Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

JonBenét Ramsey.

195 replies

Chateaulaohshit · 18/04/2023 13:28

Im watching The Casting of JonBenét on Netflix and had no idea how much information I didn’t know about the case but also all the different set of scenarios that may have lead to her death.

It doesn’t seem that anyone was ever charged despite some really disturbing evidence and behaviours of people closed to her…

what does everyone else think happed?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
thewinterwitch · 19/04/2023 13:36

Snow.

JonBenét Ramsey.
fryanddry · 19/04/2023 13:47

AndTheSurveySays · 19/04/2023 11:21

burke had struck Jon benet with a golf club prior to her murder because he got mad at her , so theirs a history of violence

Have you listened to his interview? They were playing and she got hit with the club accidentally. He didn't go out of his way to hurt her.

And there is a witness that refutes that it was an accident,
Burke has a motive to lie about hitting her, why are you taking his word for it.
it wouldn’t look good for him to admit that he struck his sister

do you also have an excuse for why his poo was smeared all over his sisters room ?

JulieHoney · 19/04/2023 14:28

NotAnotherBathBomb · 19/04/2023 13:34

Meanwhile crying, sobbing, shaking and pulling your little ones closer over yet another murdered child is more than acceptable on here 🙄

No, that’s just mawkish.

HeyDemonsItsYaGirl · 19/04/2023 14:28

AlwaysGinPlease · 19/04/2023 06:41

So disrespectful to the victim. You find it funny?

What? It's disrespectful to JonBenet for me to take the piss out of morons who listen to a podcast and start accusing people of murder?

XelaM · 19/04/2023 19:17

Aussiegirl123456 · 19/04/2023 12:45

That’s cool. Now read the court transcripts. DNA, belonging to a male was under her fingernails and inside her underwear. The DNA under the nails and inside her underwear was from the same unidentified source.

I don’t care how many documentaries or books you have read, the only legitimate evidence is from the trial and is all in the public domain within the court transcripts.

There are documentaries and books that claim it was the mother who killed, or the dad, or the brother, or the weird guy who lives in a caravan near their house. The ONLY legitimate and accurate and true information is within the court documents, which all of these books and docos cherry pick information from.

There was unidentified male DNA under her fingernails that matched the DNA inside her underwear. The family paid several times over several years to retest this DNA to see if there were ever any matches within national databases.

PP have also pointed this out to you. But of course your books are correct and the court transcripts and police evidence are wrong 🙄

I would believe that a stranger did it if not for that ransom note. It's impossible for that note to have been real, so it was clearly written by her parents (i.e. mother). Thus it eliminates the possibility of a stranger killing Jon Bennet

SargentSagittarius · 19/04/2023 20:20

AndTheSurveySays · 19/04/2023 11:21

burke had struck Jon benet with a golf club prior to her murder because he got mad at her , so theirs a history of violence

Have you listened to his interview? They were playing and she got hit with the club accidentally. He didn't go out of his way to hurt her.

A suspect in her murder says a previous incidence of violence against the deceased was an accident?

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, ‘well, he would, wouldn’t he?’

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 20:31

SargentSagittarius · 19/04/2023 20:20

A suspect in her murder says a previous incidence of violence against the deceased was an accident?

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, ‘well, he would, wouldn’t he?’

You're a victim of confirmation bias.

Yes he would because that's what siblings do. Land each other in a and e accidentally. He's still just as likely to do that.

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 20:32

XelaM · 19/04/2023 19:17

I would believe that a stranger did it if not for that ransom note. It's impossible for that note to have been real, so it was clearly written by her parents (i.e. mother). Thus it eliminates the possibility of a stranger killing Jon Bennet

Why is it impossible?

Iwasafool · 19/04/2023 20:36

So people are saying the male DNA could just be anyone, it happens when at a party or in a crowd. I understand that but was any of her families DNA found? If it is so easy for small amounts of DNA to transfer wouldn't there be some from the people she lived with and if they moved the body or were actually the killers. Was there family DNA and I'm just missing where it says that.

SargentSagittarius · 19/04/2023 20:40

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 20:31

You're a victim of confirmation bias.

Yes he would because that's what siblings do. Land each other in a and e accidentally. He's still just as likely to do that.

No. They don’t land each other in A&E accidentally.

That’s my entire point.

He hit her with a golf club. He said it was an accident. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?

He’s hardly going to say it was on purpose!

We can take whatever he says with a grain of salt. I mean, it might have been an accident. But given the circumstances, you can forgive people for not being willing to blithely accept his word on it.

Enko · 19/04/2023 21:33

Iwasafool · 19/04/2023 20:36

So people are saying the male DNA could just be anyone, it happens when at a party or in a crowd. I understand that but was any of her families DNA found? If it is so easy for small amounts of DNA to transfer wouldn't there be some from the people she lived with and if they moved the body or were actually the killers. Was there family DNA and I'm just missing where it says that.

It's male DNA found under her fingernails and in her underwear that doesn't match her family or people close to the family.

Also as I remember it the party was at their friends not in their home. So DNA would not be in the home from the party.

Aussiegirl123456 · 19/04/2023 21:39

thewinterwitch · 19/04/2023 13:04

The DNA under the nails and inside her underwear was from the same unidentified source.

They were not from the same unidentified source. They were weak samples of a couple of alleles, and could have belonged to - for example - any male with a particular colour of hair, blonde hair, dark hair, eg. It is not a significant finding. They were not proper DNA matches.

I don’t care how many documentaries or books you have read, the only legitimate evidence is from the trial and is all in the public domain within the court transcripts.

Which from the way you are interpreting them, are probably best left to actual experts in these fields.

Ok, well make sure you contact the FBI and let them know that the entire court case evidence was incorrect because your books said so.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 19/04/2023 21:46

I would believe that a stranger did it if not for that ransom note. It's impossible for that note to have been real, so it was clearly written by her parents (i.e. mother). Thus it eliminates the possibility of a stranger killing Jon Bennet

Exactly this. The handwriting, the "small foreign faction," the initials that correspond to a military base that John served on, the amount of the bonus, the length of the note, the location of the note, the fact that it was created on a tablet of paper from Patsy's kitchen with a Sharpie pen from Patsy's kitchen, and that there were false starts of the note found elsewhere in the pad.

Come on! No "intruder" who just killed a six-year-old sits around writing a chatty three-page note on the back stairs after stashing the corpse in a difficult-to-locate room in the cellar, on Christmas day.

Speaking of which, her parents slipped up and put Dec 25 on her gravestone instead of December 26. If they were awake packing for their next-day trip in the last couple of hours of Christmas Day, as they claimed, how could she be killed then? If they weren't involved, it would be far more likely that she died on Dec 26.

There is so much, much more. The summoning of the pilot and plane to leave town the morning the body was discovered (until the police put a stop to that, one of their few correct actions), Patsy being in the same clothing and makeup she left the party in the night before, even though she was a woman well known for her fastidious grooming and fashion; the pineapple, the flashlight, the emergency call in which she and John were heard by the dispatcher saying "we aren't talking to you!" in an aside, even though they later claimed Burke was asleep while all of that was taking place. It's just so obvious. When John carried JonBenet into the living room after finding her (and oddly knowing right where to go in that big house, when the police officer suggested he search) Patsy didn't assume JB was alive, she screamed out something like "lazurus, please raise my baby from the dead like you did for Jesus'. How did she know JB was even dead at that point?

The list goes on. But they were wealthy and connected, and the city attorney at the time did not want to believe that people in that social strata could have done this to their child, nor did he want to antagonize the local power structure.

If they were a black family, do you really think the authorities would have entertained any of that "intruder" nonsense or allowed them to summon friends over to contaminate the crime scene?

Aussiegirl123456 · 19/04/2023 21:51

thewinterwitch · 19/04/2023 13:04

The DNA under the nails and inside her underwear was from the same unidentified source.

They were not from the same unidentified source. They were weak samples of a couple of alleles, and could have belonged to - for example - any male with a particular colour of hair, blonde hair, dark hair, eg. It is not a significant finding. They were not proper DNA matches.

I don’t care how many documentaries or books you have read, the only legitimate evidence is from the trial and is all in the public domain within the court transcripts.

Which from the way you are interpreting them, are probably best left to actual experts in these fields.

I am not misinterpreting podcasts, this information is within the police reports and court transcripts.

Stop spreading misinformation. It’s vulgar.

The only true and legitimate evidence is within official court and police documents, which are in the public domain. That is the only source I get information from. Any book and podcast is not reliable ‘evidence’.

But yeah, if you know better than those who investigated and actually built the case because you read something in a book that some random person wrote, then I suppose you’d better get in touch with the FBI and let them know that the evidence found at the time by the coroner and police, which held up in court, was all wrong…

Aussiegirl123456 · 19/04/2023 21:51

I do believe the mother wrote the note though.

ZeldaWillTellYourFortune · 19/04/2023 22:05

The only true and legitimate evidence is within official court and police documents, which are in the public domain. That is the only source I get information from. Any book and podcast is not reliable ‘evidence’.

Believe it or not, falsehoods and misinformation and mistakes are not uncommon in "police documents" and court testimony.

XelaM · 19/04/2023 22:18

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 20:32

Why is it impossible?

Have you read the note? It's impossible it was written by an intruder. It's the most unbelievable part of this whole case. That was written by the mother. Any why would she pretend to receive a ransom note if either she, her husband or her son weren't involved in the murder?

Startyabastard · 19/04/2023 22:21

America is a law unto themselves judicially. I wish we should find out the truth in this current lifetime.

XelaM · 19/04/2023 22:24

Startyabastard · 19/04/2023 22:21

America is a law unto themselves judicially. I wish we should find out the truth in this current lifetime.

Unfortunately, I think only four people knew what happened that night (two of them now deceased) and we will never find out the truth from the other two.

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 22:30

XelaM · 19/04/2023 22:18

Have you read the note? It's impossible it was written by an intruder. It's the most unbelievable part of this whole case. That was written by the mother. Any why would she pretend to receive a ransom note if either she, her husband or her son weren't involved in the murder?

Why is it impossible?

SunshineGeorgie · 19/04/2023 22:43

Deadringer · 18/04/2023 15:34

Dna was found under her fingernails that didn't match anyone in the family.

Didn't know that!!

Proudofitbabe · 19/04/2023 22:46

Re the parents - I just can't think WHY either would kill their child, on Christmas night of all nights. By all accounts they were a normal, settled family unit. If one HAD snapped one night, why would the other back them up in the way they did? If my DH hurt either of my kids I'd send him down personally. What's the chances of a seemingly normal parent not only snapping and having a random killing episode, but their spouse colluding to protect them?!

Re the note, why would they make it so long knowing it would be studied, and make references to a bonus that only they know of? He was a very successful businessman, you'd assume he's more savvy than to implicate himself by mentioning something that personal.

Finally, I cannot see why they'd continue with TV appearances if they were guilty and getting away with it. Why invite unnecessary public scrutiny? They didn't need money.

Of course I accept they might well have been involved - but none of the above would make any sense, and leads me to think it wasn't them.

SargentSagittarius · 19/04/2023 22:51

XelaM · 19/04/2023 22:18

Have you read the note? It's impossible it was written by an intruder. It's the most unbelievable part of this whole case. That was written by the mother. Any why would she pretend to receive a ransom note if either she, her husband or her son weren't involved in the murder?

Sorry, this is me being dense, but I don’t understand your last point.

She is asserting the ransom note is real (not pretend). Now, I get that is highly unlikely.

But I don’t get the logic you’re implying in your final sentence. If neither she nor her husband were involved in the murder (again, I agree, highly unlikely, but if they weren’t), then a ransom note is entirely possible.

What am I missing?

XelaM · 19/04/2023 22:52

herlightmaterials · 19/04/2023 22:30

Why is it impossible?

Because an intruder who just killed a child is not going to sit in the house writing a 3-page nonsensical "ransom note" (for a child that was already killed and still in the house) on the parents' notepaper (taking his time to write several drafts) and talk about how much he respects the murdered child's father and then demand the exact very specific amount that was in the father's account. I will try to find the exact wording of the note. It is impossible for that note to have been real.

SargentSagittarius · 19/04/2023 22:53

Proudofitbabe · 19/04/2023 22:46

Re the parents - I just can't think WHY either would kill their child, on Christmas night of all nights. By all accounts they were a normal, settled family unit. If one HAD snapped one night, why would the other back them up in the way they did? If my DH hurt either of my kids I'd send him down personally. What's the chances of a seemingly normal parent not only snapping and having a random killing episode, but their spouse colluding to protect them?!

Re the note, why would they make it so long knowing it would be studied, and make references to a bonus that only they know of? He was a very successful businessman, you'd assume he's more savvy than to implicate himself by mentioning something that personal.

Finally, I cannot see why they'd continue with TV appearances if they were guilty and getting away with it. Why invite unnecessary public scrutiny? They didn't need money.

Of course I accept they might well have been involved - but none of the above would make any sense, and leads me to think it wasn't them.

All those points make sense - it probably wasn’t them.

It may, possibly, have been them colluding to cover up the actions of someone else important to them…?

Swipe left for the next trending thread