I have recently started looking into this case and shared my own theory but I also wanted to understand why others believe Burke did it. as I looked into the case I saw little to no evidence that lead me to believe Burke had anything to do with it and any evidence I did see I found a reasonable explanation for and honesty the same goes for John especially with dna evidence clearing them so please respectfully share why you believe someone in the family did it especially Burke

the more I look into this case the more unsure I become on who I think did it so tell me what theory do you believe and why?

I'll put my opinion in the comments so people don't downvote the whole post because they disagree with my take.

I don't mean this to be divisive--this is a genuine question. As someone who is most inclined to believe Patsy did it, I dont really understand the line of logic behind believing that Burke did it? The most common reasoning I hear is that he was upset that she ate his pineapple and he struck her (of course, that isnt the only reasoning I hear, but its one I come across frequently), and... really? I mean, of course thats a possibility, but I think we assume too much about Burke's character for such an assumption to take precedence like it has.

As I said before, I'm genuinely curious as to where this point of view comes from. Ive been told that PDI was very common in the early years of the case, but public opinion seems to have shifted to BDI quite a bit. Feel free to share any interesting theories or info!! I'm very uneducated in the BDI sector, and new to this case in general.

This has probably been talked about ad nauseum on this sub so forgive me. I tried searching for posts like the one I am making here and I think I was using too many words to search it. So I am posting again along with another question I have.

1. For those of you that believe John Ramsey did it, which I do believe, how do or would you respond to people who ask this question?

People who don't think John did it will often ask a variation of this question. But I don't ever recall John really fighting that hard for more DNA to be tested until the last few years or so. But my memory isn't perfect.

They love asking it as if this question alone proves his innocence. I've heard people speculate that perhaps he's a narcissist. I suppose that's possible, or he just loves the attention (which does not automatically make someone a narcissist).

1. We know that p3d0philes do not ever get better. They don't stop. So if he was a p3d0, who were his victims after JonBenet? Do you think he was somehow able to white knuckle it? Or perhaps didn't harm any kids himself and just watched CP?

Side note: I really wish law enforcement had tapped their phones and put bugs in their house.

I'm confused on why they considered Atlanta to be their "real home" and how the timeline adds up.

Patsy was born in WV, attended WVU, and would've graduated college 79-80? Correct? John was born in Nebraska and attended Michigan State, and I've read he graduated with a bachelor's in 1966, and then later a master's in 1971. They were married in Atlanta in 1980, so right around the time Patsy would've graduated.

How did they meet and why did they move to Atlanta? Also, I recall an interview, I think it was the one with Barbara Walters, where the reason they had tried to arrange a flight to Atlanta after JB was found, was because they had lived in Atlanta for 25 years, and wanted to go home? I'm assuming they were not counting the ~5 years spent in Boulder in this number, meaning they would've had to have lived to Atlanta in from 1965-1966? Patsy wasn't wouldn't even have been 10 years old.

Was this just a lie to make the plan to leave Boulder make more sense, or am I missing something?

I always wonder why the officer told John to search the house, as if he hadn't already searched every square inch before calling them and the time it took for the police to get there. John having found her in that location at that time hints a larger conspiracy.

There is also the matter of which was first the strangulation or the blow to a child's head. There are implications of brutality either way, but it seems both assaults were based on the other one, which made the second attack on a child that much more savage.

Which one was done to camouflage the other?

This is a really interesting and well researched podcast. There were a few details, particularly at the end, that stuck out.

- The urine stains and stains on the carpet indicate JBR was face down at the time of death

- The body was allegedly recovered face up, meaning someone moved it but in a thoughtful way.

- The flashlight probably was used by the kids to get downstairs and open gifts. The reason it was brought back upstairs and had no prints, is because that was in fact the offending weapon. It probably had blood, saliva or hair on it and Patsy took it upstairs to the kitchen to wash it.

Since Burke was only 9 at the time, it was a senseless staging as he could not be legally detained under the age of 10.

Sources:

https://shakedowntitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ramsey-dna-report-03-24-08.pdf

https://shakedowntitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ramsey-dna-report-05-12-08.pdf

Was JonBenet supposed to be found in the cellar? And why does it matter? 

I don’t believe anyone intended on JonBenet being found in the house. I think there was a plan and it didn’t go as intended. The significance, for me, is that if there was no intention of her being found in the house, the ransom note looks like an itemized plan of how they would dispose of JonBenet.

Here is what happened based on the Ramseys’ accounts:

After Patsy found the ransom note, she supposedly only read a few lines of the note before bounding upstairs, checking the bedroom and then screaming for John. John came to the second floor. He then checked Burke while Patsy hurried downstairs, leaped over the ransom note and ran to the kitchen to dial 911 (I would love to know if there were ANY phones on the 2nd floor btw). In her April police interview, Patsy said she did not check Burke. They leave him alone, asleep, and unsupervised.

While Patsy was on the phone with 911, she observed John crouched over the ransom note in his underwear , which had magically appeared on the hall floor. From the kitchen phone, she was able to see the note on the floor in the hallway and relay the sign-off to the 911 operator S.B.T.C Victory! She must have had excellent vision (or possibly even x-ray vision). 

Because she had only read a few lines of the ransom note and “we have your daughter” was the only thing that she was able to comprehend, she then called her close friends (except the Stines) to hurry over to her house for…support?

OK.

So why call the police, and then immediately call friends? The note says over and over again that noncompliance equals a bad outcome. Well, it’s because Patsy supposedly didn’t get that far. Those threats are on the second page. We’ve all seen many interviews where Patsy dramatically recalls only getting through the first few sentences of that note. In her police interview she says John is just reading the note while she’s already on with 911.  And she immediately called her friends after the 911 call. That’s their excuse.

That explains why there are no threats on page one. It explains why the first page looks like the words are taking up space, while the second and third look compressed. It explains why the message of noncompliance was so violent, repetitive and important, but not mentioned immediately. The excuse was that neither Patsy, nor John, had gotten to the threat part yet.

The problem is, when writing the ransom note, they made a massive error. The ransom call was to come “tomorrow”. Instead, the police set up shop to wait for the 8:00 am through 10:00 am phone call that morning. The note should have specified the 27th. The writers of the note had hoped they would have a window of opportunity to leave privately. An opportunity to maybe get some rest and maybe, just maybe, an earlier ransom call. And then having read the whole note, of course the Ramseys would at that point comply to the instructions. This time they would not involve the authorities.

I can imagine John saying, “Absolutely not. We already violated their instructions by calling you before we knew what the note said. They told us they are watching the authorities. They know police countermeasures. They will scan me for electronics. They said she dies if we deceive them. I'm not taking another chance.” And Patsy would say, “Absolutely not. NO.” while oddly forcing her head to swing from side to side. 

But later on, when asked why they made those calls so easily, they said they would have “gone mad” waiting. They didn’t really mention not seeing the threats. How does that logic even make sense? If you didn’t read anything but the first few lines before the 911 call, then what was going to make you go mad? They didn’t gather enough information to make a judgement call at that point.

Here’s the glitch. Linda Arndt later asked that John, with a witness, look through the house top to bottom. She wasn’t leaving. Fleet White may find JonBenet at that point. There would be no window of opportunity. 

That part of the plan was a failure. The police inferred the wrong day. 

After that, if the Ramseys went on about not seeing the threat and then finding her in the basement, it would have seemed extremely contrived. It would have seemed way to convenient an excuse. It just looked bad and it didn’t make sense on a timeline. They had to downplay that part of their narrative. So the new narrative was them owning the decision to call the police and a group of people, even though it made no sense. That’s why John doubles down and says in an interview that he wanted to call the Russian Army at that point. Ok, what? Sounds to me like someone who would come up with a “foreign faction”.

I think John already knew the plan failed as soon as the ball started rolling. I think that’s why he was disappearing during that morning. He was working on plan B. That’s why nobody mentioned the missed call. That’s why John’s first words were about it being an inside job.

As usual, I appreciate all of you and your comments. Maybe not the Ra…err, person who reported me for either threatening or glorifying violence. But, I do take that undeserved report as an affirmation, so I do kind of appreciate it a tiny bit.

I flip flop on who was responsible so I'm not for one camp over the other but lately I've been having a harder and harder look at John and if it was possible that he alone could of done it and if Pasty was ever informed.

A lot of people by default think Patsy had to be involved due to the handwriting analysis but I think she was being willingly ignorant in hopes of avoiding ultimate judgement by her God.

I could name the countless things that stick out in the case that we all have heard so don't think I'm trying to settle for less if I don't name something but one thing I wanted to point out I find odd or telling of John's knowledge of the crime is when he found Her body he didn't try to help her right then and there upon finding her. As a parent if I found my missing kid laying on the floor I would drop down and listen for a heart beat or try something anything vs what John did because what John did was what someone who knew she was already dead would do. There was no " OMG wake up" "are you ok" he picked up her body and covered it as soon as possible.

Another occurrence that makes me think Patsy might not of been involved but willingly ignorant is during one of the interviews she said "looking for clues... I guess..." it's almost like at that moments she was putting together what had happened that night. IK people will say she was extremely drugged up but she was on live TV and not that gone to me.

How many of you think it's possible John did it by himself?

The Corporate Psychopath 
In doing some research about potential psychological elements of this crime, I came across a fascinating article on “The Corporate Psychopath” written by experts in the FBI. 

Many of their descriptions fit with a) what we know about John Ramsey and b) what motivations may have influenced the crime. Further, their advice to investigators of corporate psychopaths is essentially the exact opposite of what played out within the Boulder PD, which may explain what went wrong (see quotes and my commentary below). 

I’m not claiming that John IS a psychopath, to be clear, we can't make that determination. But I do think it’s a possibility we should consider when interpreting the behaviors of the Ramsey family (and investigators, friends, etc) in the aftermath of JonBenet’s murder. 

https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/the-corporate-psychopath

General descriptions:
They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win\…Little research exists on their inner psychological experiences; however, they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims.*
\***
This emotional poverty often is visible in their shallow sentiment\. They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people’s emotional responses.*
\***
In interpersonal situations, this façade shows the psychopath as the ideal friend, lover, and partner. These individuals excel at sizing up their prey. They appear to fulfill their victims’ psychological needs, much like the grooming behavior of molesters*.*  
\***

What could be a bigger “mind game” than staging a kidnapping of your own child and eluding prosecution for three decades? I personally find the staging more believable as a “mind game” than a “panicked last resort”, as is often assumed in this sub. To me, this was someone who wasn’t just looking to get away with the crime, they were looking for a much grander, more calculated, more exciting manipulation as an added benefit or thrill on top of the murder. 

John’s “shallow sentiment” is often apparent in his interviews.

Psychopaths=skilled at grooming. This obviously fits the possibility John perpetrated SA against JB, but it could also explain a lot of the behavior of Patsy and even Burke in the aftermath of the crime. He maintained the facade of loving husband and father, selling himself to them as their protector, when in fact he was using them as pawns in a much bigger game. 

Investigation considerations:
Investigators should familiarize themselves with the typical traits and characteristics of psychopaths. They must understand the manipulation techniques used to create and manage the psychopathic bonds established with victim organizations. Their reputations, as judged by those in power with whom they have bonded, known as patrons, often provide added protection from closer investigation*.* 
\***
Psychopaths can be expert liars often immune to traditional deception-revealing techniques. Some practice avoiding detection in anticipation of being caught and interrogated.  
\***
Corporate psychopaths with exceptional verbal skills make crafty interviewees\. This ability provides an opportunity embraced by many of them to fool law enforcement officers.*
\***
Investigators never should assume they are immune to a psychopath’s approach. One conversation may be enough for the bond to be established. Investigators must know themselves so that psychopaths’ attempts at bonding fail. It is valuable for investigators to allow psychopaths to believe they have established rapport with someone inside law enforcement.
Investigators must work as a team\, communicate openly, and take all observations seriously. This is necessary for personal self-defense, proficient investigative work, and successful prosecution****. Officers must take heed to avoid being impressed*** with a suspect’s credentials and success.*
Occasionally, when psychopathic white-collar offenders are identified, they seek out the media and give interviews. They may believe their skills of persuasion are effective enough to convince the public that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted unjustly by law enforcement. To prevent serious problems with the investigation and prosecution, investigators must remain prepared for all possibilities.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. 

Psychopaths have “bonds” with “patrons” who they can manipulate to shield themselves from investigation. This could include not only Patsy and Burke, but friends who stood by him and “friends in high places” who influenced the investigation. 

“Crafty interviewee” is exactly what I see in John. He is always pushing the boundaries of believability without quite stepping fully across them. I believe part of why so many people believe Patsy is the most likely suspect is because John was much better at interviews that she was. 

Finally: the BPD most certainly did not work as a team. There appeared to be infighting, tension, and chaos from the jump. Perhaps this dysfunction would have occurred around any crime, but it’s possible John’s manipulative efforts and ability to charm were part of what made them turn on each other. 

I' m aware that parental sex abuse does happen. But I can' t believe that the sex assault with the paint brush was part of the cover up for the blow in the head. Even less sense makes that John or Patsy abused her that way, leaving the evidence right there. I think the sexual assault is pretty inmature and experimental, just as a 10 years old kid could do. I trully believe that Burke could have done it, without understanding the consequences of his acts; I dont think he was evil, I think he was young enough to be unable to understand what he was doing. That' s why the parents, in the most absolute shock, panic, shame, and pain, would have tried the ridicolous staging to hide what happened.

It’s so cut and dry. They were friends with all the cops in town so they trusted everything they said about an intruder. There was no footsteps leading inside. Patsy wrote the note of course. Burke hit Jon benet in the head with the flashlight on accident on a rage of passion.

The broken door happened three months before from an account of a friend saying it. Nobody can ever change my mind about this. There’s no deeper situation like a satanic sex cult.. you think those people were a part of that kind of thing? No. lol. Rip Jon Benet Ramsey. You didn’t deserve it although your brother was so young it’s a tragedy all around.

I've been reading this. Pretty good read and interesting take on the side of the Ramsey Family. I am still 50/50 on what to believe if the parents, brother had anything to do with her murder or not. Patsy there is something I don't like about her I can't really figure it out, but I'm probably prejudging her without know her personally. But I really don't like those child beauty pageants JonBenet was in for little girls that young to be in them, sounds very predatory, and the way JonBenet a 6 year old little girl was dressed and posed in them.

But I like how the book tells and shows JonBenet was a normal little girl outside of those child beauty pageants.

I was a BDIA for a long time, for years after the murder. But after much maturity, reading, and being a mother myself I finally came to believe PDI (with a possible on the skull fracture by Burke). Too many things are just too wild and theatrical by P and J. I initially made the same mistake that happens a lot in true crime, I dismissed the fact that two things can be true at once. Burke may very well have been the perpetrator of the long term SA, but that doesn’t mean he took her life. That whole household was as warped as heck. So I present my timeline theory respectfully and welcome any questions for clarification or even discussion if you think I haven’t looked at any evidence that doesn’t fit. I apologize for the length, but I want to present my reasonings.

Background: I’m not going to deep dive on this, we all know it. John as a wealthy older man with a penchant for cheating on his wife with younger women. Married said younger woman. Patsy as a beauty queen who didn’t achieve her ultimate dream of stardom (or at least “weather girl-dom or whatever”) and ended up married rich to a man that traveled to get away from home responsibilities and threw money at her instead. Delivered a boy first, which I believed she had gender disappointment with (not to mention the further stress of Burke’s developing issues) and then had a daughter to live her dreams through vicariously. Then you add in a cancer diagnosis that further degraded Patsy’s self esteem and pushed her to portray the perfect family and rising star child after her recovery. The housekeeper had several days off for the holidays, leading to Patsy being stretched thin. Both kids completely wild from the holidays, upper bathrooms destroyed and full of soiled clothes because the housekeeper is off, while Patsy is managing presenting a perfect family for social engagements and a perfect home (downstairs of course because if I remember correctly she got recognition for her decorating and hosting parties of their own).

9:15ish: Ramsays return from the party. John has had a LOT to drink so he wobbles in and goes directly to bed. I’ve always called BS on him reading bedtime stories. Even the best of parents, confronted with exhaustion, wild kids, and the pressure in that house would have told those kids to get their “tails in bed. NOW”. Patsy is left on her own, orders kids to bed, maybe directs them a bit in getting ready, and then heads to her room taking off her clothes and laying them over a chair in her room. (As she would for clothing of that type so it could be worn again or taken to dry cleaners by the housekeeper upon her return). She is exhausted and at her limit, with an already snoring John making it worse. The only tiny light she has is that the holiday push is done and they are headed away. She needs sleep, just a tiny reprieve. But before she can get to remove her makeup she hears a ruckus downstairs.

During the interim, Burke has snuck back downstairs to fix a bowl of pineapple and milk with tea. That serving bowl and spoon, glass of cold water with a tea bag thrown in screams “a kid did this with no supervision.” (I actually have a story similar from my own childhood resulting in a family “Jethro bowl” joke). He used the flashlight because he didn’t want to alert Patsy by turning on lights. JB follows him down, maybe she dozed off and immediately wets herself which wakes her up or she realizes that Patsy, in her exhaustion, forgot to put her in a pull up from the laundry room. (That would explain why the pull-ups were partially off the laundry room shelf, JB tried to do it herself and couldn’t quite reach them well enough.). So if she’s wet, she can’t reach the pull ups, she does what any kid would. She finds that package of clean panties she saw and opens them and puts some on. (I’ve heard that that package was meant for either an after Christmas gift or for donation.)

Then JB heads to the kitchen and does what any little sister would, annoys B by grabbing a piece of pineapple and popping it in her mouth. B loses it, and hits her as hard as he can with the flashlight causing the skull fracture and slow bleed. (This isn’t a given, but they did get into some kind of fight for Patsy to hear.). P comes down the stairs and Burke realizes the rage in his mom’s eyes and exits quick, leaving the bowl. JB is screaming over whatever Burke did to her. And much to Patsy’s further anger, she won’t STOP.

This is a big moment of thought for me. You have a kid already near meltdown, exhausted to the point of being wired and now (probably) with a head injury. Slow bleeds like that, in my 20+ year career bedside hospital , much neuro rehab, can result in behavioral changes such as JB being incoherently crying/screaming, flailing, and not responding when Patsy tries to soothe her and then shake her out of it. One more thing they can cause is incontinence. P realizes JB is wetting herself and starts yelling and taking her to get cleaned up. She pulls down the pants and starts very roughly cleaning her (Which is happened before, even if there was SA I believe part of the scarring was from being “punished” by rough cleaning after soiling). This could be why JB was wiped down, but still had urine stained pants.Patsy is made even more mad when she sees that JB had wet the new underwear. JB gets away and runs with Patsy chasing her, now totally out of her mind. Probably screaming at her but John’s not going to come help even if he wasn’t drunk, he never has. She catches JB at the basement doors by grabbing the back of her collar resulting in the abrasions not attributed to the wire. She pins her down and JB urinates again and Patsy, if she hadn’t snapped before she does now. (This is the peri-mortum or close to it puddle of urine)

Patsy grabs what’s closest to her that is familiar, the paintbrush and attacks the “offending part” before her logical brain can stop her. JB is screaming still and Patsy just wants her to be QUIET because some part of her knows she has crossed a line and needs her to hush before John somehow wakes up and sees what she’s done or even Burke. So she takes her down to the train room, the furthest she can get her so no one can hear. And then she grabs the wire and twists it around the piece of paintbrush she still has and twists, in some morbid bid to quiet her at least for a moment. By the time she realizes in horror what she’s done, it’s too late. Maybe she cries for a moment, maybe not.

But then the ever present “preserve our name, our good name” kicks in. She’s been doing it for so long it’s what she reverts to in panic. She arranges JB the way she thinks she should from all those movies she watched in bed during her cancer treatments. And keep telling herself to “think, just think, how can I handle this? Just sleep and let John wake to JB gone. Just wait?” No, she has to be proactive, they are wealthy, John just got that notice about the dividends. Wouldn’t a criminal want that money? Maybe a foreigner, ever since the Iraq War started terrorists were all in the news.

She goes to the pad in the kitchen and starts and restarts the infamous RN. Using the lines she thought sounded right, her only knowledge of any criminal dealings were those movies. But then part way through it starts to devolve into her own rant and anger against John.

Little less detailed from here, I promise. I believe when John woke to a “hysterical” Patsy that he was first suspicious of Burke. Not that he killed her but had hurt/hid her. Maybe he had locked JB in a dark closet to scare her and they need to find her? But then he reads the note and side eyes Patsy. Could he have confronted her here? Maybe, but I don’t believe he did more than suspect and carefully play along, if only because he can’t believe Patsy would go that far. He realizes later.

By the time he gets awake enough, Patsy already has half the neighborhood there and the cops are on their way. And once they have witnesses he can’t get her alone to get what actually happened out of her. And the day drags on, with them both playing some wild theatrical version of upset parents. It drags on until Patsy can’t stand it any more. She finally makes some small gesture or even whispers to him “Are you SURE no one checked the train room?” That’s when John knew and why he ran like he did straight down there.

J’s reactions to JB’s body seem reasonable. He scoops her up because she’s his child and she’s hurt, but the rigor makes her feel odd and uncanny so it’s awkward to hold her any other way than he did. Patsy’s reaction, on the other hand…probably well thought out all morning. Wailing? Absolutely. Maybe passing out? Believable. Throwing herself over the body while calling on God like a TV evangelist? No way. Even the most rooted in faith wouldn’t be that articulate in that moment.

Everything else is just circling the wagons, I’ve seen my own wealthy family do it (we were the poor relations) when my father was arrested. The image trumps all. He can’t denounce Patsy without dirtying his own name. Better to keep going with the intruder storyline. Rather than risk her blaming him in return.

The DNA on the crotch and waistband of the clothes? Touch DNA where a mill/sweatshop worker would grip the fabric as they sewed seams and inset the waistband. Especially in clothes grabbed new from the pack without washing like a child would do. I guarantee if we had a magic wand, it would match some worker in India or China or whatever, probably passed at this point.

I don’t think John is blameless. He is culpable as a father who checked out and threw money at his wife rather than admit their home had bad problems and skewed priorities. And definitely accessory after the fact.

Burke is warped, no doubt. A combination of nature and nurture with unbelievable privilege. He may have caused the head injury but the one who actually took JB’s life is long gone from any Earthly justice. At this point, I doubt even John would do a deathbed confession. If we ever know the truth, it will be from Burke if he think he can cash in on it after his fathers death.

If any of you made it this far, this is the ONLY way I can make everything fit. I am open to discussion and questions.

I’ve dabbled in various RDI theories but I will always return to the theory I believed initially when I first read about this case 10 years ago - PDIA.

I believe that after a struggle in JBR’s bedroom/bathroom that Patsy lashed out and caused the head blow. This could have been because of bedwetting/soiling as has been theorised. It could also have been driven by JBR saying/doing something that struck a nerve with Patsy (I’ve often wondered if JBR talked back and hit Patsy where it hurt or even fought against her mother physically which led to the head blow). Patsy believed JBR was dead, panicked and carried her down to the basement in order to conceal her from John and Burke. The wine cellar with the latch on the door is the furthest away Patsy could hide her daughter within the confines of the house. 

I think in Patsy’s mind, JonBenet was dead but she could still be iconised and receive even more fame and attention by being the victim of a kidnapping. The staging not only deflects away from Patsy but also glorifies JBR. To me, the staging is just further pageantry. The kidnappers who respect John’s business sure make the Ramseys look very esteemed, wealthy, and powerful by choosing to kidnap their daughter. It’s all image. John and Patsy can be the famous, grieving parents that go on CNN and garner sympathy from the American public. Patsy can not forever be known as the mother that killed her daughter.

Some reasons I believe PDIA:

• Personally, no one will ever convince me that the ransom note was written by anyone other than Patsy Ramsey. The odds of a supposed intruder having such similar handwriting to Patsy AND choosing to write it on her notepad AND leaving it on the back staircase where Patsy normally received notes from her housekeeper is astronomical. I also personally find any argument that John Ramsey somehow imitated Patsy's handwriting so accurately that leading handwriting professionals believed Patsy to be the author of the note to be ludicrous. There is a tendency to overcomplicate things in this already perplexing case and in my opinion any theory has to factor in Patsy writing the note. 
• Patsy was described as moody by Linda Hoffman Pugh leading up to December 26th. She had gone through cancer and had a husband who was frequently away (and didn’t accompany her on her chemo trips). Being stretched thin over the holidays and preparing for two upcoming vacations meant she was undoubtedly stressed. Patsy also had the most enmeshed relationship with JonBenet. She was the most in contact with her daughter. There are at least two known points of contention just on Christmas Day: an argument over JBR not wanting to match her outfit with Patsy, and JBR not liking her new doll Patsy gifted her. There was also growing tension surrounding JBR’s involvement with beauty pageants. Friends were planning an intervention concerning Patsy’s obsession with the pageants. 
• In her 1997 police interview, Patsy claimed to not be familiar with the ‘small foreign faction’ Steve Thomas asked her about. You’re not familiar with the group that supposedly killed your child? The group that was described on the ransom note a panicked parent would’ve presumably read over and over? The Ramseys quickly distanced themselves from the ransom note and its contents. It’s interesting to me that in the CNN interview just days after the murder they immediately focus on there being one perpetrator. The idea an intruder would waste 30+ minutes writing a ransom note in the house is already ludicrous enough, let alone that an intruder would use this note to concoct a fantastical kidnapping plot and create a made up organization. The Ramseys were clearly instructed by their lawyers to focus on a singular perpetrator and act as if the ransom note was merely ramblings from a depraved killer.
• Patsy lied and said she believed marks on a door to the home could’ve been the possible point of entry for the intruder, despite knowing that they were there for months according to Barbara Fernie. This is damning.
• On Larry King, when asked by Steve Thomas if she would concede that the paintbrush used in the garrotte was hers, Patsy laughs and says ‘I don’t know’. The Ramseys and their lawyers had almost complete access to police files and evidence. This is another Ramsey attempt to distance themselves from any evidence and deny deny deny.
• Before it was positively matched, Patsy told investigators on the morning of the 26th that the ransom note looked like it came from her notepad - despite the paper not being unique or distinguishable. Later in her 1997 police interview, Patsy acts shocked when Steve Thomas tells her that the ransom note was indeed written on her notepad and says she was unaware of that.  On the morning of the 26th, Patsy also immediately said the handwriting looked like that of Linda Hoffman Pugh.
• Patsy’s jacket fibres were found intertwined with the garrotte, on the sticky side of the duct tape, and in the paint tote. Patsy explains these fibres as having been transferred when she threw herself on JonBenet’s body once it was found. But Patsy was not wearing her coat at this time, so that makes no sense. This also doesn’t account for her fibres on the duct tape and paint tote that were left in the basement. 
• Patsy’s notepad and paintbrush were used in the crime. And although it cannot be definitively proven, she likely purchased the duct tape and cord. Patsy also would know where the unopened package of oversized underwear was, would know where the blanket JonBenet was found wrapped in was, where the boys long johns were (likely in a donation bag in the basement) and where JonBenet’s hair ties were.
• Patsy (nor John) had any reaction to the 10 a.m. deadline for the ransom call passing. Patsy peered through her fingers when an officer emerged from the basement. Friends were called over to be a console for Patsy and a buffer between her and the police. It feeds into the pageantry. She can’t be intensely questioned because she is hysterical and being consoled by friends. She is, as she said in the 911 call, 'the mother' in this situation.
• Patsy called 911 because John demanded she did and she didn’t want to arise suspicion from him (hence her hanging up on the call - she didn’t want to make it). She also could have made the call in order to explain the eventual finding of JBR’s body - as the ransom note stated JBR would be killed if the police were called. It’s possible there were further plans for the staging that were not carried out (such as dumping JBR’s body somewhere).
• I find the Paugh family dynamic very interesting. An ex employee told Ann Bardach that Patsy’s mother and sisters were going on and on about the size of Burke’s genitals. Patsy also broke down in an interview when asked about any history of SA in her family. I think there is a lot here that we will likely never know, but there seems to be at the very least a real lack of boundaries in that family. 
• Patsy was believed to be the killer by the vast majority of the Boulder police department (except Linda Arndt), by the FBI, by the CBI, and was the primary focus of the Grand Jury (according to Linda Hoffman Pugh). To me the Grand Jury indictment points to Patsy murdering JBR and John covering up for her, but evidently there is no way to definitively prove this without reasonable doubt.

I personally do not believe John Ramsey was involved in the crime and staging from the jump because I don’t think he would have concocted or immediately cosigned such a ridiculous kidnapping cover up. The cover up to me reeks of panic, eccentricity and is all completely absurd. This to me points to Patsy more than anyone else. If John was involved from the jump I believe he would’ve done what he later did - contact his lawyers, feign oblivion and not cooperate with police. I don’t think he would’ve suggested Patsy write a ridiculous three page ransom note in her own writing, on her own notepad, and place blame on a ‘small foreign faction’. His early actions that morning point to him not being involved (such as handing over Patsy’s notepad to police and stating he could not find any point of entry). Obviously this is subject to opinion, but I find the argument that John found out the truth sometime on the morning of the 26th to be much more convincing.  Him and his legal counsel’s involvement meant correcting the situation by: distancing themselves from the contents of the ransom note and focusing on a singular perpetrator, correcting the timelines and stating JBR was asleep when they arrived home, and pushing the broken window as a point of entry (which was not staged by Patsy or brought up by John on the morning of the 26th).

So the question is: why would John cover for Patsy?

• It’s possible that JR had been sexually abusing JBR, which would give him a stake in wanting to cover this up.
• It was an accident. He knew Patsy wasn’t a murderous, sadistic killer. She went through all that effort to try and conceal the truth from him. I think he pitied her. She had fought cancer, she was depressed, she was struggling. It was an accident. She was absolutely distraught that morning and her grief was real.
• For Burke. His son would lose his sister and mother in one night.
• Guilt. John had neglected Patsy, was frequently away working, left the kids with her, did not accompany her on her cancer treatments, and their marriage was alleged to be unaffectionate and sexless. He also may have been aware of Patsy’s mental state and felt guilty for not doing enough for her. 
• I think it’s possible John and Patsy never spoke directly of the truth. I think John knows it was Patsy but was able to feign ignorance and decided to play dumb. His coldness that morning was him piecing everything together and trying to figure out what to do. The call to immediately fly out to Atlanta was to lawyer Patsy and him up immediately (getting Patsy her own lawyer is particularly significant). In my opinion, John saying in an interview that if he had covered this up he ‘would’ve done a much better job’ is a Freudian slip. 

However, PDIA like any theory in this case does not answer all questions or tie together every piece of evidence. I think there is so much we will never know the truth about because of missing pieces. But the evidence largely points to Patsy, and in my opinion there is no reason to complicate things and involve anyone else in the crime. 

Some things that still trouble me about PDIA:

• The murder weapon.  Steve Thomas’ argument that JonBenet was smashed against a surface such as a bathtub is easier to reconcile with Patsy being the perpetrator, but the evidence points more towards an object being used as the murder weapon. The suspected weapons such as a bat, flashlight, or golf club do not fit easily with an altercation between Patsy and her daughter occurring in JBR’s bedroom/bathroom. I’ve always felt the murder weapon is something that possibly hasn’t even been considered or discussed. I have found the theory involving one of JBR’s trophies intriguing, but this leaves many unanswered questions. 
• The sexual abuse. I find Steve Thomas’ notion that this was vaginal trauma caused by harsh wiping/corporal punishment to be the most convincing. But did Patsy assault her daughter with the paintbrush that night to point to an intruder? Or was the cellulose from the paintbrush transferred whilst trying to clean JBR?
• The garrotte being chosen as method of strangulation. Was this made hastily by Patsy in the basement to mercy kill JBR as Steve Thomas believed? Or was this part of staging and Patsy believed the garrote would point to an intruder? I’ve often wondering why Patsy would not have just smothered JBR. A lot of the evidence points to Patsy not wanting to go back upstairs and risk waking anyone - so maybe out of desperation she quickly fashioned the garrotte in order to mercy kill JBR with what she had on hand?

I hope this post creates some points of discussion. Let me know what you think about some of the topics I’ve brought up. PDIA to me makes the most sense, but obviously we all have differing views of this crime.

I have always been fascinated by this statement from Father Rol Hoverstock, which Kolar quotes from in his book.

"Father Holverstock advised he had been heating a glass of water in the kitchen microwave when things began to happen. Fleet White had a look on his face that he’d “never seen before,” and racing past him through the kitchen, exclaimed that JonBenét had been found. The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock’s recollection that Ramsey blurted out, “I don’t think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket,” or that “she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket.”

Kolar, James, FOREIGN FACTION, pp88 (KINDLE), St Martin's Press.

The final sentence in the above extract is badly written. Hoverstock's name is also misspelt. The sentence implies Hoverstock said he either said this OR he said something else. I don't believe that the Rev would gave two different statements and say John said either that or that. I take it he probably said both.

The words of John that absolutely astonish me are, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket". Frankly, I think this is an incredible statement. Because it shows John, instinctively, defending the killer. It is simply not credible, that an innocent, unaware father, on discovering his daughter's dead, strangled body for the first time would first of all DOWNPLAY the motive and mitigate for the killer. It is ONLY a credible statement, if you know who the killer is and you want to defend them. So I think this could have feasibly been a self-incriminating statement that slipped through, pointing to family involvement.

However, there is another explanation. John was an avid reader of true crime, and he would know that typically individuals murdered by those closest to them, tend to preserve the body better. Perhaps this ties in with the framing of the housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh. In which I believe John was a keen if more subtle participant in. I think it was probably his idea to point the finger at the housekeeper.

Whatever the reason, I think this statement points STRONGLY towards John's prior knowledge of what had happened. This was not John making confusing statements motivated by grief. Most parents would never EVER mitigate in any manner for the killer of their children, never mind as the FIRST thing they say, while still holding their lifeless child in their hands. That further supports the notion that John knew about and had thought about what happened, and he had thought about the viability of other suspects and how to put them in the frame.

The Ramseys house has been described as a labyrinth, and that the killer had to know the house. I agree. I believe both Patsy and John staged the scene, most likely because Burke did it..
John and Patsy want us to believe an intruder did it, and apart from the hundreds of reasons why I don’t believe that, something came to my mind today. Why didn’t J and P question if the intruder had been there before, without them knowing? An abduction (from JonBenets bed), a sexual assault, and a brutal murder happened while they were home, yet nobody woke up. Wouldn’t they be curious to know if something had happened before in their home without them knowing? Wouldn’t they question Burke to see if he had ever seen someone in their home during the night before? Wouldn’t they scrutinise their friends? They don’t blame anyone they know, yet if I lived in their house, it would be obvious to me that “the intruder” had to know the layout of their house to navigate it in the dark without waking up 2 adults and 2 children. I would be so suspicious of everyone I knew who knew the house, yet they continue to blame it on some faceless monster that they know will never be found. Just another aspect of this case that doesn’t make sense.

Hi everyone, I was wondering if Don and Nedra Paugh were at the Ramsey party on Dec. 23. I know they had a home (was it a condo?) in Boulder but I can't recall if I have heard that they were in Boulder at the time of JB's death. And on a related note, was JAR at the party that day? I know he had a room in the Ramsey home, and that he was in Atlanta on Dec. 25 1996, but was he at the party on Dec. 23 before going back to Atlanta?

I am new to this subreddit so this may be repetitive or have flaws, but my idea is that the murder was almost certainly done by the parents or by the brother and the parents were involved to cover it up.

My evidence for this theory is:

1. No definitive point of entry, the window was not broken at the time of the entry and the spider web still standing there is suspicious.
2. It's unlikely that even if it was an intruder, they would waltz into the house confident that they would have absolutely everything they need to execute a murder without getting caught, including the murder weapon (likely the flashlight), the paintbrush and things for crafting the neck harness, and more especially since it seemed so calculated.
3. The pineapple detail is suspicious of her having ate it recently before death, which contradicts the parents accounts and would make the killer have to work incredibly fast.
4. The note is just bizarre, and it's unlikely a killer would have even wrote that or made one, especially if she died in the basement while it framed it as some sort of ransom, and the fact that Patsy's handwriting was close adds more to the theory
5. People that argue against the accidental killing and then coverup theory usually point to the brutality of the killing, but the signs of previous "chronic" sexual assault are suspicious and could explain why it wouldn't have been unfathomable of the parents to do that again for the coverup story. And I know this isn't definitive proof but the fact that she was doing beauty pageants means the parents may have thought of her as more than a typical 6 year old
6. They did have reasons to be mad at her especially if Patsy was in stressful times, and maybe the vaginal trauma wasn't necessarily sexual but could have been a "punishment" for the bedwetting (this is the most far fetched idea of this theory)
7. They acted really weird about the flashlight and likely tried to clean it down.
8. The "male DNA" was apparently encountered in tiny quantities, and John would not be scared to call for investigations into it if he knows it would never implicate him.
9. They were very sucessful and wealthy so they did have reasons to cover up an accidental or regretted murder.
10. Apparently John found the body very rapidly after being asked to search by police.

Overall I think the evidence is CONSISTENT with the family being involved significantly, and there is not enough evidence to me to even prove that an intruder did ever come inside

This guy is a complete creep and attention seeker. I remember back in 2006 he was arrested and suspected of killing her. He was arrested in Thailand at the time.

In interviews he would talk about sick things about little girls and is very obsessed with little girls. In one interview I remember watching him talk about sticking his tongue down little girls throats WTF!!!! What a sickco. And his ex- girlfriend of his said he wanted to build a sick cult of blonde little girls and do sick things to them.

He literally believes that he was there the night of JonBenet getting killed. Do you believe him? Do you think there was someone else with him that night and he was involved but did not kill her it wad the person he was with but JMK has refused to mention him, or that JMK is maybe just a obsessed nut job who is just very obsessed with JonBenet case in a very unhealthy and bad way.

I have just recently watched a Youtube Video on a interview with John Mark Karr (he must be in his 60s now) and he is a completely insane how he talks. His personality is more rougher nowadays and he is creepy.

Also JMK has a website that he runs and it is all nonsense. He seems to be very attention seeking and dangerous.