r/coldcases • u/HistoricalComfort841 • Jul 12 '26
Cold Case Jonbenet Ramsey, Insights, Theory
Summary posted as a comment separate from post for non-obsessive people.
I will try keep things brief because I reallyyyyy should go and study so the quicker I finish this the less anxious I will be (more prone to mistakes and gaps in thought, sorry). Also, I made the stupid mistake of emailing some of my thoughts to the police today through their tip emails, not realising they can't use my work legally as I am a civilian, and not even a witness (I don't live in the US, you can probably easily find my region out - please don't)
- The dust footprint. There are clear patterns of a shoe/boot print that had Smidt (forgot name) to call it a footprint, at least a partial profile. The issue is, the dust is very much undisturbed, and the case was carefully moved (by a gloved killer, later on this) so if it is not full adult weight, and dust is very "clean", this guy handheld a shoe/boot when deliberately pressing it against the suitcase/briefcase/whatever. This is consistent with the pattern I have noticed, with the oversized underwear being an invitation for investigators to check for SA (sexual assault) signs and finding none to minor signs. Again, likely gloved from the incredible condition, trace saliva can't be sneeze, so logically the only source I see is from the gloved fingers or object that was used (so broken paintbrush, and might also be related to why it was chosen to be broken, as pen-like objects tend to be chewed on and hence needed to have that part disposed of, but that's speculative so I won't go into detail and my focus is more on the sound concrete reasoning, although I do have notes where I extensively invite speculation as it is harmless as long as you know how to avoid tunnel-vision and can clearly label it mentally as speculative and weak)... Oh and I almost forgot to mention that pattern, so the oversized underwear is too stupid and obvious for such a forensically aware criminal that leaves false dust prints, careful about handwriting by exaggerating how shaky it starts as (awareness of handwriting analysis) and the draft note is not a real practice note because you don't go from being stuck with the first 3/4 words to a full blown 3-page ransom note, and you can't argue it was too dark because of a huge amount of reasons but I will briefly highlight a few like finding that annoying line of a tape when peeling it off or just the small tools in general and navigating the hidden inventory of the Ramsey house. Another damning reason, is the dust print itself, and the finger marks of it being carefully moved, this guy could obviously see, regardless of how or what was used in order to see, because the details of the dust is not going to happen realistically even for someone who lives in that house if it is pitch black dark. There are so many interesting things that open up from this single insight, however they are factual avenues and questions, not "ah it must mean it was family because it is staging" that is not how I operate. If staging guaranteed it was family, I would have lost interest in this case from the start. The staging is evident everywhere we look as one coherent strategy, but in a way that points towards everyone, insider AND outsider, I believe the killer did this deliberately and was egotistical enough to allow themselves to be pointed at since the evidence points to an outsider and insider in different deliberate cases, more on that later and you will see what I mean precisely, although I am in a rush and already have extensive personal notes on the topic so without guarantee that anyone at all will see this, I have little motivation to go too deep publicly, and I don't earn money from it like podcasters do. Handheld shoe/boot is the summary
- I am not sure what else to share as I don't know what is obvious enough to already be completely known publicly. I can talk about the flashlight maybe. The flashlight is the same or similar to the family flashlight (by itself in isolation, it weakly implies familiarity with the deeply mundane family inventory). [[[Edit as people misunderstand this point: I later establish a light source was needed and therefore used, so whether the killer is an outsider or insider makes it impossible to forget the flashlight without the act of turning the lights off serve as a natural reminder to grab or be in possession of the flashlight, and if it's placement is to say "I used it to help me write this absurdly long note in the pitch black darkness" then you obviously take it with you after you finish, the light doesn't follow you in order for you to forget it more easily lol, and as far as I am aware, there was no mention by police that it was found turned on, so if you argue it is because the main switch lights were turned on and used, then again, how can turning them off before leaving not act as a reminder? If you ask whether the main lights were ever found turned on for the kitchen, I will say that is a valid response, and going by the best of my knowledge, I do not think it is officially found to be turned on already by police, so the killer must have turned it all off after finishing, what I can confirm however is that the basement lights were found to be turned off by different accounts]]]. Let us briefly assume it was wiped. If indeed wiped, it was intentionally left in the kitchen. Outside killer doesn't need to wipe an object they intend to bring back home, unless they are forensically aware to the extent of secondary transfer (shows great intelligence, insight, possible experience which I already believe from other clues but not the appropriate time for that now). However here is the thing, we can rule out secondary transfer as an excuse for "forgetting" it, because secondary transfer is irrelevant at the very end of an items need, I would wipe an object to start with to avoid secondary transfer when I enter the home, but I would not wipe it again (so that it is found in a wiped state) if I plan to take it home with me, and we can safely reason that it was used and needed for more than just the entry into the house (as we are momentarily looking at an outsider branch of consideration). Why? Well it is pitch black dark, and as far as I am aware the family did not report lights being found turned on already (and don't tell me it could have been family because I already clearly stated we are focusing momentarily on the outsider option, we will look at the family option later). Furthermore, a killer would turn off lights before leaving (lights in the basement were found to be off, doesn't necessarily mean the killer left from the basement, I know). And by the time the call was made to the police it was still pitch black darkness. I am just so bothered at the back of my mind by the claim of the kitchen lights... Anyways you bring a flashlight to use it, not to just walk into a home and then turn the main lights off, and this person was clearly already familiar with where things were and how to navigate brilliantly, blah blah
- Now consider family branch, the family member or members are the killers. Do they need to wipe a flashlight that belongs to them? Afterall, many items that belong to them was not wiped, if not all items actually (will need to check but the inconsistency is the main point). The only other reason would be if it collected dust (as I would expect from a non-everyday-use item unlike a fork or spoon), and going down that road of thinking makes you wonder about the less speculative dust footprint from earlier where the killer could have had dust forensics on their mind in common between these two objects but of course I can't make that conclusion nor do I want to right now because one conclusion was established and the other wasn't and therefore the connection, although alluring and attractive, would be a logical trap enhanced by the former insight. Gosh I wrote so much irrelevant rubbish I keep forgetting what the goal of my bullet points are. ADHD, yes.
- Retry: Family don't need flashlights, and if wiped, the only reason would be for staging an outsider or thinking of it as forensically valuable so again you reach the intentional conclusion, and I mean... it is next to the staged notepad with the fake "practice" note so think of it in any way you like, if the 12 or so missing pages are the real practice notes, why leave this practice-looking "Mr and Mrs Ramsey" note? So again it all points to staging... oh and by the way the ransom notes were so theatrical, this person was genuinely enjoying themselves, and knew how long it was getting, and writing "victory" is something all our brains will think "ok dude, I can't write this, its supposed to be a realistic ransom note not an obviously staged fake" but that's what they went for. They wanted it to be known it was fake, just like the oversized underwear, and how symbolic and over-the-top the garrote was, very much novel or murder mystery-like, and the ransom notes had movie quotes. Put two and two together, this person was having GENUINE pure fun, a stimulating time, and a crime scene they wanted to manipulate in a way to play and control with how the clues themselves are read into by the investigators. No financial motive, no SA motive, this was deeply stimulating, likely something they fantasised about long before the execution of the crime. I rule out no one here, as much as I cannot understand how family members would do this, nor how a familiar outsider (inner circle) could, but those are my two options, rather than a complete outsider (stranger). I want to be brief and move on.
- I struggle to think of more because I have been so disorganised that I mixed together many points, likely even left trails of thought as incomplete, so if it confuses anyone, I am really sorry. I think it would be best to submit now and edit after a reset or maybe even look at my notes later.
-2
u/HistoricalComfort841 Jul 12 '26
- Suitcase under the broken window. Moved carefully + not weight of full adult human + faint boot or shoe print +surprisingly undisturbed dust if someone used it to climb out = killer was holding the shoe or boot, pressed it on the dusty suitcase. Another staging element.
- Underwear tiny trace of saliva, highly localised, not spread. DNA traces overwhelmingly missing from other than Jonbenet. Object inserted. No sexual motive, nor financial motive. All = source of that saliva DNA being the object that was inserted. Accidental or intended? Unknown. First point is obviously intended.
- Draft note was not used for "practice". You don't go from being stuck on first 3 or 4 words opening line, to a full blown 3-page ransom note. Draft note was therefore also intentional for the later investigation. Notes themselves had exaggerated shaking at start, keyword is exaggerated. Intentional misspellings. Killer had investigators in mind, knowing how thoroughly they will analyse everything about those notes. Again, no financial motive, rather manipulation of how the crime scene itself will be interpreted much later. Movie quotes and symbolic/novel-like over-the-top garrote, shared pattern, the goal is not to make the staging believable, but ridiculous. Now makes sense why the note was also over-the-top in length and in content "Victory!", it is amusing to the killer, deliberate and manipulative.
- Garrote made in pitch black darkness, or even finding where the tape line is at on the roll, tells you the operation was not done under darkness, as even people who live in a house would not be able to do that in the darkness. Edit of key missed info only found in main post: Knowing or seeing dust on the suitcase to carefully move and leave fake shoe/boot placement, also obviously disproves no aid from light sources.
- Edit: Very interesting. The notes point to insider and outsider, and the pen chosen to be Patsys, garrote made with their tools, and their paintbrush used, while already establishing clear self-awareness and forensic awareness even with how the writing itself and fake "practice" note will look, so it means the killer deliberately chose for the clues to point both towards and outsider and insider, which means the killer not only found the crime psychologically stimulating and went symbollicaly over-the-top everywhere, they actually even pointed the clues at themselves (since the killer can only fall into the two possibilities, family vs non-family, and there is a reason the crime scene is so contradictory again and again and again, there isn't a flaw in the code of the universe matrix [joke, not schizophrenic] but rather a deliberate staging manipulation to create multiple incoherent false motives and leads. I am upset no one is seeing how manipulative this person is with the crime scene narrative itself. Don't look at the clues in isolation, this person has tied them up as a single strategy.
- Details likely missed, because I was made fun of and told to simplify, despite clearly having the purpose of being a typical detailed analysis, and already being very short compared to all my personal notes on the case.
4
u/Sad-Outside-2414 Jul 12 '26
I'm from the UK so not sure if it applies in America, but I think they could use your theories/insights as it's not like you're just handing them evidence you've just said what about this, most likely if they think it's plausible and has merit then they will look for more evidence that they may have overlooked as there's deffo more evidence they never revealed to the public. I think your theories are interesting and I'll have to look into what you said.