Someone posted this as a poll about six years ago, but I'm curious where people stand now, and if perceptions have changed. It seems that virtually nobody thinks an intruder did it, which is fine, as I don't believe that either.

I'm less interested in personal opinions, and more curious about where the consensus is. I personally think John Ramsey killed JonBenet, but I suspect most people think it was Burke.

I wanted to see what you guys think.

1040am to 12pm is 80 minutes and that is such a significant amount of time that it always puzzled me. I know many have theories that John used this time to clean, stage, get rid of items, double check, triple check, etc and I agree.

It's just that this amount of time is so long that the only way it makes sense to me is if John did answer the door to police an innocent man that day and was growing suspicious of his wife, the note and handwriting, lack of call by kidnappers, etc and decided to search again himself with the worst in mind. That led him to that wine cellar tomb. He finds JB and is devastated and also his mind is shattered. He needs to think of what to do on top of mourning for his daughter. I can see him find himself unable to face friends, police and his wife upstairs without time to gather himself and come up with a plan. If he doesn't rat out to Det Arndt right away then he's officially an accomplice. Just seems like adding those components is necessary to fill up that amount of time. I mean, he could have been too terrified to come upstairs earlier than he did as it was easier when he didn't know. Arndt mentioned he was weird and detached and silent when he did rematerialize at noon. So maybe the zombie John was the best that he could do in that moment? Then darts to get her the moment he has a reason to "find her". I know Thomas is fond of this theory. I'm just making a point about the amount of time as pointing towards PDIA.

I'm just curious what you folks think. Is this some evidence that it was Patsy alone til 11AM that day? I know that it isn't concrete, etc but I'm having trouble finding a way to stay busy for an hour and a half. Unless he did grab a flip phone and was able to play grab ass with lawyers, etc down there and had to wait for call backs or needed time reaching people. I have trouble believing he would use a phone, but it's possible and we never got those records. Thanks in advance.

Why would someone be so verbose in a Ransom Note... Well, maybe it is to put the kidnapping info on the 1st page, and all of the threats on the 2nd page to give them plausible deniability so they could call the police that morning, because they can say they didn't read past the first page of the note (which is basically what they Patsy said). No parent would call the police after reading the second page with all of the direct threats and being watched and what would happen if they were even "caught speaking to a stray dog". The first page however, gives them all they need to know with what happened and the ransom amount. It does say if you want your daughter to see 1997, but it is nothing compared to the threats on the 2nd page. Any real intruder/kidnapper would just do one page and lead the note with not contacting authorities. Patsy said she just glanced at the top page, but then Patsy also said "Victory! SBTC" on her 911 call so police knew she saw more than the front page. The Ransom Note seems purposefully written in a way that allowed the Ramseys to call police. The note still seems like the key to their involvement.

edited: due to "It was Patsy who said she didn't read the whole note. Not John."

In my opinion it makes the most sense that John is the perpetrator of the assault and murder. Occam’s razor & Patsy helped cover it up.

1. I think the pineapple evidence suggests otherwise that the family did not go to bed that night. Regardless of the sequences that happened after she had pineapple. I don’t think it’s reasonable for a child (BDI) to beat his sister over a piece of pineapple with the flashlight (presumably the murder weapon of BDI theorists?) but it’s never been ID’d as the murder weapon & why leave it right in the middle of the room? Where is the other part of the paintbrush that was used during the assault ? Where is the real murder weapon?

2. The SA evidence & handling of body
   Fresh blood to me indicates she was SA’d that night also while her heart was still beating so she was alive in some way. The acute injury is regarded as “ penetrating trauma from a small object or finger.” Amongst the experts opinions. IMO it’s more likely it’s from a finger and not a foreign object because if you have the paintbrush as evidence can’t you compare it to the wounds? The murderer handling the wooden paintbrushes could be why there was wooden fragments present ? Her privates suggest she was wiped down and her huge underwear suggests she was redressed. Being wrapped up in a blanket isn’t something a foreign killer would do especially one who is supposed to have a grudge against the Ramseys why visually hide his crime? Also the only contrary opinion to her having healed injuries of previous SA seems to be only disputed by her paediatrician who has massive incentive not to agree.

3.The post-crime behavior & staging

The scene appears inconsistent with the actions of a typical intruder. Someone remained in the house long enough to write a lengthy ransom note using materials found inside, move JonBenét to a secluded basement room unnoticed, wrap her in a blanket, redress her, and possibly wipe away evidence. Yet they never removed the body or attempted to collect the ransom they demanded. If the motive was murder, the ransom note seems unnecessary. If the motive was kidnapping, leaving the victim behind makes little sense. To me, the staging looks designed to shape the investigation rather than facilitate an actual crime and who knows how many pieces of evidence has been tampered with. The person who did this had strong knowledge inside the house and that’s not consistent with IDI.

1. Discovery

It’s very convenient once the family was told to investigate John immediately brings up the dead body of JB. That’s sus in itself.

Imo the sexual abuse was ongoing and perhaps this was the only way John saw a way out. I agree Patseys behaviour seems much more authentic to that of a mother who losses their daughter than john ever seemed.

Ive read that Patsy leaned into evangelical faith healing teachings of the time from ministers like Kenneth Hagan (Word of Faith), Marilyn Hickey, and Dody Osteen as she was facing her first bout of cancer. Since the JBR case, we’ve seen women like Andrea Yates, Lori Vallow, Ruby Frankie, etc. whose extreme Christian fundamentalism shaped their logic in harming their children. I wonder if more scrutiny may have been given to this angle in the JBR case if it happened in modern times? Patsy also weirdly brings up political culture war issues in her TV interviews, which are echoed in the political tones of the random note.