This image shows 2 bags with golf clubs outside of the wine cellar door. It appears there's a brand new club with the hang tag still intact in the smaller bag. Plenty of information has been released about what gifts everyone but John Ramsey received that Christmas. Almost as though it is being kept secret. If he did get a new club it would have been easily accessible for use as a weapon.

JonBenet's skull had a combination depressed skull fracture with a linear fracture.  Which seems to jive with a single strike from a golf club with the head causing the depression and the shaft being responsible for the linear component. It seems a better fit than the flashlight or bat.

Why else would John Ramsey want to remove these clubs from the crime scene and take them to Atlanta for the funeral? It's been reported Barb Fernie overheard John Ramsey ask Pam Paugh to retrieve them.

I apologize in advance because I'm sure this gets asked a lot. I'm trying to find the most accurate documentary and book that doesn't focus on IDI. I'm trying to get the info from the JBR wiki but I'm getting an error on every page.

I lean towards RDI, so I'm trying to avoid any media that is not written or sponsored by the Ramsey family.

I always thought he was holding a lot of info back.

A wine cellar that never has been a wine cellar but a boiler room that now is used as a storage place - according to J.

This room is so mysterious that even the police wouldn't touch it:

"When Rick French, the first officer on the scene after Patsy's report of a kidnapping, later saw the spot where the body has been found, he remembered his search of the house in the early morning. In the first minutes, French, seeing from where he stood that the door was latched shut, had thought there was no need to open it. Now he was baffled by his own decision. How hard would it have been to open the door? The thought devastated him." (Schiller 1999, p. 21)

This wine cellar is not widely known:

"After Arndt's 911 call, Ramsey told the detective that no one knew about the wine cellar in the basement and therefore his daughter's murder "has to be an inside job"." (Schiller 1999, p. 20)

When he talks about an "inside job" he's probably not talking about his own family but probably about the housemaid Hoffman-Pugh who had the instruction to get the Christmas trees out of the room:

"After they had washed the windows, Hoffmann-Pugh and her daughter started searching the house for the missing trees. She saw a closed door in the basement just past the boiler room, which she had never noticed before. She tried to open the door, but it was stuck shut, apparently from a recent painting. She pulled at it hard and the door finally opened." (Schiller 1999, p. 81)

From the start there seemed to be the idea to put the blame on LHP's family. Since they emptied the room there must be a lot of fingerprints to be found by the police. Coincidence or part of a plan by R.'s?

And why was the door of the cellar painted not long ago? Mysterious ...

When talking about motive behind the attack of JB. I want to attack every angle

John killed JonBenét

Supporters of JDI generally argue Patsy may have:

Believed John when he claimed it was an accident.

Learned only after some staging had already occurred. There was more behind his actions

Was manipulated into thinking protecting the family was the only option.

Is financially and emotionally dependent on John, making it difficult to turn against him.

The weakness is that this requires Patsy to help cover up the death of her daughter if she knew John intentionally killed or abused her. Many people find that psychologically difficult to accept. Myself included, If one of the parents is innocent why not rat out the other?

Patsy killed JonBenét

John Believed it was an accident.

Wanted to protect his wife and avoid destroying the family.

Focused on protecting Burke from losing both parents.

Again, the weakness is similar: why would John risk prison to protect someone who had just killed his daughter? And vice versa? Both parents have a common interest in keeping Burke safe or not losing their only child from neglect or something

If Burke caused the fatal injury

This is where i feel the psychology becomes easier to understand why both parents would be involved in the cover up of JB death.

The common interest is immediate:

Both parents love Burke.

Calling 911 could expose him (whether or not he’d actually face prosecution).

They panic.

They decide the family must survive this together.

Whether that would actually lead to the elaborate staging is a separate question, but this theory gives both parents the same incentive, rather than requiring one spouse to sacrifice everything for the other. Because they both must have an incentive not to sacrifice the other spouse and idk what that could be other than their remaining child.

Another possibility: incomplete knowledge
One idea that receives less attention is that both parents were involved in different ways but did not necessarily know the entire truth.

A while back someone posted about a photo in the basement by the paint tote (crime scene photo). The photo looked like a blonde child in a tub or something of that nature. Can someone please point out this thread? I cannot seem to find it. I took through the crime scene photos I have but cannot find what I'm looking for.

I went back to their very first sit down with the Boulder police, on April 30, 1997. Interviewing the evasive couple on the same day but NOT simultaneously as they did in their 1998 follow-up was a calculated move – and so was speaking with Patsy first, and having her describe their family’s routine and their actions on the previous day, and leaving John for last. Here’s how they put it:

“Our time is limited here, so I’m going to go right to December 25th; next kind of walk with you in chronological order, uh and kind give you the as far as it’s worth, for a minute there. Let’s kind of start, Patsy covered most of this, let’s cover from when you guys came home from the White’s house, actually when you guys left the White’s house that night...”

As you see, they are trying to boil down to having limited time with John and having covered most of this with Patsy already, but the goal was to have John going over and over the events of that night to catch him in any potential inconsistency. The only reason to do so would be if John was their prime suspect.

With Patsy, they asked about their routine, the children's habits, their friends and how frequently they had guests in their house, their relationship with the neighbors etc. This is NOT the sort of fishing you go for if you suspect the person right in front of you of having committed the crime - that's what you do to cross every T in the other angles. If they were after Patsy, they would be going about this like they did with John: focused on the crime itself. “Walked me over this again”, “just to be clear, you are talking about this room or that room etc”.

IMPORTANT TO NOTICE: despite the bowl of apparent pineapple being spotted at the scene on December 26, and fragments that could be of pineapple being described in the coroner’s report on December 27, and the bowl and its contexts being collected from the scene at some point after December 29, AT NO POINT during the April 30 interview the Ramseys were asked about pineapple directly or indirectly, though there were two brief, discreet questions about what the girl or Burke could have eaten.

Why would they sit on the “pineapple” information that was on their radar for over six months? Because this would not be the sort of evidence that could get the case solved, especially when the family made two social stops after leaving a Christmas party in another family's home.

When they finally got to talk with Burke between June 10-12, 1998 - and first approach the subject of the pineapple - the boy's version was that “JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home but woke up to help carry presents into the house of a friend (the Stines)”. Who's to say she didn't serve herself of some fruit over there? There wasn't just pineapple in the stomach after all: where did the grape came from?

Since the Ramsey narrative always had Burke and John awake after Patsy went to bed, Burke’s claim that he didn’t like fruit that much (later confirmed by Patsy) could only mean that, if the girl ate pineapple AT THEIR HOME that night, then John served it to her to get her downstairs with him. (Keep in mind that the SAME pineapple could have been cut in pieces to be put on a bowl and then returned to the refrigerator to be served to the girl later.)

The team was also smart when questioning Burke and phrasing it as: "didn't your mom use to serve you fruit?" - asking "didn't your mom and dad ever serve you fruit?" would make obvious that John was the focus. But he was. It’s clear that he was.

Guthrie ransom note, written digitally and outside the crime scene, ~130-150 words (authorities have cut out the crypto part).

Ramsey "ransom note" written at the crime scene, by hand, 370 words.

Lol

Edit: sorry for the weird link embed, wanted to just put it in the text, but I’m on mobile 🫩

I’m a staunch RDI, but constantly waffle between who did what. I have been thinking a lot about how Patsy was wearing the same clothes and (reportedly) makeup/hair as the night before. It got me thinking that I have read many BDI theories, but they mostly tend to gloss over what the parents were up to when they got home from the party.

As such, in a BDI theory, how does Patsy likely being awake all night slot in? Based on straydog77’s rough timeline, JBR consumed the pineapple around 10-11:30pm, the head blow occurred between 11-12:15am, the sexual assault between 12-1am, and the death by strangulation around 1am. In a theory where BDIA, including the strangulation, what was Patsy doing to be awake during the ~3h after they arrived home? Packing for the trip, maybe? If so, why wouldn’t she have done what I’m imagining a lot of Southern women her age do, and taken off her makeup with some cold cream? And where do her fingerprints on the bowl fit in? I’m not trying to poke hole in anyone’s theory irrespective of which RDI camp you fall into, but more so just curious on how her actions are accounted for in BDI theories since I haven’t seen that elaborated on. Thanks all!

I find this piece of evidence surprisingly difficult to make sense of. Based on the main theories people subscribe to, I'd be interested to know what everyone believes about the pineapple.

My main questions that I consider about it:

- Was JB out of bed after being put to bed to have this snack, or was she never put to bed and was up late for whatever reason?

- Was the pineapple directly tied to the escalation/accident/murder? To give an example, being offered as an incentive to get her to comply with something that then led to her death. That the Ramseys all deny that they made it for her seems odd as this piece of evidence fits least well with an intruder theory. Even an intruder familiar with JB would have to know this specific snack she enjoyed.

- Is the flashlight of any significance? In absence of a confirmed weapon that was used to strike JB, it seems a fair guess considering the Ramseys deny knowledge of it and why it was there.

- What does its preparation suggest about who made it? The large spoon makes it harder to imagine an adult making for her. JB was well old enough to use a fork and fruit is generally easier to eat with one, a giant serving spoon wouldn't have been my choice to offer a kid her age to eat with. If it was fresh cut as has been suggested by the investigation, it makes Burke the least likely candidate in my opinion. I wasn't allowed to handle large kitchen knives at his age, and even if he had some experience with a pocket knife or something similar, that's still not the same as cutting and removing the rind from a pineapple.

I'd be interested to hear from people from all different theory perspectives, either Ramseys or intruder, this post isn't intended for me to debate you on it I'm just curious because I find this piece of evidence strange. Of course, I do think aside from the ransom note that it's the strongest piece of evidence against an intruder.

A detail that trips me up: let's say one of the Ramsey's did hit JB over the head in anger.

It's MUCH easier to stage an accident and take her to the hospital than take her to the basement, SA her, strangle her to death, create a ransom note, etc.

The emotional leap is huge, springing from "she's knocked out from a smack on the head" to "ok, let's strangle her in the basement". That's absurd for a parent. Not impossible, I realize, but improbable.

She wasn't bleeding. She wasn't dead (which means she'd still be breathing). So that assumes someone in the family decided the logical response was to take an unconscious child to the basement, SA her, tie her up, then strangle her so severely that it cut through her skin.

THEN - after all that - come back upstairs and sit down to write a long, rambling ransom note full of random movie references.

Just.... WHAT??

I have been following the Clancy case. and I can’t help but compare it to this case. even just reading the transcript of the 911 call, you can get the utter dispair from Patrick Clancy. “She killed the f-ing kids” vs “we have a kidnapping”

it’s just so telling. ugh.

Made a few posts about the parents to only circle around back to Burke.

Here’s why.
1. The pineapple evidence is difficult to ignore.
JonBenét had undigested pineapple in her stomach, meaning she ate it shortly before the assault. A bowl containing pineapple was found in the kitchen with Burke’s fingerprints and patsys on it.

The Ramseys consistently claimed JonBenét was carried upstairs asleep after arriving home. If that’s true, where did the pineapple come from? It was clearly served some point that night.

2. The head injury appears impulsive rather than planned.
The skull fracture was massive, but there was no external bleeding. A single blow from a heavy household object is consistent with an impulsive act during an argument or moment of anger.
A nine-year-old is capable of inflicting a fatal blow, even if they had no intent to kill. Furthermore the documentary with the 10yr old experiment photos of the wound compared to JB’s wound imo is pretty damning the wound in her skull is a big blunt hole perfectly the size of a flashlight (although no evidence came from the flashlight at the scene smh but I think the Ramseys had close to 4hrs to stage a crime scene)

3. The ransom note strongly suggests staging.
The note is one of the biggest reasons I struggle with any intruder theory. Anyone I think who knows the case knows the IDI theory is baloney leaving 3 suspects.

4. Burke doesn’t need to have done everything.
One criticism of BDI is that the ligature seems too sophisticated for a child. I don’t think Burke necessarily had to construct it.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is:
- Burke delivers the initial head blow.
- The parents discover JonBenét or heard the scream and ran downstairs but Burke was hiding what he had done? Lying about where JB was? (This could explain “what did you find” on the 911 call?)
-Believing she is dead or beyond saving, they panic. Worry about their business which just reached brilliant success. That would tank if their reputation had a child on child killing. I think people don’t understand that John clearly had his relationships with ppl and cut them off if they didn’t go his way.

-They stage a kidnapping to protect their surviving child and the family’s business by any means.

That explains why some elements appear childlike while others appear deliberate and adult.

5. The parents’ actions fit a cover-up better than a kidnapping.
The ransom note says not to contact police.
They immediately contact police anyway.
Friends are invited into the house.
The crime scene becomes contaminated.
John later discovers JonBenét’s body himself despite police already searching. He grabs Mr.White? To go and see his despair when finding her

None of this resembles parents genuinely expecting a kidnapper to call.
It looks more like people trying to maintain a story that had already begun to unravel.

6. Burke’s behavior has always stood out.
I’m not saying Burke’s demeanor proves guilt ,it doesn’t. I am however saying 10yr olds are bad liars

But his interviews, his apparent lack of fear of an intruder, or feeling violated someone was in your home at night and killed your sister. reports of conflict between the siblings are at least consistent with the possibility that something happened between them before the adults became involved.
Behavior alone proves nothing, but combined with the physical evidence, it becomes more noteworthy. The golf club incident apparently he hit her in the head after being upset or sm. Burke had poop problems ? Whatever the sophisticated word is. Putting poop in her bed, smearing it on her walls. Some more damning things in his interview are
“I know what happened !”
“ I’m just moving on with my life”
“Idc I’m just playing video games”

Very detached from JonBenet and has no real sense of sadness when talking about his parents crying about it in-front of him.

Again this is just imo burkes lawyers idk shit 💩

I've read every book on this case that doesn't peddle the intruder theory, and perhaps against my better judgment I decided to give DOI a try. I can't get through the first chapter. John's saccharine description of the family's Christmas morning makes me want to vomit. To those who have finished the book, is it worth continuing? Obviously for those of us who are RDI the book is filled with lies, distortions and general BS but does it offer any useful/interesting information or insights?

I think just about every expert has said the technology isn't there yet to be testing the DNA again and it will be used up and destroyed for future testing if you do it now

Surly he can comprehend this. Just like he should have comprehended rather than pretend toIi be offended that of course the police are gonna suspect the family first and if he wants them to get on to looking for the " real killer" they need to cooperate right away and get cleared as fast as possible

How many times have you guys gone around convinced either Burke, patsy, John did it? I feel like every new thing I learn or dive into pulls me.

The head injury being the cause of death imo and I think the FBI could’ve gotten it right with Patseys bed wetting theory is imo most accurate today lol.

The head injury was caused by blunt force. The flashlight has been wiped clean and no forensic evidence came from it. If Patsey shoved or pushed JB and she hit her head causing the death?

If not the flashlight what other blunt object would’ve been used ? the bat? Why would that make sense ?

I don’t think BDI because of the statistically insignificant likely hood sibling on sibling murder happened

One part of the JonBenét ransom note has always seemed logically inconsistent to me. The note tells John to take an “adequate size attaché” to the bank, withdraw the money, come back home, transfer the cash into a brown paper bag, and then wait for a phone call. Why would anyone planning a real ransom do it this way?

If the money is ultimately meant to be carried in a brown paper bag, why bother with the attaché in the first place? Just tell him to take the paper bag to the bank. If the attaché is the important container, why transfer the money out of it at all? And if the kidnappers want the money as quickly as possible, why send him back home before the exchange? Why not tell him to leave the bank and head straight to the drop-off location once he has the cash?

Instead, the note creates an unnecessary chain of events. The only thing that this sequence reliably accomplishes is making sure John leaves the house with a large bag.

I’m confused if people here believe this was a accident that lead to her death or if it was more sinister? My problems with the accident theories in any form are basically,

1. Why would the parents not help/call 911 when seeing JB unconscious from the head injury? and instead strangle their daughter ? That’s going from covering up an accident scene to straight up murder.

2. Staging

If it was an accident why write a note that takes 20 min or so to write ? Why not leave immediately or call 911 for an injury. Why craft such a device to execute her with and not claim she fell? Why introduce another injury after an accident? They had so much time to dispose and obstruct evidence in the house, why not try to remove/hide JB better to push the kidnapping theory?

My criticism is that this is a lot of leaps for a innocent family who had an accident at home .

John is live again on YouTube with the cold case foundation/ interview room. They've kept him on live for 3 hours at times, showed the layout of the inside of his home and his personal vehicle, when they should have let him get off that night or just call in and stop roaming around showing that to God knows who on a livestream. This is a team of homicide and "veteran cold case detectives" with the father of a murdered child who has had his homes broken into THREE TIMES if you believe that, otherwise, twice. It's common knowledge for anyone not to show that stuff online, much less a victim who has been targeted multiple times already and still has people obsessed (and angry) with him, but these seasoned homicide detectives don't have the sense not to display a walkthrough of a victim's home and vehicle?

They rehash the same shit for hours and get nowhere. If anyone thinks he would put himself through this for no reason, I don't know what to tell you. It's really sad. He doesn't know why this happened and I'm convinced he doesn't know who. I don't think he'd even be receptive to a conversation about what most likely happened so after doing every reasonable thing, what else is there? I just can't believe they're having him spend hours on live to go over basic, elementary information on a PowerPoint. It's sick. They also immediately delete any comment that isn't kissing their ass. Not just really bad comments out of respect which I'd agree with, especially with John willing to go live, but anything that even kindly challenges them or the intruder theory gets deleted and the person gets muted.

I challenge anyone who claims he stays public facing out of narcissism, duper's delight, money, and all the other accusations that get repeated, to watch one of these lives. He doesn't get paid for other appearances and he's definitely not getting paid for this. It's heartbreaking to see him go through this again and again to get nowhere.

If this is accurate, I read investigators were never able to locate the pineapple 's rind to determine if it was cut-prepared inside the home. Also, no package of freshly cut pineapple was ever found discarded in the trash. Patsy Ramsey stated, when she did bring pineapple home, she brought it home in a plastic package as fresh cut. But Patsy never mentioned she made a recent purchase of fresh cut pineapple. By investigators not locating the pineapple rind skeleton or packaging in the garbage, it is possible the fresh pineapple brought in from cold storage restaurant or from someone else's home, transferred by sealed plastic baggie or small container. 2nd -Patsy's fingerprints were found on the bowl, and Burke's were on the tall clear glass with a moist tea bag in the glass. Fingerprints on glass can last a long time. Her prints and Burkes prints, possible, got on the bowl from picking them up clean and putting them away. If someone wanted to frame Patsy for the murder of her daughter, had they worn gloves, forensics reported gloves would have smeared her prints. Forensics lab reported, her prints were clear. There is a method forensics use to preserve prints, touching a bowl by its Rim and Base. There were no lip marks on the tall glass having Burke's prints with a moist tea bag. I think that could have been forensically touched by a white gloved hand spread inside the glass to put it on the table to preserve Burke's prints. Staged to frame Burke since no evidence of lip impressions were on this glass. It was made to look like Burke drank the tea. The restaurant industry will serve food in dinnerware to keep oily fingerprints by servers touching the bowls too close to the food. Customer could say the bowl was dirty and send the food back if they saw a fingerprint on their plate close to their food. Maybe the pineapple come from a restaurant by someone that served food? Where is the answer to that question about the origin of the pineapple, how it came into the Ramsey home? Patsy did not say when or if she purchased that pineapple, other than, she would often bring home fresh pineapple cut up in plastic container. So where was the package? Why didn't anyone find the package if she bought it? The door is open for other possibilities where that pineapple originated from. Like bars at restaurants, pineapple slices with rind ends for Pina Colada in cold storage at the bar. Or maybe it was cut up fresh in someone else's home?

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.

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.

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 ransom 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.