Who Killed Jon Bonet Ramsey

[Itsonlybridgetagain]

Anyone watching it on Netflix? Half way through the 2nd episode.

not a shred of evidence against the family so far but that ransom note is so so odd

that poor poor girl 😔😔

No, it isn't. I don't understand DNA, but from people who apparently do, it appears that the main contributer to the mix of DNA under the fingernails of JB and on the underwear was JonBenet herself.

There are weak foreign alleles, in these places. From someone else's work interpreting the 1997 DNA report:

A full profile would contain 14 alleles (two at each locus). However, only one foreign allele was identified in the panties sample, only two foreign alleles were identified in the right-hand fingernails sample and only four foreign alleles were identified in the left-hand fingernails sample.

None of the samples revealed anything close to a full profile (aside from JBR's profile.) It's absurd for anyone to claim that the panties DNA matched the fingernail DNA based on one single matching B allele.

The official autopsy report has been posted twice on this thread

She had an abrasion to her vagina and swelling of the lining of her vagina

Nothing about paintbrushes - so where does this come from?

Yes I didn't read the autopsy report but was wondering if I had got it wrong!

Some experts think the abrasion could be caused by a irritating substance like talcum powder.

In the autopsy report they said she had intimate trauma that was weeks old. That obviously doesn't mean it was definitely from the parents but someone had abused that little girl before her murder.

A paintbrush was broken to make the garotte. There were wood fibres consistent with the paintbrush material found in her vagina, as I understand it, and the paintbrush head was missing from the scene - so possibly taken as a souvenir.

IDK but an irritant like talc would only effect the vulva - not inside the vagina?

Which autopsy report was that? Not in the one posted here

@westisbest1982 I think the ransom note is more credible than the DNA for the following reasons:-

• I have read the unknown dna is from more than one person (so at least two people in the house for a very long period of time undetected carrying this out?!)
• we don't know everything she had touched, played with etc on Christmas Day
• the family claim she was asleep in the car when they got back and was put to bed. Not sure that's true but that's their position and therefore no bath/shower before bed so she may been covered in dna linked to the point above
• her body was wrapped in a blanket (touching her pj's). We have no idea where that blanket had been, where it had been stored and so on
• her body was moved through the house and lay on the lounge floor after death - guess what floors are covered in dna
• multiple people carrying endless amounts of dna trampled through the house. There was infinite dna everywhere

So yes the dna has major flaws in it. Why do I think the family is (cough) pushing for more dna testing is that they know all of the above.

The ridiculous ransom note and how and where it was written though is irrefutable.

Further forensic testing, along with various fibres found on the body? I don't know. It has been mentioned in several documentaries.

According to the Vanity Fair article JonBenet was a chronic bed wetter and the mother had taken her to the doctor's for this many times; the nanny said that the only housework mother did was laundering the bed sheets every day before the nanny arrived; and JB wore pull-ups during the day.

Constant wet underwear would have contributed to lesions around the vulva. Poor child

The familys claim that she was asleep from the time they got out of the car is destroyed by the pineapple in her stomach. She got up and ate it.
@Efacsen I have seen the words 'chronic inflammation' in press reports. Some experts think it could be caused by improper cleaning or a UTI. JB was a bedwetter and taken to doctors frequently.

Not being dry would effect the vulva not inside the vagina

Also no mention of inflammation of vulva in autopsy report above

Yes I think a child who is worried or distressed in some way is more likely to wet the bed

Just finished the doc and still not sure. I do question the family theory as it relies on the “innocent” parent being willing to collude massive amounts to cover for whichever did it (what loving parent would?!). Even if they were both equally cold and uncaring, I don’t understand being loyal enough to never turn on each other (as so often happens) under severe, sustained scrutiny and pressure. Surely one was the ultimate culprit, and I think the lesser party would have had plenty of reasons to crack and point the finger of blame.

The note is insane but it’s hard to change your handwriting and knowing it would be closely studied, why would the parents make it so needlessly long? Why would they make the ransom amount the same as John’s bonus when that only points to them? I don’t think that makes any sense from two people who seem quite smart, certainly John. I also don’t think two guilty people “getting away with it” would have so many media appearances - it’s a big risk for no gain.

But I’m not a psychiatrist! I’m just concluding based on how I think I’d act. The evidence is always confusing, and the emphasis always seems to change depending on who’s talking. The lack of stand-out DNA does make me go back to the parents..! Surely a perverted stranger who had been all over the house would have left something. Then again, the whole place was badly contaminated.

If I had to put money on it I’d guess it was an oddball close to the family, who knew a lot about them, the house and their movements that day. You could analyze it forever but thanks to the botched evidence/crime scene I don’t think we’ll ever know unless someone actually confesses.

The one reason I don't think it was the parents is the sexual assault with the paint brush. Why and how could they do that after killing her? Even if the brother had accidentally killed her in rage. Why would they sexually assault her after. That doesn't make sense.

AFAIK, the autopsy report does not mention sexual assault with a paintbrush. Just " abrasion" which could mean anyything.

In Aberdeen in the 1930s, a child was murdered by the woman who lived almost next door to her, and the woman inserted a long wooden spoon (actually a spirtle)into the girl's vagina, to confuse the police, to make them think the child had been sexually assaulted by a man.

Her name was Jeannie Donald and the child was Helen Priestley.Link

To imply the culprit was a stranger who killed her for sexual reasons? Did the paintbrush incident happen before or after death?

For some really enlightening discussions, the /jonbenetramsey subreddit is worth a look.

People who lived in that neighbourhood at the time of the murders are posting yesterday & today, categorically saying there is no way "intruders" would not have been noticed, nor was there anywhere nearby for "intruders" to park a car.

There also is a video tour of the Ramsey basement crime scene; it's a cluttered, labyrinthian pig sty. No way could a "small foreign faction" find its way around in the dead of night.

There is an annotated floor plan here that is quite interesting.

www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/GLCAJcr2x4

There also is a video tour of the Ramsey basement crime scene; it's a cluttered, labyrinthian pig sty. No way could a "small foreign faction" find its way around in the dead of night

I was horrified when I saw that footage! It's a bombsite. Disgusting mess.
And not just the basement.

And they had the wealth to afford professional organizers, house cleaners, etc.

To me it is a reflection of how dysfunctional that family must have been.

And if they were leaving on a 7am flight, it is a bit farfetched that Patsy went to sleep at 9:30 on Christmas night. I doubt, given the chaos, that she was tidily packed and organized for herself and the kids, including the gifts for extended family, etc. to depart before 7 in the morning. Most people would come home from the party and be racing around filling luggage.

But they had to establish that they were "asleep" around 10pm to deflect questions about why they wouldn't have heard the "small foreign faction" going about the house serving pineapple, writing ransom notes, and abusing/killing poor JonBenet. If they admitted to being up later, they would admit to being awake around the medical time of death....

I must've missed the mess, I can't remember that at all.

Can't you say dead on Reddit, why do posters say unalive?

Imagine it’s Boxing Day and a dog walker discovers JonBenet’s body dumped in woodlands. Not in the family home, no ransom note. Bodies are found like this every day.

We wouldn’t still be talking about this case now, and the parents wouldn’t be suspects.

I don’t know if John is involved but something about him seems off. There is a theory that he wanted to move the body out of the house which would have shifted suspicion from the family. Patsy decided to write the very silly ransom note (she had a degree in journalism) and make a breathless 911 call during which she doesn’t actually refer to JonBenet by name.

Some people believe they can hear Burke in the background of the phone call.

The Ramseys claim the flashlight on the kitchen counter didn’t belong to them. Where did it come from then? They steadfastly deny that JonBenet ate pineapple that night because it changes their timeline.

John was a very rich and powerful man. Why would he not just take control of the situation, pay the paltry (to him) £118,000 ransom and get his daughter back. He knew people who could help him do that.

Why did he invite a crowd of friends over instead of telling the police to secure the scene? Why did he let well wishers take over his kitchen to provide food for the friends instead of sealing it off so police could get fingerprints or DNA from the kidnapper? He is an intelligent man.

Who has ever described themselves as “foreign”? Why specify an attaché case?

I don’t know who killed JonBenet, but it didn’t start with a kidnap.