A Comment from Sue
As a retired Licensed Clinical Social Worker specializing in Family Therapy and Child Abuse, I never believed the Ramsey Family was involved in Jon Benet’ murder. I have always thought that an intruder came into their home and stayed there, hidden as the family came and went that holiday season. I believe he was wandering throughout their home and planning his attack, which he eventually carried out. I am appalled at the recent TV efforts to once again blame the Ramsey’s for the most tragic event a parent can endure. None of the speculative and projective verbalizations about how a mother or father should have acted or said under those circumstances should be given an instant of authenticity I am appalled
Thanks for your comment, from an expert I might add. I moved this to the Jon Benet story because the comment had wound up with another story, and I thought it was Sue’s intent for it to be with the Jon Benet story. Not everyone reads the comments at the end of a story, and I felt this was important enough that everyone who came to read the Jon Benet story, should read this.
A Comment from Karen
All of your replies and writings are horribly verbose, its very off putting and is a sign of low intellect and of a person who is possibly manic. Its very annoying and people will tend to discredit what you are saying bc theyll get lost in all the superfluous ramblings. I read through all the muck and was sad to read that you are completely ignorant of the facts of the Muslim religion. Sexual molestation and or killing of young female children especially under the age of 8 is unheard of. You make broad generalizations based on misinformation, and sadly you are a racist.
Karen was thoughtful enough to send me a comment that the killing of females under 8 under Islam is not allowed. I assume she is saying that because Jon Benet was only 6 that anyone of the faith of Islam would not be allowed to kill her.
I’m glad to know that Karen also believes I know nothing of Islam, the Muslim religion. I will rely on Karen’s knowledge of Islam, and ask her at what age “Honor Killings” of women are allowed under Islam? In my ignorance I did not know there is a specific age when that occurs. What is that age, Karen?
Females under 8 cannot be sexually molested under Islam, according to Karen. Have I misread that women can be raped by their husbands and that’s okay? Correct me if I’m wrong on that one. It must be an age thing. Under 8, no. Beyond that, it’s okay.
What about child prearranged marriages? What is the age of a female that can be forced into a prearranged marriage? Does the husband have to wait to rape his wife until she is a certain age, or can he just begin to rape her whenever she says, “No”?
Odd that I saw on TV that ISIS killed men, women, and children. I didn’t read anything about whether ISIS checked with females to see if they were under 8 before they killed them. ISIS last time I checked subscribes to the religion of Islam.
Karen says I’m verbose. I used to be succinct when I wrote for my blog. Then I started getting a lot of misinterpretations because my readers thought I was talking about one person and not another, or I was talking about one situation and not another, etc. I think that might also be in line with my superfluous ramblings. I’m sorry Karen that you don’t know crap about writing a blog.
Karen says I’m of low intellect. Odd that she is the first person who thinks I am of low intellect among my thousands of readers. Other people have insulted me, but never said I was of low intellect. I will read a few more books and raise my intellect. What do you recommend? Plato? Aristotle? Einstein?
She says I could be manic. Does that go with the offset of depressive, or let’s combine them into bipolar. Interesting. Because I am ignorant (I seem to have to come back to that word) of exactly in which manner I am manic, I will again rely on Karen to tell me exactly why I am that way.
Karen says I also make broad generalizations based on misinformation. I can’t cover everything here, but I can be specific and I say that beheaded in the ransom note is not normally the way Americans think about killing someone. I have seen horrible examples of that under Islam (James Foley and Daniel Pearl, to name two), or at least I haven’t heard anyone speak out against it who labors under the religion of Islam. The person who wrote the ransom note did say they might behead Jon Benet. That is not misinformation, Karen, Do you care to let me know what misinformation I have written, and we shall debate it.
And finally that I am a racist. Odd that today I posted to my site a story about “Mean” Joe Greene who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers, probably one of the most admired men who ever played in the NFL. I can assure you, Karen, I had much rather shake his hand than yours.
Episode 3 “John Benet, an American Murder Mystery” ID TV
Three hours of ID TV on this subject, and we still don’t know who killed Jon Benet Ramsey, on the fast approaching 20th year of her murder in December.
As a writer of murder stories for my blog, among other stories that I write, I have a choice about what direction my murder stories will take. I can go high plains or sink down to sleaze.
Sure, in writing a murder story I must give the sordid details of a murder, I owe that to my readers, but after that I can take one road or the other.
Oddly enough my readers don’t go all out for gore, and for that reason I try to keep my stories on a higher level. I do get nasty comments from time to time, but I basically ignore those.
On Episode 3 last night about Jon Benet, the scriptwriter, unless he/she was overruled, could have taken the high plain or sunk down to the sleaze. He/she took the sleaze.
For 10-12 minutes of the TV show we were subjected to John Mark Karr. If you didn’t watch the TV show, you might not remember from past info who he is. I’ll get to him in a moment.
If a one-hour TV show goes with a full commercial blast, you get 16 minutes of commercials. I didn’t time them out, but all three shows seemed to have about ten minutes of commercials, which would include outside commercials that pay the bills, and in-house commercials to promote upcoming shows on ID TV. That meant about 16% of the show was devoted to John Mark Karr. I would have given him about 1 minute at most.
John Mark Karr was teaching grade school in California when he was about to be brought up on child pornography charges. He exited the States as fast he her could, and went to Bangkok, Thailand.
A University of Colorado professor, who is an expert on the Jon Benet case, sometime after that, took to the Internet with some info on Jon Benet. You never know what wide sweep of people you will attract when you do that.
John Mark Karr, anonymously, started e-mailing with this professor. He first touched lightly on child pornography, then became more sickening explicit, and finally said he killed Jon Benet. The professor at that point contacted the Colorado Police Department.
John Mark Karr had given details about the murder that no one else seemed to know except the police—There was mucous on the duct tape that covered Jon Benet’s mouth (caused by her runny nose), there was the bracelet that she wore that night, and the word Wednesday was written on her panties.
There is a swirl of info available on this case, and Karr must have found some obscure site that perhaps had gleaned it from the police for whatever reason, and put it up on his/her site. I certainly never found it myself, and that is the reason I say obscure, because I read what is normally out there before I start writing a story.
The police contacted the Internet Provider that Karr was coming through and determined who he was and where he was, which was still Bangkok
Mary Lacey, the District Attorney in Boulder at the time sought Karr’s extradition, and Thailand complied. Karr was brought back to the States, and his DNA was tested, which proved to be no match on the DNA taken from Jon Benet’s long johns (pajamas) that she wore that night.
He was released, and somehow later beat the child pornography charges that must have still been pending in California. How he did that, I have no idea. But he must have been fearful that some other charges might appear from elsewhere, so he again took off for Bangkok.
Why did Karr confess? Who knows? Publicity? Maybe. When I looked in his face, in my opinion, he is a pathological liar. I won’t go into the reasons I believe that, because those are the things that make for a murder mystery writer.
The last TV interview they had for this show had John Mark Karr proclaiming that he had an accomplish with him who killed Jon Benet. Good gosh, there must have been 100 pedophiles in the Ramsey house that night, and the Ramseys didn’t see any of them, when they came home from the dinner party they had with friends.
During the entire Internet hookup between Karr and the professor, Karr went away for a while. They tried to lure him back with Patsy Ramsey’s phone number, because he wanted to talk to Patsy. This was 2006, and Patsy was in the throes of dying of ovarian cancer, but she was willing to participate in this bizarre scenario. The TV show never made it clear whether he talked to Patsy or not, but he seems to have started communicating with the professor again.
As I said previously, Patsy died on 6/24/06. Then in 2008 some “touch” DNA was found on Jon Benet’s panties that matched the DNA found on Jon Benet’s long johns. It also did not match anyone in the Ramsey family, which would have been Patsy, John, or their son Burke.
The DA Mary Lacey wrote a letter in 2008 to the Ramsey’s that exonerated them, and apologized to John for all that had happened to them. I’m not sure how the apology did much good for Patsy, Had it been me, I would have taken the letter to the cemetery in Marietta, Georgia, and read it both to Patsy and Jon Benet.
According to the TV show, the critics were out immediately. The “touch” DNA was not sufficient to identify anyone, because the company that tested the DNA only allegedly used 4 markers, and 13 have to be used for a positive identification.
I’m not sure it was made clear on the TV program who tested the original DNA found on Jon Benet’s long johns. It was discovered when Lou Smit was reexamining the case. The animosity that existed with the Boulder Police Department probably precluded them sending it to the state lab for testing, and it might have gone to an outside company to test. How many markers they used for that DNA was never specified.
An expert on DNA who had testified in DNA cases all over the world was the one who objected to only four markers identifying anyone.
Let’s look at that a little closer. Whether it be 13 markers or only 4, they all have to match the individual the authorities are trying to connect it to.
I’m sure at least 13 DNA markers have to match for a positive identification, but 4 markers can be used to eliminate a number of people who are not connected to the case. That was sufficient to eliminate Patsy, John, and Burke, and I’m certain they were eliminated for that reason. They had already been eliminated from the DNA that had been found on Jon Benet’s long johns. This was a second elimination from the DNA found on her panties.
Will this case ever be solved? Solving cold cases out 20 years from the time the murder occurred does happen, sometimes even longer than that.
Whether the Boulder Police Department still has the same attitude they allegedly had at the beginning of this case, I don’t know. If they do, perhaps a change in attitude might go a long way toward solving it. If it’s an ego problem, let’s dispense with that.
Episode 2 “Jon Benet, An American Murder Mystery”, ID TV
About three months after Bon Benet Ramsey was murdered in her Boulder, Colorado home on 12/25/26/96 (exact date depending on coroner’s estimation of time of death), Lou Smit, a retired Colorado Springs detective, was hired by the Boulder District Attorney’s office to work on the Jon Benet case. This would have been March, 1997.
His specific job was to find enough evidence to take Patsy Ramsey to trial for the murder of her daughter, according to the TV program.
In case Colorado Springs sounds familiar, that was also Lt. Joe Kenda’s homicide hunting grounds. I wrote about him in another story with that title.
Lou and Joe’s time there, although not totally matching, still overlapped, and in fact they both retired in 1996.
Lou, in his investigation of Jon Benet’s murder, was inclined to follow the evidence, and not the wishes of the District Attorney’s office, or the Boulder Police Department for that matter.
He read every police report available, every piece of paper in the DA’s office, and revisited the scene of the murder many times.
He found assorted evidence, and most importantly DNA that proved Patsy Ramsey did not do it, but an intruder who was in the house, although the intruder was not identified in this episode, and has not been identified at all, even though several suspects were paraded forth in this episode, but the DNA negated their guilt.
I do not think Lou was the most popular man in Boulder when he pointed out the innocence of Patsy Ramsey to the DA’s office, and I’m sure he was not man-of-the-year with the Boulder Police Department, because they were still honed in on Patsy Ramsey, again according to the TV program. The contrary DNA was apparently of little concern to the Boulder Police Department. Use of DNA in the States was still in its relatively early stages, and perhaps the Boulder Police Department thought the use of it was inconclusive. You’ll have to ask the Boulder Police Department on that one.
Lou stayed on the case until September, 1998, at which time, according to the TV program, he was convinced the police department was going to insist to the DA’s office that Patsy be tried for Jon Benet’s murder.
I’d have to check the timing on this, but I believe the DA’s office in July of 1998 had taken Patsy’s case to a grand jury, and had obtained an indictment, but the DA was probably waiting on Lou to provide the needed evidence to convict her, which by that time it was probably apparent Lou was not going to do, but just the opposite.
I do not think this was quite the atmosphere that Lou envisioned for his retirement, because there must have been conflict every day when he probed deeper into the case.
After he resigned in September, 1998, he went to work for the Ramseys to help them prove their innocence.
In my opinion, though Boulder was heading into winter, the temperature around the DA’s office and the Boulder Police Department had to be setting a record heat wave.
When Lou stood on the opposite side of prosecution and law enforcement in Boulder, with the evidence that he had found, that the Boulder Police Department should have found, and the Boulder DA’s office should have found, and that became public information, it had to be devastating to the case against Patsy.
There is further information available I am aware of as time progresses but let’s wait to see what the third episode says tonight. I’m certain my readers are also aware of information on a time progression here.
Lou Smit died in 2010, according to Wikipedia, from colon cancer. I’ve had colon cancer. Maybe because I’m still here, Lou, I’ve been given the time you didn’t get, to see this case solved before it’s my time to go.
I doubt the Boulder DA’s office will raise a toast to you, if the case is solved, or the Boulder Police Department, but I will because of the fact that you followed the evidence, not the wishes of any people. Any particular wine you prefer?
Episode 1 “Jon Benet, an American Murder Mystery” ID TV
Last night’s episode, supposedly designed to give additional information about the Jon Benet case, should have been entitled, “Why Patsy Ramsey Killed Jon Benet”.
There are those who believe she did it, and I’m sure that pleased them considerably.
Did we learn anything new? That’s debatable.
One thing that was pointed out early on in the program was that the words execution and beheaded were not normal ransom words. Read my original story below to see why I thought that was important.
Even though the Ramseys were reluctant to talk to the Boulder police originally, they did finally relent to an extensive grilling, some of which was shown on TV.
The police had already decided that Patsy killed Jon Benet and the questions they asked were directed to that point.
The retired FBI profiler who was on the show seemed to be convinced that Patsy did it.
The female homicide detective, of what police department I do not know, when the camera showed her as an onlooker during Patsy’s police interrogation, had questions shaped to point to the guilt of Patsy.
The teaser for Episode 2 seems to have a lead-in of the retired police investigator the Ramseys hired to disprove what the Boulder police thought they found.
The retired FBI profiler did point out that the money demand in the ransom note was exactly the same as the Christmas bonus that John Ramsey had gotten. I had previously said in my original story I thought there was a possibility a piece of paper was lying around on a table showing that amount of money.
There was a handwriting expert who said Patsy wrote the ransom note. The note was printed, and I doubt Patsy went around printing much of anything she wrote. It is a laborious task if you write normally and then try to print something out. Try it yourself and see. The handwriting expert had already decided Patsy wrote the note before she even looked at the note, in my opinion.
What about John making travel plans the same day of Jon Benet’s murder. You always have to be leery of a “fact” thrown out on TV, a fact that is supposed to be significant, without an explanation. It‘s one of the oldest tricks in the book for a writer. When the script writer did not explain what the travel plans were for, chances are it was because an explanation would have destroyed his/her premise that it was quite sinister.
What about the garrote? Was that supposed to be something that Patsy had hidden in the back of her closet under three boxes of shoes, and only she knew where it was. More like it was something lying around that was totally innocent until the murder happened. What about the broken handle to a paint brush Patsy had in her art painting room downstairs next to the room where Jon Benet was found?
And what about the mysterious pineapple that Jon Benet had eaten before she died? Pineapple that she ate after the Ramseys’ returned home from their dinner with friends about 10. The TV show said she was sound asleep upstairs. If she wet the bed, chances are that woke her up, and she may have wondered downstairs, looked in the fridge, found the pineapple, taken it out of the fridge, put the bowl on the table, found a spoon, and eaten some of it.
The TV program seems to have alluded to the fact that the intruder had gone to Jon Benet’s room, someone known to Jon Benet, and lured her to the kitchen with the thought of something to eat. The TV program said only Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints were on the bowl. Wasn’t Jon Benet’s fingerprints on the bowl as well? Perhaps this was left out as a convenience to shape what they wanted people to think.
I do think when Jon Benet was in the kitchen that is when she encountered the killer, someone not known to her. The original investigation revealed a stun gun was used on her, which could account for her silence.
I’ll repeat myself, the Boulder police had tunnel vision when they were investigating the case having decided prematurely that Patsy did it.
They hounded the Ramseys. The police chief thought they did it. The district attorney thought they did it, but didn’t have enough evidence to go to trial. The TV coverage outside their home was worldwide. Do you think you could have come anywhere close to acting normal if it had been you? Everything you said or did was placed under a microscope.
What did John Ramsey have to do with it? I’m not sure the police had that figured out. Maybe that John knew that Patsy killed Jon Benet, and maybe that both Patsy and John were covering up for each other.
When they couldn’t get Patsy to “crack” as the TV program put it, I think they turned their attention to their nine-year old son Burke. Somewhere along the line they ruled him out as a suspect.
Burke is appearing on Dr. Phil to speak after twenty years, the only TV interview he has ever given. I didn’t watch the show, but did see an excerpt which seemed to show Burke in a less than serious attitude on the show, but that might have been his mannerisms. I don’t know.
Patsy died on 6/24/06 of ovarian cancer. She originally had it in the 90‘s, it had gone into remission, and had come back in 2002. She’s buried beside Jon Benet in Marietta, Georgia. This was almost ten years after the murder on 12/25-26/96. Jon Benet’s grave marker says 12/25/96 perhaps based on the estimation of the coroner on the death occurring before midnight on 12/25.
Many people visit the grave sites, saying how could they allow a mother who killed her daughter to be buried next to her?
According to Episode 1 “Jon Benet, An American Murder Mystery” that is exactly what they should think.
But wait, that is only the prosecutorial side of the mystery. We are yet to hear the side of the defense.
Maybe we should wait to pass judgment.
Two points to the last comment to this story.
The DNA found at the crime scene and finally identified with modern technology, and personal to Jon Benet, let’s leave it at that, was not from John, Patsy, or her brother. It was unidentified DNA as to who it was outside of the household, and remains unknown to this day.
I hate to repeat this, but I will. Patsy knew she was dying of cancer. Do you think she went to meet her Maker by not revealing anything she knew about the crime? If you care to delve more into Patsy’s background, you would find that is the last thing she would have done.
Additional Revelations 2/29/16
Barbara Walters on her program American Scandals about the Jon Benet Ramsey case pointed out several more factors that had not previously been available.
One of the most glaring was what John Ramsey said. Six to nine months after Jon Benet’s death, a very similar incident happened in Boulder. The parents were away from home, and came back to find an intruder in their daughter’s bedroom. They frightened him away. The police said it was not the person who killed Jon Benet because the intruder did not kill this young girl. Like maybe the parents found him before he committed the murder. That to me is the same mind set the police had in the beginning which was to accuse John and Patsy Ramsey of killing John Benet, and this was a portion of the police’s tunnel vision.
John and Patsy Ramsey were away from their home on Christmas night, and came home about nine. John Ramsey said Jon Benet was in her bedroom sleeping. John took a sleeping pill. Exactly what Patsy was doing was not made clear, possibly watching TV in their bedroom. Why didn’t she hear anything? Patsy and John’s bedroom were on a separate level than Jon Benet’s bedroom. There were two marks on Jon Benet’s body indicating a stun gun had been used, which would have prevented Jon Benet from screaming.
Based on what John Ramsey said, the criminals in prison do not make their DNA available. Their fingerprints, yes. John said someone in law enforcement told him if the DNA were available for all those who are in prison, 1,000 murders would be solved overnight. Why don’t people going to prison for a felony have to give their DNA? This sounds like common sense gone awry. That could have meant that the person who killed Jon Benet was in prison, and it was never known. I have a different take in my original story below, based primarily on how the ransom note was written. Maybe it was a pedophile that acted alone with no other family involvement. The other incident six to nine months after Jon Benet’s murder had two parents who saw the intruder in their house, and certainly know if he was of middle eastern descent, which could either prove or disprove my theory.
One thing that needs to be made clear is that DNA evidence had not been perfected at the time of Jon Benet’s murder, but did become available in later years.
Barbara Walters said the $118,000 ransom demand was exactly the same as the Christmas bonus John Ramsey received. Another story said it was close to that amount but not the same. The intruder could have seen the amount of John Ramsey’s bonus on a piece of paper lying around somewhere, and used that in the ransom note. The intruder was in the Ramsey house for a long period of time, and could have written the ransom note while there.
Barbara Walters interviewed both John and Patsy Ramsey in 2000. At that time Patsy’s ovarian cancer was in remission. After Patsy died of that cancer, Barbara interviewed John again, and at that point he had remarried.
Some criticism that the Ramseys endured was about the pictures and videos of Jon Benet dressed almost like an adult. Patsy said Jon Benet liked to entertain her parents, and those pictures and videos were made by a photographer who later sold them to a tabloid. Patsy said those pictures and videos were never intended for public viewing, only to be seen by the Ramseys themselves.
A correction to my story below is that there was evidence of a break-in in the basement.
Another correction is that Jon Benet was found in a small, little used closet, not the wine cellar.
Original story posted 1/8/16
Most of you are familiar with the Jon Benet Ramsey murder. The six year old, winner of many beauty pageants at her young age, was found murdered in the wine cellar of her parents’ expansive home in Boulder, Colorado on December 26, 1996. She had been killed on Christmas night.
A stun gun was possibly used on her, she had received a blow to the head, and was strangled.
I am the first to praise police for the job they do. However, the Boulder police were not experienced enough in murder investigations to handle this case alone. Two murders in a year were about the max they were used to.
No search of the house was initiated immediately because of the ransom note found on some steps in the back portion of the house. Preparations were being made by John Ramsey, her father, to pay the ransom amount demanded.
When the police arrived they did conduct a preliminary search of the house which found nothing. The police suggested a more thorough search of the house, that’s when John Ramsey, Jon Benet’s father, and two friends found her in the wine cellar.
Various people had been in and out of the house during Christmas Day and night. In fact one source characterized it as a Christmas party. It was probably more like a steady stream of people who dropped by, chatted a while, ate from food and desserts available, and left. These would have been co-workers, friends, neighbors, a potpourri of people.
No evidence of a break-in was found, and the police immediately focused on Jon Benet’s parents John and Patsy Ramsey as the killers of their daughter.
DNA evidence of an unknown male was later identified, which cleared the Ramseys and their son, but it was July 9, 2008 before then DA Mary Lacy issued a formal apology to the Ramseys. Patsy died of ovarian cancer on 6/24/06, so the apology did her no good.
There have been many analyses of the ransom note. In fact to this day Patsy Ramsey has not officially been ruled out as the person who wrote the ransom note. That’s about as preposterous as you can get.
The Ramseys had been living in Atlanta prior to moving to Boulder in 1991. Atlanta, the Deep South, where Southern customs and common sense and the Southern drawl were and are still prevalent there today.
In the ransom note which is reprinted below, the very last line of the ransom note tells John to, “Use that good southern common sense of yours.”
If Patsy Ramsey had written the note, she would not have used that sentence, because it would have been a direct link to her time in the South. That would have been stupid, and she was a much smarter lady than that. In her younger days she had been Miss West Virginia, her native state, and if you don’t think beauty pageants wise women up, you haven’t been around enough of them.
Some people also claim that the amount of money demanded, $118,000 was close to the amount of the bonus John Ramsey received that year. Some people base their case that Patsy wrote the ransom note on that. The $118,000 was not the same amount of John Ramsey’s bonus, and was only a coincidence to even be close to that amount.
A person in their early twenties wrote the note. The $18,000 was to buy a car, and the $100,000 was for his family. That’s what I think. You want more of my theory. The twenty-some odd killed Jon Benet, and his parents were in a conspiracy with him in not revealing it.
I’m sure John Ramsey was kidded more than once about his Southern accent, but the Ramseys knew this family, and knew them well. I’m betting they were at the Christmas party the Ramseys held on Christmas Day, and the twenty-some odd son slipped unnoticed out of sight to commit the murder.
The ransom note was written on paper torn from a pad in the Ramsey’s house. Pages from that pad of paper could have been torn from that pad anytime in the past, and used to write the note.
Let’s get down to some specifics in the note. Some wording that points to people from the Middle East. Muslims? You make the call. I’m saying they subscribed to Sharia law.
In the first line of the third paragraph in the ransom note, how many Americans would use the term “execution” of Jon Benet? And she would be “beheaded” in line five of the third paragraph. Middle Eastern terms. “If we catch you talking to a stray dog”, third paragraph, line six. Certainly not an American phrase commonly used. Talking to another person, maybe or to a police agency.
They totally overlooked the Colorado Bureau of Investigation in the third paragraph, line five as an investigative body. Why? Most anybody knows that’s the second team called in for most investigations. Did they know the F. B. I. technically has control of the scene of a possible kidnapping?
The twenty-something year old who killed Jon Benet was too stupid to know when you draw $118,000 from the bank, the bank authorities are going to be highly suspicious even if John Ramsey or anyone he sent to pick up the money says nothing. And to ask for the money in certain denominations, raises further suspicions.
Who in the United States takes an attaché to the bank, second paragraph, third line? They may take a briefcase to the bank, but not an attaché. Again a word not commonly used in the States.
First paragraph, second line. “We do respect your bussiness (incorrect spelling of business). Why would the note say that? Because this father had been to John Ramsey’s business. In fact I’m thinking that John Ramsey even thought about hiring the son at one time.
There is a reference in the last paragraph on the second line, “to grow a brain”, which is a line from a movie more than likely only a younger person will pay their money to see.
The reference to, “You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult”. Has this person killed before?
Why has this person’s DNA never been matched in CODIS to this person being arrested for another crime? My theory. Sometime after this crime, he and his family left for whatever their Middle Eastern native country, never to return to the States.
Why would anybody sign a ransom note, “Victory!? Why? Because they came from a country where war has been waged for hundreds of years, maybe even thousands.
Cryptologists can take an educated guess at what the final letters mean, “S.B.T.C.” I have no idea.
The line that I referred to earlier which is the last line of text in the note, “Use that good southern common sense of yours,” denotes this person knew John very well, although not definitive enough to identify, because as previously mentioned, John Ramsey would have taken some joking about having come from Atlanta to Boulder from a lot of people.
For those of you who are convinced Patsy killed Jon Benet or had something to do with it, she knew she was dying of ovarian cancer. Don’t you think she would have confessed her guilt if she had anything to do with it? Are you going to meet your Maker having committed a crime and not confessing to it when you have a chance? I don’t think so.
The Ramsey family has endured more than most families.
Had Jon Benet lived, she would not have been quite 16 when her mother Patsy died.
In the course of 14 years John Ramsey had three loving members of his family to die. He was married previously and had a 22 year-old daughter who died in a car accident in 1992, then John Benet died in 1996 and his wife Patsy in 2006. How much can a person take?
That’s not the end of the horror. In my opinion a Muslim father and his eldest son were responsible for the death of Jon Benet. What could possibly be the reason for it? A transference of an “honor killing”. The Muslim father felt the public display of Jon Benet in beauty pageants was a shameful act, and shameful acts to Muslim fathers are “rewarded “with “honor killings”. No matter that it was not his daughter. He had to stop the public display. He instructed his eldest son to do the killing. The sex act (you can read the explicit details elsewhere) was not a sex act at all, but a desecration of the body. Jon Benet’s hands were tied and above her body when she was found, and duct tape was on her mouth. She was dead when the killer left her. Why not remove the rope tying her hands and the duct tape? A further desecration of the body.
And remember this Muslim family knew the Ramseys.
Before you dismiss all of this as incoherent, stop and think about the totality of what you have read.
Several copies of the ransom note were available. This one is from Wikipedia.
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We do respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession [sic]. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a [sic] earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart [sic] us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!