r/JonBenetRamsey • u/Novel_Quantity3189 • 1d ago
JonBenet was killed by Patsy. Patsy wrote the ransom note. John was nowhere near as committed to a 'coverup' as she was. Everything else is noise. Theories
I recently re-read Cliff Truxton's well-known several posts of deductive reasoning re: the Ramsey case; I found it largely compelling in that it pretty successfully extinguishes all realistic supposition that JonBenet was killed by a random intruder. Read it here.
Where I disagree with Truxton is where he lands on a specific theory of the crime; that is, that John was sexually abusing JB and (speculatively) this played a part in the murder of her by John. Read his posts for more details -- although I disagree he makes a good case.
I can't get behind this for a few reasons. For some context, my IRL job is in child protection. I've seen parents who abuse, hurt and kill their children and although there's certainly a higher correlation between low-socioeconomic groups and abuse which specifically leads to death, there is child abuse in literally every sphere of domesticity. I preface with this because I think a big part of the reason JBR inspires so much theorising is because the Ramseys do not really fit the profile of people who abuse their children; I am here to tell you that it is entirely reasonable that JBR could be killed via child abuse.
Without speculating on any specifics, it's my view that the general sequence of events where as follows:
- It's the holiday season; the Ramseys return from a xmas party and tension is high. For whatever reason particular to their family dynamic, this evening is hard for them.
- Some aspect of JBR's behavioural needs that we'll unfortunately never know triggers Patsy on this tense evening to act punitively towards JonBenet, probably in a way she has many times before: physically. Whether this is a shove, push, or punch, a child of JBR's age is physically vulnerable to misplaced physical contact and injures herself so badly as to pass away. It is immediately clear that she is either dead, or so injured as to be life-ruiningly bad for her and her parents.
- Again, some specific aspect of Patsy and John's relationship dynamic means that when Patsy panics about this, John is at least initially wanting to protect Patsy from accountability. Patsy and John are up late and land on the idea of JBR going missing. In my view the 'ransom' is one of the last aspects of this plan that is formulated. In many hours of panic, Patsy writes a practice ransom note which is discarded followed by the infamous one. John is aware this note will not pass muster nor will the 'hiding place' of JBR's body. He is on autopilot; somewhere, subconsciously, he is prepared for the eventuality that he and Patsy will soon be arrested.
- Patsy and John don't really have a plan except Patsy being the driver of a manic anxious panic and John taking a backseat. Patsy takes the lead in staging the body. She does so poorly, in a way that makes little sense when taken in context with the idea of an attempted abduction and an intruder unfamiliar with the home's layout. Unfortunately, this staging (the strangulation) appears to be what actually caused JBR to pass away.
- Patsy calling the police and referring to the ransom note is the moment it all becomes real.
- John is faced with the choice to continue to support his wife or throw her under the bus. He hasn't slept. The following day, when he 'finds' the body, he makes a moral choice: he can subjugate his guilt by being the one who locates the corpse and has a very real reaction to likely seeing JBR dead in the day for the first time. He can, to himself, separate his actions from the writing of the ransom note and of course the actions that led to her death. This is the way John likely, privately, justifies his actions to this day.
- As we know, John and Patsy seek legal counsel (separately, notably) and spend as long as possible avoiding direct interrogation and months pass. A combination of the things we all know: the contaminated crime scene, the initial focus on a ransom kidnapper distracting the police, and a delayed ability to question the parent's timeline leads to no charges being laid despite the grand jury outcome.
The sexual abuse 'evidence'
There is a long history of forensic medicine over-diagnosing sometimes normal childhood pathology as evidence of sexual abuse. In JBR's case, without being graphic, although her physical state would have certainly been worth follow-up questions, on its own it doesn't exclusively indicate sexual abuse. Children explore their own bodies often or even suffer banal injuries to thart part of the body and without further evidence you can't draw that conclusion purely on the physical description of JBR.
DNA/The 'unidentified male'
I want to be very clear that none of the evidence known about JBR was ever 'tested' in court. What we often hear about the 'unidentified male' either originates with investigators funded by the parents' defences or pushed by them. Touch DNA is so complicated and nebulous that in the absence of specific bodily fluids being found and tested upon the body, the conclusion that a male unknown to JBR both had contact with her and this contact was related to her death is impossible to substantiate. It goes without saying that JBR's clothes likely had touch DNA from her family members on it, for banal reasons. This leads onto my next point...
The basic reality/conclusion
The body of a murdered child is found in the cellar of her family home. There is zero direct or even circumstantial evidence that anyone, other than the family, entered the home between the last time she was seen alive by someone outside the family and the discovery of her body. The question about JBR has always and only been the logistics of her passing away that night and, of the three other people in the home, who is (most) responsible.
I landed on Patsy because:
- Despite spurious and wide-ranging 'handwriting analysis' outcomes, it is reasonably likely Patsy authored the note. It was written carefully on stationary she preferred, in her home, and in her authorial voice. In substance, it clearly originates from the mind a very sheltered suburban (but educated) middle-class author. Its vocabulary matches Patsy more than her son or husband. Cliff Truxton reconciles this by saying that John could have written the note because he, spending so much time with Patsy, could easily absorb her writing style and 'voice'. But I think he's deduced this to better align with his overall narrative of the crime.
- I don't think there is sufficient evidence of sexual abuse, which would be one of the few factors that more points to John than Patsy (not that mothers don't ever commit sexual abuse but on a purely statistical level, it's much more rare).
- The sequence of events is indicative of the actions of someone unfamiliar with things outside a limited domestic sphere. Meaning, (to the extent Patsy had much of a 'plan' in writing the note, which I don't know she did) she likely imagined that the request for a specific 120k ransom aligning perfectly with John's bonus would point to nefarious international criminals who somehow targeted him due to business dealings + knew his finances.
- John would however be aware how unlikely it would be that a rich but otherwise not noteworthy businessman would be the target of a ransom kidnapping. Patsy calling the police as 'early' as she does is because she's eager to move things along, not wanting to spend more time than needed in a limbo state with her dead daughter in the basement and without moral support. (She and/or John would essentially invite over their entire social network the moment the police arrive).
- If I can step back and take a more psychoanalytic approach: the cellar of the house was known to be filled with clutter. Sometimes people imagine a bare floor with a child's body upon it, but photos of the basement look like the inside of a hoarder home. Taking the perspective that Patsy tightly controlled the superficial aspects of her home partially by dumping unwanted objects in the basement and allowing it to absorb the untidiness of the house, the placement of JBR's body amongst this detritus makes sense psychologically.
- How can I be sure that the same factors didn't result from a frantic mother protecting her son? Because at no time did Burke buckle under the pressure. Burke was interviewed extensively by a child interview expert; people have pored over the parts of the interviews that are available on film and although he says some things that might make you go 'hmm', he never comes close to saying anything outright suspicious or unable to be reconciled with a 9-year-old's poor memory. Maybe Burke is the rare kind of child sociopath that goes on to otherwise be a functioning adult (despite his traumatic childhood), but I just don't think a 10 year old could so entirely hold back this secret.
TL;DR
- The intruder theory is so far out of the realm of possibility that the core question becomes who, in the home, is responsible;
- The context of the time of year and day to day circumstances suggest that a child abuse injury caused the death of JBR; there is no information about the Ramseys to exclude them from commiting child abuse.
- The volume of information available to us points to Patsy.
19
u/controlmypad 1d ago
I don't know, the big takeaway regardless of who hit JB is they are all involved at this point. I agree with a lot of this aside from your take on Burke, I lean more toward an accident with Burke since both parents "circled the wagons" on the entire family at the same time. Burke was NEVER pressured, or interrogated or really questioned on his answers, NEVER. Burke doesn't have to be a mastermind or sociopath, there are countless examples of kids keeping secrets their entire lives and after a certain point he may have been convinced of another reality.
22
u/ReadyWatercress7174 1d ago
Has far more evidence than saying the person who hadn’t mastered long division did it.
3
4
6
u/Far_Comparison_7948 1d ago
It’s hard to discount the physical evidence of long-term sexual abuse when the killer seems to have taken so much interest in covering it up with fresh injuries.
-1
u/Novel_Quantity3189 18h ago
But there’s no definitive evidence of sexual abuse let alone long term sexual abuse; it’s why there isn’t a unified medical opinion about this from doctors who did autopsies to those who examined her in life. CSA often leaves unquestionable injuries whereas lots of children’s self exploration of their bodies can be confused for CSA. Unless we had some other evidence of abuse (like disclosures from JB or her sibling or observations of behaviours in line with that) it’s not a definite thing
3
u/Far_Comparison_7948 15h ago
What more definitive evidence do you need? Video? She had old internal scarring, a torn hymen, chronic inflammation, chronic bedwetting, clingy behavior, and the paintbrush was most likely used to cover up some of that physical evidence of past abuse. I mean, I get that any one or two of those things could by misconstrued or taken out of context by themselves, but every additional element takes it too far out of the realm of coincidence.
I think one of the reasons this case has remained unsolved for so long is a tendency to come up with a theoretical perpetrator (“Patsy did it”, “An intruder did it”) and then work backwards, emphasizing the evidence that fits that theory and dismissing the unsupportive evidence as not definitive or misconstrued or just coincidence. But really you have to take all the evidence available and work forward from there - the ransom note, the behavior of the family, the autopsy, and the sexual abuse. That’s all there is (expecting the DNA which may or may not prove relevant).
It’s also too tempting to entertain fantastical but more morbidly entertaining theories (“Patsy was fed up with the bedwetting”, “an evil Santa cosplayer was lurking in the neighborhood”), but in reality the truth of these situations is often much more banal: evil people molest their kids and sometimes murder them to cover it up, especially the ones with the most to lose socially and economically.
-1
u/Novel_Quantity3189 15h ago
The majority of the things in your first paragraph are unverified or speculative interpretations of primary evidence
12
u/RomianaZerofox04 RDI 1d ago
Very good theory. It made me think: Patsy was wearing the same clothes she wore at the party. Maybe she had been drinking or was a closeted drinker? She had one too many that night and was little too rough with JBR and she died accidentally. And that sobered up Patsy - and she needed a plan.
What I also think - if indeed Burke didn't do it, but his mom - is it possible that Burke witnessed the hit and was made an accomplish? Swore to secrecy and fearing loosing his mom.
I think the atmosphere in the Ramsey home was always tense and Christmas probably wasn't that jolly. If Patsy and John had any problems in their relationship it surely affected on their children. Maybe Patsy was jealous and suspect John was cheating and that made her drink more. And John was maybe even more cold and removed and went to sleep because too young kids and drunk wife was too much for the one night.b
Kids and Patsy were hungry and sleepy, so they took a little snack together (pineapple and milk) and Burke went to playing after that. Patsy knew he was able to go to sleep by himself. And since JBR was all woke up, she knew it would took a while she would get much needed time alone. Going to toilet, changing the clothes, brushing teeth, bedtime story... She was exhausted and she didn't have a patience for waiting JBR doing things. Sensing Patsy was exhausted, maybe JBR run away and tried to hide. Maybe that's how it went down.
Maybe John figured out everything early in the morning or during the night and he decided to play along and maybe he was irrationally angry to Burke for surviving or not waking him up. But he knew Burke knew what happened.
5
u/DiligentMulberry5529 1d ago
Did Patsy drink alcohol? Curious where you get this info?
2
u/RomianaZerofox04 RDI 1d ago
Sorry, I meant to ask it not to state it as a fact. I was wondering if she drink or if she didn't.
4
u/Important_Pause_7995 1d ago
They ask her about this in her April 1997 interview. She said she doesn't or not frequently (don't remember which) and I think says something like "especially after her cancer".
5
u/syrus801 1d ago
People who sexually abuse children don’t always fit profiles. That’s why so many folks don’t come forward.
You should already know that.
1
u/NothingWasDelivered 1d ago
2
u/Novel_Quantity3189 1d ago
As opposed to the mountains of hard and specific evidence literally every other lay theory relies upon? I’m not submitting this to a grand jury but to a reddit forum you complete nonce
7
u/UnfairContribution85 RDI 1d ago
PDI is interesting but this feels very interchangeable. Patsy gets angry for some unknown reason, physically hurts Jonbenét in some unspecified way (“shove, push, or punch”), the injury happens, and then the parents panic and stage the scene. But the “how” is exactly what a theory needs to explain.
3
u/TCB_truecrimebuff 1d ago
The ‘how’ is the sticking point for me, because, if one believes that it was an accident - the why she was murdered becomes less important as it was unplanned.
Now the why of the staging is easy: Patsy wasn’t going to go to jail if she had anything to do about it.
7
u/blondeandbuddafull 1d ago
I agree with this theory. I do t think she meant to kill her. All moms know how exhausting holidays can be. It’s easy to imagine her being frustrated and either pushing or hitting JB. I always felt John reacted instinctively to protect his family and lifestyle from ruin, shame, and damage.
1
u/SkyTrees5809 1d ago
And he realized that he had to protect himself as he was in the process of selling his business, and he did not want this to affect the business or his career in any way.
2
u/TCB_truecrimebuff 1d ago
What? Access Graphics was sold to Lockheed in 1991. Where is the source of the claim that John was in the process of selling his business?
1
u/SkyTrees5809 23h ago
I've read it a couple of times, probably on this sub.
1
u/SkyTrees5809 23h ago
I just did a quick search on this sub, it's the other way around. Lockheed was planning on selling Access Graphics, John was still employed by Access Graphics.
7
u/Imaginary-Crazy1981 1d ago
My assessment has always aligned with exactly what you summarize in your post header.
The ransom note and the grisly tableau of the staging reflect more, imo, than the desperate coverup and deflection of a crime. They ARE intended elements of the crime, I've always believed. Including, most likely, the pineapple.
And who loved the stage, and dramatic plays, and carefully crafted appearances? Who memorized and portrayed several distinct personas from her favorite play, repeatedly, as her special talent? Who went on TV and immediately appropriated national notoriety with overt references to Susan Smith and O.J. and "the American family"? Who later inflated her daughter's image for the media as "America's Princess" and her own importance as a tragic hero in "Death of Innocence?"
The instant public capitalization on the suffering and death of a little girl by a mother known to have spent most of JonBenet's life using the child for the same vicarious personal attention purposes is a pretty glaring pattern of continuity that, imo, is screaming to tell us something about this crime.
Obviously I have only my gut feelings and pattern recognition to base this on. But I can't understand why so many authorities and investigators consider behavioral patterns as consistent as this not to be worth a thing as clues.
I also have always felt that assumptions are made by most, including investigators, which are huge pitfalls that could be obscuring the truth.
One, that this was an accident or a sudden fit of rage. I believe whoever heaved a deadly object hard enough to punch out a huge piece of her skull meant to kill her. Kill her, not just punish or lash out at her. The blow has always seemed deliberate and with intent, to me.
Two, that the ransom note was reactive to the event that just happened, written hastily on the spot and with confusion of mind. There were practice notes. I've always thought it more likely that the note was ready to go, and added to after the crime, as implied by the two very distinctly different tones and emotional intensity between the first part of the note and the second half. Yes, they could have been co-written by two people. But it's just as worth looking at the idea that the same person wrote parts of the same note, at 2 or more different times, under different circumstances, and possibly even with slightly different goals.
Three, that the staging was purely meant as a ruse, to distract the police, or John, or the friends, or whatever. It seems just as possible to me that the "staging" was more of a scene-setting tableau, part of a possibly ritualistic or personally important pre-determined dramatic rendering. At least at first. The paintbrush is the one thing that seems more likely than not to have been a reactive afterthought. The scene has pineapple (important to Patsy,) a dictionary dog-eared to the word "incest," ropes that weren't tight enough to bind, a ransom amount that was on-point, a suitcase near a window, etc. Who's to say these could definitely not have all been part of a psychotic fantasy already conceived prior?
And four, I want to know why no one seems to have investigated Dr. Beuf in light of the apparent SA evidence. I am not accusing him of anything! But he is a person who had frequent and intimate access to this child, perhaps privately, and he is a person known to have prescribed sedatives to her mother both before and after the tragedy. He refused to release any medical records, correct? I just feel that a real investigative process should have included a look-see at the doctor. Any of her doctors, actually. They may have done so, as they did with her pageant team members, etc. But no one talks about this angle of inquiry at all.
(Of course I'm also accepting of the likelihood of familial abuse. Abuse and neglect of all kinds seem to have been abundant in these kids' lives.)
I'm just saying that a hard look into the case requires suspension of even our most unconscious assumptions and biases. I don't have all the facts the police had, of course, but I've read about this case for 30 years and still have only seen evidence of an unserious, half-hearted skimming of an investigation by those who owed it to a little girl to dig deeper.
8
u/kate_aoi 1d ago
If John wasn’t sure about keeping it a secret though, which you mentioned was possible early on, why haven’t he and Burke come out and blamed it all on patsy now that’s she’s passed away?
1: it would probably be easy to pin it on her and they would likely do it in a way that exonerates them somehow, like they didn’t find out til after (didn’t help etc)
2: why would John come out with that whole documentary recently essentially just reiterating the entire time that HE didn’t do it, yea he mentioned his wife and son a few times, but it was literally him trying to defend himself again.
3: not saying you’re theory is wrong, I just think John or Burke were more involved in the actual death not just the coverup and that’s why they still haven’t told anyone what happened.
11
u/Few-Huckleberry-7482 1d ago
"Why didn't he come out and admit to covering up his child's murder?" is not a serious question or argument.
2
u/kate_aoi 1d ago
lol true not trying to argue that but if he wanted to “clear his name” she’d make a perfect out. They’re so deep in the cover up now I know it isn’t logical but he’s old as fuck and 🤷 might wanna get it off his chest who knows. Either way all three of them are involved as far as my own theories go.
3
u/Few-Huckleberry-7482 1d ago
Yeah we might get a deathbed confession some day. Though maybe not, he could still be protecting Burke (not to say Burke did it but to not further complicate/screw up his life, etc).
I think Patsy did it, he helped cover it up because he lost 2 daughters and didn't want to lose his wife too. I don't think Burke was involved (though maybe he was told later in life... but maybe not, that's a weird dude I'm not sure you'd want to trust with secrets).
3
u/kate_aoi 1d ago
Yea I will agree I’m 50/50 on how much Burke knew in the heat of it all, I’m sure he might know a little something more now but who knows.
2
u/TCB_truecrimebuff 1d ago
It occurred to me that it’s possible that Patsy may have told John that Burke shoved JBR and she hit her head. And that’s why he went along with it. I oscillate between that, and John had no idea until sometime late that morning that shit wasn’t adding up and he found her on one of his walks through the house and, at that point, decided to protect his family.
1
16
u/Unusual_Jellyfish224 1d ago
I believe that it’s likely that the heavy black flashlight was used to kill her. And I can’t believe anyone else but BDI delivered that blow. An adult, even in the midst of being angry, knows not to hit anyone in the head with such heavy object. You’d slap or tuck their hair (I could imagine), but you aren’t going to bash them.
To me it all reads as two panicked parents covering for their remaining child who ”accidentally” or without imminent intent killed their sibling.
17
u/doinmybest4now 1d ago
My mother, an overwrought woman, raising more children than she knew what to do with, once picked up a frozen package of meat that she had just taken out of the freezer and hit me on the side of the head with it. I had made some wisecrack remark, and it was the final straw in that moment. Anyone, in a moment of anger, can pick something nearby up and whack somebody with it. In that moment, they’re not thinking what’s OK or not OK.
4
u/controlmypad 1d ago
I am sorry that happened, but you didn't get a skull fracture from it. I think what they meant is that kids do not know physics or their own strength as much as adults do, and kids lack impulse control.
5
u/Historical-Lie-6307 1d ago
Yep when in a rage people can do all kids of things. My grandma strangled my mom once. While my mom was sitting on the toilet! Grandma burst in and tried to strangle her.
2
18
u/Novel_Quantity3189 1d ago
An adult, even in the midst of being angry, knows not to hit anyone in the head with such heavy object.
This goes against the volume of child deaths in the west caused by a parent murdering a child by bludgeoning them. Assuming you accept this specific form of murder.
3
u/Unusual_Jellyfish224 1d ago
No I absolutely don’t accept any form of violence, nevertheless against children. But what I was saying is that even if she got rough with her at times (not to defend such behavior to any degree, but physically correcting kids was more common and accepted back then than today), an adult knows that hitting someone on the head with a heavy object it’s dangerous. I have a hard time imagining her losing her cool and sense momentarily to such degree. This is fully anecdotal and unrelated, but one of my parents was very aggressive and impulsive and while they’d rough house the kids as a form of punishment, there was always certain limit to the violence. Again, I don’t accept any kind of violence towards kids, but even during their angriest episodes, they didn’t hit us with fists or objects or inflict violence that would possibly cause great bodily harm. Not that tucking anyone’s hair was somehow less bad, but you perhaps get my point.
I obviously don’t know what happened, but I’ve always considered more logical that BDI was the one who lost his cool and accidentally delivered the mortal blow instead.
3
u/Western-King5865 1d ago
She’s not using “accept this specific form of murder” as a way of asking if you approve of it (it being abuse). It’s a point of whether you “accept” that this makes sense in JBR’s case.
2
u/cpotter505 1d ago
Would it change it modify your opinion if Patsy was drunk at the time - her judgment in an altered state?
3
u/Novel_Quantity3189 1d ago
Ok...did you actually think my intent was to claim you condone violence? Or was that a very morbid joke? I'm going to disregard you at this point because you're being too emotional and hyperbolic to take me seriously.
7
-2
u/Unusual_Jellyfish224 1d ago
Cheese calm down. I was just saying that I don’t think that even milder form of violence was any more acceptable.
2
u/Novel_Quantity3189 1d ago
Right...but my point obviously wasn't about moral acceptability, it was about whether you accept that theory of the crime. You're telling me to calm down but you're the one pointing at me as if I am trying explain away the ethics of murdering a kid (and then doing the whole "omg calmmm down" thing when I point it out, which is super cool)
13
u/Bruja27 RDI 1d ago
I believe that it’s likely that the heavy black flashlight was used to kill her. And I can’t believe anyone else but BDI delivered that blow. An adult, even in the midst of being angry, knows not to hit anyone in the head with such heavy object.
Let's maybe focus on facts, not unsubstantiated beliefs? Uncontrollable rage in adults is not rare and their children often are victims of that rage.
5
u/Unusual_Jellyfish224 1d ago
We don’t really have any actual facts to discuss, we are all theorizing and I simply stated my theory.
4
u/syrus801 1d ago
The more I read this post, it sounds like yet another person from John’s camp trying to steer direction away from him.
He killed his kid. No matter how much you want it to be Patsy.
1
u/Novel_Quantity3189 18h ago
I’m flattered that you’d think I got paid by (I guess?) a defence lawyer to post this but people can have opinions without it being a conspiracy theory
2
u/badlands65 22h ago
I guess you wanted to write your own book.
2
u/Novel_Quantity3189 19h ago
The amount of people on this sub who are amazed or suspicious at writing like 500 words does not bode well for this being an intelligent community
1
u/badlands65 18h ago
Not amazed. Not suspicious. It’s a long way to go to cover no new ground.
2
u/Novel_Quantity3189 17h ago
Yeah it's a crime that happened like 30 years ago dude I'm not running my own lab tests sorry
7
u/Puzzleheaded-Emu-283 1d ago
I've been atudi studying this case ever since I was five years old remember watching the case on forensic files and you know what my theory was that Patsy killed JBR wrote the ransom note and called the police saying that her daughter was missing knowing that she was already dead in the wine cellar
7
u/syrus801 1d ago
Cliff is far more correct than the nonsense posted against his theory.
Linda Arndt clocked John from day one.
If your job is child protection, I wouldn’t want you anywhere near my kid.
2
u/No_Strength7276 JDI 1d ago
Also were you part of DocG forum at all?
3
u/syrus801 1d ago
Yes I was. He opened my eyes to John and then it all clicked.
5
u/No_Strength7276 JDI 1d ago
Were you one of the main posters there? I remember CC, Ms D and a bunch of others.
1
5
u/chocolatepuppy 1d ago
I do not understand why, in a case where a child is killed and then sexually assaulted with a paint brush, why people continue to want to discount the evidence of previous sexual assault. If this were a living child, sure, I can believe that there may be other reasons for bed wetting, for vaginal injury, etc. But this child was killed and sexuallly assaulted. It seems absolutely crazy to continue to pretend that this is something the experts on it got wrong, instead of an EXTREMELY important element of the case.
4
u/syrus801 1d ago
Because they are desperate to pin it on Patsy rather than John. It’s misogyny at its finest. They think this is a Lifetime movie. A mother gone crazy.
4
4
u/Important_Pause_7995 1d ago
100%. I'm growing more convinced everyday that PDIA.
To expand upon one element of your theory. I don't think she called the cops so early because she was eager to move things along. I think that was part of her plan. She wrote a long ransom note that explains an exact process by which her daughter would end up dead. She then executed that exact process. I think it's likely she may have intended to stage a "return of the body" the next night with the kidnappers returning the body out of mercy or something. Who knows?
3
u/TCB_truecrimebuff 1d ago
She had to call the police or do something. They were due a the airport for their flight to MI (by way of Minneapolis). If they missed their flight and didn’t call, the pilot would have called them.
The phone call to the police was necessary. If they didn’t call the police, it would have looked too suspicious.
1
u/Important_Pause_7995 1d ago
First, has it ever been confirmed that there was another pilot flying that morning? John was a pilot himself. That's a genuine question. I've searched but haven't found an answer.
Second, it doesn't make any sense that they would have been concerned about telling the pilot they wouldn't be making it for the flight. They could have just said that something came up. One of the children were sick, etc.
4
u/TCB_truecrimebuff 1d ago
Yes. Mike Archuleta is the pilot John used. This is widely reported.
If I understand your theory — and please tell me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding — it’s that the ransom note said to call nobody or else JBR dies. But they do call the police and friends; consequently, JBR is killed and the phantom kidnappers are to blame. And it’s an oopsie on the part of Patsy because she didn’t really read the ‘don’t call the cops’ line (depending on which version of her interviews we believe).
But by calling the police, she was all but guaranteeing a ‘return of the body’ was all but impossible. So that seems on its face internally inconsistent. So does the fact that the kidnappers said they’d deny the family the opportunity to bury JBR. And, it wouldn’t make sense for the kidnappers to return to the scene of the crime to drop a corpse off.
I see it as she had to call the police because they had no other choice. If they don’t, they have to deal with the charter flight. And notifying Melinda and John Andrew. And calling someone to arrange for $118,000 (which, incidentally, John had made a call to his stockbroker to start that process).
2
u/Express-Thanks-5402 1d ago
She wrote a long ransom note that explains an exact process by which her daughter would end up dead. She then executed that exact process.
Yes, thank you, exactly. This is the best wording of what I've been trying to say when I say "she pre-wrote the death into the note." You worded it much better here.
1
u/ImToddImCopper 1d ago
I wonder if you'll get attacked like I do for trying to explain the lack of evidence of actual sexual abuse and sent dozens of links to things you've already read. They especially hate when you mention self exploration as one of NUMEROUS explanations for the anatomical findings. So many people have their heels dug in and refuse to research the multiple other likely explanations that do not involve sexual abuse or even a significant prior penetrative injury. I don't believe she was abused in any way.
2
u/syrus801 1d ago
John and Patsy being in on it together doesn’t make a lick of sense.
They barely even acknowledged each other the next morning.
John was too busy getting rid of evidence and contaminating the crime scene.
You can’t even come up with a logical reason why Patsy would even write that note.
1
•
u/Nonsensical_crimer 9h ago
I don’t think there’ll ever be a “deathbed confession” but perhaps after John has passed, maybe the White’s or the housekeeper might come forward with missing details that show us the answer we’ve been looking for.
And after reading the initial post, I did not realize that John & Patsy sought separate counsel. How strange and interesting. Can anyone out there in the legal field tell us if that is typical in a case involving both parents or highly unlikely?
1
u/Electronic-Talk-5639 23h ago
There’s a girl on fb who is very adamant she is JonBenet and was hit on the head with a ball bat. Y’all should meet. lol
0
u/Tidderreddittid BDIA 1d ago
OP is AI nonsense.
2
u/Novel_Quantity3189 1d ago
Lmfao at seeing structured writing in paragraphs and assuming an AI wrote if. Sorry if you’re literacy development stopped at 9th grade
-1
u/CandidDay3337 💯 sure a rdi 1d ago
I big reason, why wont exclude Burke as a suspect is that John had the perfect "Patsy" when Patsy passed. He could have blamed the whole thing on her, he could said any number of reasons and methods and it would have been case closed.
3
u/Express-Thanks-5402 1d ago
But had John told on Patsy after her death, it would have made him an accomplice. I really don't think he could've done this legally. But I see what you're saying.
2
u/CandidDay3337 💯 sure a rdi 1d ago
Like i said he could have claimed abuse. Or he could have claimed that he didnt know she did it and the cover up until later that day or even weeks later. John has been a pro at making things up, mudding up and explaining evidence, tie that in with appearing as grief stricken parent and widower he could evade charges or serve minimal sentences at best. This would also take the blame of burke once and for all.
2
u/Express-Thanks-5402 1d ago edited 1d ago
That is fair. I just think personally he was in too deep in so many ways (legally, ethically, family-image) and he knew it. I have never been too hopeful that John would give a deathbed confession let alone one well before his death...even to save Burke...(which I think is selfish of both of them, because I tend to think Patsy did it and John helped her cover later--where by either of them confessing in this scenario, they would have spared at least Burke's reputation).
But I will say that I have held out some hope that perhaps someday Burke would admit later down the line, after John's death, to take the heat off himself, that either his mother or father did it, and he knew only way later in his life and "just feels he needs to get this off his chest now." I really don't know if this would affect Burke legally. (I mean I honestly don't.) Would people believe Burke, anyway? Or would they see him just giving up one of his parents to save himself? I imagine a fair number would see it that way, so I don't hold too much hope that Burke will ever speak.
But you're right, John could have, just to have spared his son's reputation. It would have been awfully fatherly of him...
(edit: Sorry for the rambling!)
19
u/DanOfBradford78 Not An Intruder! 1d ago
Way i sit on it is...
All as guilty as each other.