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 😔😔

I've seen a few programmes on it but not this one. I don't know who killed her but that was not a real ransom note. No way in hell. I feel like the most likely explanation is a family member but there's no real evidence and you can't go around charging people with murder based on likely explanations. This will never be solved, unless the father knows the truth and makes a deathbed confession.

Because leaving the house risks them being seen. They were prominent members of the community. If anyone had seen either of them out late that night, or even seen the car leaving the house, the jig would have been up.

Just logically there's no way the parents weren't involved in some way, either as perpetrators or in covering it up. Every single other person put forward in this documentary as possible suspects have been ruled out. The fact is the police messed up massively from the start and the crime scene was massively contaminated and tampered with. I don't think the DNA evidence that this documentary pushes as proof of an outsider is reliable at all.

I watched the first of these, with memories of following the case in the National Enquirer in the 90s, thinking it was an interesting way to explain the case differently. I have to say the Vanity Fair article upthread is absolutely eye opening as a corrective to that impression.

Interested also that Scott Peterson has popped up. I’ve watched both the recent docs on him, with vague awareness again of the case from back in the day, and realised that the one suggesting his innocence was highly selective in its narrative. These true crime things are not objective, however much they present themselves that way.

Having watched the third episode, I am now less sure of the Ramsey's involvement. I judged both parents to a large extent by their behaviour and demeanor. They both came across as very cold and unemotional. However, when John talked about Patsy's death and that of his other daughter, he was equally composed (although obviously much more time has lapsed). He did talk quite tenderly of Jonbenet at the end though. I think that his demeanor made people suspicious, but I think that he might just come across badly. Also, what motive would he have if he were guilty for participating in the tv series? It seems credible that perhaps he really is trying to keep the case alive. That said, I still find Patsy to come across as extremely emotionless and very poorly. However, we should judge the case on evidence.
I didn't think that the TV programme was particularly good in terms of factual information. It all seemed rather woolly. It does make you wonder how reliable anything in the press is.

Although @Scentedjasmin the ransom note is a factual piece of evidence. I'm genuinely interested that if people believe an intruder could have done it how do they explain the ransom note

One of the strangest things for me was the first words out of Patsy's mouth after giving 911 her address 'we have a kidnapping' and not something like 'help, my daughter has been kidnapped'. Her language in that call and in every interview was very distant and rarely did she say daughter or JonBenet but 'that child'

Thought the randoms that they threw into episode 3 (who have been ruled out) was just a pointless distraction to keep the viewer open to the suggestion it was someone else !

It can’t be explained any more logically than Patsy or John writing it. I guess it’s hard to comprehend the mindset of someone who sexually assaults a child, and hits her over the head before strangling her to death.

A lot of the footage of Patsy where she's a bit weird is due to her being heavily sedated. Which is understandable. She comes across as odd but if you see it under the mantle of her being sedated she looks exactly like I would imagine a heavily sedated mother would look and sound like

It wasn't a tiny window at all. They show a fully grown man climbing through. In fact the man shown was in his 60s so even a slightly ungainly man in his 60s was easily able to climb through the window.

It's falsehoods like 'the window was too small' even when we are shown to our own eyes that it wasn't too small that bemuses me. People believe what they want even when they are shown their belief is flawed.

I saw Episode 1 of the new Netflix documentary. Doesn't say anything new, does it? Not sure why it was made.

I found Steve Thomas' toilet training theory convincing, given she was found soaked in urine. I think the murder was an accident, either Patsy or Burke lashing out and then John stepping in to stage the scene.

I agree the Vanity Fair story up thread is an eye opener on how the Boulder police department colluded with the Ramseys.

If something sounds ridiculous it usually is.

No one would write a random note but not dispose of the body. She was lying in the middle of the floor ffs. This anomaly can't be explained because it doesn't make sense. To think the parents stated this thing and then did something as ridiculous as writing a note whilst leaving the body so findable is just laughable.

As John said, patsy was only recently finished with cancer treatment. She was happy to be alive and to see her children grow up. You honestly think a mother in this scenario would be filled with rage from bedwetting?

In any case, the photographs of the bed show there was no bed wetting 😑

She was lying in a tiny basement room and was not found for hours. It was not findable. It was John Ramsey who brought her up and the police who allowed people to pray over her, destroying any evidence.
The parents could not easily have moved her body without being seen or detected.

@downwindofyou I think it can easily be explained and I think someone below did in terms of the risk they might take in getting caught being seen leaving the home /driving at that time of night by their neighbours.

A random note which talks a pile of poo for 3 pages demanding a ransom and a call that will happen between 8am and 10am and never came while standing for 20 minutes in the home writing it makes much less sense !

@CharlotteRumpling

Apples and oranges, surely. There wasnt a ridiculous ransom note, a weapon from their own house, or even a body in the McCann case.
You are being too literal. The poster means it is the same as in people reading and watching media stories coming up with fixed beliefs based on the half truths, suppressed or leaked information and gossip.

No one on here has a scoobie doo what happened but they will swear blind that they know the truth. It's so exhausting that people are so easily deluded into thinking they know stuff.

Stories into witness testimony show that even when people are present at an event their testimonies vary enormously. Here we have people with nothing more than what the media gas fed them convinced that they know things.

The bedclothes could have been changed? She was found soaked in urine.

Mothers do lash out at children, no matter how much they love them. As do brothers..Burke already had history. And there is the pineapple.

The cancer treatment is irrelevant, i think.

@downwindofyou I agrre the tabloid press went totally overboard, making wild sexual abuse allegations. But as I said, the VF article is useful.
I am not convinced that I know anything and am not swearing to it. I am just discussing it. As is everybody. No point in a thread that says " I dont have a scoobie!".

The note was just a way to create another motive and “credible” perpetrator.
They couldn’t dispose of the body.
They just had to create reasonable doubt.

The thing with the bonus amount on the random note that feels off to me, is weren't they absolutely loaded? The bonus was chump change to them. Surely they'd value their daughter's life more highly, especially if they knew they'd never have to pay it.

Yes. It would be an incredibly thoughtful kidnapper to first investigate how much his bonus was and write that exact amount so as not to financially inconvenience them too much.

I don't think homeless drifter Gary Oliva would even know what ' a small foreign faction' meant. Or any random intruder.

She was strangled, which tends to cause evacuation.

Thomas, who had zero experience in homicide, just made up a theory and invented possible facts to explain it.

Again, very surface thoughts compared to those of you who’ve clearly read a lot, but it seems she was a chronic bed wetter and had continence issues in the day too. It seems unlikely in that circumstance that her mother would be roused to fury by it on a random occasion. It would have been a daily reality.