century investigators could be such dolts in their worship of new technology as to let two little spots of DNA throw roughly 1,000 pieces of other evidence out the window! Of course, money, power, and influence figure here, too. A middle class, let alone a poor, family would never get away with this (I hope)!

new topics

top topics


log in