thoughts on the Jon Benet Ramsey case

This is probably the top murder case that I would like to see solved in my lifetime. Even though it was on the other side of the country, this crime frightened me to the point that for years afterwards I stayed awake every Xmas night on watch 'protecting' the children in my house. I think everyone identified with the family and the victim, except for those that chose to profit off baseless speculation and most likely effected the case. There was a strong current of jealousy of the affluent family that fueled this speculation.

The horror struck at the most vulnerable of us: a defenseless child. I think everyone is familiar with the JBR case and there are many online sleuths that constantly comment on it. Some are quite dedicated in putting out the most ridiculous and improbable theories. I think that one very prolific poster on Reddit is responsible for misrepresenting the case to the younger members of the sleuthing groups. I have been banned from Reddit due to an unrelated issue, so I no longer participate in the discussions, but I have heard that the case is being reopened. Not that anyone is interacting with me in this blog, but I am setting my thoughts down here, although they are hard to read.

In those days, police were taught to go from inside the circle to the outside. This means that they first suspected the family, because research showed that most murder cases are perpetuated by family, or by someone who knows the victim. A lot of mistakes were made during investigation that complicated things. The pieces don't fit. I think that one can start by looking at suspects and their personality/behavior.

Burke: The prolific Reddit poster will repeatedly claim that the child 'sneaked a piece of pineapple' from Burke's bowl, so he hit her with a flashlight. Then the parents found this out and 'covered up the crime'. First of all, this was a 9 year old kid. It also assumes that: they were both awake and downstairs, there wasn't enough snack to share, that the natural reaction to this 'pineapple theft' is anger, and that anger means extreme violence. Not yelling, whining, slapping or pushing, but getting up from the table, grabbing a heavy flashlight and having the strength not only to wield it but to hit the child on the head almost midline and with enough force to crack the skull. To me, the fracture doesn't seem to fit a flashlight, it is more rounded and oval. Also, the ties on the body were what I believe are part of a particular arousal pattern and too sophisticated and adult for a little boy.

Father: People accuse him of covering up accidental/purposeful death by his wife or son. Think about human nature for a minute. Why come up with such an elaborate scheme instead of taking the child to the hospital? Or taking the body out of the house? The online posters often have an obsession with claiming the father was sexually abusing the child and somehow killed her while doing so. If this were true, I believe he would have attempted to hide, not highlight, the sexual nature of the crime. Most of his actions can be explained. His leaving the house the next day: could have been meeting an affair partner, confiding in a friend, accessing a hidden bank account, looking for the missing child, escaping an intolerably stressful group of people in the house. The bringing of the child's body upstairs provokes a lot of comment. What would you do in such a situation? Bring her to those who could help revive her. I don't know many people who could act rationally, not touching their dead or perceived to be dying child in order to 'preserve the scene'.

Mother: The idea is that she became enraged because the child wet the bed and she killed her, either accidentally or on purpose. When mothers abuse children, they hit, spank, choke with hands, pull or cut hair, shove, burn, beat their backs, kick, slap, etc. I'm not seeing a situation where the child's head is smashed in a bathtub, even in an attempt to drown her, with the impact nearly midline at the top of the head and not at the forehead or side of the face. I also observe that Patsy was very concerned with appearances, being seen without her makeup, having her child look like a model, etc. I do not think that she would allow the child to be left in such a disheveled manner. I further think that if she had in fact come up with this scheme of kidnapping, etc, that they would have moved the body outside of the house during the night. I would venture that a religious imagery like floating the child down the river, or simply leaving her buried in the woods would be much more probable than the convoluted scheme (including desecration of their child's body) that some suggest. Also I believe that handwriting analysis is and always will be junk science. The phrases in the note reveal more than the writing itself.

So who did it? I think we can make some assumptions based on logic. I think the killer knew the entire family, was familiar with the house, and was familiar with the intricacies of the door lock to the room where she was found. I think he may have abused the child or normalized predatory behavior with the child prior to the crime. I think he may have been waiting in the basement that night and had been in the house before. I think he may have been in neighboring houses at night in the past. I think the he or his associates had stolen small items from the house. I believe one of that group of associates wrote the ransom note, whether they knew of or were involved in the crime or not, or wrote it at some point before to vent anger or as a joke and the killer found and made use of it, wrote it as a prep for an actual kidnapping, or wrote it afterwards. I think the ransom note is distracting and needs to be set aside and the focus should be on the victim and scene.

There was a change of clothing after the child had wet her bed. I think it is possible that the offender did not want urine on himself when moving her to a more secluded place. The outfit change included underwear that did not fit the child. I would be interested to know if the clothing was from the downstairs dryer or her room, if it was clothing she would have picked herself, and if she was in the habit of waking up and changing herself. It doesn't seem likely since kids who wet the bed usually do so because they sleep very deeply. Where the clothing change happened is probably not the most important thing to know, more significant is that she was wearing missized underwear. Also it seems very important that the offender also changed the child's hairstyle, and did it awkwardly. Both of these indicate someone who was not used to doing childcare (or at least girls' hair) and being able to eye what clothing would fit. I think that the ponytail hairstyle was part of the fantasy for the offender, because it was unnecessary to the crime, as was the heart on the palm of the child's hand.

I believe that the offender, whether he was part of a kidnapping scheme or not, was a pedophile who had sexually assaulted children in the past. I believe he attempted to hang the child or suspend her as part of the assault. He may have had trouble with his hands and needed a lever to tighten the garrote or it could have been part of his fantasy. I believe that he may have hit the child with an object as she was laying with her head to the side, possibly after the assault. I believe the the cellar floor where she was found was not the area where the crime was committed, as it must have been cold to kneel or lay on for the killer. The child's body was placed there to hide it while the killer exited the house, either driving/cycling away, walking to an area outside the neighborhood where their car was parked or being picked up by someone.

I read that the Pugh family had several family/in law guests staying over Xmas holiday and I have not seen a timeline of when they left. According to papers that I have read, those family members were DNA tested and the tests were inconclusive. I do not know why they were not retested. Of note, Linda Pugh had previously made comments about Jon Benet being kidnapped, asked Patsy for a loan, was initially suspected by Patsy when she found the ransom note, and Linda Pugh made a point to try to implicate and embarass Patsy Ramsey continually in statements to police and papers. Because she was the most vocal family member does not mean she herself committed the crime. She could have known of or suspected a family member's involvement. The paper and pens identical to the ransom note were found in the Pugh home, as were bondage magazines. Pugh family members had helped the Ramseys with Xmas decorations in the basement previous to the holiday, therefore those people must have known the catch of the door lock. They also must have known that the alarm was often not set, and the general layout of the house. I believe that all Pugh family members and in laws/step children should be investigated for the crime, including retesting DNA.