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 😔😔

You single him out to offer him up as a bastion of policing professionalism. I countered it.

No, not necessarily i don't. I just think the police investigation and evidence was terrible and not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

No, I didn't single him out as a bastion of policing professionalism - that is your hyperbolic extrapolation. I mentioned him and John Douglas as examples of people, who happen to have considerably more experience than the average MNetter or Websleuth or Reddit contributer, who believe an intruder did it, and therefore presumably also that an intruder wrote the weird ransom note.

For anyone lauding John Douglas - below is a quote from one of his books.

'Or let’s say that Patsy did all this herself, without John’s knowledge. We know for a fact that she was good at cleaning up urine. Maybe that experience helped her clean up all the blood that would have gushed out of so large a head wound (more on that a little later)'. Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 192

As detailed in the official autopsy report previously linked to, JonBenet had zero external bleeding from the head.

Mindhunter or not, John Douglas is an absolute crank. How can he be taken seriously if he can't get the basic facts of the case right?

The Ramseys were and are absolute masters of fake news and media manipulation. If you're new to the case and have only watched the John Ramsey-sponsored nonsense on Netflix, try CBS's documentary for the alternative view:

I'm guessing that some posters on here are the same onea who thought the McCann family had killed their own child even though it's now obvious they did not.

I know and have known plenty of 9 year olds. They're not all innocent babies.

And he was turning 10 a month later.

Apples and oranges, surely. There wasnt a ridiculous ransom note, a weapon from their own house, or even a body in the McCann case.

Very different cases. The posters on here clearly know the established facts that clearly go against any idea of an 'intruder'

The 9-year-old in this case had already hit his sister with a golf club in the past.

As I said, I don't know if he is or not. I wasn't convinced on the evidence that the police presented, having watched the C4 documentary and it was for me an example of how the media had a huge influence in the case and he was guilty before the trial was even started.

What about the cement anchor?

I don't know. The police said she was killed the night before but she was seen walking her dog that morning and the police didn't want to interview any of the people who saw her. I just thought the fact there was no real physical or forensic evidence in the house and that the police kept changing the how and when made the case quite weak. Just my opinion, like lots on here!! If obviously depends (like this case of JBR) on which documentary you watched/believed!!

Yes. I think you should watch and read more about Scott Peterson before you start feeling too sorry for him.

I'm sorry to have offended you. We are discussing true crime. I merely said I was not convinced on the evidence presented on the documentary I watched. I never said he was innocent or that I feel sorry for him. I thought the case was not beyond reasonable doubt and was surprised he was convicted on what was presented in court beyond that he was a cheating scumbag. That's it

I must admit it didn't convince me that the parents didn't do it and it also seemed like a lot of information was missing such as

• she was found soaked in urine (which is guess was partly where the Steve Thomas theory came from, I don't think that was clear from the documentary he just seemed a bit incompetent).
• she was wearing really big 12 knickers (for a 12 year old but she was 6!)
• the undigested pineapple which there seems to be no explanation for.
• the parents basically refusing to speak the the police from almost straight after she was found murdered. I know they would argue they knew they were suspects but it's still odd.

Something I hadn't appreciated was how awful her injuries were.

I feel like a break in is more likely but I think if you are being logical about it then the parents are more likely but i just can't see how they could have injured her in that way even if some of it was staged. I definitely don't think it was the brother.

I’m not offended.

The theory that the Ramseys didn't stage it seems to rely a lot on the notion that parents don't hurt their children. We know that they do. Especially to possibly save another child from justice, or to keep their image untarnished.

I just explained the case to DH and when I read the bit in the ransom note which read " Bring an attache case big enough for the money and be well rested" he said " that sounds like a wife talking"!

I think it was the Oliva guy. I saw a documentary about him years ago.

I believe the dna is compromised, and yes, the 118k on the ransom note is strange as it was the dads bonus amount. But, he said there were letters/payslips lying around, and it would have been easy enough for someone to see or find out about.

It was not any of the family. Absolutely no evidence of any kind of abuse or neglect previously.

It was a paedophile in the area.

Why would the parents write a ransom note but leave the body in the house? That doesn't make any sense to me.

she was found soaked in urine

I think perhaps the bladder evacuates during strangulation, or she may have wet herself in fear during the attack.

The ransom note saying she was kidnapped is totally bizarre when the child was killed . Two separate events .

It wouldn't make sense for an intruder to write a ransom note and leave the body in the house either.

By the same token, why would an intruder write a note then leave the body in the house.

Presumably an intruder would have planned what he was going to do and have a plan as to how to get the child/body out of the house. If he was caught unawares and had to leave in haste the body wouldn't have been hidden where it was.

I know a lot of crimes against women and girls can be opportunistic e.g. when a burglary ends up in rape but the contents of the ransom note indicates knowledge of the bonus etc so the event must have been planned, if the note was written by an outside attacker.

I don't know. I had always thought someone in that house was responsible. Wasn't there dirt and debris on the window ledge where the person supposedly came through that was undisturbed, even a cobweb? Plus it was a tiny window. Everything involved in the crime came from within the house. Who goes to kidnap a child and doesn't even bring a pre written note or a weapon? It seems obvious that patsy wrote the note, which to me is the main sticking point. Having said that, the documentary did give me second thoughts, which just goes to show stuff like this can be spun in any way depending on the biases of the people putting forward the 'evidence'. I don't think we will ever know what happened unfortunately