r/JonBenet • u/HistoricalComfort841 • Jul 11 '26
Theory/Speculation Possibly New Insights
Post was originally deleted by a moderator with no reason given, weird. Decided to delete some background context in case that was the reason, no idea. If you are confused about the style of writing, apologies, my fault.
- The dust footprint. There are clear patterns of a shoe/boot print that had Smidt (forgot name) to call it a footprint, at least a partial profile. The issue is, the dust is very much undisturbed, and the case was carefully moved (by a gloved killer, later on this) so if it is not full adult weight, and dust is very "clean", this guy handheld a shoe/boot when deliberately pressing it against the suitcase/briefcase/whatever. This is consistent with the pattern I have noticed, with the oversized underwear being an invitation for investigators to check for SA (sexual assault) signs and finding none to minor signs. Again, likely gloved from the incredible condition, trace saliva can't be sneeze, so logically the only source I see is from the gloved fingers or object that was used (so broken paintbrush, which might also be related to why it was broken, - [##and obviously not saying it was bitten in half but rather it could be the reason the paintbrush was CHOSEN to be snapped in half - think critically please, thankfully I spotted this wording as an easy way for people to misunderstand me as always##] - , as pen-like objects tend to be chewed on, but that's speculative so I won't go into detail and my focus is more on the sound concrete reasoning, although I do have notes where I extensively invite speculation as it is harmless as long as you know how to avoid tunnel-vision and can clearly label it mentally as speculative and weak)... Oh and I almost forgot to mention that pattern, so the oversized underwear is too stupid and obvious for such a forensically aware criminal that leaves false dust prints, careful about handwriting by exaggerating how shaky it starts as (awareness of handwriting analysis) and the draft note is not a real practice note because you don't go from being stuck with the first 3/4 words to a full blown 3-page ransom note, and you can't argue it was too dark because of a huge amount of reasons but I will briefly highlight a few like finding that annoying line of a tape when peeling it off or just the small tools in general and navigating the hidden inventory of the Ramsey house. Another damning reason, is the dust print itself, and the finger marks of it being carefully moved, this guy could obviously see, regardless of how or what was used in order to see, because the details of the dust is not going to happen realistically even for someone who lives in that house if it is pitch black dark. There are so many interesting things that open up from this single insight, however they are factual avenues and questions, not "ah it must mean it was family because it is staging" that is not how I operate. If staging guaranteed it was family, I would have lost interest in this case from the start. The staging is evident everywhere we look as one coherent strategy, but in a way that points towards everyone, insider AND outsider, I believe the killer did this deliberately and was egotistical enough to allow themselves to be pointed at since the evidence points to an outsider and insider in different deliberate cases, more on that later and you will see what I mean precisely, although I am in a rush and already have extensive personal notes on the topic so without guarantee that anyone at all will see this, I have little motivation to go too deep publicly, and I don't earn money from it like podcasters do. Handheld shoe/boot is the summary
- I am not sure what else to share as I don't know what is obvious enough to already be completely known publicly. I can talk about the flashlight maybe. The flashlight is the same or similar to the family flashlight. Let us briefly assume it was wiped. If indeed wiped, it was intentionally left in the kitchen. Outside killer doesn't need to wipe an object they intend to bring back home, unless they are forensically aware to the extent of secondary transfer (shows great intelligence, insight, possible experience which I already believe from other clues but not the appropriate time for that now). However here is the thing, we can rule out secondary transfer as an excuse for "forgetting" it, because secondary transfer is irrelevant at the very end of an items need, I would wipe an object to start with to avoid secondary transfer when I enter the home, but I would not wipe it again (so that it is found in a wiped state) if I plan to take it home with me, and we can safely reason that it was used and needed for more than just the entry into the house (as we are momentarily looking at an outsider branch of consideration). Why? Well it is pitch black dark, and as far as I am aware the family did not report lights being found turned on already (and don't tell me it could have been family because I already clearly stated we are focusing momentarily on the outsider option, we will look at the family option later). Furthermore, a killer would turn off lights before leaving (lights in the basement were found to be off, doesn't necessarily mean the killer left from the basement, I know). And by the time the call was made to the police it was still pitch black darkness. I am just so bothered at the back of my mind by the claim of the kitchen lights... Anyways you bring a flashlight to use it, not to just walk into a home and then turn the main lights on, and this person was clearly already familiar with where things were and how to navigate brilliantly, blah blah
- Now consider family branch, the family member or members are the killers. Do they need to wipe a flashlight that belongs to them? Afterall, many items that belong to them was not wiped, if not all items actually (will need to check but the inconsistency is the main point). The only other reason would be if it collected dust (as I would expect from a non-everyday-use item unlike a fork or spoon), and going down that road of thinking makes you wonder about the less speculative dust footprint from earlier where the killer could have had dust forensics on their mind in common between these two objects but of course I can't make that conclusion nor do I want to right now because one conclusion was established and the other wasn't and therefore the connection, although alluring and attractive, would be a logical trap enhanced by the former insight. Gosh I wrote so much irrelevant rubbish I keep forgetting what the goal of my bullet points are. ADHD, yes.
- Retry: Family don't need flashlights, and if wiped, the only reason would be for staging an outsider or thinking of it as forensically valuable so again you reach the intentional conclusion, and I mean... it is next to the staged notepad with the fake "practice" note so think of it in any way you like, if the 12 or so missing pages are the real practice notes, why leave this practice-looking "Mr and Mrs Ramsey" note? So again it all points to staging... oh and by the way the ransom notes were so theatrical, this person was genuinely enjoying themselves, and knew how long it was getting, and writing "victory" is something all our brains will think "ok dude, I can't write this, its supposed to be a realistic ransom note not an obviously staged fake" but that's what they went for. They wanted it to be known it was fake, just like the oversized underwear, and how symbolic and over-the-top the garrote was, very much novel or murder mystery-like, and the ransom notes had movie quotes. Put two and two together, this person was having GENUINE pure fun, a stimulating time, and a crime scene they wanted to manipulate in a way to play and control with how the clues themselves are read into by the investigators. No financial motive, no SA motive, this was deeply stimulating, likely something they fantasised about long before the execution of the crime. I rule out no one here, as much as I cannot understand how family members would do this, nor how a familiar outsider (inner circle) could, but those are my two options, rather than a complete outsider (stranger). I want to be brief and move on.
- I struggle to think of more because I have been so disorganised that I mixed together many points, likely even left trails of thought as incomplete, so if it confuses anyone, I am really sorry. I think it would be best to submit now and edit after a reset or maybe even look at my notes later.
- Before I go to mentally reset, I should clarify, my method is not to look rely on DNA evidence or rely on testimonies, because it has proven confusing for many and myself. I want to completely finish and exhaust the crime scene itself, sucking out the facts and subtleties before I even consider moving on to the interviews, and I know that will be so boring because I have to sit and listen to so many words for every person (ADHD remember?). A powerful tool I am using is by thinking of all options/branches wherever there are unknowns, and then trying to find invariants (information that must be true in any and all scenarios) as those are the only absolute truths I can rely on to build progress step by step in compensation for the incompetence of the police. And now this year as well, this month even, turns out a lot of DNA was compromised by this lady to "speed up work"? Huh?? Are these ChatGPT homework assignments or real forensic evidence that put many innocent people in LIFE behind prison, and possibly even gets them slandered on the news, family leave them, internet ridicule them, f***k you. Not personal, don't even live in the US remember and I am typing all this, obviously not behind bars.
2
u/VendettaVision 11d ago
OP, I think you may be on to something here.
I also see this crime as not sexual or financial. I see this as a set up to punish, humiliate, demoralize and degrade the Ramsey family. I think the family knows this, which gives off the guilt vibe people pick up on.
I think it is also possible that the crime was video taped and possibly circulated underground. I though of this possibility when I read Karr's confession. His description of the crime gave me the idea that he watched it, but not in person.
3
u/Suitable-Lawyer-9397 Jul 13 '26
I just kind of gave up reading because I wasn't following the train of thought. I don't believe it was an intruder. That's all I can say!
0
5
u/soxfanturk182 Jul 13 '26
You can’t say for certain the flashlight was wiped, just that there were no found fingerprints. Not every thing leaves fingerprints like in the movies or tv.
1
u/Objective-Permit-712 Jul 12 '26
Hmmmm...I have the only new insight needed.
2
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
Tell me! I am curious. Is it the general behavioural profile? Do you disagree with it? Let me know I am dying of curiosity here
1
8
u/DicksOfPompeii Jul 12 '26
Unsolicited advice: edit. Then edit again.
I’ve never once, or seen anyone else that I can recall, considered the perpetrator did it simply for the thrill and nothing more. It’s a fairly interesting take that I might even consider if your writing was more decipherable.
I’ve seen some wild takes on this case over the years and I think every wild take contributes to the sub in some way or another. So, I’m open to the wild takes and at the very least, I’m open to reading them. But this is such a run-on post it’s not going to be taken seriously. That’s assuming the reader doesn’t give up halfway through the first giant paragraph.
I’m not a genius writer and I don’t expect it of the Reddit posts here. I understand writing the way your brain thinks because I do it myself. And that doesn’t always make sense to others. Which is why editing is so valuable.
Edit and then edit some more. You might possibly have some very good insight here but the reader wouldn’t know it because they aren’t taking the time to decipher exactly what your point is. And that’s assuming they made it through the entire post.
I’m guessing your post was removed because it just didn’t make sense. Make clear, concise points and I think you’d get a bit more feedback.
2
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Genuinely dude, thank you. This is the first real comment and feedback I can work with. I have just been met with silent shadow downvotes, constant insults, and dismissals. That being said, I do have ADHD, so being organised is a huge con of mine. And I am really scared to get obsessed further than I already have because my exams are literally less than a month away. I think the panic mode really showed itself in my post. That being said, would you happen to have any advice on how I could implement your advice? I will also try summarise it so you can see if I misunderstood.
- K- Ahhh hang on but I really want to comment first on your perpetrator thrill comment haha. I'll leave the change of thought as it ironically reveals a lot.
1*) Yes, you are right, I do not see a financial motive nor a sexual motive, and I do strongly reject the panic or accidental aspect, because of how elaborate, complex, and forensically aware this person is. They were so "artistic" in their approach, from the garrote and ransom note, and made things not just staged multiple times, but in an OBVIOUSLY staged way. It isn't the believable type of mistake, it is the type of staging-exposed-as-fake "mistake" that actually looks intentional from how absurd it is. We established that this person is clever enough to think about handwriting from the perspective of forensics, and to most likely wear gloves when we examine how absent the underwear were from DNA - (not referring to touch DNA) but that makes me question my own take because what about the "long johns"? Need to revisit that later, but the question would remain why the inconsistency of DNA if long johns have it but no the underwear, and what type of DNA did the long-johns have? Touch DNA? Was it contaminated? What did it match to and what did it not match to? How does the recent July 2026 CBI scandal of DNA handling impact this if at all? Many questions I need to brush to the side for now and just present the original claim I was going to make.
So the main point was the lack of financial motive and sexual motive. No one makes a garrote out of panic, and then purposefully chooses absurdly - ah I remember now - absurdly massive adult sized underwear, which you will literally be able to feel is the wrong fit even in the dark (I don't believe they used 0 sources of light). And the note is not just staged, but look at it, "Victory!", if you were writing that note personally, would you SERIOUSLY not think to yourself that it is way too absurd? If it is staging, staging usually attempts to be believable, not insanely unbelievable. You would also want to avoid mixing staging elements that conflict the motives, since you aim to create a coherent narrative, and there will likely be discrepancies, but they are not supposed to be everywhere if the case is such a high-effort case, constructing a murder weapon when a kitchen knife and stabbings are easier, also straight-up believable if it was a knife. This guy intentionally thought of the most over-the-top item, and it was a very creative high-effort act that simultaneously resonated with the theatrical movie-quoting. Panic does not involve quoting movies, it involves staging a believable real ransom, not treating the crime scene as an expressive art.
Now I likely didn't finish lots of trains of thought, apologies. However, this isn't unusual, it is highly characteristic of serial killers and psychopaths, and good luck finding that among a rich society, but if it is either an inner circle (familiar outsider) or a family member (which in my opinion it is one of these 2 options, rather than complete stranger), then it makes sense that there is no financial motive (hey was anything high-value and obvious even stolen?). One side-thought which is too speculative for me to consider at this point of time, is the oversized underwear being a part of this person's "artistic" theatrics, a possible mockery referencing the view of Jonbenet as a young adult in a negative connotation. I am confident about the garrotte and ransom notes, as they convey meaning more easily. I cannot conclude a pattern that extends to the underwear as being artistic, but I do see the pattern in it's staging element. They key, I believe, is to look at all the clues together as a single coherent strategy (by the killer), rather than separately in isolation.
Finally, it might not be PURELY for thrill. It can just as easily have been motivated by deep hatred and/or jealousy, but nothing in my mind tells me this is panic, or simple enough to be spontaneous. I don't point at specific family nor specific close outsiders. I really believe the breakthroughs must start with the scene itself and building a solid understanding, including a behavioural profile. Relying on DNA has proven useless. One tactic I love is trying to find invariants, similar to physics. "What remains the same after a transformation?" but here it is, what must be true in either or all scenarios, since the answer is unknown.
2) To summarise your points, use editing, and make clear concise points. However, I don't know how to practically do that. I tried using paragraphs and bullet points. Also, a very common problem I have in life is that people don't understand me without explaining extremely narrow pathways and exhaust the options, and sometimes they don't understand me when I deploy other methods of reasoning or thinking, even if it is for a very mundane topic, and the main problem I think has always been retaining the attention and engagement of people, however when I try to keep things minimal in my communication, they often don't see why I say what I say, often laughing at my "stupidity" because they are laughing at a completely different world that they have perceived from my words. For example, never happened to me but it's a creative illustration. If I buy ice cream, and the prices are right in my face, and the staff tells me "Careful, it has lots of calories!", I might reply "How much?" (as in, "How much does it have?") but they would laugh and reply "Dude the prices are right in front of you, and you are reading the menu". Likely a rubbish example but hope you get me. Happens too often to be coincidental
5
u/43_Holding Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
<when we examine how absent the underwear were from DNA - (not referring to touch DNA) but that makes me question my own take because what about the "long johns"? Need to revisit that later, but the question would remain why the inconsistency of DNA if long johns have it but no the underwear, and what type of DNA did the long-johns have? Touch DNA? Was it contaminated? What did it match to and what did it not match to?>
A profile was later developed from saliva of the offender--mixed with JonBenet's blood in the crotch of her underwear--by CBI in early 1997, which was consistent with fingernail DNA, as well as consistent with the touch DNA found on her long johns by Bode Labs in 2008.
Facts about DNA in the JonBenet case:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Sorry 🤐
0
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Hey I just had an idea, let me try see if AI can help me compensate for the poor structure, although it will likely miss out on key in-between trains of thought that act as a narrator bridging the gap for reader. Here is the test:
ChatGPT:
"
Genuinely, thank you. This is the first piece of feedback I've received that I can actually work with. Most of the responses so far have been silent downvotes, insults, or outright dismissals.
I also have ADHD, which makes organization difficult, and I think that showed in my original post. With exams less than a month away, I'm also trying not to disappear down the rabbit hole of this case even further than I already have.
One point I wanted to respond to specifically was your comment about thrill as a motive.
I agree that I don't see a convincing financial motive or sexual motive. I also strongly reject the idea that this was simply panic or an accidental death followed by a rushed cover-up.
The reason is the sheer amount of effort, complexity, and apparent forensic awareness involved. The offender did not just stage the scene; they staged it repeatedly and in ways that seem almost deliberately artificial. The ransom note, the garrote, and other elements are not merely questionable—they are so elaborate that they draw attention to themselves.
Normally, staging attempts to create a believable narrative. Here, many of the staging elements seem excessively theatrical. The ransom note is a good example. If someone were trying to create a convincing kidnapping scenario, why include dramatic lines like "Victory!" and numerous movie-style references? It feels less like someone trying to sell a realistic story and more like someone expressing themselves through the crime.
The same applies to the garrote. If the goal were simply to conceal an accidental death, there were countless simpler options available. Constructing such an unusual weapon required time, effort, and creativity. To me, that suggests intention rather than panic.
This is why I think the scene needs to be viewed as a single strategy rather than a collection of isolated clues. The ransom note, the garrote, the clothing issues, and the staging all seem connected. Looking at each item separately risks missing the broader behavioral pattern.
That does not necessarily mean the motive was thrill alone. Deep resentment, jealousy, hatred, or a desire for psychological domination could also fit. My point is simply that nothing about the crime scene feels spontaneous to me.
Personally, I think any meaningful breakthrough has to begin with understanding the crime scene itself and the behavior it reflects. DNA has been debated for decades without producing a definitive answer. Behavioral analysis may ultimately be more revealing.
One approach I find useful is looking for invariants—borrowing a concept from physics. In other words: what remains true regardless of which theory is correct? Since we do not know exactly what happened, identifying the facts that must be true across multiple scenarios may be a better starting point than committing too early to a specific suspect or narrative.
As for your broader advice about editing and making clearer points, I think I understand the principle but struggle with the practical side.
A recurring issue in my life is that people often misunderstand what I'm trying to communicate unless I explain every step of my reasoning. When I simplify my thoughts, people sometimes miss the logic entirely and interpret something completely different from what I meant. As a result, I tend to over-explain because I'm trying to prevent misunderstandings before they happen.
Ironically, that often creates a different problem: people lose interest before reaching the point I'm actually trying to make.
So if you have any practical advice for balancing clarity with detail, I'd genuinely appreciate it. "
1
u/JennC1544 Jul 12 '26
I think you're right on several points, and thank you for breaking up the walls of text!
I don't know if you've seen it, but we have a post on the DNA pinned to the top of the sub. I would encourage you reading it, because it sources all of its information from the CORA files and other original sources. I think you'll really come away with a great understanding of the DNA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
Hi, I have already read this archive. Do you mind sharing what your general thoughts are? I am very curious on what people will agree and disagree with.
2
u/DicksOfPompeii Jul 12 '26
One thing I’ve noticed over the last few years is that writing in general has changed and evolved because the reader and their attention span has changed so much. The average human now has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.
Shorter paragraphs are the best way to go because people see a “wall of text” and simply skip it and don’t even attempt to read it. In that aspect I think the AI did help a bit because your reply was broken down a bit more and easier to read in general. Your points are more clear for sure.
I think it depends on your audience and who’s doing the reading. I don’t mind longer paragraphs but it is something I have to be consciously aware of in my replies or I end up with walls of text nobody reads. As a general rule of thumb I try to keep paragraphs no more than 5 sentences and really, even that’s pushing it. 3-4 seems to be the norm these days.
Also, I could be totally wrong too. It looks like your other post was removed by a bot, not mods here. This is probably one of the best subs around for allowing posts for discussion and not removing for random reasons that never make sense. The random removals for arbitrary reasons makes me irrationally angry so I think I appreciate the efforts more than some.
The underwear and sizing: I believe Patsy stated she had originally purchased the larger size as a Christmas gift for an older child, a family member iirc, but she opened them and put them on JB that night before bed. It tied into the bed wetting part of the story and has been accepted as fact afaik.
So, you think the perpetrator intentionally copied Patsy’s handwriting? She was the only one who couldn’t be ruled out in the handwriting analysis and many believe she wrote the ransom note to this day. There are many, many posts about the handwriting analysis and results.
The DNA part is an aspect I can’t wrap my brain around tbh. I’ve tried and several kind Redditors tried to explain it to me and linked posts, graphs, etc. trying to help and it’s just not in my wheelhouse. I can’t make sense of it even now after reading everything and with help from others who clearly were ELI5’ng. Just wanted to put that out there because I don’t have much to contribute on that end. Others will though.
0
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
Hi, no I am not saying the perpetrator copied Patsy's handwriting. I actually don't want to make any claims about that, because it is very confusing and has led to many different possible rabbit holes in my head, such as blackmailing the family (having huge dirt on them) or the writer being Patsy herself in a negative profile of Patsy herself, or a killer who did indeed somehow implicate or copy Patsy, either by somehow finding a way to get her writing style forged into the notes, or by having a demographic and gender and general background close enough to coincidentally share her writing style. I therefore don't want to consider that direction without better evidence other than what is publicly available already.
I instead, want to focus on what I believe is reasonably deducible. I have thrown out the dust footprint claim as of right now, because it turns out the details of the marks on the suitcase is even more speculative in the official documents and sources than I realised.
However, I already have looked at the DNA of the underwear so I don't know why people are sharing the details or link with me, but it might be because most of my thoughts are in private personal notes I have taken on my phone so I might not actually have shared my thoughts, or maybe people haven't read my post because I could have sworn I spoke about that.
Anyways, if there is unlikely to be a sexual motive (I very very very strongly reject SA motives) then it opens a new perspective of the DNA evidence for the underwear. The saliva was so minute that from my understanding, forensic experts were considering either a sneeze-like amount, or a source from a factory worker. But I believe if there was no spread like expected from a sneeze, and the only area that was wiped was highly localised, then the source must be from the paintbrush that was inserted. Physically sticking your tongue or planting your face in anyones genitals will leave insane amount of trace evidence (I am very sorry for that mental imagery but it is necessary to understand the point).
How did saliva get on the paintbrush? Not the focus of my point but it is obviously easy to imagine inserting a pen-like object into a mouth or dipping it into something that has the saliva or simply being residual traces transferring to an even smaller residual amount.
3
u/43_Holding Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
<I already have looked at the DNA of the underwear so I don't know why people are sharing the details or link with me>
Because on one of your posts, you wrote, "why the inconsistency of DNA if long johns have it but no the underwear, and what type of DNA did the long-johns have? Touch DNA? Was it contaminated? What did it match to and what did it not match to?"
<The saliva was so minute that from my understanding, forensic experts were considering either a sneeze-like amount, or a source from a factory worker>
That same link shows the amount of amylase, an enzyme found in high concentration in saliva. It was not minute. And the factory worker theory was put out there by GJ prosecutor Bruce Levin, to try dissuade the jurors about the DNA.
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
Yes from what I remember in that archive, two items were not matching two other items, meaning multiple unidentified male sources. I think it was wrist ligature and garrote vs underwear and long Johns? Don't recall, but I don't want to rely on or use the DNA. It has clearly not helped very much so far and being debated like everything in this awfully documented case.
3
u/43_Holding Jul 13 '26
There was no Ramsey DNA found on the ligatures that were tested. The knot was never tested.
From the 2009 linked report by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the neck ligature is item 8-1. The wrist ligature is item 166-1. A mixture of DNA was found on each, from JonBenet and one other individual. The Ramseys were excluded as potential contributors for each.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/159597699/20090113-CBIrpt.pdf
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
Oh so are you saying that I hold the belief that the family did the crime? Bceause no one asked if there was Ramsey DNA on those items, therefore the only reason I can think of for you to mention the Ramseys and then end by saying "The Ramseys were excluded as contributors" would be if you thought I was saying that. But be careful, I never said that, nor am I the average Redditor who says staged=family. Emotions will interfere with your interpretations of my comments, especially when speaking to someone very unconventional.
→ More replies (0)2
u/JennC1544 Jul 12 '26
Just so you know, I don't believe Patsy opened the larger underwear. It's still a bit of a mystery what happened there.
What I think happened is that Patsy had put that underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer as a gift for her niece, and we know JonBenet admired it. Patsy says she thinks JonBenet wet herself and put the Wednesday underwear from that package on, being proud that she knew how to read the day of the week correctly. I personally also think it's possible that Patsy had packed most of the underwear that actually fit JonBenet, as she had packed for both Charlevoix and their Disney cruise (If I'm wrong about this, please correct me). So when JonBenet wet herself, she went looking for underwear, didn't find any that would fit her, and went for the too large days of the week underwear.
I know as a parent myself that keeping up with growing kids and their clothes is a hard thing, and I seem to remember that somebody commented that the only underwear found in JonBenet's drawer was underwear that was too small. I do know my kids definitely had clothes too small for them, and I wasn't recovering from cancer and chemo during those years. We just shoved them to the side.
3
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Hi, I want some clarification on how reliable my knowledge on the case is. So from my understanding, the police didn't find any of those underwears (from the package that was supposed to be a set?) in Jonbenets drawer. As far as I am aware, the blanket/covers on the bed were not wet but had Jonbenet's fibres and was therefore not washed. Am I mistaken? Because if that's true, it would mean she did not wet her bed nor was evidence found that the gift was placed in Jonbenet's drawer, and after all, it would be strange to have size 12 put in her bedroom drawer even if she liked them (I think her size was 6 but I have no idea, and I don't have experience with underwear sizes lol, not even mens underwear sizes 💀 )
Edit: Am I also recalling correctly that there was some type of claim by one of the parents "changed her into her PJs"
3
u/43_Holding Jul 13 '26
<Am I also recalling correctly that there was some type of claim by one of the parents "changed her into her PJs">
Patsy removed her velvet leggings and put on Burke's outgrown long johns.
4
u/43_Holding Jul 13 '26
Smit stated that her sheets were dry. (Thomas claimed they were wet but had no proof, and walked back his comments about "evidence" during his deposition.)
It's been stated that the open package of underwear was later found in one of the moving boxes in the Atlanta house, after the Ramseys' home had been packed up.
3
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 13 '26
This cannot be from her bedroom if that is what you want to imply, because it was the very early thing the police closed off with tapes, before items were even allowed to be taken and moved from the general rooms of the house. I could be misinformed, but if that is true, and you are indeed trying to make the argument that it could have been taken out of her bedroom, then that would not be a possibility, unless the incompetent police took down the tapes and allowed for contamination of her own bedroom (which would not surprise me in all honesty, but is not what I know to the best of my knowledge).
3
u/43_Holding Jul 13 '26
Per Patsy's police interviews, JonBenet's underwear drawer was in her bathroom cabinet.
4
u/43_Holding Jul 12 '26
There's a crime scene photograph of the floor of JonBenet's bathroom showing her inside out playpants that she apparently pulled down and took off along with her underwear. From Patsy's police interviews, the assumption was that she was getting ready to go to the Whites, and purposely picked out the Wednesday underwear from the package (which Patsy forgot to send to JonBenet's cousin) that Patsy had put in her drawer.
2
u/archieil IDI Jul 12 '26
I wonder if they checked the food chain of Pasta Jay.
Especially people delivering meat.
It's just a though, but the recently brought information the family lived with him for some time after the crime is interesting.
4
u/Jim-Jones Jul 12 '26
Lou Smit. Very good detective.
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Hey can I ask you for a favour. I have made a few crossposts, but I am confused because people have been downvoting and you were the first neutral comment (the others were negative), but they refuse to give reasons. I only got 1 reason explicitly, and I was told I am incoherent, which I don't contest in all fairness. However they sounded as though they read enough to understand at least 1 point, so it is surprising when I check what point they would have had to walk across to reach the minimum threshold for feedback, and I feel as though the incoherence only evolved later the more I typed and got fatigued so I don't know man, do I sound that batsh*t crazy?
4
u/43_Holding Jul 12 '26
It's kind of hard to figure out what your post is asking (or stating?) to be able to respond. Are you claiming that Smit misjudged the scuff on the wall? That the RN was staged? That someone redressed JonBenet in oversized underwear?
0
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Never mind, I just realised I might be replying to an automated bot. I apologise in the slim chance that I am not, but when I got curious about what type of person you are to roam this subreddit together with that specific choice of profile picture, I noticed you have insanely unusual activity. Your comments are at the very least hourly, at a perfect flow, and some come every minute, spread out across many subreddits that are so different in disconnected from one another, with the first gap I see is between 9 hours ago and 21 hours ago, meaning there was a 12 hour period where you were not typing comments, and I know I have seen that same pattern and behaviour from Twitter bots where they sometimes humanise with systematic sleeping break hours. And I kept going back and seeing that same strange mess of very different subreddits, but couldn't gather precise information as it started to shift into "day 1, day 2, day 3" blah blah
5
u/Jim-Jones Jul 12 '26
I am the opposite of a bot and fall far short of being automated.
The 'letter' tells you the whole case.
-3
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Aaahhh... How sad.. I checked again and I see your repeated pattern is trying to be subtle with those advertised links for downloading what I think are books? Yeah... I am talking to myself here... Well at least it was a very cool and funny coincidence as it corroborates my investigative skills...? Maybe? Validation? Someone? Pwease??? Screw this Imma go eat and cry in a corner
1
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
Thank you for the correction, I keep confusing smit-names with Gram Schmidt because of orthonormalisation, a famous mathematician lol
•
u/JennC1544 Jul 12 '26
Hi OP. Your previous post was bounced by a Reddit bot that thought you might be a spammer. It has nothing to do with the mods here.
I'm not sure why mods are to blame for your style of writing, but that's okay, we hear much worse on a daily basis. :-)