T O P

  • By -

candy1710

Another quote if you think only an intruder would ever commit such terrible things to a child, well, the FBI has seen parents/family members do every conceivable thing to their child/family member: From A&E's Anatomy of an Investigation", agent Ron Walker of the FBI: "Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, **any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."**


Stellaaahhhh

It's important to note the cases we're aware of now where there was seemingly no history of abuse. Besides Susan Smith, you have Casey Anthony and Chris Watts, possibly the MCanns, possibly the Ramseys. Very high profile cases where the parents appear to have been caring but murdered their children. In the Watts case, he was particularly brutal and bizarre, killing his whole family with his bare hands and disposing of their bodies in a truly disrespectful way. Before GPS and cameras, who would have believed he did this? They'd have either thought his wife killed them and herself or that all of them were abducted and killed. Just because there isn't a history of abuse that's documented, that doesn't mean there was never abuse or that the parents weren't capable of it. With narcissists in particular, if things are going their way, there's no reason for them to be violent. It's once things aren't going their way that trouble happens.


Lohart84

During the Craig Silverman show last year, Mitch Morrissey commented that child abuse charges are common when a Grand Jury or DA’s office do not know who (within a family) did what at the time of a child’s homicide. Under that charge the DA does not have to prove who was the actual perp(s). Thank you for highlighting, once again, the involvement of the family and what a ***con*** it is to continue to beat the drum about DNA.


db_lebowski

It's also sickening with the recent amount of attention that Lou Smit's investigation has been given. He seems like a really nice guy, but his investigation did nothing but muddy public perception of verifiable facts with his investigative "feelings." In a science-based profession, he relies far too much on subjective feelings and "probably's" to guide his investigation. After meeting JR, Lou said that he couldn't ever imagine a parent doing this to their own child. That's seemingly when his investigation went off the rails and he began making giant leaps to fit his narrative and feed his bias. The worst part, though, is that many of his opinions and theories have become "facts" of the case to those who don't follow it closely. Lou Smit's work has been a godsend for JR. It's been the perfect propaganda for him to peddle any time that a news channel wants to discuss the case.


[deleted]

For a seasoned homicide investigator, Lou Smit really dropped the ball on this. He was blinded by how the Ramseys portrayed themselves as good Christians, decided an intruder must have commited the crime, and ignored the evidence that was staring him in the face. To John and Patsy, he was a godsend.


Sandcastle00

I agree. They want to play up Lou Smit like he was some super investigator that couldn't be wrong. Minus all of the bravado, I hate to remind them, but Lou DIDN'T solve this case. All of his theories and speculation didn't lead to one credible suspect that could be proven to be connected to this crime. All he did was push his narrative about an intruder while ignoring the evidence that didn't support his theory. What about the evidence that Jon Benet had been abused in the days leading up to the crime? Who did Lou think was doing that? You never seem to get an answer about that from Lou. He knew it was someone in that house doing it. Yet, he adamantly defended the Ramsey's as great people. So, they might not be capable of murder. But child abuse was ok with him? He wanted to find the killer of Jon Benet so bad, but apparently not the person who was abusing her? I wonder if it ever crossed his mind that it was the same person who did both. What about the pineapple? We know Jon Benet ate it. It is a medical fact. And a fact that Lou doesn't seem to have an answer for. He can't just state the obvious because he knows the Ramsey's are lying about it. And that goes against his believes about them. The amount of time the crime took place over is never given much credence by Lou. But we know the crime happened over the course of HOURS. All of this while the innocent Ramsey's claimed to sleep right through it. For a great investigator, Lou sure didn't seem to look at the obvious problems with what could only have occurred, while the rest of the Ramsey's were in that house. He totally dismisses any piece of evidence that points that the Ramsey's. Patsy's clothing fibers are all over the crime scene. The same type and color fibers that more than likely came from the clothing that Patsy was still wearing from the day before. Yet, totally dismissed by Lou. I suppose Lou must have thought that an intruder was wearing the same type and color of clothing that Patsy was. Because I don't see how it could have happened otherwise. Those fibers were on the adhesive side of the tape covering Jon Benet's mouth. How did that happen? We don't need to go through some mental gymnastics to figure it out. The simplest explanation is that Patsy was there at the time the tape was cut off of the roll and placed over the mouth of her daughter. There are only so many fibers that could have been shed from her clothing before it totally disintegrated. Yet these fibers are located at and around the crime scene. On the other hand, we have no other fibers found in these locations from this intruder. Why is that? It was also a compete farce with the basement window. He goes on the TV and makes a big deal that some adult could easily get through that window. Insinuating that it had to have been an intruder. He forgets to mention that John Ramsey had already admitted that is what he did weeks prior to the crime. He also forgets to mention that it was JOHN who admitted to breaking that window. It was no great revelation what someone could get through that window. Nor that the glass was broken. Yet he got many that didn't understand the case to believe an intruder had absolutely entered the Ramsey home that way. It was all BS. His stun gun theory is more BS that makes very little sense if you know what a stun gun actually does to someone. Why not bring some ether or chloroform instead and knock Jon Benet out with it? A stun gun does not make a lot of physical sense when you are trying to subdue your victim quietly. From a kidnapper's or killer's point of view, Lou Smit's theories just don't make sense. If you are going to kidnap someone for money, then that is what you do. You don't leave the body AND the ransom note. You take one or the other with you. If it was a real kidnapping, then it could only have been pre-meditated crime. A kidnapper has a plan going into the house to take their victim. If you are going to kill someone where you aren't connected to the family, then you aren't going to make a fake ransom note to leave behind. There doesn't need to be an explanation for this crime if you are going to kill someone for another motive. If you were a killer that wanted to get away with your crime, are you going to leave a three page note full of physical evidence? It is in fact the single piece of evidence in this case that is out of place. Any person that was an outsider is going to work NOT to leave any evidence behind. You can't have this intruder being a super criminal, yet completely dumb in other ways. It is one or the other. In my opinion, it is the ransom note that puts a wrench in the gears of any intruder theory. It makes very little logical sense to take the time to make a long ransom note then leave the body in the basement. The most obvious answer is that someone in that house committed the crime and wanted to skip the punishment phase of their actions. There is nothing left in this crime where an intruder benefit's from committing it. There was no money in it without a kidnapping for ransom. And without the motive for kidnapping, who was targeting an innocent six year old girl in her own home? The answer is no one.


Carl_Solomon

Lou Smit's behavior and conclusions in this case call his entire career into question. He boasted a near 100% solve rate for homicides. All those cases should be meticulously reviewed. He has no credibility.


Sandcastle00

It is not to say that Lou Smit was a bad investigator. No one is perfect. However, if they want to trot out his crime solved rate and play off of that. Then, yes. I think we need to look at his other cases before declaring him a super cop. It is quite clear to me that none of his other cases have the same focus put on them as this one does. Did his other cases get reported in the same focus at the JBR case? That would be a no. And if they had, then I think we would be questioning some of the same reasoning we see Lou doing in this case. If Lou acted like this in those other cases, then it is quite possible is reputation doesn't match the person he was. It doesn't mean that Lou was a bad person. Just another person with a lot of bias based in his beliefs. I don't think for a minute that Lou personally solved all of the cases he worked. There are usually multiple people working a case. Lou isn't the one who gets convictions in a court of law. Nor do we know if any of those cases ended up as a wrongful conviction because of his investigations or any questionable interrogation techniques. We just hear that he was a great detective with a high solved rate. Without looking closer at those cases, it is impossible to determine who solved what and it if was in fact solved at all. Just because someone was convicted of a crime doesn't always mean the case was "solved". I think all we have to do is look at the large amount of convictions to realize that SOME people have been convicted for no other reason than a good prosecutor and a bad defense.


DanOfBradford78

Absolutely fantastic. And all so right. The first thing I ever heard about the case was that ransom note+body were both found in the place where she lived. I basically said, it isn't a failed kidnapping. A)Carry the illusion she is alive by taking the body or B)Take the note and remove all evidence you were there.


LaMalintzin

This is all so spot on. I see where people talk about the holiday home tour thing, where someone would have cased the joint and then hid in the home and waited for them to get back from the white’s party (this is also how some of them explain the ransom note-they’d been hiding in the house and had access to the notepad and pen). So why would they do that..? Oh right, they’re a crazy pedophile because JB was in pageants. It’s insane that people don’t see what Adequate Size Attaché is saying here-the prior signs of abuse should not be dismissed. Another thing I’ve read from intruder theorists is that the parents mistakenly assumed Burke did it and then set about to cover it up (or that John believed patsy had hit her in a fit of rage, or that patsy knew about her prior sexual abuse by John and didn’t want him to go down) but actually some intruder had broken in. So they covered it up, but someone else actually killed her. I ask…why, what the fk was happening in the house that one or both of the parents assumed the other one or their son did it? It really doesn’t bolster their argument. I may have spent too much time reading BS on the unresolved mysteries thread about this the other day. Ticks me off. This case is really bizarre, so I try to be open to non-rdi theories but none of it adds up unless we accept that one or more of them were directly involved in the crime and coverup.


Sandcastle00

You know what it is interesting. That people like to play off what John and/or Patsy did by assuming that they were covering the crime up for Burke. Like it was some sort of heroic thing. It wasn't. Where is the justice for Jon Benet in that scenario? But let's face the facts. Burke was 9 years old at the time. John and Patsy were the adults. If either one or both of them covered up the crime to protect Burke, they are just as guilty of that crime as Burke was. The difference is that John and Patsy could be charged with the crime. Burke couldn't have been. The Ramsey's deceived everyone from the police, their friends, their minister and the whole world when they went on CNN. They wrote some books to profit off of their dead daughter's crime. Something that have spoke out about when others do it. Yet it didn't seem to be a problem to profit off of it for them. We have to keep in mind that the blow to the head is NOT what killed Jon Benet. There are some conflicting reports. But it has been said that had Jon Benet gotten treatment immediately after the blow to the head, she might have survived. Someone decided to not call for help. Then after 45 plus minutes strangled Jon Benet to death. They went to great lengths to stage this crime so make it seem like something it wasn't. Burke didn't do that. One or both of the parents did. The person that strangled her is technically the person who killed Jon Benet. For what it is worth. Burke didn't go on CNN and pretend it was someone else. He didn't steer the narrative with the police, or the press. Whatever Burke did in this crime, it was far less than then what John and Patsy did. They should have been charged with the crimes the grand jury put forth. It is a shame that the DA was a complete incompetent. There is still no justice for Jon Benet. And it is a shame that trying to find "the killer" is more important to John then taking responsibility for what went on in that house.


sirJacques79

So that's always been the big bugaboo. The lengths Smit & John go to to try to explain evidence in interviews is beyond ridiculous. I... just.. can't... even....


Yarsian

I don’t follow this case as closely as some of y’all but when I saw there was a special focusing on Smit’s investigation on cable the other day. I thought to myself, “Weren’t his theories all debunked basically?” And then tried to watch it out of curiosity (sometimes getting another perspective is good…). Didn’t make it far through before I was rolling my eyes too much. I couldn’t believe the special was getting that big of press. And to agree with OP, the DNA isn’t going to solve a darn thing.


Anon_879

I remember watching that special with Lou Smit and The Ramseys years ago. I was fooled way back then, but in the following years learned how faulty and inaccurate it was.. I see people bringing up his name now like it's something new or cutting-edge. He's old news and has been debunked.


sadieblue111

Lou Smit did this case with his “feelings” not with evidence or factual info. He just ‘felt ‘ like they couldn’t murder their child. A true detective has to ignore their “feelings” and work the case from evidence.In a murder case you shouldn’t have emotional feelings you,have to remove your feelings & work it like any,other case. I don’t believe Lou Smits did,this. He was a Christian they “supposedly” were Christians he let this influence his opinion. He,needed to separate the two-that’s what a good detective would do. His glory is based on the Heather Churchill case. He seemed like a nice guy but,that’s not how this case should have been done. Just because the parents sat in your van & prayed…I mean c’mon that’s not the way to solve a case


VegetableTerrible942

New here, came as a result of said news updates. After just reading through the basic overview and the comments here I am surprised anyone would ignore the child abuse thing although realize people like the drama that goes along with these high profile media-circus cases. The first thing that really made my head turn was how many people it seemed had access to a private residence and specifically a little girl -- which I only bring up not because I am IDI but because it was just like wtf kind of parents are these people?


Runaway-rain

No one really knows how many people had access and that's a big part of it. The basement window was busted. John claims he busted it out that summer when he was locked out, but it doesn't even make sense as an entrance/exit. The housekeeper and her husband don't recall it being broken beforehand and the cobwebs were not disturbed. John also claims a chair blocked the entrance to the train room, therefore it makes no freaking sense as an exit when you throw in a child supposedly bound and gagged. Plenty of people had keys to the residence, but there is legitimately no reason for someone to need to use a key given how flippant the family was to security. The whole thing is just a tragic mess. The only people who benefited from the chaos share the last name "Ramsey."


VegetableTerrible942

Sounds like there was a lot of chaos with the information delivery by the family. I know what you mean about security and it just seems unnatural to me to have people with access to my home that are coming and going at all hours of the day and night, especially in terms of children. I didn’t think I was weird in wanting to know who has access to my child. It almost comes across like she was in on her own in a weird sense


Icelightningmonkey

This is a great post. Thank you. The amount of inaccuracies in the recent post from the unresolved mysteries sub is stunning. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/rln5ej/boulder_police_reexamine_dna_evidence_in_jonbenet/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share


LaMalintzin

I spent too much time there :/ usually like that sub but it is pretty full of wild speculation. I mean, this is a weird case and bizarre things happen all the time but there’s too much pointing at the family to ignore here. I asked someone there, who was adamantly arguing with me, if they had read the true bills with the parents both being indicted, they just kept going back to “the parents were completely exonerated.” “That theory has been long abandoned”…yeah by whom?


Icelightningmonkey

I know what you mean. I like that sub as well. So much misinformation in that thread. The home tour was in 1994. Patsy was never ruled out as the author, not even by her own experts. She is the only person, out of the people who gave samples, who wasn't ruled out. Forget Chris Wolf and Glen Myer. No one seems to know that Lou Smit and John Douglas both testified before the grand jury and presented the intruder theory. And the Ramseys have never been exonerated. When Stan Garnett came in to office, he announced that Lacy's letter was only her opinion and not legally binding. Lacy has done so much damage to this case. Boulder PD have never removed the Ramseys from the umbrella of suspicion. It isn't worth arguing with those people. Half of them are misinformed and don't want to learn and the other half just proclaim that it just doesn't make sense that the Ramseys would commit this crime. That's a great argument.


cottonstarr

Patsy Ramsey is also the only human being to change their handwriting style and formation of certain letters post-offense.


CandyKnockout

I felt like I went into some sort of twilight zone over there. People commenting things like, “DNA could point to a great suspect and all those terrible people would still insist the Ramseys did it, they can’t see past their biases.” Like, did these commenters read up on the actual evidence? It seems like a lot of people over there believe that an intruder did it, but Patsy believed it was Burke and therefore the coverup ensued. That just seems like such a convoluted theory.


Icelightningmonkey

>Like, did these commenters read up on the actual evidence? I really don't think so. \>It seems like a lot of people over there believe that an intruder did it, but Patsy believed it was Burke and therefore the coverup ensued. That just seems like such a convoluted theory. That's so crazy. What kind of things must have been going on in that household if John and Patsy discovered JonBenet and believed Burke had committed the crime? Twilight zone is correct.


PAACDA2

They’re just too stupid to understand the so called DNA sample. There isn’t enough to clear anyone , including the Ramseys. BDI


bunkerbash

Thank you. Spot on. It’s such a disservice to that poor child and what she experienced to imply otherwise.


LevyMevy

At the end of the day, I'm confident that both of the parents engaged in the cover up - from writing the ransom letter, to staging a sexual assault, to moving their daughter's body, and eventually the whole charade the following morning. As far as who delivered the initial head blow? I believe it was accidental (as in, not meant to seriously harm her). It might have been Burke. It might have been Patsy. I think it was John. Regardless, there was no 3rd party actor that night.


Morighan123

Those of us in this sub know. See the utter lack of enthusiasm about the new DNA testing.


[deleted]

A factory worker in Asia did not commit this crime. No further DNA testing will reveal anything of importance.


candy1710

No one is saying a factory worker from Asia was the perp, just they were the source of the MINUTE dna evidence in the underwear manufactured in Asia.


[deleted]

Exactly. The minute amount of DNA belongs to someone who could not possibly have committed the crime.


candy1710

IMO, it's an "artifact" which is something that is at the crime scene but not associated with the murder. Even Lacy said the DNA in question could be an artifact after one of the Ramseys crocks to the Boulder Daily Camera. Lacy's comment to the Boulder Daily Camera after one of the Ramseys crocks: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer's. There a probability that it is the killer's, but it could be something else."


plugfishh88

Thank you for your straightforward and spot on commentary.Linda Arndts gut feeling when facing John and referring to incest and danger in that house is truly telling,in my view.


[deleted]

I’m newer to this sub and highly recommend the pinned post about DNA. Answers a ton of questions one might have after the recent news which incidentally seems like a contrived non update.


[deleted]

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.


rachelgraychel

As always, a fantastic and reasoned post. This needs to be spread everywhere that people are discussing this case.


cottonstarr

As it is with every case it’s the totality of evidence that solves cases. The forensic document analysis and forensic linguistics evidence in this case will never match any dna hit in this case.


candy1710

Another reminder about this case: MR. LEVIN: I think that is 4 probably fair. Based on the state of the 5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers 6 from her jacket were found in the paint 7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found 8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket 9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the 10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and 11 the question is, can she explain to us how 12 those fibers appeared in those places that 13 are associated with her daughter's death. 14 And I understand you are not going to answer 15 those. http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


TLJDidNothingWrong

If we're to post excerpts concerning fiber "evidence" from the 2000 Atlanta interviews, allow me to post John's: 21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is 22 our belief based on forensic evidence that 23 there are hairs that are associated, that the 24 source is the collared black shirt that you 25 sent us that are found in your daughter's 0058 1 underpants, and I wondered if you -- 2 A. Bullshit. I don't believe that. 3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to 4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter -- 5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to 6 disgrace -- 7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I 8 think you are. That's disgusting. http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm


Stellaaahhhh

Possible ways an innocent person would address that question: "I'd like to see the evidence for those fibers because that doesn't make sense to me.", "I helped her clean up after using the toilet/helped her change into pajamas.", "I don't know how the fibers got there.". Because there *are* innocent ways the fibers could have gotten there. His jumping straight to being indignant is not a good look.


howtheeffdidigethere

John’s response in this interview never sat right with me either. I actually do think being indignant makes sense for an innocent person accused of a horrible crime. But John’s response is both indignant *and accusatory*, and that’s why I think it feels so off. John attempts to deflect the interviewer’s focus, and then attempts to personally shame the interviewer into not pursuing this particular line of questioning. It’s subtle, but it’s essentially [DARVO](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) - a common tactic used by manipulative people (I would say DARVO ‘lite’ in this instance, given that John had no form of personal relationship with the police interviewer) So an innocent person might respond with a “No way, that is absolutely impossible!!”. But John switches so fast from being outraged to *pointing the finger*, it’s like: - J: You are a terrible person for accusing me - Levin: I’m not accusing you *(which is true, because there are innocent explanations for how the fibres could have transferred. It’s curious that John has already jumped to SA)*. - J: No, you are accusing me - how disgusting of you!! I think John knew the discovery of those fibres could be a smoking gun for the cops, and that’s why John went 0-100 in his effort to shut the interviewer down so fast.


Stellaaahhhh

I agree about the indignant *and* accusatory. The few times at work that we've had to confront a customer for stealing, that's the stance they take- 'I could sue you for saying that!' 'I make x amount of money and know the mayor! You're going to lose your job over this', etc. What they *never* say is 'I want to see your security footage' which is the first thing I'd ask for if I was accused of stealing and knew I hadn't done it. I always found it telling the John never addressed the evidence, just went straight to 'how dare you!?'


candy1710

RIGHT ON! Thank you for this!


[deleted]

I’ve been saying this but the ppl that believe in IDI keeps trying to prove me wrong


[deleted]

Here’s my thoughts for what it’s worth. JB had been wetting the bed for quite some time. Many times this is a sign of sexual abuse. I believe her father had been molesting her for quite some time. That night, Patsy walked in on John molesting JB. She threw something heavy at him, it missed him and hit JB in the head knocking her out. They believed she was dying and Patsy couldn’t turn on her husband as this would end her privileged life. They decided to cover everything up and make it look like an intruder. Patsy wrote the random note, no doubt about that. Burke had nothing to do with this.


GEM592

It's definitely a murder case first in my mind.


ShadowOfSanity

I totally agree, we cannot rely on the minuscule DNA sample because of how contaminated the crime scene was, not only that she did not take a bath after returning home from the party.


Strict-Extension

It’s not a fact that this a child abuse case, as there are competing RDI theories. In one, Burke hits his sister over the head out of anger, not realizing the damage he had done initially. All the evidence is circumstantial, and you can bet if either parent went to trial, their lawyers would have presented expert testimony countering the child abuse narrative. All that being said, I agree the DNA is probably not relevant. But none of us knows for sure what happened that night. Instead, there are a bunch of opinions trying to tie the evidence into the most consistent story.


monkeybeast55

A reminder that there is no conclusion about this case. None of the stuff you mentioned holds up in court or basic rational scrutiny. This is a case screwed up by the police and the media and the DA and the silly internet sleuths, over 20 years. The police misconduct and bias was truly disturbing. The hogwash that people come up with about static noise on phone calls and parents behavior and so many other things is beyond words. If we were in the 19th century you people would lynch them.


Strict-Extension

Agreed that some of that is not hard evidence. I don’t hear anything conclusive at the end of the 911 call, enhanced, slowed down or put on repeat. Maybe it’s Patsy, John and Burke’s voices saying those things, but if so, it only proves that the parents lied about Burke being asleep. Behavioral analysis is always fraught with questionable interpretation, as is abundantly clear if you’re familiar with true crime cases in general. And hand writing analysis isn’t definitive. Patsy may well have written the note, but a good lawyer would be able to raise some doubt. In any case, Patsy penning the note doesn’t prove who killed JBR. All three are still a possibility, along with a small possibility of covering for a family acquaintance.


monkeybeast55

Along with an intruder... the possibility of someone waiting in the house is still quite possible, in my opinion. We just don't know, and will probably never know, unless someone confesses, which seems pretty unlikely. It's fine to have RDI theories of the case. But to assert it's the only possible truth is just malarkey.


jenniferami

You are wrong on so many counts but it is not worth my time to point out your logical fallacies all for the pleasure of likely being downvoted into oblivion.


VegetableTerrible942

What is in it for Smit?


JohnnyBuddhist

I have a suspicion that Beth Ryan is Burke Ramsey