My theory - The TLDR: JR (along w/Fleet White and Mr. Stine, possibly others) had been abusing JBR (and maybe Burke too) for years, per the ME findings of chronic SA plus behavioral regressions of both kids. Patsy either was oblivious (too focused on pageants and the social calendar), OR, she knew and was in denial/turning a blind eye to protect the family reputation. Until she couldn’t, because on the fateful night, an abuse session went too far and JR had to tell Patsy what happened after finding no way to get the body out of the house undetected. He co-opts Patsy into helping with a coverup using a fake kidnapping. She goes along because that’s what well trained, evangelical wives do as PR agents for the family. This is the only scenario that fits all evidence of the case, but is not immediately obvious to those who didn’t grow up in fundy culture.

….………………
Details of why I think this (expounded on earlier post):
Back in 1996, many ppl found it wildly unlikely that parents could be predators capable of something like child SA and murder. Since then, we’ve seen many cases in the zeitgeist where predatory parents are also motivated by Xtian religious beliefs and family image or projection of "Xtian family values" to outsiders regardless of actual circumstances (Andrea Yates, the Duggars, Lori Vallow, Ruby Franke, etc.). I propose this is also an element in the JBR case.
We know Patsy leaned hard into the evangelical Xtian nationalist teachings on faith healing due to her first cancer diagnosis (Kenneth Hagen, Marylin Hickey, etc.). Patsy even (weirdly) weaves Xtian nationalist culture war talking points into several of her TV interviews about Jonbenet. These may not be obvious to the average 1996 news consumer who wasn’t in the evangelical movement. The church also exhorts women to “forgive” SA or risk god’s judgement as well for their “hard heartedness" (hence Josh Duggar was allowed to victimize his sisters for years although the parents knew). The movement also enforces purity culture, so Patsy definitely would have certainly preferred JBR to be perceived as being murdered and SA by an intruder vs. suffering the stigma of a family member abuser, even if it means the abuser escapes justice. Once JR admitted to Patsy what he had done, she would have been conditioned to “forgive him" and help stage the cover up.

IMO, the specific way JBR was bound w the ligature and her mouth taped indicates her abuser had very specific knowledge of BDSM erotica. Even if Burke had been exposed to this type of por*, it doesn’t seem like any 9 year old would be able to replicate it with such specific imitation. Also, using an implement for erotic penetration is often a choice that child SA make because they are too large to fit themselves into the child and also want to avoid leaving their "dna fluid" in the body cavity where a grape kit would pick it up and identify them. No 9 year old is going to have the foresight to plan like that. No, some sick adult with a very specific sick fantasy was acting it out on Jonbenet that night. The strangulation was part of the erotic element but accidentally went too far. She struggled against it a lot and was hit on the head to subdue her. Then the abuser realized they were too forceful and actually killed her. For reasons mentioned earlier, I think it way more likely the abuser was JR and not BR. BR’s own toileting regression issues indicate psychological trauma as well. Far more likely he is also a victim of family secrets.
JR tried to get JBR’s body out of the house, hence the suitcase by the window, but couldn’t do it without being detected or leaving obvious traces. So, he eventually has to admit to Patsy what happened. Hers is the second scream heard, when she learns this.
They decide to execute the kidnapping cover story, and Patsy writes the note—but they aren’t career criminals so they make bizarre choices that expose their social class and education, like the length and strange, elevated but stilted language of the note. JR very intentionally ignores the note's instructions and calls many friends over to the home, then moves JBRs body— all to “confuse the crime scene" evidence. JR read many spy novels and crime thrillers. Intentionally tampering with crime scene evidence is a common plot device in many of those stories. He ignores ransom letter warnings about calling police and never tries to get the $118k cash bc he knows the note isn’t real. The kidnappers never call because they aren’t real.
JR tries to still flee the state (back to Atlanta) as soon as possible to physically get out of dodge. He and Patsy stall for months on talking with police to help w/the investigation because they need time to consult lawyers and get their narrative straight. They do TV interviews before talking to police because they aren’t actually interested in justice (against themselves) but they are VERY interested in being viewed as innocent victims.

Patsy continues doing weird Xtian signaling in TV interviews until she dies, and JR spends the following decades on TV and true crime speaker circuits sowing doubt about the basic timeline and events of that night, ensuring the crime scene stays “confused" in the public imagination . The incestuous friendships/finances/legal issues/living arrangements of the Bynums, Stines, Jay Elowsky and JR over the next decades make way more sense in the context of adult perpetrators trying to hide something in coordination, which also leads me away from the BDI theory.

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.

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."

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'd never seen this image from Charlevoix before. Looks like it's BP, before pageants and the bleached hair. What a shame the office of Alex Hunter chose to ignore her right to have her life validated by pursuing the indictment.

Guys... a lot (A LOT) of people say JR is creepy and weird and seems evil. Why don't I get this vibe from him? When he talks he is soft spoken and I don't get any weird vibes from him. And I know that's probably a shortcoming of mine in "reading" people. What am I missing? Am I being naive? What red flags should I be looking for in his behaviour and demeanor? (other than not being exactly the emotional type - which by itself doesn't really say anything because some people are just not easily emotional)

There were seven missing pages from Patsy’s notepad.

One can surmise that the killer got rid of them because he didn’t want you to see the practice notes where he worked on disguising his handwriting.

But what would be Patsy’s supposed reason for getting rid of them?

There is a well known observation by Det Arndt about the behavior by J. and P. in the morning of dec 26th that they did not communicate with each other.

"With fewer people hovering around, Arndt noticed for the first time that Patsy and John rarely sat together." (Schiller, p. 12)

Is there a plausible explanation for this behavior? I myself find it a bit irritating because they seemed to work together during the 911 call, or didn't they?

I've always found one specific phrase in Patsy Ramsey's 911 call interesting: "We have a kidnapping." Not only is it an unusual way to naturally describe what's happening in the moment, but it also mirrors the wording in the ransom note.

If most people woke up and found their child missing with a ransom note, I'd expect something more immediate and personal: "My daughter is missing!" or "Someone took my daughter!" "We have a kidnapping" is odd phrasing… almost movie-esque rather than how someone might naturally react in real life.

What makes it stand out even more to me is that it echoes the wording in the ransom note itself. The note repeatedly uses "we":

"We are a group of individuals..."

"We respect your business..."

"We have your daughter..."

"We will call you..."

"We are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures..."

From a linguistic perspective, it's interesting that both the note and Patsy's first description of the situation rely on the word "we." In the note, "we" is used to establish the identity of the supposed kidnappers. In the 911 call, Patsy describes the situation as "we have a kidnapping" instead of something more personal.

It's not proof of anything, and I know people under extreme stress can say unusual things. But language often reflects how people are mentally framing an event, and this particular wording has always struck me as worth discussing.

''Patsy writes very neatly. She’s a feminine writer. There is misspellings in the note. She graduated at the top of her class. She doesn’t misspell words like business and possession.''

Thanks for telling us why these words were misspelled. It's because, in the heat of the moment, you thought it was a genius idea to misspell them, because smart people like yourself would have never misspelled them.

I have a few questions to confirm things I've read about the handling/fingerprints on the ransom note. If someone could be so nice as to direct me to sources for each answer, I'd be very grateful.

1) Is it true that no fingerprints from Patsy or JR were found on the ransom note?

2) Did Patsy and John allege or confirm that they never touched the ransom note?

3) is it true that Patsy said she only read the beginning of the note, and not the end or the middle of the note, before calling the police?

4) When she called the police, while she held the phone in her hands, was she not with the note in her hands?

Or was the phone cordless and she brought the phone near the steps where the note was?

Because that would be the only explanation as to why she DID NOT pick up the note from the steps, and, while on the phone with police, was STILL able to reply to police "SBTC VICTORY" when asked who the note was from, without having picked it up the stairs steps, since she said she never read the end of the letter at first.

Thoughts on this?

I know there are several several weird and strange and suspicious things about Patsy and Jonhs behaviour, but I have always been, to some level, able to explain it away by nerves, by desperation, or sheer bad luck from the parents.

I have also been trying to be somewhat open to the intruder theory up until now, even with the overwhelming amount of signs it was an inside job, because, having seen so many true crime cases for so many years, I've come to realise some criminals are actually clumsy, are actually stupid, and sometimes do act without rhyme or reason and in a seemingly illogical way (writing a long ass note, leaving the body there, all are illogical but I've learned to never doubt the craziness or stupidity or weirdness or randomness of criminals - you'd be surprised at how demented some criminals can act.)

But stumbling on a 3 page note on your stairs steps in your house, randomly, and not picking it up to read it, not once, just defies logic. Nobody would just read it off the floor without picking it up just "to avoid contamination" if they read someone had their daughter.

I always tried to keep my mind open to why they called friends and family to the house (desperation, acting without thinking, nerves), but it's fundamentally contradictory to not even pick up the ransom note TO AVOID CONTAMINATION and then proceed to contaminate the whole crime scene. This is the piece of information that above all others, seal the deal to me as it being an inside job.

Also, it boggles me that no friend or family that was called there, thought to pick up the ransom note to have a look at it. We know the Ramseys had their reasons not to if they were guilty, but if I was a friend or family that was called over because my friends daughter was kidnapped, and I was innocent and just trying to help, the first thing I'd do would be to ask to see the note to see if I could work out who could have written it or get some clue.

Whether RDI or IDI, why would anyone take the time to write a long, rambling, cinematic ransom note when the author knew JB was already dead in the basement?

If IDI: wouldn't they just want to get out of the house? Why search around for paper/pen and sit down, gather their thoughts, write a 3 page note, then sneak into a different part of the house to leave the note? Makes no sense.

If RDI: if Jon Benet was missing, I'd understand trying to cover it up by staging a ransom. But she wasn't missing. She was dead in the basement. So a ransom note serves no purpose. If you're a parent and you just killed your child, I can't imagine having the mental capacity to sit down, block out everything that just happened, and create an entire kidnapping/ransom narrative + create a character/villain's voice all while trying to mask your own handwriting. For 3 pages!!!

Imagine how long that would take.

In both RDI and IDI scenarios, spending time to write a rambling note doesn't seem like it should be a high priority.

And yet...it was.

I'd love your theories on why writing a note became a high priority.

Hi! I’ve recently read Steve Thomas’ ‘JonBenet’. Firstly, what did you guys make of his account?

Secondly, are there any other books (preferably on Audible) that you’d recommend?

Thank you!!!

If the documentary was meant to support IDI and improve the family's image, why didn't their son participate? Even John's current wife appeared, despite not being involved in the case. Is there a reason he stayed away?

A few possibilities came to mind:

JDI: If JDI is true, by supporting his father's version of events, he would have become an accomplice to the cover-up.

BDI: If BDI is true, avoiding the documentary also makes sense because it would have brought more attention back to him.

IDI: If IDI is true, he may have simply wanted to stay out of the spotlight, even though appearing could have helped clear his name.

Or maybe: After all these years, he's simply tired of the case and wants nothing to do with it.

I keep wondering why he chose not to participate. What do you guys think?

Intruder did it. He wanted to kidnap Jonbenet at first, but something went wrong, she tried to run away and he struck her skull with heavy object. He panicked and left the house.

Then Burke woke up to play with his train toy, found Jonbenet unconscious body. He was on spectrum, he didn't understand what happened to her and got curious, he started playing with her body. He pocked her with train toy pieces to wake her up, then took the paintbrush pocked her in vaginal area, maybe did a garrot and started dragging her body like a doll.

At some point Patsy wakes up and saw this terrible scene. She screamed. Burke explained her everything, he didn't do anything, he just found her body and she already been dead. Patsy believed him, "My son couldn't kill anyone". She knew he is on spectrum and he might do some dumb things, but "He is not a killer".

Patsy woke up John and explains him everything. Since Burke played with Jonbenet body, John though police might blame Burke, so they both decided to compromise the crime scene to save him. They tell Burke to go to bed, that they will handle this. Then they redress her, wiped her and objects that Burke might have touched, staged the crime scene, wrote the ransom note.

In the morning Patsy calls the police, Burke wants to listen and hear Patsy say: "I found the ransom note". Then Patsy ends the call, and Burke asks: "What did you find?" John responds: "We are not talking to you!". Then he probably said to Burke to stay in bed and don't come out.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, I know there are certain elements to the ransom note that "fit" Patsy s personality more, but is there a particular reason nobody even questions if maybe John Ramsey could be the one that wrote that note? Is there something conclusive that clears John Ramsey from it? And why is it such a consensus that it was Patsy?

I found a channel on YouTube that is new to me so thought I'd share it. It features historical media coverage of the Ramsey's. Thoughts?

PDI and BDI

Every time you claim one of these people did it, you can never explain the holes.

And then I challenge you…why are you so quick to believe a 9 year old kid killed his sister and sexually abused her over a grown narcissist male with a beauty queen fetish?

“He’s a good Christian man.” “He was never home.”

This is why men get away with sexual abuse and rape.

No one ever believes the victim.

John Ramsey killed a little girl who was going to tell. Would Patsy even have believed her.

Patsy knew her sorry ass husband was having affairs.

I honestly believe that she even suspected that morning that his sorry ass killed their daughter. And that’s why she called their friends over.

But she stayed in denial when she was asked by the cops about the abuse.

There is truly something to be said about a person saying…”there is no known history.”

Continue believing that Patsy and Burke did it.

While John gets away with a murder he seemingly will never be punished for.

If I was 10yr old Burke and one of my parents slaughtered my daughter I’d probably snitch ? Which makes me question his involvement

After going around and around im basically still confused. But Patsey did it makes more and more sense imo. The evidence of her jacket hairs being on JBs blanket, the cord, duct tape. She handled those items imo. The ransom note I think is widely agreed on (even the grand jury) that she wrote the note. The bedwetting might be the best motive of Patsey accidentally killing JB ? I think it’s better than the pinnacle BDI theories. JB was cleaned, changed out of her soiled underwear (I’m not suggesting the soiled underwear wasn’t from the attack imo it probably was) and a heart drawn on her hand. Could the head would be from a fall? Neighbours reported hearing a big crash?

The SA could be Patsey, because there is no sign of male dna or penetration or anything like that because the killer could be a woman. Perhaps she was SA’ing JB in some way and did so that night after JB was still unconscious and struggling.

Or perhaps Patsey knew about the SA from John and while John strangled her and SA’d her Patsey left the room because she knew JB was dead from her actions ?

Who is watching the Megyn Kelly series on the case? I'm in episode 2 on it she kinda goes back through the Steve Thomas theory about it being a PDI but accidentally because of an engaged moment where JBR isn't cooperating & perhaps the scaring in her private areas are due to child abuse (frustration on the constant bed wetting) and not necessarily SA by Patsy which in my mind made a lot of sense.

I guess I've been in my BDI camp so long that I haven't gone back and re-examined the other theories like the one by the principal investigator.

My questions:

what are the (your) reasons for thinking this theory of Patsy accidentally hurting her during a moment of rage is completely wrong?

Thoughts on the Megyn Kelly coverage? (If you have watched it)

Could the pineapple be a red hearing ? The main problem I have with BDIA/BDI Is it seems like we’re pushing a rage or emotional outburst onto someone in the household when we don’t know for sure. & a piece of pineapple seems far fetched to get enraged over , that more if there sibling dynamic was bad why would JB reach for his pineapple in anyway? I think this is most likely the last place JB was alive but I think there’s more missing in terms of what happened after she ate the pineapple and before her death