Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sig Turner

Sig's Forbidden Theory on the JBR Murder

77 posts in this topic

any idea if its on youtube yet???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trace sample of DNA found inside the underpants that was not connected to anyone else tested was NOT the same DNA found under JBR's fingernails. It is absolutely possible that that tiny trace of DNA could have gotten there during either mfg. or packaging.

I agree with you. How many times have you picked up a package of clothing and not even been concerned that there was a little tear in the plastic wrap or that it wasn't completely sealed. So, either from the manufacturer or from laying in a display pile in the store and other customers going through looking for a size etc, I too think it's entirely possible the DNA was somehow on there when purchased.

I missed the TV program...darn it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the TV program...darn it!

I initially missed the program, too even though I'd had in mind to watch it!

I then checked the guide and found that it re-ran later that night, so I set the DVR to record it.

I think it'll likely run again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always thought the theory that it was staged to cover up an accident was insane. No one covers up an accident to look like murder.

Actually, this is not without precedence. In fact, desperate parents (or other families) have been caught in cases where a murder scene was staged to cover a child's death, as a result of an accident or physical discipline that went too far. But nothing like what happened in the JBR murder has been known to happen in any prior child murder or cover up of a child's accidental death. Who would go to such extremes in a cover up? The person would have to be extremely sick and depraved to do the things that were done. I never saw anything to support the notion that either of the Ramseys were in that category. But then there was that statement from the part-time housekeeper that Patsy Ramsey had acted very erratic in the days preceding Christmas, with sudden mood shifts from one extreme to another. As I have stated before, I haven't heard any one theory that fits all the evidence...unless one believes in demonic possession. The whole thing is just too crazy to make sense out of any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I have been banned from three popular internet crime forums for apparent "unorthodoxy" and "thoughtcrime" after posting this theory which suggest that John and Patsy Ramsey were not the perpetrators of this heinous crime. It seems that in the world of internet sleuthing, it is heresy to suggest that the Ramseys had nothing to do with the death of their beloved daughter.

You were banned for that ? ... This is the problem with some forums. Moderators who have the power to ban people, let this go to their heads, become "drunk" with the power and exercise it when they shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll add a little bit of conspiracy here. Check out Sig Turner and he/she hasn't been active since Nov last year, roughly 2 weeks after starting this thread. What's up with that? Have the mods from these other sites banded together and chased Sig down in real time?

Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeta, don't assume because Sig claims that he was banned for advancing his particular theory that he was banned or that was the reason, if he was. I think it's always advisable to regard these sorts of broad claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

FTR, I think there's a large contingent who share Sig's POV regarding the Ramseys innocence. I reay doubt he would be banned for saying so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me JonBenet `s murder will never be sloved, DNA was found but can`nt be match up with anyone in the data base, unless someone comes forward , it had to be someone that atended the pagents that was a petofile or just plain jealous of this little girl :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

docyabut, I agree with you that the case will never be solved. I think it will remain a mystery for all time. But I don't agree at all that it HAD to be someone who attended the beauty pageants, or a pedophile. It's not clear what the motive was, or who was behind it. None of it really makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motives for murdering JonBenet.

1. Pedophilia

2. Money

3. Personal grudge against John and Patsy

4. Any or all of the above joined together

It could just have been a stray weirdo who broke in but then, why the ransom note?

Any motives I've missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

docyabut, I agree with you that the case will never be solved. I think it will remain a mystery for all time. But I don't agree at all that it HAD to be someone who attended the beauty pageants, or a pedophile. It's not clear what the motive was, or who was behind it. None of it really makes any sense.

Perhaps who ever broke in( the basement window was broken) had time when the Ramseys were gone that day to search the house and its lay out, gathering things and making a planned, a note for a kidnap, but when the planned fell through that night, maybe the child made to much noise and the person decided to kill her. The killer could have even been a women, ever see any of those pageants, some women are out for blood when their kid loses.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were only a few people who knew the amount of JR's bonus, and there is no kidnapping for ransom case where the abductor demanded such an odd amount as $118k. Anyone who knew the Ramseys at all knew JR was a multi-millionaire. It only makes sense that a ransom demand would be a lot more than $118k. A million, $500,000, $250,000...if less than that, maybe $100,000. But $118k? It defies all reason unless it was someone who knew the bonus amount--someone maybe who got a lot less and was jealous or outraged.

To me that's the most telling piece of evidence in this case. That the killer knew this has to be key. People can make up stories to fit all of the other evidence, that may seem plausible on the surface, but the calling out of that specific number is indicative of a personal relationship that transcends normal boundaries.

Alternatively, it could be a person who is related to viewing, processing, depositing or otherwise accounting for John Ramsey's bonus.

Even an offhand remark from one of these people like "Hey Ramsey got an 118k bonus, saw the check myself" at a social event or something, perhaps overheard by an unstable someone could spark off an idea to go looking for money.

Finally, the problem I have with the OP is that women generally aren't baby killers unless the babies are their own. If a woman and a man were responsible for killing a baby, she may support him initially and keep quiet but I think she'd eventually turn on a man who would kill a child. It's nature. Unless, of course, she's dead too.

Edited by mattg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this case some more ,I guess any theroy is possiable, however all they have is that DNA found on JBR of which was of a male. They say they keep checking the DNA data base comming in , however that DNA data base is only of people that have commited crimes and are in prisons ,So if ever this male person`s DNA is ever to be matched, it would have to be someone that would commit another crime to be caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't you think if there was such a person, he would have committed criminal acts again? After what was done to JBR, it was so violent, so rageful, so depraved, it's impossible to believe a person capable of that could go through life, never striking again. Unless, of course, he or she is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't you think if there was such a person, he would have committed criminal acts again? After what was done to JBR, it was so violent, so rageful, so depraved, it's impossible to believe a person capable of that could go through life, never striking again. Unless, of course, he or she is dead.

however if it was a foreigner as said in the letter this murderer was, the FBI would have to check all the DNA crimmial data bases of the world and of every country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the letter said "we are a foreign faction", but everyone who has investigated doubt that very much. Even the Ramsey supporters, like Lou Smit, presume that detail was tossed in there to throw suspicion away from the true perpetrator/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention in my above post that all of that is possible but it's also possible that the Ramsey's were the perpetrators.

I re-watched the Linda Arndt

as I hadn't thought about any of this in a long time.

I'd also forgotten about the multiple hand writing experts who said they were convinced that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note.

One thing of interest... Arndt said in another interview that she was at Patsy's death bed and Patsy told her to 'get whoever did this to us'.

If she had indeed written the note then it is possible that Patsy never knew/accepted John's part in it. Arndt is convinced he was the killer (and who better to know, really, she was there with them for hours). JR could have lied to Patsy and told her someone was forcing him to make her write the note to cover himself with his wife.

It's also possible that Patsy didn't know that JonBenet was already dead that morning which could explain why she was easy with guests. John could have told her everything was fine after she had written the note.

Tangled web.

Edited by mattg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ about Linda Arndt to be an expert on JR's capacity to commit a brutal murder of his own child on the basis of Arndt having spent many hours with him on the day of the murder. Arndt didn't spend ANY time with the Ramseys during the hours JonBenet was murdered. So I don't think Arndt would be an authority on JR's character or potential for brutality. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about PR being "easy with guests". Do you mean that she allowed people in the house with them during the hours before J R's body was discovered? I wouldn't say she was "easy" with anything that morning. By all accounts she was a hysterical mess. Not that I'm criticizing her for that. I think just about anyone would be a hysterical mess under the circumstances...except JR, apparently, who was said to be pacing nervously, except for a while after nothing happened. I read that he sat at his desk a while sorting through papers, and even left the house to run a brief errand. No officer accompanied him when he left the house, which later came under criticism as an example of the poor police work in the investigation. The Ramseys called friends of theirs who lived in the neighborhood either before or immediately after calling 911. When the first responding officers arrived, the Ramseys' friends were there. The officers allowed the friends to stay for the sake of emotional support. That was compassionate, but unfortunately, terrible police work. The entire house and property should have been sealed off and secured as a crime scene, and all the people inside relocated right away. Next, the local branch of the FBI should have been called out immediately. The reported crime was an abduction, which is a federal crime. A federal crime is the jurisdiction of the FBI, and had they been contacted immediately, they would have put into immediate effect proper protocol and secured the scene. With the house cleared out, agents would sweep the house to initiate the investigation. They would have been the ones to discover the body, and without compromising the scene, supervised the proper collection of forensic evidence. The BPD did not have the expertise or training to handle the magnitude of the crime. It's probably there (when JR found his daughter's body and carried it upstairs) where all hope of solving the crime was lost forever. Tragic.

Edited by Aaronsmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ about Linda Arndt to be an expert on JR's capacity to commit a brutal murder of his own child on the basis of Arndt having spent many hours with him on the day of the murder. Arndt didn't spend ANY time with the Ramseys during the hours JonBenet was murdered. So I don't think Arndt would be an authority on JR's character or potential for brutality.

True, but, that part of her statement where she talks about JR acting odd ('cordial') and then the moment when they lock eyes over the body was very powerful to me. Haven't you been in close proximity with someone and read their body language and knew they were up to something? Arndt had cop instinct and probably some sort of maternal instinct to be able to pick up on things being right there with them at that moment. I'm not referring to her general ability to be able to write a dissertation on JR's personality, but rather an instinctual moment when she feared that her life was in danger. It's been my experience that if I'm in close proximity with someone who wants to do me harm, or someone is lying or has done something wrong and I pick up on it it's usually true. It's not consideration... comes from the gut, not the brain.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about PR being "easy with guests". Do you mean that she allowed people in the house with them during the hours before J R's body was discovered? I wouldn't say she was "easy" with anything that morning.

From Arndt again, and then from subsequent details. The time on the ransom note came and passed without anyone saying anything about it. If I didn't know where my kid was and I had a ransom note from someone saying they were going to call at 10am I'd be waiting by the phone and looking at my watch. According to Arndt, that time came and went without comment from anyone.

I don't disagree with anything else you've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that a person can often pick up on body language and other non-verbal cues that tells him/her if that someone is lying, or being deceptive. There are lots of other things a person can pick up on. I have read different accounts of how the Ramseys behaved before and after the 10am appointed time for the ransom call. Some accounts say they were both increasingly nervous and anxious. In fact, the reason Linda Arndt told JR and Fleet White to search the home, reportedly, was to give him something to do because he was jumping out of his skin. There were many behaviors of the Ramseys described in different accounts that came off as suspicious, or unusual for the circumstances. One thing was how the two parents had little to no interaction during the waiting time. They were in different rooms and said almost nothing to each other. Typically, forensic psychologists have noted a consistent trait in couples with missing children, which is they are very likely to cling to one another, even if the relationship is shaky, or even if they are separated or divorced. Staying apart as the Ramseys did was more consistent with two people not out of their mind with fear over the fate of their child, but rather a mother and father who already knew the outcome but keeping it secret.

The BPD, and many others who got involved with the investigation, saw much of what the Ramseys did to be very atypical of parents of an abducted/murdered child, which was one of a multitude of troubling and baffling aspects of this crime that gave cause to view them as suspects and not victims of a crime. If either one or both of the Ramseys were complicit in JBR's death, I don't know what the sequence was. Most people who suspect them believe they were both involved, but there differing views. Some theorize JR committed the crime and got his wife to write the ransom note; others think PR was the primary culprit and either JR helped her cover it up, or that he knew nothing of it. Still others say the Ramseys were working together to cover for JBR's brother, Burke. I found major holes in all theories. OTOH, I find as many gaping holes in any intruder theory ever put forward, or that I have conceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ramseys did not do anything that any other parent would have done under the cirumstances. If i found my little child on the base floor hurt and dead I would have brought her up. JonBenet’s parents I believe are innocent. People that usually kill their kids, the kids have been abused all a long. There is no evidence that JB was ever abused. Some male was there that night waiting to kidnapp her, but the plan fell through when JB starting struggling. The male DNA found on her body was not of her parents and I hope they catch this guy someday in the crimmal DNA data banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing my point, docyabut. I'm not faulting JR for bringing the body upstairs. I'm faulting the BPD for not securing the crime scene and not calling the FBI immediately. Had they done so, the crime scene would not have been compromised and the house would have been properly searched by competent LE officers, who would have found the body, instead of the victim's father. They would know not to touch anything and forensic evidence could have been collected properly. That would have made a world of difference. For instance, fibers found on the girl's body matched the clothes Patsy Ramsey was wearing when the police arrived. She said they were her clothes from yesterday and she laid them on a chair next to the bed, then put the outfit on again when she dressed quickly in the morning. When Mrs. Ramsey saw JBR's rigid body laid out on the floor in the living room, she was said to have thrown herself over the body and began wailing. So it couldn't be determined for certain how the fibers from her outfit got on JBR's body and pajamas. If LE officers had found the remains and the fibers from PR's outfit had been on JBR and no others, that would pretty well cinch the mother's guilt. By the same token, if PR didn't have contact with the body and there had been other DNA and fibers on her clothes and skin and no fiber from PR's clothes, that could have exonerated PR. Critical evidence that could have led to the perpetrator might have been found. That's just one example.

Edited by Aaronsmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing my point, docyabut. I'm not faulting JR for bringing the body upstairs. I'm faulting the BPD for not securing the crime scene and not calling the FBI immediately. Had they done so, the crime scene would not have been compromised and the house would have been properly searched by competent LE officers, who would have found the body, instead of the victim's father. They would know not to touch anything and forensic evidence could have been collected properly. That would have made a world of difference. For instance, fibers found on the girl's body matched the clothes Patsy Ramsey was wearing when the police arrived. She said they were her clothes from yesterday and she laid them on a chair next to the bed, then put the outfit on again when she dressed quickly in the morning. When Mrs. Ramsey saw JBR's rigid body laid out on the floor in the living room, she was said to have thrown herself over the body and began wailing. So it couldn't be determined for certain how the fibers from her outfit got on JBR's body and pajamas. If LE officers had found the remains and the fibers from PR's outfit had been on JBR and no others, that would pretty well cinch the mother's guilt. By the same token, if PR didn't have contact with the body and there had been other DNA and fibers on her clothes and skin and no fiber from PR's clothes, that could have exonerated PR. Critical evidence that could have led to the perpetrator might have been found. That's just one example.

I do agree with you there:) I disagreed to another poster that the Ramseys kill their own daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention in my above post that all of that is possible but it's also possible that the Ramsey's were the perpetrators.

I re-watched the Linda Arndt

as I hadn't thought about any of this in a long time.

I'd also forgotten about the multiple hand writing experts who said they were convinced that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note.

One thing of interest... Arndt said in another interview that she was at Patsy's death bed and Patsy told her to 'get whoever did this to us'.

If she had indeed written the note then it is possible that Patsy never knew/accepted John's part in it. Arndt is convinced he was the killer (and who better to know, really, she was there with them for hours). JR could have lied to Patsy and told her someone was forcing him to make her write the note to cover himself with his wife.

It's also possible that Patsy didn't know that JonBenet was already dead that morning which could explain why she was easy with guests. John could have told her everything was fine after she had written the note.

Tangled web.

I don't believe that if one of the Ramseys killed their daughter and the other helped cover it up that their marriage would lasted. Also, the covering up parent would never leave their other child alone with the killing parent again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing my point, docyabut. I'm not faulting JR for bringing the body upstairs. I'm faulting the BPD for not securing the crime scene and not calling the FBI immediately. Had they done so, the crime scene would not have been compromised and the house would have been properly searched by competent LE officers, who would have found the body, instead of the victim's father.

Right! The first mistake of the investigation was immediate and it was huge! Circumstances were that a child was missing from the home, and so the entire house/grounds should have been managed as a crime scene and immediately and properly secured and searched by authorities.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.