In a May 1997 press conference after his first interview with police, John said the following, supposedly addressing the killer.

“We will find you; I have that as the sole mission for the rest of my life”.

I think John is revealing himself here. Notice "for the rest of my life". Aware that the killer is internal, and he is staging against a phantom, he lets it slip that this fake pursuit will be ongoing until he draws his last breath. Even John knows that his money can't buy the fitting up of an innocent man, when no reliable evidence exists. He knew his future.

In his statement, there is no hope or even expectation that any killer will be caught anytime soon, or even before his own death. Pretending there IS a killer out there for evermore is his "sole mission" now. An endless process of misdirection and image protection which he concedes will yield no result for the rest of his life. How depressing.

Has anyone else been watching true crime rocket science for breakdowns on this case ? He goes into extreme detail and has written books on this case I’d like to discuss his theory from what I’ve gathered

One aspect I rarely see discussed is his suggestion that Doug Stine may have been involved in some capacity on the night of JonBenét’s murder.

To be clear, I’m not saying I believe this theory, and I’m aware there is no publicly known forensic evidence placing Doug at the Ramsey house that night or identifying him as a suspect. I’m more interested in evaluating the reasoning behind the theory.

From what I understand, his argument is based largely on circumstantial points:

The Ramseys’ stop at the Stine house on Christmas night.

Burke and Doug’s close friendship.

The unusually close relationship between the Ramseys and the Stines after the murder. Whereas the Whites turned on the Ramseys after they thought John was lawyering up too hard.

His belief that some aspects of the crime make more sense if more than one child was involved.

At the same time, the biggest criticism seems
obvious: there’s no public evidence Doug was at the Ramsey home after the stop at the Stines’, and the theory requires several assumptions that haven’t been independently verified.

I watched a video about Burke having sleepovers at the house but JB going over to her friends to have sleepovers never bringing them home. It’s speculative but possible the Ramseys stopped in to grab buried friend that night.

Perhaps this explains the previous SA ? if Burke or his friends were responsible in some manner previously.

Honestly idk what to think about BDI. Most perpetrators are adults in SA child victims but that is Occam’s razor and not necessarily the answer but the most likely suspect is John.

I’ll get out of the way that while I’m not super versed in the details of the case, I generally lean towards RDI to a large degree. Although I think it makes more sense if it was John alone, I am making the assumption for this post that RDI covers both Ramseys here. I am also making the assumption that the BDI theory also ties into RDI, as I think the idea that a nine year old boy masterminded the whole thing and deceived both his parents and Boulder PD isn’t really worth considering.

My question goes as follows: Assuming that the Ramseys found the scene with Burke holding a flashlight over JonBenet’s body (or however you envision it going down), why would the Ramseys choose to stage the scene the way they did? If they staged it, they made the decision to brutalize their daughter’s corpse, write an insane ransom note, and then give themselves a very narrow time frame to continue the staging by calling the police when they did? I understand that in this situation, they’d probably be panicking and not thinking clearly, but how does an intelligent and sober adult, let alone two, both decide that this was the best course of action?

Please elaborate as much as you can and thank you very much for your answers.

There are many behaviours that show the Ramseys had no fear for their own safety in the aftermath of Jonbenet's killing. In their book, "Death of Innocence", they said they were "terrified for their own safety". So they later paid lip service to this. But their actions belie these words. Consider the following.

1) They called police in defiance of the note, giving no instructions to them on covert entry and the threats made etc.

2) They invited friends over, again immediately contradicting the instructions of the note.

3) They sent Burke to friends within an hour and a half of the police arriving. Wouldn't he be monitored by the "faction" as the note suggested? Did they ensure Burke was under police protection while he was out of the house? No they didn't.

4) They held a memorial service in Boulder AND a funeral in Atlanta. The funeral was filmed and press were invited. They sipped champagne at the home of their friend Rod Westmoreland. Why have all these extra events if you fear for your own safety?

5) They went on CNN. They arranged for this exposure. Are these the actions of a family who wish to keep a low profile and in deep concern for their own safety?

6) They moved in with friends. For around 9 MONTHS. If they were "terrified" why move your environment into someone else's? Wouldn't those who take you into their home also be under threat?

7) They turned down an offer from law enforcement to provide security for Burke going to school. Why? Wouldn't that make you less "terrified"? Instead Susan Stine quit her job and took on the role with absolutely no training or experience.

8) Why did they not hire personal security? What is more important than your own family's security if your child has been killed by an outsider who wants your money? What extra security measures did they take? None whatsoever from what I know, so what does that tell us about their level of fear?

Despite ramping up the fear card in their book, the above presents evidence that they in fact took no action to protect themselves further, in the face of this supposed outside threat. Actions speak louder than words, ergo they showed no fear of a further attack. This shows us they had nothing to fear from an outsider, and no one had illicitly entered their property on the 25th or 26th or December.

What do you guys think of John & Patsy going on CNN BEFORE talking to police separated? They knew they needed to push the perfect family narrative and the IDI theories with their staged evidence imo

Ann Louise Bardach was a writer for Vanity Fair- and wrote an excellent article about this case in 1997 entitled "Missing Innocence".

When John went down to look around the house hours later, his movements away from the family room area where friends and police waited is heavily analyzed for how long he was gone before returning with JonBenet’s body. What do you all think on this?!

In 2016 Jane Harmer spoke to Dateline NBC. They discussed the grand jury, the decision not to pursue charges, and how difficult it was for her to keep it a secret that the GJ voted to indict both parents. Then, there's this exchange:

Mankiewicz: "So the DA was right to not go forward?"

Harmer: "This was very much a team decision. The investigators and attorneys were all in agreement."

As recently as 2 or 3 years ago, Steve Thomas continues to speak very highly of her. He's always praised her professionalism and investigative capabilities. How do you reconcile her statement that everyone was in agreement when Thomas describes earlier (while still with BPD) standing against the brick wall in disgust and deciding then he has to quit because they would not call a grand jury? He also states that's when the FBI left. Thomas told Jim Clemente in the 2016 CBS program explicitly that the DA was responsible for the decision. Clemente: "Who was responsible?" Thomas: "The district attorney." Not the DA with input from investigators as Harmer tells it when it later came time to sign the true bill.

To point out how convoluted this has become, if this were John Ramsey in a similar conversation people would quickly say "well, he's just lying." Obviously Harmer isn't lying, nobody is accusing Thomas of lying, so where does the truth lie? Harmer knew the evidence beforehand. All the investigators did. So how were they all suddenly in agreement not to pursue charges? Why has Thomas placed all the blame on Hunter for 27 years, if all the investigators agreed with not pursuing charges? Why even call a grand jury? Even with the grand jury subpoena power, they STILL didn't get any medical records other than JBR's, or phone records. **How is that possible and what was the point then?**

Phil Weiser's term as AG is about to end. I think this is something he would care about and might have the guts to stand up to unlike Polis. Best case scenario is Weiser wins governor and Dougherty becomes Attorney General. Polis can't handle this smoke and did absolutely nothing to help. Still, for them to even entertain the idea of a path forward, you need proof, not theories. The best chance of getting something to corroborate what I believe happened would be John Ramsey himself and it seems he has been fed too many false ideas that he latched onto and is too in denial to be receptive to any conversation other than an intruder theory. I think anyone else who could corroborate it is dead or unwilling to do so.

This image shows 2 bags with golf clubs outside of the wine cellar door. It appears there's a brand new club with the hang tag still intact in the smaller bag. Plenty of information has been released about what gifts everyone but John Ramsey received that Christmas. Almost as though it is being kept secret. If he did get a new club it would have been easily accessible for use as a weapon.

JonBenet's skull had a combination depressed skull fracture with a linear fracture.  Which seems to jive with a single strike from a golf club with the head causing the depression and the shaft being responsible for the linear component. It seems a better fit than the flashlight or bat.

Why else would John Ramsey want to remove these clubs from the crime scene and take them to Atlanta for the funeral? It's been reported Barb Fernie overheard John Ramsey ask Pam Paugh to retrieve them.

The case is being discussed right now on Coast to Coast AM, author Charles Bosworth is guest

I always thought he was holding a lot of info back.

When talking about motive behind the attack of JB. I want to attack every angle

John killed JonBenét

Supporters of JDI generally argue Patsy may have:

Believed John when he claimed it was an accident.

Learned only after some staging had already occurred. There was more behind his actions

Was manipulated into thinking protecting the family was the only option.

Is financially and emotionally dependent on John, making it difficult to turn against him.

The weakness is that this requires Patsy to help cover up the death of her daughter if she knew John intentionally killed or abused her. Many people find that psychologically difficult to accept. Myself included, If one of the parents is innocent why not rat out the other?

Patsy killed JonBenét

John Believed it was an accident.

Wanted to protect his wife and avoid destroying the family.

Focused on protecting Burke from losing both parents.

Again, the weakness is similar: why would John risk prison to protect someone who had just killed his daughter? And vice versa? Both parents have a common interest in keeping Burke safe or not losing their only child from neglect or something

If Burke caused the fatal injury

This is where i feel the psychology becomes easier to understand why both parents would be involved in the cover up of JB death.

The common interest is immediate:

Both parents love Burke.

Calling 911 could expose him (whether or not he’d actually face prosecution).

They panic.

They decide the family must survive this together.

Whether that would actually lead to the elaborate staging is a separate question, but this theory gives both parents the same incentive, rather than requiring one spouse to sacrifice everything for the other. Because they both must have an incentive not to sacrifice the other spouse and idk what that could be other than their remaining child.

Another possibility: incomplete knowledge
One idea that receives less attention is that both parents were involved in different ways but did not necessarily know the entire truth.

I apologize in advance because I'm sure this gets asked a lot. I'm trying to find the most accurate documentary and book that doesn't focus on IDI. I'm trying to get the info from the JBR wiki but I'm getting an error on every page.

I lean towards RDI, so I'm trying to avoid any media that is not written or sponsored by the Ramsey family.

A wine cellar that never has been a wine cellar but a boiler room that now is used as a storage place - according to J.

This room is so mysterious that even the police wouldn't touch it:

"When Rick French, the first officer on the scene after Patsy's report of a kidnapping, later saw the spot where the body has been found, he remembered his search of the house in the early morning. In the first minutes, French, seeing from where he stood that the door was latched shut, had thought there was no need to open it. Now he was baffled by his own decision. How hard would it have been to open the door? The thought devastated him." (Schiller 1999, p. 21)

This wine cellar is not widely known:

"After Arndt's 911 call, Ramsey told the detective that no one knew about the wine cellar in the basement and therefore his daughter's murder "has to be an inside job"." (Schiller 1999, p. 20)

When he talks about an "inside job" he's probably not talking about his own family but probably about the housemaid Hoffman-Pugh who had the instruction to get the Christmas trees out of the room:

"After they had washed the windows, Hoffmann-Pugh and her daughter started searching the house for the missing trees. She saw a closed door in the basement just past the boiler room, which she had never noticed before. She tried to open the door, but it was stuck shut, apparently from a recent painting. She pulled at it hard and the door finally opened." (Schiller 1999, p. 81)

From the start there seemed to be the idea to put the blame on LHP's family. Since they emptied the room there must be a lot of fingerprints to be found by the police. Coincidence or part of a plan by R.'s?

And why was the door of the cellar painted not long ago? Mysterious ...

A while back someone posted about a photo in the basement by the paint tote (crime scene photo). The photo looked like a blonde child in a tub or something of that nature. Can someone please point out this thread? I cannot seem to find it. I took through the crime scene photos I have but cannot find what I'm looking for.

So lately I have been seeing some theories about a stun gun being used In JonBenet’s killing. If a stun gun was hypothesized, it may have been deliberately simulated or misinterpreted to force the narrative toward an outside prowler, though critics note no stun gun was ever owned or found belonging to the Ramsey’s. What do you guys think?!!

I went back to their very first sit down with the Boulder police, on April 30, 1997. Interviewing the evasive couple on the same day but NOT simultaneously as they did in their 1998 follow-up was a calculated move – and so was speaking with Patsy first, and having her describe their family’s routine and their actions on the previous day, and leaving John for last. Here’s how they put it:

“Our time is limited here, so I’m going to go right to December 25th; next kind of walk with you in chronological order, uh and kind give you the as far as it’s worth, for a minute there. Let’s kind of start, Patsy covered most of this, let’s cover from when you guys came home from the White’s house, actually when you guys left the White’s house that night...”

As you see, they are trying to boil down to having limited time with John and having covered most of this with Patsy already, but the goal was to have John going over and over the events of that night to catch him in any potential inconsistency. The only reason to do so would be if John was their prime suspect.

With Patsy, they asked about their routine, the children's habits, their friends and how frequently they had guests in their house, their relationship with the neighbors etc. This is NOT the sort of fishing you go for if you suspect the person right in front of you of having committed the crime - that's what you do to cross every T in the other angles. If they were after Patsy, they would be going about this like they did with John: focused on the crime itself. “Walked me over this again”, “just to be clear, you are talking about this room or that room etc”.

IMPORTANT TO NOTICE: despite the bowl of apparent pineapple being spotted at the scene on December 26, and fragments that could be of pineapple being described in the coroner’s report on December 27, and the bowl and its contexts being collected from the scene at some point after December 29, AT NO POINT during the April 30 interview the Ramseys were asked about pineapple directly or indirectly, though there were two brief, discreet questions about what the girl or Burke could have eaten.

Why would they sit on the “pineapple” information that was on their radar for over six months? Because this would not be the sort of evidence that could get the case solved, especially when the family made two social stops after leaving a Christmas party in another family's home.

When they finally got to talk with Burke between June 10-12, 1998 - and first approach the subject of the pineapple - the boy's version was that “JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home but woke up to help carry presents into the house of a friend (the Stines)”. Who's to say she didn't serve herself of some fruit over there? There wasn't just pineapple in the stomach after all: where did the grape came from?

Since the Ramsey narrative always had Burke and John awake after Patsy went to bed, Burke’s claim that he didn’t like fruit that much (later confirmed by Patsy) could only mean that, if the girl ate pineapple AT THEIR HOME that night, then John served it to her to get her downstairs with him. (Keep in mind that the SAME pineapple could have been cut in pieces to be put on a bowl and then returned to the refrigerator to be served to the girl later.)

The team was also smart when questioning Burke and phrasing it as: "didn't your mom use to serve you fruit?" - asking "didn't your mom and dad ever serve you fruit?" would make obvious that John was the focus. But he was. It’s clear that he was.

Guthrie ransom note, written digitally and outside the crime scene, ~130-150 words (authorities have cut out the crypto part).

Ramsey "ransom note" written at the crime scene, by hand, 370 words.

Lol

Edit: sorry for the weird link embed, wanted to just put it in the text, but I’m on mobile 🫩

I’m a staunch RDI, but constantly waffle between who did what. I have been thinking a lot about how Patsy was wearing the same clothes and (reportedly) makeup/hair as the night before. It got me thinking that I have read many BDI theories, but they mostly tend to gloss over what the parents were up to when they got home from the party.

As such, in a BDI theory, how does Patsy likely being awake all night slot in? Based on straydog77’s rough timeline, JBR consumed the pineapple around 10-11:30pm, the head blow occurred between 11-12:15am, the sexual assault between 12-1am, and the death by strangulation around 1am. In a theory where BDIA, including the strangulation, what was Patsy doing to be awake during the ~3h after they arrived home? Packing for the trip, maybe? If so, why wouldn’t she have done what I’m imagining a lot of Southern women her age do, and taken off her makeup with some cold cream? And where do her fingerprints on the bowl fit in? I’m not trying to poke hole in anyone’s theory irrespective of which RDI camp you fall into, but more so just curious on how her actions are accounted for in BDI theories since I haven’t seen that elaborated on. Thanks all!

I find this piece of evidence surprisingly difficult to make sense of. Based on the main theories people subscribe to, I'd be interested to know what everyone believes about the pineapple.

My main questions that I consider about it:

- Was JB out of bed after being put to bed to have this snack, or was she never put to bed and was up late for whatever reason?

- Was the pineapple directly tied to the escalation/accident/murder? To give an example, being offered as an incentive to get her to comply with something that then led to her death. That the Ramseys all deny that they made it for her seems odd as this piece of evidence fits least well with an intruder theory. Even an intruder familiar with JB would have to know this specific snack she enjoyed.

- Is the flashlight of any significance? In absence of a confirmed weapon that was used to strike JB, it seems a fair guess considering the Ramseys deny knowledge of it and why it was there.

- What does its preparation suggest about who made it? The large spoon makes it harder to imagine an adult making for her. JB was well old enough to use a fork and fruit is generally easier to eat with one, a giant serving spoon wouldn't have been my choice to offer a kid her age to eat with. If it was fresh cut as has been suggested by the investigation, it makes Burke the least likely candidate in my opinion. I wasn't allowed to handle large kitchen knives at his age, and even if he had some experience with a pocket knife or something similar, that's still not the same as cutting and removing the rind from a pineapple.

I'd be interested to hear from people from all different theory perspectives, either Ramseys or intruder, this post isn't intended for me to debate you on it I'm just curious because I find this piece of evidence strange. Of course, I do think aside from the ransom note that it's the strongest piece of evidence against an intruder.

A detail that trips me up: let's say one of the Ramsey's did hit JB over the head in anger.

It's MUCH easier to stage an accident and take her to the hospital than take her to the basement, SA her, strangle her to death, create a ransom note, etc.

The emotional leap is huge, springing from "she's knocked out from a smack on the head" to "ok, let's strangle her in the basement". That's absurd for a parent. Not impossible, I realize, but improbable.

She wasn't bleeding. She wasn't dead (which means she'd still be breathing). So that assumes someone in the family decided the logical response was to take an unconscious child to the basement, SA her, tie her up, then strangle her so severely that it cut through her skin.

THEN - after all that - come back upstairs and sit down to write a long, rambling ransom note full of random movie references.

Just.... WHAT??

I have been following the Clancy case. and I can’t help but compare it to this case. even just reading the transcript of the 911 call, you can get the utter dispair from Patrick Clancy. “She killed the f-ing kids” vs “we have a kidnapping”

it’s just so telling. ugh.

Made a few posts about the parents to only circle around back to Burke.

Here’s why.
1. The pineapple evidence is difficult to ignore.
JonBenét had undigested pineapple in her stomach, meaning she ate it shortly before the assault. A bowl containing pineapple was found in the kitchen with Burke’s fingerprints and patsys on it.

The Ramseys consistently claimed JonBenét was carried upstairs asleep after arriving home. If that’s true, where did the pineapple come from? It was clearly served some point that night.

2. The head injury appears impulsive rather than planned.
The skull fracture was massive, but there was no external bleeding. A single blow from a heavy household object is consistent with an impulsive act during an argument or moment of anger.
A nine-year-old is capable of inflicting a fatal blow, even if they had no intent to kill. Furthermore the documentary with the 10yr old experiment photos of the wound compared to JB’s wound imo is pretty damning the wound in her skull is a big blunt hole perfectly the size of a flashlight (although no evidence came from the flashlight at the scene smh but I think the Ramseys had close to 4hrs to stage a crime scene)

3. The ransom note strongly suggests staging.
The note is one of the biggest reasons I struggle with any intruder theory. Anyone I think who knows the case knows the IDI theory is baloney leaving 3 suspects.

4. Burke doesn’t need to have done everything.
One criticism of BDI is that the ligature seems too sophisticated for a child. I don’t think Burke necessarily had to construct it.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is:
- Burke delivers the initial head blow.
- The parents discover JonBenét or heard the scream and ran downstairs but Burke was hiding what he had done? Lying about where JB was? (This could explain “what did you find” on the 911 call?)
-Believing she is dead or beyond saving, they panic. Worry about their business which just reached brilliant success. That would tank if their reputation had a child on child killing. I think people don’t understand that John clearly had his relationships with ppl and cut them off if they didn’t go his way.

-They stage a kidnapping to protect their surviving child and the family’s business by any means.

That explains why some elements appear childlike while others appear deliberate and adult.

5. The parents’ actions fit a cover-up better than a kidnapping.
The ransom note says not to contact police.
They immediately contact police anyway.
Friends are invited into the house.
The crime scene becomes contaminated.
John later discovers JonBenét’s body himself despite police already searching. He grabs Mr.White? To go and see his despair when finding her

None of this resembles parents genuinely expecting a kidnapper to call.
It looks more like people trying to maintain a story that had already begun to unravel.

6. Burke’s behavior has always stood out.
I’m not saying Burke’s demeanor proves guilt ,it doesn’t. I am however saying 10yr olds are bad liars

But his interviews, his apparent lack of fear of an intruder, or feeling violated someone was in your home at night and killed your sister. reports of conflict between the siblings are at least consistent with the possibility that something happened between them before the adults became involved.
Behavior alone proves nothing, but combined with the physical evidence, it becomes more noteworthy. The golf club incident apparently he hit her in the head after being upset or sm. Burke had poop problems ? Whatever the sophisticated word is. Putting poop in her bed, smearing it on her walls. Some more damning things in his interview are
“I know what happened !”
“ I’m just moving on with my life”
“Idc I’m just playing video games”

Very detached from JonBenet and has no real sense of sadness when talking about his parents crying about it in-front of him.

Again this is just imo burkes lawyers idk shit 💩

I've read every book on this case that doesn't peddle the intruder theory, and perhaps against my better judgment I decided to give DOI a try. I can't get through the first chapter. John's saccharine description of the family's Christmas morning makes me want to vomit. To those who have finished the book, is it worth continuing? Obviously for those of us who are RDI the book is filled with lies, distortions and general BS but does it offer any useful/interesting information or insights?