JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother Burke

by sallypelt 20.09.16 11:47

'Burke did it': Crime show claims JonBenet Ramsey WAS killed by her 'violent' older brother and her parents covered it up after the siblings 'clashed over a midnight snack of fresh pineapple'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797692/Burke-did-Crime-claims-JonBenet-Ramsey-killed-violent-older-brother-parents-covered-siblings-argued-pineapple-midnight-snack.html

by **Tony Bennett** 20.09.16 13:11

sallypelt wrote:'Burke did it': Crime show claims JonBenet Ramsey WAS killed by her 'violent' older brother and her parents covered it up after the siblings 'clashed over a midnight snack of fresh pineapple'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797692/Burke-did-Crime-claims-JonBenet-Ramsey-killed-violent-older-brother-parents-covered-siblings-argued-pineapple-midnight-snack.html

If correct, it's an uncanny echo of the nineteenth century brutal and planned killing of 3-year-old Saville Kent by his half-sister Constance Kent, a true story brilliantly told in 'The Suspicions of Mr Whicher': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Suspicions_of_Mr_Whicher

Jealousy was the motive - Saville's father doted on him, while he and his second wife treated Constance and her other real sibling abominably

by sallypelt 20.09.16 13:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:'Burke did it': Crime show claims JonBenet Ramsey WAS killed by her 'violent' older brother and her parents covered it up after the siblings 'clashed over a midnight snack of fresh pineapple'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797692/Burke-did-Crime-claims-JonBenet-Ramsey-killed-violent-older-brother-parents-covered-siblings-argued-pineapple-midnight-snack.html
If correct, it's an uncanny echo of the nineteenth century brutal and planned killing of 3-year-old Saville Kent by his half-sister Constance Kent, a true story brilliantly told in 'The Suspicions of Mr Whicher': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Suspicions_of_Mr_Whicher

Jealousy was the motive - Saville's father doted on him, while he and his second wife treated Constance and her other real sibling abominably

If this IS the case, and Burke was responsible for his sister's death, to call it murder would be absurd. He was only 9 years of age, and it sounds quite plausible that he may have hit her over the head with something in a bout of jealousy or annoyance. How many of us can either remember, as children, or from our own children, that they would push a younger sibling on the stairs, for example. Anything can happen in a flash, when youngsters are concerned. Thankfully, it rarely leads to serious injury, but on occasions, it can be fatal.

I believe that this is quite close to what really happened. From what I've seen of Burke Ramsey, he comes across as having a type of mental illness. Maybe this has been a lifetime condition, and like all loving parents, the Ramseys tried to make the best of a very bad situation. I can't imagine that Burke, being so young, would have been prosecuted for murder, but he may have been take away from his parents, and John and Patsy Ramsey were going to do everything in their power to "protect" the son, who I have no doubt, they loved dearly. I believe that the Ramseys could do this, because they had power and wealth, and therefore could buy in favours. That doesn't make it right, but it goes a long way to explain what MAY have happened.

Of course, this is just my opinion, based on what I have read and heard over the last 20 years. However, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that whatever happened, happened INSIDE the family.

by lj 20.09.16 22:10

Somehow I have always thought that Burke did it. I have't seen the show. I did not see the interview with the fake dr Phil either (I hate the man). I have not a lot of arguments for it, but that has been my suspicion all those years.

by secrets and lies 20.09.16 22:31

I recall reading that the mother, Patsy, had denied that the children had eaten pineapple even though one of the attending officers saw some pieces in a bowl near the crime scene and the findings of the autopsy concluded that JonBenet had pineapple in her digestive system and had clearly eaten it recently.

Their was also the bizarre and rambling "ransom note" written and torn from a legal pad. A detective, upon searching the Ramsey home was said to have found a practice version of same along with the legal pad itself. This in itself makes sense, since the parents obviously wanted to create a kidnapping scenario. Yet they executed it so carelessly and oddly that it was almost as if they were trying to implicate themselves.

I wonder if their is more to the story than simply "Burke did it"?

Wasn't their evidence on sexual abuse on this child and hadn't she been treated by a GP on numerous occasions? If they were merely covering for their son why the need for such an elaborate and violent crime scene? Their appears to be much here that doesn't make sense even with this new revelation.

The little I know about this case makes me think of and associate with the McCanns. In particular the very untypical reaction of the parents, their very deliberate contamination of the crime scene in front of officers (similar to the McCanns cleaning on their apartment though that was done before the cops arrived!) and lots of other oddities in the case.

by Guest 20.09.16 23:59

So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!

by Guest 21.09.16 0:29

I will wait for the documentary to judge properly, but I can't see a thing to substantiate this theory in the article linked. It leans on misconceptions, ignores elements of the crime completely, seems to rely on character assassination (ignorance of social anxiety) and I can't see anything 'new'.

- It was determined in the autopsy that there had been sexual assault but there was no indication she had suffered it previously.
- We know she was garroted at the minimum 45 minutes AFTER the blow to her head.
- There never was any snow to 'not leave footprints in'
- The unidentified male DNA did not belong to anyone in the household
- The 'voices on the 911 call' are as credible as backmasking
- Burke was never made a suspect
- Being socially awkward does not equal weirdo/sociopath

etc etc

Over Christmas the family had taken part in an event where friends visited eachothers homes to show off their decorations, it would have been very easy for someone to have remained behind, whether the basement window was broken or not. Many people could have gleaned the number of John's bonus during this time.

I felt for years that Patsy probably wrote the note and that the murderer was known to her at least, though more recently I'm wavering on her having any involvement. Whoever wrote it clearly knew the family and had reason to conceal their identity - in execution, poorly.

I don't rule out the possibility of a child committing a horrendous murder - it's happened before. But I just don't see anything to back up this theory as yet, seems its just trial by media.

by MayMuse 21.09.16 2:00

Verdi wrote:So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!

Don't believe that at all, so how does that make sense of the theory which some believe, that she was bludgeoned over the head afterwards and not before?
Burke was supposedly abusing his sister and then hit her over the head? Or her parents hit her over the head for what ? To put her out of her misery and to cover for their son?
Can't see it, sorry!
Where's the evidence?

Jonbenet was a beautiful child and her last moments do not bear thinking about, the pain, the fear; I just cannot see anyone who loved her putting her through such a horrendous, torturous experience and watching her take her last breath!
The whole case is so conflicting and confusing, 20 years and no justice...unbelievable!
May she rest in peace.
IMO

Warning graphic
https://youtu.be/TpZjMQJDvz8

by The Rooster 21.09.16 7:03

Sexual abuse, a blow to the head, a makeshift garrotte and a nine year old boy!!! I'm not buying that for one minute.

by Guest 21.09.16 7:06

Verdi wrote:So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!

I don't think so.

But someone was.

And someone was aware of post-mortem revelations.

Possibly similar to another case.

by Tennison 21.09.16 7:10

The Rooster wrote:Sexual abuse, a blow to the head, a makeshift garrotte and a nine year old boy!!! I'm not buying that for one minute.

Look what Thompson and Venables did to James Bulger and they were only ten.

by Guest 21.09.16 7:13

April28th wrote:
- The unidentified male DNA did not belong to anyone in the household

True.

But the amount of DNA was minuscule.

Crime scene contamination and contamination at manufacturers could not be ruled out.

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-experts-examine-dna-found-on-underwear-w440397

by canada12 21.09.16 7:50

Why was JonBenet wearing knickers if she'd gone to bed? Did I miss something? Wouldn't she have been in pyjamas? Or was she wearing panties under her PJs?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.16 8:15

BlueBag wrote:
Verdi wrote:So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!
I don't think so.

But someone was.

Yes, and to reinforce the point that whatever happened to JonBenet, she had been repeatedly sexually abused in the past, I am bringing this article over from the other JonBenet thread, where incidentally I have also posted an article on the Caylee Anthony and JpnBenet cases by Wendy Murphy (the lady who declared on Fox News 'I'm not buying it' over DCI Redwood's dodgy Smithman efits). The last two paragraphs touch on evidence in the JonBenet case:

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

Casey Anthony: Was It Satanic Ritual Abuse?

Posted on July 20, 2011 | 39 Comments

I can’t quite figure it out and that’s no surprise since the prosecution couldn’t either. Everything I may say about Casey and what might have really happened is speculation, but I speculate that her parents were very much involved- right from the start.
Some basic facts to the story include:

– Casey tried to give Caylee up at birth but her mother, Cindy, wouldn’t let her. Normally, if a woman wants to adopt her child out, that is up to her. This tells me that Cindy had a lot of control over her daughter.

– On the original 9-1-1 call, Cindy calls to report that Casey has stolen her car and needs to be arrested. Then, when the call is transferred, one can hear Cindy saying to Casey that she will next bring up the ‘child thing’. Casey asks for ‘one more day’ but Cindy tells her ‘I’ve given you a month’. This sounds to me like it indicates that Cindy has known all along that the child has been missing. Also, the fact that Cindy first calmly reports an auto theft, then brings up the dead body smell in her daughter’s car, and finally discloses the fact that the child is missing and breaks into hysterics on cue, tells me that this was planned, staged and theatric. Again, it leads me to suspect that Cindy was heavily involved and was the one to decide how and when they would bring this to the authorities. If your granddaughter was missing, would you first bring up other issues before reporting this on a call? And why would you break into tears only at the end of the call? If this was the first Cindy had heard of it, I would imagine she would have called in tears and immediately reported the most important part first: Caylee’s disappearance.

– During the 9-1-1 call, Cindy also states to Casey that Caylee is ‘with Zanny’, the nanny, although it later turned out that there was no Zanny the Nanny. The name Zenaida Gonzales had been chosen by Casey, or more likely Cindy, for some unknown reason, and the only woman in the area with that name is now suing Casey for defamation of character. I can’t help but notice that ‘Zanny the Nanny’ is very catchy, the kind of thing one would remember easily. The kind of name a suspect would have in a movie. Was it Cindy who came up with this? Cindy clearly knew there was no ‘Zanny’, yet she mentioned this fabrication to Casey while waiting for their call to be transferred, as if going over their invented story to make sure Casey had it straight. Why do I think Cindy knew there was no ‘Zanny’? Because she spoke about her as if she knew this woman, calling her by her nickname and not ‘her (Caylee’s) nanny’. If Zanny didn’t exist and Cindy talked about her like she knew her, my guess is it would be because she was involved in creating the lie about her. The alternative would have been that Casey had been lying to her mother for months about a fictitious nanny. What purpose would this serve? The only purpose Zanny served was to divert the cops’ attention, so I think she was made up during the month Caylee was missing.

– During the month that Caylee was missing, Casey partied, went shopping and got a tattoo that said ‘Bella Vita’ : beautiful life. This is bizarre behaviour for someone whose kid is missing or has just died.

– During the recorded conversations between Cindy and Casey while Casey was in prison, it’s obvious that Cindy is the one in control. One can clearly see Casey’s frustration at barely being able to get a word in edgewise. Cindy looks to me like the brains of the operation.

– A couple of years into the trial, Casey suddenly states that her daughter died as the result of a drowning accident. Obviously, this is very bizarre.

– The coroner had found duct tape on the child’s skull. She concluded that Caylee was the victim of a homicide and that drowning was unlikely.

– Traces of chloroform were found in Casey’s car along with undetermined DNA that was either human or animal- they couldn’t tell for sure.

– A search for ‘how to make chloroform’ was found on Casey’s computer. Cindy said she was responsible for it, but that it happened accidentally with autocomplete while she was looking up chlorophyll. It turned out that Cindy was at work while this Google search was done, so she had to be lying about it. Why did she lie?

– Right near the end of the trial, Casey’s lawyer stated that Casey had been sexually abused by her father from the time she was eight and that this is why she was in the habit of lying about everything.

– While in prison, Casey did not act like someone who had just lost her child. She came across very self-centered, saying that this whole affair was ‘ruining her life’, and referred to Caylee as ‘that little girl’. Later, in prison, she had a change of behaviour and started acting like she didn’t have a care in the world.

My speculations are that not only were the grandparents heavily involved in whatever happened, but this might have involved ritual abuse. Possibly Casey had been ritually abused from the time she was a child. The accusations of molestation woudl fit in with that and it would explain Casey’s bizarre behaviour, as people who undergo this kind of trauma often become very dissociated, sometimes to the point of splitting into two personalities. This could explain her sudden change in demeanor while in prison and her apparent lack of emotions with regards to the death of her child. I would even consider the possibility that Casey tried to give Caylee up to spare her whatever she had gone through herself. As for motive, when it comes to Casey the only motive I could imagine would be wanting to spare her daughter from the same abuse she had endured. This would explain why everyone she knew attested that she was a good mother. maybe she was. Either that or she saw the child as a burden, but the testimonies don’t point to this.
It is also possible that Casey actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that her own parents were directly or indirectly responsible for it.

Cindy comes across as a very strong figure, a mastermind, the one in control. I would suspect that she was the one who all along planned how they would turn Casey, who was not responsible, in. They would do this once the body was decomposed and would conspire in elaborate lies that would lead the police on more than one wild goose chase. Did Cindy or her husband kill Caylee as a ritual sacrifice, or did they allow someone else to sacrifice her? What did they stand to gain from it? I cannot make any accusations, I can only wonder.

But I do wonder, because this case reminds me so much of the JonBenet Ramsey case, in which mountains of circumstantial evidence pointed to the parents, yet they were exonerated. As it turned out, they were involved in a Satanic coven that included judges as well as others in high places. JonBenet had started to speak to teachers about people in robes abusing her, and she had been taken to the doctor 60 times in one year for repeated yeast infections. Her vagina was twice the size of a normal 6-year-olds.

Sexual abuse in both families, plenty of circumstantial evidence, obvious lies involving the entire family, and a verdict of ‘not guilty’ based on insufficient evidence: it is clear both cases have that much in common. But do they also have something even more sinister in common including involvement in Satanic ritual abuse? I can only speculate.

by Guest 21.09.16 11:53

Pineapple.

She ate pineapple just before she died.

There was a half eaten bowl of pineapple on the table downstairs.

Also JonBenet's pillow was down on the table as well.

Also in the Dr Phil interview Burke said he was up and about after everyone was asleep.

Burke said he remembered getting out of bed that night. “Yeah, I had some toy that I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was kind of in bed and wanted to get this thing out. I just remember being downstairs; I remember this toy.”

The toy was likely the train set. The two marks on the back of JonBenet may have been the ends of one of the track pieces.

Dr Phil asked him if he has eaten pineapple with her.

Dr. Phil also addressed the fragments of undigested pineapple found in JonBenét’s stomach, and the bowl that was found with Patsy’s fingerprints on it next to a glass of iced tea with Burke’s fingerprints. “Maybe. I don’t remember specifically eaten pineapple but we very well could have,” he said. “Would you remember eating pineapple 20 years ago?”

Maybe?

I think Burke knows a lot he's not telling about.

I read Burke had some issues with JonBenet, I read he smeared feces on one of her christmas presents the day before. He had also hit her across the face with a golf club some time before.

[*]

[*]FBI special agent says Burke Ramsey had 'history of scatological problems'
[*]Ex-housekeeper says forensic team found faeces on Christmas present
[*]Burke also smeared faeces on a bathroom wall, according to documentary

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3799601/Claims-JonBenet-Ramsey-killed-older-brother-Burke-smeared-faeces-wall.html#ixzz4Kt1dPnXq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[*]

My opinion at the moment is that I think Burke may have clubbed her with something like the flashlight (which was clean of any fingerprints, also the batteries inside).

Then the parents staged the rest for some obviously very serious reason (to them).

by Amy Dean 21.09.16 12:35

If it is true about Burke's previous behaviour and if he did kill his sister, his parents were probably afraid that he would be taken away from them - hence the cover-up from day one.

by Guest 21.09.16 12:48

BlueBag wrote:
Verdi wrote:So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!
I don't think so.

But someone was.

And someone was aware of post-mortem revelations.

Possibly similar to another case.

by MayMuse 21.09.16 12:51

I think someone may be sued over that documentary!

Incidentally Train marks were ruled out as they do not cause burns.
JonBenet walked behind Burke as he was taking a swing playing at golf and it hit her from behind his shoulder, it was an accident. If there was an issue with Burkes behaviour I would have thought the Ramsey's would have got professional help for him. They were extremely wealthy, of course they also could have completely disappeared the "body" to stage a complete kidnapping. They didn't, they hid her in the basement to be found? I don't think so.

If teachers were told of people in robes abusing her then shame on them and the media for printing it and the police for not investigating down that road!

by Guest 21.09.16 12:53

MayMuse wrote:Incidentally Train marks were ruled out as they do not cause burns.

They were not burns.

"Abrasions".

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?180017-The-train-track

by sallypelt 21.09.16 13:01

BlueBag wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Incidentally Train marks were ruled out as they do not cause burns.
They were not burns.

"Abrasions".

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?180017-The-train-track

I am posting this link, but if you are of a squeamish nature, please do not open, as the photographs are very graphic and upsetting:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?9784-JonBenet-Ramsey-autopsy-photos-CAUTION-GRAPHIC!/page2

by MayMuse 21.09.16 13:04

BlueBag wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Incidentally Train marks were ruled out as they do not cause burns.
They were not burns.

"Abrasions".

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?180017-The-train-track

Marks Inflicted on Christmas Night. "defendants {John and Patsy Ramsey} have presented photographs of JonBenet taken Christmas morning that clearly reveal the absence of any marks on her neck. (See Defs.' Ex. 33 attach. To Summ. J. Mot. 68.) Yet, the autopsy report clearly shows reddish, burn-type marks on JonBenet's neck and back. (See Autopsy Photos attach. as Defs.' Ex. 27-30 to Smit. Dep.)" (Carnes 2003:98).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20Gun

by Guest 21.09.16 13:08

MayMuse wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Incidentally Train marks were ruled out as they do not cause burns.
They were not burns.

"Abrasions".

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?180017-The-train-track

Marks Inflicted on Christmas Night. "defendants {John and Patsy Ramsey} have presented photographs of JonBenet taken Christmas morning that clearly reveal the absence of any marks on her neck. (See Defs.' Ex. 33 attach. To Summ. J. Mot. 68.) Yet, the autopsy report clearly shows reddish, burn-type marks on JonBenet's neck and back. (See Autopsy Photos attach. as Defs.' Ex. 27-30 to Smit. Dep.)" (Carnes 2003:98).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20Gun

Absolutely not burns.

The autopsy did not say burns.

Whoever wrote that snippet was interpreting what they saw "shows" in the report.

Read the thread.

by Guest 21.09.16 13:51

Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8F4q0E9c1E

And keep you jaw from dropping when they get to the involvement of the DA.

Disgraceful.

The Grand Jury voted to indict the parents and the DA suppressed it and kept it secret for years.

by MayMuse 21.09.16 15:52

CBS Documentary part 1

https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4

Part 2

https://youtu.be/lpIB49V2izU

by Doug D 21.09.16 16:03

Family of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey vow to sue over documentary that suggests brother may have been involved

JonBenet Ramsey was found strangled and beaten in 1996 CREDIT: REX

Our Foreign Staff 21 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 3:18PM

The lawyer for the family of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey has denounced a documentary theorizing she was killed by her brother,

Burke, as a "false and unprofessional television attack" and threatened to sue the network for libel.

L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta attorney who said he had successfully other media outlets over similar accusations against Burke Ramsey, branded the program as a broadcast riddled with "lies, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions."

"I will be filing a lawsuit on behalf of Burke Ramsey," Mr Wood said in a telephone interview. "CBS' false and unprofessional attacks on this young man are disgusting and revolting."

The network responded to Mr Wood with a terse statement: "CBS stands by the broadcast and will do so in court."

The two-part, four-hour program aired amid a wave of media coverage surrounding the 20th anniversary of the JonBenet Ramsey case, one of the most sensational unsolved murders in the annals of American crime.

The body of the blond, blue-eyed girl, who had been beaten and strangled, was found in the basement of her parents' Boulder, Colorado, home on Dec. 26, 1996, hours after her parents reported the 6-year-old child missing and a ransom note left in the house.

No one has been charged with her murder. A grand jury voted in 1999 to indict the parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, but then-District Attorney Alex Hunter declined to file charges, citing a lack of evidence.

In the conclusion of the CBS show that aired on Monday, a panel of experts said it was its opinion that Burke Ramsey, who was 9 at the time of the homicide, struck his sister in the head with a heavy object, perhaps not intending to kill her.

The girl's parents then staged a crime scene to make it appear that an intruder was the culprit, the group of law enforcement, forensic pathologists and other experts concluded.

Wood called CBS "corporate profit mongers" who aired the program during the September "sweeps" for maximum ratings benefit.

In a recent interview on the "Dr. Phil" talk show, Burke Ramsey, now 29, denied that he harmed his sister, and said he suspected a pedophile who stalked child beauty pageants was the killer.

Wood said a written disclaimer that CBS aired with its show, saying the opinions "represent just some of a number of possible scenarios," did not go far enough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/family-of-murdered-child-beauty-queen-jonbenet-ramsey-vow-to-sue/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

by Guest 21.09.16 16:26

The 911 call by Patsy Ramsey is not right.

She rings up and drops the call without even knowing that the Police are on their way.

In my opinion there is no way you would leave the call without knowing there is something definitive going to happen.

Then she thinks she hung up but the call was still being recorded.

Then you can hear three voices in the background, one of them Burke who the parents said was still in bed.

by Guest 21.09.16 16:42

Doug D wrote:Family of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey vow to sue over documentary that suggests brother may have been involved

Good.

This needs to be slugged out with a new analysis of the evidence.

The film team wanted to analyse the flashlight and cords using latest DNA techniques.

by MayMuse 21.09.16 19:28

BlueBag wrote:
Doug D wrote:Family of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey vow to sue over documentary that suggests brother may have been involved
Good.

This needs to be slugged out with a new analysis of the evidence.

The film team wanted to analyse the flashlight and cords using latest DNA techniques.

I agree everything could be re-analysed to help put it to rest. I've watched the whole docu and the end conclusion could be possible, however it still does not convince that if this did happen in this way that both parents then systematically tortured their daughters body to look like an intruder/paedophile? One of the team in the documentary said follow the evidence of past actions and nowhere is there any violence from either parent, so how come they suddenly could concoct this situation in a matter of a few hours?
Needs more in my opinion, unfortunately it appears (as things have gone so far) that the Madeleine McCann case may still be unsolved in 20 years just like JonBenet, a saddening thought.

by Guest 21.09.16 20:33

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:So the nine year old brother Burke was systematically sexually abusing his sister prior to her murder? No further comment!

Jonbenet was a beautiful child and her last moments do not bear thinking about, the pain, the fear; I just cannot see anyone who loved her putting her through such a horrendous, torturous experience and watching her take her last breath!

JonBenet Ramsay was an ordinary six year old child regularly made up to look twenty years older. It's an established fact that the majority of cases of child abuse involve a family member or someone close to the family.

The evidence shows that JonBenet Ramsay had been systematically sexually abused - it therefore has to be a close family member or she was being pimped. Either way the parents were deeply involved, no way can I believe that the parents were unaware of what was happening to their daughter.

It's a conspiracy, which appears to be the norm in most cases of child abuse - somebody needs to be asking why..

by Guest 21.09.16 21:34

The DNA.

The people in the film bought some new panties from a shop.

They were covered in DNA from the manufacturing process.

DNA is can also be transferred by contact with other items of clothing.

The DNA did not exonerate the parents - the authorities were wrong to say it did.

There were political decisions being made all along - the DA was a disgrace.