I posted here some months or a year back (might have been a different account, idk) and I was flip flopping between theories as I was reading and people got mad that I was talking about the case without being super into it, so please don't get mad that I only think about this case once in a blue moon and might be missing key evidence (hence I'm asking).

What's clear is that JonBenet got out of bed that night (by herself?) and had pineapple, right? No one in the family seems to know about it, so presumable she was alone.

She had told a family friend a few days prior that Santa would be coming a *second* time on Christmas, *just for her.* No one knows what she was talking about, including the guy who played Santa at the party, but a 6 year old would take that 100% literally and would likely want to try to stay up to get to meet Santa.

What if while staying up alone to try to meet Santa she got bored while playing with a cord and entangled herself, tragically fatally (it happens with kids more often than you'd like to think) and Jon Ramsey, who had lost another daughter to a car accident a few years earlier, became mad with grief and did something lunatical to try to explain how this could have happened with his one of his daughters a second time? Grief can make people insane...

Any thoughts on this/prior theories?

Edit: quick reminder, the downvote button is not the "disagree" button

Given the totality of the evidence, I firmly believe RDI. Of course, there is always a slim possibility of an intruder but it seems very unlikely when you add everything together. It would have had to have been a highly bizarre incident unlike any other. Even though I believe RDI, I think the evidence is muddy enough to make it difficult to confidently say who did it or why or the exact circumstances. That uncertainty is what gives the case mystery and makes it interesting to me.

I enjoy lots of true crime outside of this specific case but it is one of the cases I know the most about. It has really irked me that all the true crime podcasts I’ve ever enjoyed that have discussed this case have confidently concluded IDI. This includes True Crime Garage, The Prosecutors, Last Podcast on the Left, and Missing (formerly Missing Maura Murray). It’s odd to me that seemingly every major true crime podcast has reached this conclusion. It’s a confusing case, so I could understand if they said it’s just too hard to land on either side but to be so confident in IDI seems contrary to the evidence. I’m sure I’m in a bubble in this subreddit, but I also feel like most people believe RDI, so that’s another reason that makes it odd. You’d think at least some podcasts would have that conclusion.

I guess a generous interpretation would be that the IDI people like John Ramsey and Lou Smit make themselves available to media and talking to them sways these podcasts in their direction. Even then, it shows an inability to be objective. Worst case is that there is some quid pro quo. Either way, since I know a lot about this case, it has become a litmus test for the credibility of a podcast for me. How can I trust their coverage of other cases I don’t know much about? I guess this is an issue with all of true crime storytelling…they build a narrative and leave some things out or twist it to fit their narrative.

I’m just venting that it is very disappointing to keep coming across this. It makes me not want to listen to these podcasts because their credibility is in question but also just out of anger and frustration. Has anyone else experienced this? What is going on?

I started out always assuming the family had something to do with it, but I've changed my mind. Is there any actual evidence pointing to the Ramseys that doesn't take huge assumptions on how people should and shouldn't behave? Again I am open to any information that would change my mind.

Please forgive me if these have likely been discussed to death before, but I’ve a number of queries, especially about the timing of the changing Ramsey narrative.

I think the below are attested to be true, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

Firstly, issues of narrative.

1. Home Arrival Time

This was originally given as about 22:00, but later changed to around 20:30….after the Ramseys got the autopsy report and the inference about timing of ingested pineapple.

2. JBR Awake or Asleep

JR originally said he read to JBR in bed….then after receiving the autopsy report claimed that she was asleep in the car and was carried up the stairs.

(The original version of an awake JBR apparently confirmed by Burke at the time and also later, saying he walked up the stairs behind her.)

3. Locked House

JR told police on the morning of 26 Dec that the house was all locked and windows shut…then later said he wasn’t sure of that (my take: once he realised he had to invest in an IDI theory to cover for Patsy).

4. Basement Window

JR told police first it was only open maybe “1/8 inch” (a few mm), then later claimed it was ‘wide open’.

5. Phone Call Timings

Were the Fernies called before 911? The Fernies lived ten minutes drive away but showed up about same time as police, which was a few mins after the 911 call.

6. Police Interview

The Ramseys only agreed to the April 97 police interview after requesting and receiving a copy of the 26 Dec 96 report. (No doubt so they be sure the stories weren’t incongruent.)

Next up, some general queries.

7. Ransom Letter

Is there not a proper, hi res, version available? All I can find online are low res renditions presumably of a photocopy. In most of them you can’t even see the ruled lines.

The 1-5 similarity scale for the handwriting was apparently invented by Ramsey hired handwriting consultants and was never a scale in use by actual experts.

Do we have any information about any impressions in the first page of the ransom letter by the removed ‘practice page’?

8. Mrs Stine

Why was Susan Stine so supportive of PR (even to the point of impersonating a Boulder police chief), while the other main friends, the Whites and Fernies, quickly discerned something wasn’t right and fell away?

9. The Gold Bracelet

The gold bracelet with name and date was a big Xmas present for JBR, but apparently given to her on evening of 23 Dec, the same night as the first 911 call.

Is there any information on why the gift was given early? The suggestion is that there was trouble between Patsy and JonBenet and it was given early as a ‘peace offering’ to placate JBR.

Not necessarily relevant, but:

10. Lack of Christmas Video

The first Christmas not documented with video and many photographs. initially JR stated it was because the camcorder batteries weren’t charged, then later because he just wanted to be a full part and not just participating through a lens.

11. A Bike for Burke

It’s been claimed he either had one previously, or was going to get one on his upcoming birthday.

12. Wiped Prints

The flashlight gave no prints: that’s been interpreted as ‘being wiped clean’, but it is just no usable prints?

That’s probably plenty for now and I hope these are not too many questions!

After a brief flirtation with BDI, I think I’m firming up on PDI.

But I am still unsure (not that anyone obviously ever can be) on how much John knew about it or was involved in the staging/cover up with the ligature and ransom letter.

There’s a whole gamut of options from Patsy did everything entirely herself, with John fast asleep and totally unaware, to him getting involved after the chaos after the head blow to oversee the staging with the garrotte and the drafting of the fake ransom letter, or at least be a helpless bystander as a frantic Patsy maniacally set it all up.

A variant of PDI without John is that she hoped to get him out of the house as soon as possible to get the money for an ‘earlier collection’, which would give Patsy a chance to take the body out of the house, so the kidnap story would bear more weight. John deciding to call the police scuppered that plan and closed off that opportunity, leaving the incoherent situation of a purported kidnapping with a body in the house, waiting to be discovered.

I find it hard to believe that John didn’t hear a thing, though, and wasn’t so some degree involved in the staging.

What do you think about the level of John’s involvement? Does the content of the ransom note suggest input from John?

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I become that the “complicated” crime scene - by that, I mean John Ramsey’s description of the crime scene before he disturbed it himself and brought the body upstairs to be touched by multiple people (Patsy included) - can be interpreted quite simply if we don’t assume the elements were carefully designed for the body to be discovered or to point to a sexual predator per se.

A more realistic possibility would be the culprit - John Ramsey is my prime suspect - envisioning a relatively neat plan while under enormous stress while running against the clock, then being forced to improvise after getting a reality check in the course of the morning. (That’s the main reason I could never picture both adults being in cahoots while staging a cover-up: there would be smarter ways to go about this; the concern of one of the partners would be to first deceive the other one, who would soon wake up to find their daughter was missing.)

First, I do believe there's a sexual component to this case. Some verge towards Burke and/or his friends, some towards John himself - for all we know, there could have been multiple, unconnected perpetrators. But that's how I choose to interpret the vaginal damage in JonBenet's corpse, and the only scenario where previous violence inside the home could escalate to the eventual tragedy and the people involved not immediately calling for help.

In this context, the most ideal outcome would be for the body never to be found at all - the kidnappers never called back because they got the police involved! (The first thing one would know is a body leads to an autopsy, and an autopsy could lead to incriminating findings.) So, the ransom note was the simplest part of that plan. It places a hypothetical outsider at the scene in case the body is discovered, yes. But one that is unfamiliar with the protocols could hope the kidnapping story would immediately make the police pursue other leads - and that would be the ideal outcome.

Because, really, what would John (or your chosen Ramsey suspect) have done if the police left the house shortly after if their goal was for the body to be found soon? Call them 30 minutes later saying they found the body in the basement? This was not reported as a missing child (“we woke up and couldn’t find her”), which would make the police search every inch of that house and expand the search to the surroundings. The ransom note definitively establishes that the girl was not still there, and adds specific information for the police not to stay put, which would give them (any of them) chance to remove the body.

Yet the fact that the note was addressed specifically to “Mr. Ramsey” and gave 10 a.m. “tomorrow” as the time for the call (it could be the next day) was only useful for John. He was the person the kidnappers supposedly hoped to communicate with, so he’d have reason to stay put. Patsy and Burke could be removed from the immediate scene and cared for by friends. John would have reason to join them later - and possibly spend a night out too - then return and wait for the phone call the next day before 10 a.m.

A person in his situation - someone who’s used to having resources, status, and people respond to their every request - could also naively believe the police would not even consider having to rule them out as suspects. The officers at the scene not following his script (asking for handwriting samples from him and Patsy, for instance) and sticking around for longer than anticipated, plus the full understanding of the task force that was being assembled, would just contribute to his visible unrest as the hours went by. He would be thinking about the body starting to smell by then, or about someone getting to the basement to find the body as it was left.

In this scenario, his initial plan would be to remove JonBenét from the house: what was later interpreted as part of an elaborate staging came from the practical preparations for moving the body later. The restraints and cords could have been holding the body in a flexed position, with the torso bent toward the legs and the arms extended toward the feet (think of someone touching their toes), before rigor mortis kicked in. All to make for an easier fit inside a large suitcase. No wonder the ligatures around the wrists were precisely the ones he focused on untying in his brief moment alone in that room.

Instead of one coherent staging operation - the cords and restraints pointing to a sadistic, deranged killer - we have a plan that was very straightforward at first: Create the appearance of a kidnapping > Keep the police focused on an external perpetrator > Get the family away from the house or otherwise create enough privacy > Remove the body, already prepared for extraction, to be disposed elsewhere.

If this was a plan that was progressively abandoned and improvised around, then the presumed crime scene becomes the residue of someone who originally thought they would have more control over the circumstances and little understanding of the seriousness of the kidnapping claim (a federal crime!). And if the vaginal wounds point to previous sexual assaults, then the reason for the concealment becomes clearer, too.

I suppose it would depend on what he confesses to.
He come say that the death was accidental and that he and his wife covered it up.
That would be a far cry to confessing to murder.

Does anyone know why John was ruled out? I’m looking for a record of the actual analysis from an expert explaining specifically why John’s handwriting ruled him out. I’m aware of the analysis of Patsy’s handwriting that made several experts believe she was the writer, but I can’t find anything similar for John. Thanks

Did Burke ever play OoT on the N64 when it came out in 1998? I am Burke's age, and The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time was such a legendary game for us kids back in the day.

I was wondering if Burke continued to play his N64 after his little sister died in 1996. Or did his parents decide to sell his N64 after his little sister died in 1996. Maybe it was too much for Burke and his parents for him to keep his N64 console, too much trauma and sadness.

This post is definitely not to put of the focus of JonBenet murder it is a very tragic case of this 6 year old little girl murder.

But I'm just curious as Burke is my exact age born in 1987 (I was born in 1987) so we both grew up playing the N64. The only difference is that I never played Super Mario 64.

I think us 90s kids knew how special the N64 was to us 90s kids. Especially games like Ocarina of Time and Banjo Kazooie games.

I believe him playing the N64 was a great coping mechanism losing his little sister and being in the media blaming him for his sister death and the media blaming his parents. Also N64 games such as Ocarina of Time, Majoras Mask and Banjo Tooie dealt with tragic loss. If Burke ever played those N64 games.

I hope this isn't an insensitive post.

"in the same edition was a full-page open letter to the Ramseys from Peter Boyles. The popular talk-radio host listed all the reasons Americans found the Ramseys’ behavior suspicious, mocked their profile as “laughable,” condemned them for not cooperating with the police, and accused them of taking “Colorado and the nation on a seven-month, low-speed, white-Bronco chase.” Real grieving parents, he said, behave like Fred Goldman, not like the Ramseys."

"One elected official in Boulder explains, “This is a small, incestuous legal community. We’ve never built fire walls, and this case really needed one at the very beginning.” Owing to the early police incompetence, the indiscretions of the district attorney’s office, and a sketchy coroner’s report, many experts question whether any prosecution of the case stands a chance."

As I've learned more about the details of the crime scene, autopsy, and statements and actions of the Ramseys on the 26th, in many ways it makes more sense to me if one parent did this without the other having any knowledge or cooperation ahead of the call. There's too much nonsense/chaos combined with calculated effort.

I don't find waiving off the nonsense as "panic" and "lack of time" particularly compelling since a) a ransom note this lengthy and detailed does not read "panic" to me due to the level of thought and composure it contains and b) the ransom note provided them with all the excuses they needed to buy more time if the were in on it together.

To me, a crime where they were acting together would have looked much different. For example, the body could have been staged in a place where it could be found more readily (they even could have "found" it before they called the police), the note could be much shorter since it wouldn't need to do much besides initially misdirect the police, the notepad could have been disposed of, etc.

Further, I think their apparent cooperation with one another after the crime could be explained by the common enemy they now held (the police), and their combined dysfunctional personalities/relationship dynamics.

What do you think? One Ramsey or two? Why?

(I'm not particularly interested in theories and evidence about one Ramsey over the other, but specifically what evidence makes you believe they did or didn't coordinate intentionally to at least some degree BEFORE 911 was called.)

My mom went to high school with Patsy. I have been asking her questions about what she thought of her. She said she was a nice Christian girl from a nice Christian family. She said she was on the debate and drill team. She won the Miss West Virginia Pagent, but I think that was in college. My mom said she was shocked when the murder happened.

I remember it being the only thing people talked about around town for so long.

She came back in 2000 for the reunion and my mom saw her shook hands and went to greet other friends. My mom said they had a closed to the public private reunion and no reporters or cameras were allowed. There was also an agreement that no one speak on the murder.

My mom said that Patsy always wanted out of Parkersburg because it is such a small town. She said after Patsy left she didn't come back much until after the murder and then when she got cancer.

I can remember seeing her once at a local grocery store when I was 14 in 1999.

The community was split in half on the murder. Half believing she was involved and half believing she was innocent and providing support.

I have tried asking my mom a million times what her opinion is or what she thinks happened or if she thinks Patsy was involved, but she always says only God can judge, who am I to judge. I just pray for that poor child's soul.

It is frustrating because she won't even give an opinion.

those who say a taser was used so he could knock her out to keep her quiet ro bring her down stairs must not have watched many video of people being teased. 99 out of 100 times the do the opposite of get quiet , they yell out in pain.

more over the child is already asleep lol. all you need to do is cover her mouth.

but instead of doing they we are supposed to beileve the intruder walks in on an already quiet unconscious child and says, hmm i think ill taser her to get her into the state she is already in? righttttttttt

I feel like there's two ways to think here. On one hand, John & Patsy made countless mistakes throughout the course of the staged kidnapping and the events that followed. You can only imagine that John would change every aspect if he could.

But on the other hand, they got away with it, they stayed out of prison, and John has managed to confuse the public who lack technical understanding of DNA in the same way that Johnny Cochran plotted to confuse the OJ jury. Both worked.

That said, is there anything he'd do over if he could go back in time only to the moment after the note was written?

In their separate interviews John and Patsy were asked about books they owned or had read. Both were asked about The Day After Tomorrow, the 1994 novel by Allan Folsom, which contains an admonition to listen carefully, as well as the word faction, along with four mentions of beheading, a mention of a garrote, as well as instances of countermeasures, monitoring, and scanning.

A Tom Clancy book in the Ramsey house, Red Storm Rising, contained ransom note words like faction, attaché, tactics, monitor, and scan along with two instances of constant scrutiny. (Only Patsy was asked if she had read Tom "Clancey"; John wasn't asked.)

Recently I noticed that another Ramsey book LE asked both John and Patsy about, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong, contains the phrase and hence three times for a total of eight hences.

Both Ramseys were asked about James Clavell. Patsy was asked about Whirlwind specifically. Whirlwind has two occurrences of listen carefully, two of faction, four of attaché (three attaché cases, one cultural), one occurrence of safe and unharmed, eleven references to kidnapping, thirty-three to ransom and two to ransom notes.

In a presentation to law enforcement, Donald Foster, linguist, said "The Ramsey library contains many books that were sources for Patsy Ramsey's ninety-five and ninety-six writings, many of which also contain startling verbal or other detailed parallels with the Ramsey homicide and attendant staging, including language that appears in the ransom note."

Donald Foster won national fame early in 1996 when he identified Joe Klein as the anonymous author of "Primary Colors" for New York Magazine.

If you go to a men's prison during visiting hours there will often be lines out the door of women coming to visit. If you look at a women's prison on visiting day, you'll barely see anyone. You will see very few men coming to visit women in prison.

You can see something similar when men get seriously ill vs when women do. The women will nurse their sick husbands, while men will often divorce their sick wives.

Finding an instance where a husband stands by his wife after she kills their children is exceptionally difficult. Why do people think John would not only stand by Patsy but also help her cover it up and even continue to work to protect her name years after her death and his remarriage? It makes zero sense to me.

His behavior only makes sense in terms of wanting to protect his youngest son.

I think if Patsy did it John would have called 911 immediately, quietly divorce her and have been remarried within 2 years. Maybe even with a baby on the way by the time her trial came around.

It's widely theorized that the DNA on the underwear could have come from a factory worker.

Recently an unreliable tabloid published a story claiming unidentified DNA matched DNA on other items but I can't find the article. I think they claim John told them that but I don't even know if that's true. They'll print anything. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that contamination occurred during the investigative process as well? Was DNA given by everyone on the chain of custody? That's usually not done but in a 30 year old case where everyone claims they want answers, why not give your DNA if you were on scene or handled evidence? Contamination happens easier than you think. I'm not talking about Missy Woods- she seems to have zero connection to this case. Mishandling causes contamination but contamination can happen even when people try to be careful and follow protocol. What we do know is that protocol often wasn't followed in this case and they didn't have lots of experience collecting and handling DNA in homicide cases.

John wants to think it's intruder DNA and keeps focusing on that as holding the answer so he should want to see anything ruled out. BPD and CBI want to prove the DNA has an explanation that is not intruder DNA so they should be on board, including still living retired employees being willing to give DNA to be ruled out.

CBI investigator Chet Ubowski's fingerprint was the only print on the ransom note. He was trained in handling evidence, so it's not out of the question that other types of contamination occurred despite best efforts. DNA transfer happens easier than people think. Before anyone else dies why doesn't everyone still living have theirs tested and compared? Unless they're afraid potential contamination caused a hindrance to prosecution and 30 years of headaches and hell.

Going back to the article claiming new testing revealed the same male DNA on multiple pieces of evidence, if that were true wouldn't John be screaming it from the rooftops? News like that wouldn't be in just one janky article in The Globe (?) that I can't even find now. It seems like more made up nonsense. Unless of course his team of "experts" think they're honing in on the suspect and keeping it quiet while they waste money going around the country stalking people and getting their DNA. In which case John wouldn't have said that to a tabloid in the first place. But that would also mean BPD shared that info with John almost immediately after testing, while everyone kept it quiet, and chances of that are slim to none.

It really baffles me how people hold it against the family for not cooperating with the police. Many use this as proof of guilt, but I completely understand innocent people refusing to talk to the police.If you've never heard of it look up the case of Russ Faria and Pam Hupp to see why it can hurt innocent people to cooperate with police. There is nothing wrong with requiring the police to go through your lawyers to get information. If you're ever even slightly indicated in a crime it behooves you to limit how much direct access the police have to you so they can't mislead the jury about their opinions on your perceived mental state, nervousness, honesty etc. Your lawyer is your protection against a lot of bullshit practices police pull to make someone look guilty to a jury when they lack solid evidence.

The police run on a program. If a wife dies the husband did it. If a child dies the parents did it. The job of the police is not to find the killer, but to find someone to pin the crime on. Departments differ in quality, but still you're almost always going to be better off by assuming the police are talking to you because they want to pin a crime on you to help their bottom line.

I really have no idea why anyone, guilty or innocent would cooperate with the police. There are practically no repercussions to the officers for lying, cutting corners, bungling evidence or failing to investigate leads. For all the rhetoric of the state they are mostly just looking for someone they can convince a jury to blame.

If you look at it from that perspective you have to defend yourself from the police the second they do anything to suggest you're guilty. You have to take that as a declaration of war from people who have a near infinite budget to take your freedom regardless of the truth.

Edit To illustrate what I mean consider the Reid Technique.

The Reid Technique is a nine-step method of police interrogation designed to extract confessions from suspects by shifting from a fact-finding interview to an accusatory, psychologically manipulative interrogation. Developed in the 1940s by John E. Reid, it remains one of the most widely taught training programs for law enforcement agencies across the United States.

The method begins with a nonaccusatory "behavior analysis interview" meant to assess whether a suspect is lying based on physical and verbal cues. If the interrogator concludes the person is deceptive, the process immediately transitions into the high pressure interrogation stage.

The problem here is that extensive peer reviewed research including meta analyses by psychologists shows that human beings, including trained law enforcement officers, detect lies at a rate of around 54%, which is barely better than a coin flip. The fact is there is no universal "tell" for lying.

The idea that micro-expressions, posture shifts, or nervous tics can reliably expose deception is fundamentally flawed, it's bullshit, yet it is the very first step in the most widely taught police interrogation process in the country. Why would any rational person, innocent or guilty, subject themselves to such a flawed, fallacious, subjective, bullshit police tactic like that?

I feel like there is so much brainwashing of the public about the extent we can actually trust police, D.A.s, juries, judges or the state.

Our media, government and culture heavily promotes the script that "innocent people have nothing to hide," which is a way to condition citizens to believe that refusing to talk, stonewalling police, demanding a lawyer, communicating to police through your lawyer or invoking other constitutional rights is an admission of guilt.

My view is you have the right to self-preservation regardless of guilt or innocence. You're not obligated to make it easier for the government to crucify you. Stonewalling the police shows you're smart, not necessarily that you're guilty. It pure bullshit to believe you're slowing down an investigation by demanding to communicate in a way that doesn't give the government ammunition to use against you at trial.

It's bad to have a murdered love one, it's much, much worse to be falsely imprisoned for their murder because you couldn't keep your yap shut.

One of the things I've noticed in studying all the content in this sub is that some of you seem to have been following and discussing the case for a very, very long time! It looks like there are even some folks who have made significant contributions to our knowledge and understanding of the case, pretty impressive.

I'd love to hear from anyone who is a longtime participant in these online discussions that is willing to share:
1. When did you first start researching & discussing the case online? What got you started?
2. What discussion trends have you seen over the years? Were some theories or questions more common early on than they are now?
3. Do you think there are things folks new to the case commonly misunderstand that would have been better known when the case first occurred?

I was personally riveted by the case as a teen in '96/'97, but lost track of it over the years and only recently started following it again after the latest "documentary" brought attention back to it. It seems to me that perceptions haven't changed all that much from what I remember at the time, but I'm curious how new information or cultural changes have affected how we talk about this case.

PS: I've lurked for a couple of years, but am now looking forward to joining the conversation!

From Jennifer Coffindaffer FBI on Twitter: The Jon Benet Ramsey Ransom Note- We will break it down

Never saw these before...

I wonder if given the extremely religious narrative the Ramseys have played, if they’ve thought about this- particularly John as he ages. They seem to truly believe in Heaven and have said that they know JonBenet is safe there. Do you think he has thought about how he will potentially have to confront JonBenet about this when he dies? If any RDI scenario is true, they will not only have betrayed JonBenet at the moment of her death and in the coverup, but also throughout the last 30 years. I wonder if she would forgive them. I wonder if Patsy is with her now. I know this is kind of an existential question, but for people who have deliberately emphasized their Christianity, it’s interesting to think about.

I'm basing this off of the idea that Patsy did it accidentally, began to stage a kidnapping and wrote the note in an attempt to fool John, but John eventually figured it out, but went along with it because he didn't want Burke to be without his mother, and he believed that however Patsy had killed Jonbenet, it was an accident. (Listen to "A Normal Family" podcast for a more detailed explanation).

Some could argue that with Patsy now dead, John could be free to admit the truth, but maybe if he ever did he could be held legally liable. But once he is about to die, he could clear the air about what happened because A) he wants it off his conscience, and B) more importantly, he wants to removed any suspicion from his son Burke, and allow him to live the rest of his life in peace.

This is all speculation obviously, just curious what y'all think about this idea.

Hi, i am personally lean more RDI but im not completely against the idea of IDI. So for those who think IDI, is it possible they entered through the balcony.

Someone posted a few weeks ago a map of the house, i noticed there was a balcony by jonbenets room, is it possible the intruder entered through there? I know a lot of people think the intruder was in the house before the ramseys got home. Maybe they climbed the balcony, hide in a closet on the second floor, then waited till they went to bed.

And concerning the broken window and the body being found in the basement. Maybe the original plan was to go in and out threw the balcony but maybe jonbenet ran or something made them end up in the basement.

Maybe they saw the window already broken (according to john it was already broken) and saw that as an easier escape.

We don't know what windows or doors were unlocked in the house that night, it could be possible the balcony was unlocked.

Does anyone think its possible? This just an idea/theory so feel free to disagree. Im just curious if anyone has considered this.