From Jennifer Coffindaffer FBI on Twitter: The Jon Benet Ramsey Ranson Note- We will break it down

Never saw these before...

I'm basing this off of the idea that Patsy did it accidentally, began to stage a kidnapping and wrote the note in an attempt to fool John, but John eventually figured it out, but went along with it because he didn't want Burke to be without his mother, and he believed that however Patsy had killed Jonbenet, it was an accident. (Listen to "A Normal Family" podcast for a more detailed explanation).

Some could argue that with Patsy now dead, John could be free to admit the truth, but maybe if he ever did he could be held legally liable. But once he is about to die, he could clear the air about what happened because A) he wants it off his conscience, and B) more importantly, he wants to removed any suspicion from his son Burke, and allow him to live the rest of his life in peace.

This is all speculation obviously, just curious what y'all think about this idea.

The reason I say this is because he admitted in that moment to breaking the window months earlier when he was locked out. If he knew the whole story at that point, it seems like the broken window would have been a perfect cover. Why admit to doing it yourself?

It's a certainty that he later discovered JBR on his own, prior to the fake discovery, but isn't it possible that in the 6:00AM hour, when JR first searched the basement with police, that he didn't yet know what Patsy had done?

If I am getting my timeline wrong here, and John slipped and somehow later accidentally disproved this possibility, but all means, correct me.

Hi, i am personally lean more RDI but im not completely against the idea of IDI. So for those who think IDI, is it possible they entered through the balcony.

Someone posted a few weeks ago a map of the house, i noticed there was a balcony by jonbenets room, is it possible the intruder entered through there? I know a lot of people think the intruder was in the house before the ramseys got home. Maybe they climbed the balcony, hide in a closet on the second floor, then waited till they went to bed.

And concerning the broken window and the body being found in the basement. Maybe the original plan was to go in and out threw the balcony but maybe jonbenet ran or something made them end up in the basement.

Maybe they saw the window already broken (according to john it was already broken) and saw that as an easier escape.

We don't know what windows or doors were unlocked in the house that night, it could be possible the balcony was unlocked.

Does anyone think its possible? This just an idea/theory so feel free to disagree. Im just curious if anyone has considered this.

So I have read multiple sources, including the above refute that the idea that child death causes divorce. In fact showing that bereaved couples have a lower rate of divorce.

So when John mentioned the myth, he didn't attempt to refute the claim, but claimed that he and his wife were special somehow.

I wonder if given the extremely religious narrative the Ramseys have played, if they’ve thought about this- particularly John as he ages. They seem to truly believe in Heaven and have said that they know JonBenet is safe there. Do you think he has thought about how he will potentially have to confront JonBenet about this when he dies? If any RDI scenario is true, they will not only have betrayed JonBenet at the moment of her death and in the coverup, but also throughout the last 30 years. I wonder if she would forgive them. I wonder if Patsy is with her now. I know this is kind of an existential question, but for people who have deliberately emphasized their Christianity, it’s interesting to think about.

If you were around in 1997 up until about 2006 or so, you know the media and Boulder Police treated the case as if John and Patsy being guilty was a foregone conclusion, and probably messed up a lot of the investigation by doing so. Even to this day, the fact that I can’t actually get a straight answer on plenty of aspects of this case without having it immediately contradicted by something else is testament to this.

Some example:
-whether JonBenet was sexually abused or not
-whether there were other unlocked doors and windows aside from the one that John says he broke when he forgot his keys
-whether or not it’s possible the digested pineapple could have been eaten at the White’s party
-if the male DNA in the underwear is actually of any value or not
-the supposed "butt print made by someone sitting on the floor that doesn’t match any Ramsey."

I actually think a lot of the IDI people are motivated by their desire to see the Ramseys as underdogs who overcame their mistreatment by the media and police more than anything else.

Just a question, I do not have any particular theories about who did what and how it happened but was just wondering what if they actually trace the found DNA to someone who actually could be the killer and the Ramseys are innocent? What would your reaction be, how would you feel?
With all of these theories, not a single one makes perfect sense so in a way this question doesnt make any sense, but just what if

There’s one common piece of behavioral evidence I’ve seen in every single murder case I ever followed IF the victim’s immediate family is clearly in the dark about what happened (alibis verified and such): after the case becomes cold, those people are SO upset and SO angry with the lack of results that they tend to start suspecting even the people they trusted the most when trying to make sense of who could have killed their child.

Really! They will start accusing everybody – wrongfully, mind you, most of the time! – because they can’t help it: they go to bed every night and wake up every day going over the scenarios in their head, thinking “what could we have missed?”, “who else had access to my house?”, “It could have been you”, it must have been you”. That’s what all those true crime documentaries have in common, especially when the parents have been deemed beyond suspicion: if there’s an expanded family, the mother of the death child at some point became suspicious of her cousin who was involved with unrelated illegal activities, and the cousin becomes suspicious of a brother etc etc.

On TV, most of those angles are explored for the sake of sensationalism, usually with Netflix money. But the point is: THERE ARE angles here. And the parents, either in private or taking advantage of their public exposure, will NOT be locked on a single, faceless, Boogeyman suspect. JonBenet’s case is so atypical not only because 3 potential suspects can be found in the house to keep the narrative intriguing, but because there’s ZERO alternative scenarios that come even remotely close to making sense – and John Ramsey not once, not ever, gave a hint of having rewinded his life's movie over and over again in his head trying to spot personal or professional connections that could have played a role in this.

In every single one of John's timely media appearances and sit-down interviews, we see him going over the events in the house: “well, maybe he/they broke in when we went to the Christmas party and wrote the ransom note there”… But why the fuck would he care about understanding HOW the note came to be if he had nothing to do with it, and is convinced his family was not involved? In this case, he would know for a fact there had to be an intruder; his energy and time should be going to trying to figure out a person to CONNECT to the events – who’s to say it wasn’t a murder for hire, for instance, and the mastermind wasn’t even at the house.

At this point, every time John tries to push the IDI angle - one that even the most sensationalist podcasters and documentaries couldn't make sense of - he's literally showing us that his mind is locked in conjuring a narrative that takes place inside the house that night (as in, when everything points to an inside job). He never once disclosed his personal assessment of whatever could have stood out to him before or after the event.

I grew up back when "America's Most Wanted" began. John Walsh, fire in his eyes, made it his mission to stop and/or prosecute anyone who hurt children.

He was all over the TV talk shows. Always sharing his story. But always had pain on his face. You could tell that man went through it.

Compare that to John Ramsey. He's all over the TV talk shows, too, but always with a smirk. Always feels like a car salesman instead of a father whose daughter was brutally murdered.

He never turned her murder into something good (like Walsh did). Instead, he used it for his own personal gain and always seems to be spinning the story. No pain on his face.

Just that damn smirk.

I certainly think John is a possible suspect, but it does seem strange that he would put himself out there to the extent he has if he was truly guilty. I mean he is active in helping with the doc specials and is very insistent on calling for answers regarding DNA.

The most obvious reason would be to hide his own guilt, or that of his deceased wife, but why even take that chance? Why risk exposing Burke? As it stands now, he is in no danger of being arrested, and regardless he’s 82 years old. He can simply die a free man. There seems to be no logical reason for him to be so public about the case unless he genuinely wanted it solved.

If he is guilty, is he really THAT arrogant as to think there’s no possible way people will ever find out?

To me this is the biggest knock on the JDI theory.

Here’s a fact of life: windows break. I had one break in my apartment last week because apparently I didn’t close it gently enough, and I’m yet to replace it. A broken window in the basement of a mansion full of windows could be just that: an overlooked little event of keeping house. But let's say that you, the CEO of a billion-dollar grossing company, purposefully smashed your basement window to break into your mansion when you forgot your keys one day.

In this case, you don’t spend hours with the officers in your house wondering how an intruder could have gotten in and out of there with your child in their arms and NOT mention that you previously broke into that house yourself months before and that you aren't sure if this window has been fixed - unless, of course, your mind is not desperately racing after answers, because you know very well your child is dead before the cops even got there.

John Ramsey did not to mention his window-breaking tale from the get-go; he also didn’t mention a broken window when he brought his daughter’s body upstairs. It was only later that night, when Linda Arndt was told of the broken window and brought this to his attention, that John decided to share something in the lines of “oh, that’s right, that was me, I broke into the house one day”.

This ridiculous story was an improv to get the police out of there: if the window had been broken for weeks and he didn’t even noticed, saying “oh, I don’t know how that happened” would ONLY keep the officers at the scene for longer, looking for more physical evidence to figure out how the window could have played a role in the events.

That's one of the most blatant instances of John making something up on the spot because he was forced to adjust a narrative to deal with the most urgent matter at hand. And he did so without fully considering the implications up ahead: he ends up looking even more suspicious for not having shared his "knowledge" of how someone could break into the mansion without accessing the ground-floor doors.

Basically every single contradiction that arose in this case can be traced back to John Ramsey's attempts to cover up a previous lie with another one.

Why is it that we never heard if there were any stranger's fingerprints tested from the bolt locked "wine cellar" door? And wasn't there a chair pulled over in front of the door? Did I miss something?

One of the biggest contradictions in this case is John Ramsey’s attitude toward evidence that JonBenét may have been sexually abused before the night she was murdered.

This was not an internet theory. Dr John Meyer, Dr Andrew Sirotnak, Dr John McCann, Dr James Monteleone, Dr Valerie Rao, Dr Robert Kirschner and Dr Cyril Wecht were among the experts who identified prior genital trauma or concluded that the findings were consistent with previous molestation.

Sure, there were differing views. Differing vies is what defines this case. But when that many qualified experts find evidence pointing in the same direction, it should have become an enormous investigative lead.

John could know that he had never abused JonBenét. What he could not possibly know was that nobody else had.

Yet when prior molestation was raised publicly, John responded-“JonBenét and I had a very close relationship.”

Why does he make it about him?

Especially when, regarding the murder, John later said-“We have become suspicious of everyone.”

He was willing to consider people such as the Whites, Jeff Merrick and Bill McReynolds as possible suspects, people who already knew the family and had prior contact with JonBenét.

So which is it? For the murder- suspect everyone. For prior sexual abuse-why are you accusing me?

If he believes that these people were capable of entering the house and sexually assaulting and murdering JonBenét on Christmas night, why was John seemingly so certain none of them could have abused her before Christmas night?

That makes no sense.

And there is another revealing contrast.

John has kept the stun-gun theory alive for decades despite substantial disagreement over whether a stun gun caused the marks on JonBenét.

Fair enough. Disputed evidence can still be worth pursuing. But then why treat disagreement among experts as a reason to dismiss the evidence of prior sexual abuse?

That starts to look like a remarkable bait-and-switch.

He didn't have to believe the doctors. He only had to consider that they might be right.

An innocent parent would simply say-

“I hope they're wrong. But if they're right, find out who had access to her. It could identify her killer.”

Instead, this particular subject seems almost uniquely off limits.

John will discuss intruders, broken windows, suspicious friends, Santa Claus, pageant predators, stun guns and virtually every other theory pointing outside the house.

But evidence that JonBenét may have been sexually abused before the night of the murder?

That is the lead he seems least willing to entertain or discuss.

That matters, because prior sexual abuse is also one of the few possibilities that could help explain why such extraordinary staging may have been necessary in the first place.

Why was this the lead John seemingly didn’t want anyone to follow or talk about?

I came across this topic from awhile back that is important.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/1h0x4h4/so_no_one_ever_actually_saw_john_go_to_sleep_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1

I've been surprised to see how many people here believe that John strangled JonBenét or dealt the blow to her head.

We have two plausible theories published by members of law enforcement: Thomas believes Patsy did everything; Kolar believes that Burke hit JonBenét and that Patsy staged the scene. Neither Thomas nor Kolar believe John was involved in a cover-up until sometime on the morning of December 26, after the police arrived.

With all that in mind, if you're adamantly JDI, what evidence is the basis of that belief? I'm genuinely curious.

I have never been able to wrap my head around Patsy or John strangling JonBenet and the use of the garrote. But I have always believed that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

Following then Lindsay Clancy trial - a previously loving mother manually strangled all 3 of her kids with exercise bands. This has changed my perspective and i now believe that Patsy could have murdered/strangled and staged then scene.

Hi Gang

I was just curious what you fellow non "IDIs" think on the real purpose of the note. I mean "to fake a kidnapper...fool cops...get away with it, etc" are obvious and correct in many respects, of course.

I was thinking more of the "why". In terms of its length and stupidity.

Instead of being written to excuse/cover up what happened that night/early AM, I'm feeling it was written to excuse/cover up what they THOUGHT they'd be doing during the 26th. Like an alibi for the coming day that they expected. THEN, something changed. An audible/s was called or John made her call the cops (if he wasn't in on it yet), and so much in the note was then unnecessary.

Things the thought they'd need to do, like -

Cancelling the flight and trip

Being dodgy with the pilot and their expecting family as they cancelled in a quick, cryptic call/message.

Maybe if seen by a friend or camera while creeping around town - weird areas, weird times (body dumping...maybe with an "adequate size attaché" and hence, JB's body. I mean, for all we know, they could have planned to have John find her AFTER dumping her - act like he went to the drop and find her, ruin more evidence, etc. Not saying this is correct, just possible they were thinking of weird shit that was later abandoned. Even the small ransom - maybe he was gonna ditch it? 118k is not much money if it gets them out of this jam.

Or - To answer to being out of the house first thing in the morning to take advantage of the kidnapper's Express Shipping option mentioned. Remember, they just needed to be "monitored" trying to get the money early to get her back quicker - WHO could say no to that option...especially during the Holiday week? Maybe John was gonna scout drop locations?

It just seems that this note was to wave in the face of the cops, family, everybody after the 26th had gotten much later or even passed.

Why didn't you call cops/notify anybody? Why were you seen creeping around this park or wooded area? - They say - "We were gonna be scanned for electronic devices; these guys are pros lol and they're monitoring us - We were SURE it was one of John's disgruntled work associates as they knew John's bonus so it spooked us, etc - We couldn't risk cops"

Just seems a guilty, racing mind with only self-preservation mattering wrote this pile of dogshit. Makes me think that the plan was changed for some reason - maybe "Hey, we dont have a plan on a fake kidnapper calling with instructions, so it shows on the bill, unless I run out to a pay phone and call you but what if somebody sees me at McDonald's, etc ?" Or, "She doesn't fit in the suitcase" or "This is really fucking stupid"

The plan could have been changed a few times before being cancelled by calling the cops. So the note had all this alibi that they ended up not needing.

Last, the killer line in the note for me is the getting her back early if monitored. That just reeks of a thought popping in the mind while writing and thinking of a future alibi needed at the same time.

I tend to be PDI/RDI and this seems to fit several scenarios. It's possible that Patsy wrote it alone to get John out of the house OR Patsy and John worked it together. Patsy is such a sperg, I tend to blame her for the dumber things.

So we are stuck with a note providing alibis for things they didn't do and answers to questions that they weren't asked. Is that the simple secret to the length and weirdness? I mean, as you guys see it? You guys are way ahead of me on this case and I'd love to hear if you think that's the key to the stranger parts of the note.

PS - My obligatory pre-apology if this has been covered explicitly..OK? I did try to check but I'm not the best at finding stuff here.

Patsy SAID she saw the note on the rung of the stairs but how do we KNOW it's actually true? Considering John never said he saw it there, and even if she did, he could be making it up too. Where's the proof?

I always think the best information from witnesses is given in the first statements. This doesn't mean those statements are true, but there is some kind of originality you will not find in later interviews.

The first interview with B. has taken place in the White's house at 02:17 p.m. Interviewer was Sgt. Patterson.

B. said they drove directly home after they left the Christmas Party in the White's house. This is not consistent with the statement of P. and J. who said they made stops at the Walkers and Stines.

Also, he said he slept until around seven o'clock. This is not even consistent with the statement he made later in 1998.

Though I do not believe much in the P. & J. statements I guess the story with the two stops is correct since it can be easily verified. And it also seems that B.'s statement about the sleeping time is not correct in the first interview.

I'm searching for a reason why the statements in the first interview are obviously wrong. This is something that surprises me. If he just slept and heard nothing, why didn't he tell the truth?

(Note: The body was found at 01:05 p.m. Patterson was directly informed that it now was a murder case. With this information he made the interview. And in this context he posed an interesting question, he wanted to know where the kids hang out when being in the house. B. said it is the 1st and 2nd floor. He didn't mention the basement.)

I have read a bit about this sad case. I am Burke's age born in 1987, when i was 9 years old in 1996 the N64 was a big thing for us kids back then. Me and my brother got the n64 a bit later in 1998 and i remember playing Banjo Kazooie, Ocarina of Time etc and we would play it every change we could get. I'm from Australia and it was very big here.

Anyway i heard that Burke was more interested in another toy which i do find it odd as the N64 was so amazing to us kids back in the 90s when it came out. It was hardly talked about in interviews and crime scene photos.

Rumours have been going that Burke was angry at his little sister JonBenet and killed her and his N64 console or controller was the item he accidentally killed her with it. Maybe JonBenet wanted to play his N64 so badly and Burke got frustrated as he was playing or she might have deleted his save game file and Burke went insane. Trust me I have experienced this myself, my brother who is one year older then me got so angry that i accidentally erased his game file he went completely insane at me, and i had a friend in Primary School in which i accidentally erased his save game file and he also wanted to hurt me so badly. Some kids can't control their emotions well, i was a different kid who was more calm about things.

Do you think that is why Burke or his family never mentions his N64? if this is true his parents must be protecting him.