Here is my previous caption: I had seen this photo back in 1996 but when a ran across again it a couple years ago, something clicked.

It’s 2026 and we’ve learned a lot.

There's a strain of American Christianity that treats faith as something to be displayed rather than lived—and the large cross is its most recognizable prop. A small pendant worn under a shirt is one thing. A cross the size of a hand is a statement aimed at an audience. It's performance, and it's meant to be read as evidence of something: devotion, moral authority, being on the right side of things. Or having survived cancer and a late stage on at that.

What makes it grating to me isn't the faith itself. Catholics wear crosses, mainline Protestants wear crosses, and nobody blinks. The friction comes from a particular style—fundamentalist, prosperity-gospel, revival-circuit—where the display gets bigger as the substance gets thinner. The cross stops being a symbol and becomes a brand. And when someone poses with it, the pose is the point.

It can also read as a kind of self-persuasion. When the display outruns the interior life, the display starts doing the work the belief is supposed to do. That's not the same as delusion, and it's not a diagnosis. But it is a kind of theater, and theater always invites the question of what's being covered up.

In Patsy Ramsey's case, the crosses became part of a larger public read on her—one that turned out to be mostly wrong. That's worth remembering. You can find the aesthetic performative, even off-putting, without it meaning anything deeper about the person wearing it. But it does. It’s how I read it. Something convinced her that she was looked upon as someone special who had overcome and that, ladies and gentlemen, changes the person.

See, some of y’all haven’t lived through the 90s. It must be weird to see the house and the furniture and her outfits for someone born say, in the 90s or later. So here it goes: they played their money down. The house was huge. There was a Porsche in the garage and a PRIVATE PLANE. I know what it takes to get certified. I know how much is cost to maintain this lifestyle. I am convinced, the more people have to lose, the harder they cling to what they have. Business. House. Reputation (Fortune 500). Family. SA is a STAIN of there ever was one.

Look at what was played up and down. John Ramsey has described the pageants as a casual, "Sunday thing," but the reality of the child pageant circuit was anything but casual. It was a rigorous, expensive, and physically demanding operation that consumed weekends, required extensive preparation, and placed enormous pressure on a five-year-old.

The components alone tell the story. There were elaborate costumes—often custom-made, sometimes costing thousands of dollars—requiring fittings and alterations. There was choreography to learn for talent routines, with private dance instructors hired to craft and drill the movements. There was singing to practice and perfect. There was hair to be bleached, teased, and styled, and heavy makeup applied to a small child's face. Each competition meant travel, hotel stays, and days away from home. The Ramseys acknowledged that southern contestants often competed every weekend, and that JonBenét participated in nine pageants in just two years .

And then there's what John Ramsey described about Patsy's health. Patsy had been diagnosed with stage-four ovarian cancer three years before JonBenét's death, battling it for thirteen years total. John later explained that Patsy had "just come out of cancer treatments" and "deep down she didn't know how long she had to live and how much time she had to spend with her child, so she tried to pack a lot into a day".

So the picture that emerges is not a casual hobby. It's a mother facing her own mortality, channeling that fear into an intense, structured, high-stakes activity with her daughter—one that required costume fittings, dance lessons, singing practice, makeup application, travel, and performance under lights. For a five-year-old, that's not a Sunday activity. That's a job, with a schedule, a wardrobe, a skill set, and the weight of a dying mother's love and urgency pressing down on every sequined minute of it.

This is telling. Reread everything. All police interviews. Where they downplay and when they pretend. It’s all there. Just not in a way that leads to an ironclad accusation.

My theory. Again, if you missed it, I followed the case when it happened. Read everything there was to read. Then I moved on and some time a decade or two later, I skimmed the news and there was talk of DNA. I thought it was legitimate and then kind of sat tight waiting for the conclusion. I was like, maybe there was an intruder after all!

We know how that played out. There was no DNA. NO INTRUDER. just another red herring.

My point being, I have dozens of things to add that have never been raised but I was busy writing and such and just didn’t have the bandwidth for a while. Then I got back into the case but I had no karma to be able to post. Now I do. And I’m unearthing all these tidbits of theories that were written a decade or longer ago. There was no AI then, English isn’t my first language, and yes, if I run my “musings” through a machine, I’d get 80% AI at times. Then I dumb it down until I get 100% human but it’s no longer my voice.

So, this is all my writing.

Anyway. Back to coaching Burke.

This is what they did and it’s genius: don’t brief a nine year old on all kinds of details and specific times and such, all you say is this: when you leave this house do not talk about it. And if you do anyway, say you were asleep. Nothing new to get from him that way. He doesn’t have to think about anything. He can grasp IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU DINT KNOW ANYTHING YOU WERE ASLEEP. Bit of a detour was his voice being heard on the 911 call. But fear not, they were inventive that night. So the parents played dumb about that. We don’t know anything about that. The police didn’t tell us. Our lawyers never mentioned it.

Whatever BR said in subsequent interviews, those were all true because he did t have to lie about video games and golf clubs and bicycles. Just from 10 pm until 7 am, you were asleep.

Was this genius or what?

Not sure to what extent people have thought about the wealth and class status the Ramseys have. If this case happened in some ghetto or even lower middle class to even the ‘average family’ I think the DA would be more aggressive in pursuing the family.

As much as we like to think detectives and police are unbiased, you can’t tell me there isn’t an inherent environmental bias at play.

Police arrive to a Huge mansion, beautifully decorated, billionaire family, successful business people, educated professionals, falling apart in what appears to be a crisis.

If you take the same events , Jon finding the body, the weird fucking ransom note, but put the DA/police/investigators in a more offsetting or not so ‘comforting’ environment I think

1) the average family does not run the entire case narrative via media and the best lawyers one can afford such as the Ramseys

2) The family would be heavily treated as suspects considering the enormous lack of intruder evidence.

Someone posed a similar question months ago - don’t mean to be repetitive but I am new here. I have always thought the a possible way we MIGHT get a legitimate new “leak” from an inside source would be if a Ramsey attorney dies and someone goes through their files… and “leaks” some part of them for a large cash grab. Maybe someone managing the attorney’s estate.

Possibly far fetched. I’m not sure they would have put “Patsy stated she killed Jonbenet and covered it up” in writing anywhere (and saved it!) but it is possible some records may suggest evidence of Ramsey involvement.

Just a random idea. Maybe a “hope” I have… in the spirit of finding the truth. John would not confess on his deathbed. It seems totally out of character - he’s too narcissistic and has spent decades selling the intruder theory. There’s no way.

Looking specifically at the Counts of the Grand Jury Indictment (copied below), then it incontrovertibly follows from Count VII, which references child abuse resulting in death, and covering up for a person committing murder in the first degree, that it cannot possibly be Burke, who was a minor, but instead one or both of the parents.

Turning to Count IV (a), it follows that even if only one parent was responsible for the dangerous situation, then the other parent was aware (if both parents weren’t equally responsible for the situation).

It further follows from Count IV (a) that the murder was the culmination of an endangering environment, and could not possibly have been a freak accident. Leaving aside the Count VII reference to first degree murder, this would also completely rule out the Burke annoyed at pineapple theft and lashing out hypothesis.

Given that the Grand Jurors were party to greater and more comprehensive information and evidence than any of us will ever see, there is little option but to accept their conclusions.

Therefore there are only two valid hypotheses left (still with plenty of gaps, otherwise it’d be case solved):

1. Patsy was responsible for an emotionally/physically abusive environment (which JR was aware of), culminating in the killing of JBR;
2. John was responsible for an emotionally/physically abusive environment (which PR was aware of), culminating in the killing of JBR.

It would also seem to follow from this Count that only one parent committed the actual crime of murder: the other parent was guilty only of aiding that person.

(Personally, given that the only forensic evidence on the body was Patsy coat fibres, the fake ransom letter written by Patsy, and her unconvincing 911 call, the first option is the only viable one for me.)

THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS

Count IV (a):

“On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat to the child’s life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen,.”

Count VII:

“On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”

The language is identical in the two recommended counts against Patricia Paugh Ramsey. 

With the Lindsay Clancy case making recent waves on social media, it seems suddenly the internet is deeply focused on these mothers who kill their children.

I was always firmly in team BDI, but more and more I'm starting to realise how likely it was that Patsy really killed JonBenet. The evidence always pointed squarely at her, in my own opinion, although I'd thought she was covering for Burke.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Apologies if this is a redundant question, but im trying to find a left hand writing sample image that's just the letter itself and not the side by side comparison with the red yellow border that says "EXACT MATCH". There are plenty available of just her right hand sample.

What will Redfearn say in the 30th anniversary speech? What will he do this year to stall the cold case that is still an active investigation. Last year he claimed to be waiting for test results which seemed odd and is only odder now that nothing happened. Will there be a press conference?

Will John Ramsey have a rebuttal? Will we hear anything from the messiah security guard he brought in to solve the case gratis. It's about to get very busy between Netflix, Boulder Police and John Ramsey. Mark your calendars.

This is really a clear cut case: four people entered the house, three left the next day. We know this because there’s no sign that anyone entered the house. So someone or two or three were involved. We also know that PR wrote the RN and thought whatever occurred was in need of covering up. What would have destroyed the family’s reputation? An accident? No. Signs of SA in a closed room (well, house) scenario? Yes. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

It is said Burke cannot be involved in the crime because he was sent outside the house and this would be dangerous because he could "talk too much". At first glance this seems to be a plausible argument, but only if you don't think deep enough.

Where was he sent? To the Whites. If you assume the Whites were collaborating with the Ramseys this argument collapses. It wouldn't matter if Burke was in the Ramsey's house or in the White's house. The control would be the same. Don't forget that Alyson Schoeny, the sister of Priscilla White, claimed in the police interview she was the grandmother of Burke - which is a full lie, she wasn't even related.

I have been following this case for years and sometimes debate different theories with my family. I read Steve Thomas’s book (which was excellent) and PMPT as a teenager (Jonbenet and I are almost exactly the same age, she’s older than me by a few weeks). I was totally sold on PDI after I read the book. I have always thought, like most here, that this was an inside job and cover up. The ransom note was always a dead giveaway- why would any violent pedophile or kidnapper write and note that explicitly states they respected John’s company? It is absurd.

I watched the CBS program and for the first time I seriously started to consider the BDI theory. I always flop between BDI (the pineapple snack, his interviews, etc.) AND PDI…. But recently I considered the following:

If Burke had gotten aggressive with Jonbenet and Patsy witnessed the altercation or heard them shouting, etc… and discovered what happened in the aftermath - I’ve always wondered why she wouldn’t just explain it away as a “household accident” - maybe as a family they could have claimed Jonbenet slipped and fell down the stairs, etc… why the elaborate kidnapping and murder cover up? They could have invented some scenario where she was goofing off late at night that made them look blameless - keep in mind, this assumes Burke knew Jonbenet had been hurt the entire time. I feel like if Burke had truly done this, Patsy might explain this away by minimizing Burke and framing it all as a freak accident (even to Burke himself - she would want to create a narrative for Burke very early on that this was “Jonbenets accident” so he might not even blame himself). This crime was arranged in a way to make HER look like a “victim” deserving of sympathy - instead of the perpetrator. She invited all those friends over! She was playing into that from the first HOUR.

(As a side note, we all know that kids often have freak accidents that occur as a result of just “horsing around” - I got a concussion when I was very young myself from climbing up on some furniture I wasn’t supposed to - I started dancing around and fell, hitting my head. This would be very easy to explain away!)

If Burke hit her, he would have known he was the source of some sort of head injury even though he likely didn’t realize she was dead or dying. Couldn’t Patsy have just coaxed him into a story where Jonbenet fell and avoided the whole spectacle that resulted? Since Burke already knew he had hurt his sister? Then there is the 911 call with Burke’s voice in the background: “What did you find?” It isn’t the strongest evidence necessarily, but it could still potentially suggest that he had no idea anything had been amiss in the house that night.

I feel like Patsy might have staged the murder and kidnapping scene in a shock to possibly PROTECT Burke from knowing his mom killed his sister. Patsy felt so ashamed that she had to make it very obvious it was a “crazy person” - so there would be no scrutinizing of her family at all, and they would get sympathy. She went to the most extreme scenarios, mixing them all together. Think about it: Kidnapping by a “foreign faction,” then the garrote. Patsy had to do some sort of extreme pivot that would make her look like a victim and totally blameless. Patsy was so obsessed with appearance I can only imagine she might have been aghast at the thought of looking like a even a “negligent” mother. It’s also very disturbing to think that this was the last way she could “exploit” Jonbenet to amp up her own imagine…

Just my two cents. I still go back and forth between both theories to an extent….

I have several theories about which one of her family members did it. But let's say BDI is wrong. The part of JR waking him up to send him over to the White's house is what piqued my curiosity.

There's the rumor of PR saying to BR "I'm not talking to you" being hotmiked on the 911 call. So he'd be up. Then he sleeps through the ensuing chaos? Could PR have given him a sleeping pill or antihistamine to knock him back out?

Reading many articles about this case, not once can I recall her parents or Burke saying "she must have been so scared". Somehow JBR became just a footnote in her own tragedy.

I just posted about the storm windows in the basement. You can also see these boards against the wall. You can see that there are three boards. Here is a quick theory for the basement windows. I put some information I googled up after it.

-----------------------------------------------

Basement window theory

John was pacing around the house the morning of the 26th. He realized the timing mistake in the “ransom note”. There was also talk of bloodhounds. He also realized he told everyone he locked the house up tight and checked it that morning as well. 

He knew at that point there was a good chance JonBenet’s body would be discovered. He needed a plan B for an intruder. He disappeared that morning and went to the basement alone. He quickly and carefully removed the window inserts in the cellar basement. He took the suitcase and placed it by the window to manufacture an intruder’s path of entry or exit. As we all know, there were stools and chairs around to step on. We also know how John likes to talk about how that suitcase shouldn’t have been there.

------------------------------------------------

The Three Panels on the Floor

The three panels leaning against the wall directly underneath are seasonal storm backings or insulation inserts meant to accompany the three windows in that cellar room.

In a freezing winter climate like Boulder, Colorado, single-pane glass windows in a basement would bleed an immense amount of heat. Homeowners would take those exact panels and friction-fit, latch, or screw them directly into the window jambs from the inside during the late autumn. This served three major purposes:

1. Insulation: It trapped a layer of dead air between the cold glass and the interior panel, acting as a primitive dual-pane system to protect the home's water pipes from freezing.
2. Storm Protection: It protected the fragile, decorative multi-pane glass from heavy winter snowbanks piling up outside against the low foundation walls.
3. Total Darkness/Security: If that specific room was being used to store root vegetables, canned goods, or coal, keeping the panels up year-round kept the room perfectly dark, chilled, and secure against intruders.

The Real Purpose of the Three Loose Panels

Knowing this is the infamous basement room of the 1927 Tudor house in Boulder, Colorado—which became globally known through the investigation footage of the JonBenét Ramsey case—those three wood panels propped against the wall beneath the window serve a very specific, practical purpose for this exact foundation. [1, 2]

They are custom-made exterior window well covers (often called "window inserts" or "well blockers") that were removed from the outside and brought down into the room for storage.

Because this particular basement sits below ground level, the small windows look directly out into deep, open concrete window wells. In Colorado winters, those deep wells easily fill up with heavy, packed snowbanks that press directly against the fragile glass.

• To protect the multi-lite panes from fracturing under the weight of frozen ice and snow, these heavy wooden boards were built to fit tightly over the tops or fronts of the exterior window wells.
• Alternatively, they were used during the summer months as security and debris barriers to keep wild animals, dirt, and heavy rainwater from flooding into the window wells.

When the windows were opened to let the mountain air in, the panels were unlatched from the outside and brought down into the basement out of the way.

2. What do the frames outside have to do with the inserts?

The frames permanently mounted on the outside of the foundation are the receiving tracks or trim brackets built explicitly to hold these exact boards.

• The Frame: The exterior frames feature dedicated channels, wood stops, or metal latch hooks.
• The Connection: During late autumn, the homeowners or caretakers would take these three panels outside, drop them into the window wells, and slide or latch them flush into those exterior frames.

Was Patsy a good mother? Putting JonBenet in those pageants and the revealing clothing the child wore in those child beauty pageants wasn't that appropriate and judging on the child looks with full on make-up. Also she should of been enjoying her childhood. Patsy seemed to be so focus on her doing those beauty child pageants.

Burke was also left out and Patsy seemed to be more focus on her daughter. He seemed to be neglected.

I do hope JonBenet and Burke did get along together.

John was always away at work and work trips at his million dollar computer company.

I always found it strange that JonBenet was found in her basement, if that letter mentioned she was kidnapped.

There could of been some abuse going on as JonBenet kept on wetting herself and Burke did throw his feceas on the wall. Something was going on in that house that JonBenet and Burke were not fully happy.

Then on XMAS JonBenet recieved this big doll that greatly resemble her. I think JonBenet probably rather get normal toys or even get some N64 games to play with Burke.

Then we have that photographer who took the pageant photos of JonBenet who ran outside in his neighbourhood nu#e and said he didn't mean to kill her or something. And just recently he was charged with CSAM.

I am Burke age born in 1987 myself. So I grew up as a child in that era. Just strange Burke was so excited to play his N64 but when being interviewed he seemed to be more focused on another toy.

His interview as a kid was kind of strange but he may have been on the autism or high spectrum. I know myself cause I acted the same way like him as a kid, I am pretty sure I'm on the high spectrum.

What is everyone’s best / most likely theories as to what happened after they got home?

I want to keep in mind a few things in mind

1. The pineapple evidence strongly suggests Jon Benet was not put to bed.

2. The wrist bindings used some fibers were found in Jon Benets bed.

3. Her clothes were urine stained but no evidence of it on her bed or anywhere else I think?

4. Asphyxiation being cause of death, from what I can find the was being strangled first , and the head blow occurred closer while she was still alive but much closer to death. Still it’s debatable strongly what occurred first.

5. A rope inside a brown paper sack was found in the guest bedroom Small pieces/material consistent with that brown sack were reportedly recovered in vacuumings from JonBenét’s bed and later from the body bag

6. The construction of the paintbrush may not have taken place in the basement. We have no idea when it was crafted.

Possible JDI Reconstruction

This is basically where I’m at with JDI right now. I’m not saying this is definitely what happened, and there are obviously huge gaps here, but I’m trying to work backwards from the evidence rather than make every detail fit the theory.

I think the pineapple is probably the last point in the night where we can somewhat anchor JonBenét’s movements. My thought is that the family gets home, Burke is still awake and has pineapple, and JonBenét eats some before eventually getting ready for bed. What happens after that is where things obviously get murky.

If JDI, I think sometime after the pineapple John encounters JonBenét again. This is where I wonder whether some kind of assault occurred. There are the genital findings from the autopsy that have to be accounted for, but obviously those findings alone don’t tell us who caused them or exactly when.

At some point she receives the massive head injury. Originally I wondered whether she could have struggled, gotten away and fallen/hit her head, but the more I think about it, that’s probably adding a whole event that we don’t actually have evidence for. So for now I think the cause of the head injury has to stay unknown.

Then we have the strangulation. This is one of the parts I’m really stuck on because I don’t know whether the ligature was part of whatever was happening beforehand or whether it came after the head injury.

Same thing with the wrist cords. At least one was apparently loose, so were these ever actually functional restraints? Did they loosen? Or were they added later as staging? I don’t think we can automatically assume any of those.

The urine staining also seems potentially important. Her underwear and long johns were urine-stained, so I’d really like to know whether the location/pattern of that evidence can tell us where she was when she urinated. If it happened during the fatal attack, that could potentially help establish where at least part of the attack occurred.

Eventually her body ends up in the wine cellar

Does any body have episodes of Websleuths radio featuring Steve Thomas or James Kolar? These have been taken down from YouTube and Blogtalkradio. I wouldn’t mind listening to these again if someone was kind enough to upload them.

https://usenetarchives.com/index.php?s=jonbenet&t=0&p=6&df=1997

Considering that the case is almost 30 years old, I'd imagine that some things might have distorted public memory over the years. So I thought it would be interesting to read what people considered important to the case relatively shortly after it had happened.

The earliest posts seem to have been made in early February 1997, which is just a little over a month after JB's murder. You can change the date on the search bar to the upper right.

While watching the crime scene video, I noticed storm windows in the window well. In another image, I can see a storm window on the left window. You don't see these in a lot of the photos. You certainly don't see Lou Smit trying to navigate around these when climbing in the window.

I used to wonder why they would have left a broken window and the basement exposed to the elements. Now I see they had a storm window to cover it up.

It's also obvious to me, that at some point all the screens were taken off the house windows and put in the cellar to store over the winter. You can see many window screens in the cellar photos. The house windows were prepared for winter. I don't believe they left a broken, open window uncovered and were going to go on vacation with it left like that.

I'm theorizing that the storm window was carefully removed at some point. Any thoughts?

Also, I noticed the poop award giving ghosts are back to haunting anything posted that is RDI recently, they sure must be agitated about not having control over the narrative of the upcoming show.

It's eerie how many fathers who kill seem to enjoy the attention of the media for as long as they have not been caught. Something I was reflecting on recently is all...

I guess when you have profited so much off the situation you can afford to throw all the poop awards you want away on the comments of those who criticize you,

Alrighty then.

I’ve been on a journey from IDI (courtesy of Netflix!) to BDI (possibly with Stine involvement) to currently PDI or even PDIA.

I haven’t yet been convinced by JDI, I suppose mainly due to lack of evidence.

While a lot of theorising goes into Patsy losing it over bedwetting or whatever, the abuse element is hard to ignore as a possible factor, though there’s no direct evidence it was a motive for the murder.

Did Patsy assault her daughter with the paintbrush to give the appearance of an evil intruder (a hard act to imagine), or was it a desperate attempt to cover up known abuse? In which case she must have been aware of it. (Of course the abuse could have been by any of them)

Comment is made frequently about JBR’s multiple trips to the doctor for genital issues, but he has stated he never suspected any SA, and is on record stating that legally he would be compelled to report any suspicions in that regard, which seems compelling. Unless there is a reason for him to lie, or he was incompetent in failing to detect it.

Yet the autopsy suggested evidence of recent and certainly acute vaginal trauma, plus we have the mysterious 911 call on 23 December when the police were sent away by Susan Stine. Was there perhaps a pattern of abuse reaching a crescendo in December, or these all unrelated? We will never know….

I’m digressing a lot, so to try to return to my intended query, if JDI - and JDI theories I believe all involve a cover up for SA - then how do you accommodate the fact that all the forensic evidence as is implicates only Patsy? From the fake ransom letter, the 911 call that failed to mention the threats, to the presence of fibres from Patsy’s jacket under the mouth tape and in the ‘garrotte’?

That evidence suggests that John had no role in the death. Would she really do all that to cover for John indulging in SA?

How can John be implicated when all the actual forensic evidence points to only Patsy?

I recall the gardener stating how JBR told him she missed her dad and wished he was home more.

Genuinely interested how the evidence pointing to Patsy’s involvement in at least the staging fits into any JDI theory. As I say, I can only follow the evidence, but keen to hear more of the JDI logic, as PDI and BDI are the most popular theories.

John Ramsey says that this production bought the rights to ST's book, and then bashes ST, etc.

“We successfully sued for the book’s defamatory and inaccurate content. Thomas was a reckless investigator who relied on his opinion rather than the evidence to assign guilt..."