I have been reluctant for many years to investigate the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey. The main reason is the case has been examined by many seasoned investigators, and their investigations have come to oftentimes differing conclusions. It doesn’t help to know that in the initial 24 hours of the investigation the Boulder Police made several mistakes that may taint the case and make it difficult if not impossible to ever bring justice to the person(s) responsible for her death.
Nevertheless, I know the case very well. I have examined most of the known evidence, and I will admit what is known is baffling. For example, the Boulder DA has exonerated the Ramsey family because their DNA did not match the evidence found at the crime scene: however, in a recent CBS documentary, the expert panel concluded the DNA evidence is not sufficient to rule out anyone: including the Ramsey family.
But these issues go back to the very beginning of the investigation as the Boulder Police disagreed with the Boulder DA on who was responsible. The tabloid and print media became obsessed with the murder of the six-year-old beauty pageant queen and the case became sensationalized with tantalizing and scandalous headlines splashed in bold letters on newspapers on shelves in every supermarket chain in the United States.
Even more, there were leaks coming from someone inside the case, such as initial reports stated there had been no footprints found in the snow leading to or from the Ramsey home leading police and the public to believe the Ramsey’s were responsible for the murder. Nevertheless, as it turns out, there was no snow on the walkway outside the Ramsey home, meaning it was possible someone had broken into the Ramsey home the night of the murder. Still, much of the initial leaks and stories are still considered as the truth by those who either ignore the mistakes made by police, or by those who have forgotten most of the facts but have determined someone in the Ramsey home is guilty of murder.
The strained relationship between the BPD and the BDA became worse when the DA’s office brought in Lou Smit, a retired, but highly respected homicide detective to re-examine the case. And what he found suggested the BPD had bungled the investigation from the outset and the evidence he gathered caused him to conclude that someone, an unknown intruder, entered the home Christmas night and murdered JonBenet, ruling out the Ramsey’s altogether.
Much of the information I espouse on this report can be found online rather easily. One will read about the complications from the outset of the investigation, the multiple who done it theories, and reports on plausible suspects and discover as I have why it is one side is certain the Ramsey family is culpable, and why the other side disagrees and believes there is no way the Ramsey family would hurt their own child or attempt to cover up the crime afterward.
However, using the MSCTEM and operating under the premise there is an absolute answer even if at this time no one has been held accountable, through a better understanding of the actual evidence, and deductive reasoning, this report believes it is plausible to ascertain a reasonable explanation as to the motive behind the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
Besides the differing expert opinions as to if someone in the Ramsey home committed the crime versus an unknown intruder, each and every person who has been investigated seems to be a likely suspect at face value.
For instance, “Santa Bill” is an intriguing suspect, I won’t go into the full back story, and he too like the Ramsey family has been ruled out due to no DNA match; the details, his backstory, and relationship with JonBenet are intriguing to any professional or amateur investigator.
Still, there are multiple persons of interest in this case just as intriguing as “Santa Bill” and yet to date, not one person investigated has matched the DNA evidence. It is plausible as the experts in the CBS documentary posited that the DNA evidence collected at the crime scene is too weak to link to any person, and perhaps the claim they made that the DNA may have come from a secondary transfer such as the maker of JonBenet’s clothing she wore is true making the DNA evidence invalid altogether.
On the other hand, other experts disagree and claim the DNA evidence is strong and can be, and has been utilized to rule out suspects and will be utilized in the future to rule out other possible suspects.
Another problem one is presented with when examining this case is that it is currently an open investigation. Although much of the information about the case has been made public, the BPD and the Boulder DA seem reluctant to allow independent investigators to assist in the case, so those working the case are working off of information that is publicly accessible, without examining the actual case files or evidence collected from the crime scene.
Thre are multiple websites dedicated to the investigation of the unsolved murder, books written about the case from journalist, detectives who worked the case and even JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey. There have been several televised documentaries in which the multiple theories are discussed. Many documentaries leave the who done it question unanswered and allow the viewer to decide. While the CBS documentary came to the conclusion that JonBenet’s older brother Burke murdered his sister in a fit of rage and his parents staged the crime scene and the ransom note afterward.
Even so, the Ramsey family denies this claim and has sued CBS for defamation and have always maintained their innocence.
I have spent several months examining this cold case, and I too find it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in a case that has been sensationalized and with so many falsehoods that have since been disproven still persisting to this day about the case. With that said, however, this report does not offer up a potential suspect but feels confident in its conclusion that the most plausible explanation is an unknown intruder with intentions of burglarizing the Ramsey home, possibly believing they had left town for the holidays, broke into the Ramsey home, discovered the home was still occupied and what began as an intent to burglarize the home led to the attempted kidnapping of JonBenet believing by doing so, the suspect would make a bigger score, yet in the process of kidnapping the six-year-old from her home, the suspect in an attempt to subdue the young girl or keep her quiet, panicked and inadvertently murdered her.
In coming to this conclusion this report has analyzed all the known evidence from the three-page ransom letter to the injuries sustained to JonBenet Ramsey, from the blunt force trauma which fractured her skull to the strangulation by a ligature fashioned to a broken paintbrush and used as a makeshift garotte.
The ransom note for example as compared to other known ransom letters seems atypical in regards to the length of the letter, it was written on a notepad and a pen owned by the Ramsey family, and is addressed to John Ramsey as if the suspect knew or at the least was familiar with the family.
This report finds it is plausible the suspect(s) did not need to know the Ramsey family prior to the night JonBenet was murdered to have learned details or inferred certain details by simply being in the home that could have been used to appear as if the suspect(s) knew the family.
In magic most “psychics” will perform cold readings and sometimes hot readings to learn pertinent information about an individual. In this case, the suspect(s) did not need to know the Ramsey family to recognize by observing the home that the occupants were most likely wealthy. The suspect(s) did not need to know who was living in the home to target it expecting to find items of value to steal from the home.
It is also important to note that statistics show that the holidays are when people’s homes are more at risk of being burglarized. Even more important, in the days leading up to the death of JonBenet, there had been several unsolved burglaries in Boulder.
Although it is plausible, the suspect had been in the home prior to the night of the murder and may have known of the Ramsey’s without having met them, it is not entirely necessary to conclude the suspect(s) had to have ever been in the home or even knew who lived there and targeted the home, perhaps stalked the property a few days before, and chose Christmas night to break into the home either believing the family would be gone for the holidays or was brazen enough to enter the home regardless even if the family was still in the home.
This report does not believe the original intent was to abduct JonBenet, because if this were the original intention the suspect would have most likely written the ransom letter before entering the home, and would have abducted her, and left the premises with her safely.
This report believes the original intent was to burglarize the home and only after entering the home and finding it still occupied concocted a plan to abduct JonBenet and forego burglarizing the home because the suspect measured the risk versus reward and made the decision the reward of ransom was greater than the risk of being caught and most likely more valuable than stealing piecemeal items that would be more difficult to fence after the crime.
It is believed the suspect(s) was organized, at least when it came to the crime of burglary. The suspect(s) most likely brought items such as a stun gun, rope and duct tape in case the suspect(s) encountered someone within the home. It is believed the suspect(s) targeted specific items such as jewelry, cash, guns, and other small valuable items that could be easily taken from the home and fenced quickly once the job was finished and overlooked bigger bulkier items.
This report finds that the most credible evidence to support this theory is the atypical ransom letter. The author of this letter goes to great lengths to project the abduction as being part of a concerted effort carried out by a skilled group of professionals that are monitoring the movements of the Ramsey family and are also familiar with Law Enforcement techniques to dissuade the Ramsey family from contacting Law Enforcement and dealing directly with the abductor.
This report suggests the suspect(s) believed the more dangerous the threat the less likely the Ramsey’s would be to risk their daughter’s life and instead of contacting the police would move immediately to secure the ransom. The suspect is taking a major risk and becomes disorganized at this point by believing the threatening letter would be enough to prevent the Ramsey’s from contacting Law Enforcement. It is also believed the suspect(s) once they removed JonBenet from the home would, in fact, be watching the Ramsey home and perhaps naively believing they would follow John Ramsey to his bank, wait outside until he had secured the ransom and would approach him outside the bank and make the exchange.
The suspect(s) would make a huge score, no one gets hurt, John Ramsey is wealthy and the ransom he paid would not bankrupt him and John Ramsey would be so happy to have his daughter back safe and secure that would be the end of the ordeal. The suspect(s) would go on with their lives and the Ramsey’s would go on with theirs and in the suspect(s) mind, the reward of succeeding outweighed all the risk.
The logic behind this conclusion is based on the atypical ransom letter that was written after-the-fact once the suspect(s) were in the home and not premeditated prior to entering the home. In theory, once the suspect(s) is inside the home and has abducted JonBenet the suspect(s) needs only walk out any door and complete the objective of a successful abduction. However, in practice, this report believes that the suspect(s) may have underestimated their own ability to physically restrain the six-year-old and in an attempt to stop her from struggling or crying out for help assaulted her causing the skull fracture that even though the blow by the blunt force object was enough to cause death, her death did not happen immediately.
This report believes the act of strangulation was most likely not “overkill” but believes it is plausible the suspect(s) were unaware of the skull fracture caused by the blunt force trauma because although the skull was fractured, the trauma did not break the skin and cause bleeding. From the suspect(s) perspective, it may have appeared that JonBenet had been knocked unconscious but the suspect(s) believed she was still very much alive. Within seconds the suspect(s) would most likely realize the injury was more serious and this report believes it is plausible that upon sustaining the traumatic brain injury JonBenet may have began making a loud guttural snoring sound known as a “death rattle” which caused the suspect(s) to panic and lead to attempts by the suspect to wake up JonBenet, and when this did not work strangled her and then left the home leaving behind the ransom letter and perhaps even a flashlight used to cause the blunt force trauma.
This report has examined the layout of the Ramsey home and has found evidence suggesting that there were multiple points of entry the suspect(s) may have used to enter the home. Although most reports that support the “intruder theory” point towards a basement window that had been broken a few months earlier by John Ramsey as the most likely point of entry, Law Enforcement has acknowledged there were other points of entry, windows, and doors that were never examined in the initial investigation that may have been unlocked and unsecured. It is also known that although the Ramsey home was equipped with an alarm system, the Ramsey family did not use the system and hadn’t for months prior to the murder of JonBenet. Although the basement window is plausible as a point of entry one should not summarily ignore other plausible points of entry.
The Ramsey home was four stories when one includes the basement. The basement was used primarily as storage. The first floor was spacious with a kitchen, a butler’s pantry, living room, and dining room and two staircases. One staircase, the primary could access the second and third floor, whereas the secondary staircase, a spiral staircase, was near the kitchen and it led to the second floor of the home. This is important to note because the spiral staircase was where the suspect(s) left the ransom letter on one of the steps to be found by the family. However, more importantly, the spiral staircase leads directly to the second floor and just outside of JonBenet’s bedroom. Her brother’s bedroom was also on the second floor but was on the opposite side closer to the primary staircase. The third floor of the home was the master bedroom for John and Patsy Ramsey.
Upon examination of the layout of the Ramsey home, one could posit the suspect(s) entered into the home from multiple points of entry either through the basement or through an opening on the first floor, but in some location near the kitchen and the spiral staircase. Once entering the home, the suspect(s) may have gone into the basement, and perhaps cased the first floor of the home but at some point proceeded up the spiral staircase and the first bedroom the suspect(s) would have approached would have been JonBenet’s.
This report finds it is plausible the suspect(s) intent was to burglarize the home perhaps even believing the home was empty, but at some point upon moving through the home and most likely up the spiral staircase discovered the home was occupied when they encountered JonBenet sleeping in her bedroom. The suspect(s) first instinct may have been to abort the burglary altogether and leave the Ramsey home or move back to the first floor and find items of value to take, and then as an afterthought concocted the plan to abduct JonBenet to attempt to collect a ransom from the Ramsey family.
Although it is believed the suspect(s) may have been an organized and experienced burglar, once the initial plan to burglarize the home was aborted and the suspect(s) concocted the kidnapping scheme, this goes against the suspect(s) normal pattern of behaviorism but the suspect(s) greed or bravado prevented the suspect(s) from abandoning the plan altogether, and once this happens the crime becomes less organized as the events unfold.
Because the home was occupied by the Ramsey family, the suspect(s) after changing course from burglary to kidnapping removed the writing pad and pen from the kitchen area, adjacent the spiral staircase, and then most likely moved into the basement and found the wine cellar provided the most secure location to pen the ransom letter. Once in the windowless wine cellar the suspect(s) could avoid detection if anyone inside the home woke up. It is believed that while in the wine cellar which was used as storage, the suspect(s) found information on items inside the cellar which provided the suspect(s) with pertinent information enabling them to address John Ramsey personally as if they were familiar with him, but may have never met or even knew his name until they entered the Ramsey home Christmas night.
This report does not believe the point of entry or point of exit occurred in the basement, but most likely through the butler door on the first floor. However, once the suspect entered into the basement to write the ransom letter the suspect(s) may have been prepared to exit the basement window if the suspect(s) had heard anyone moving around upstairs. This is evidenced by a suitcase that was near the window and a possible scuff mark made by the suspect(s) shoe, to test if the suspect(s) would be able to use the suitcase as a makeshift stool, and then hoist themselves out of the window if the suspect(s) needed to make a quick escape.
Up to this point, the suspect(s) is still organized and understands the need to find an alternate escape route if the suspect(s) is unable to make it back up to the first floor, but will only use this point of exit if something goes wrong, but prefers to utilize the original point of entry, the butler door, as the primary exit point.
It must also be noted that the basement window as an alternative escape route is practical for one to make a quick escape, it would not be the most practical exit point once the suspect(s) abducts JonBenet from her room when the better route would be to abduct her from her room, move down the spiral staircase and right out the butler door and once outside the Ramsey home move towards the suspect(s) vehicle. So this report finds the basement window was a secondary if needed in case of emergency escape route, but most likely not used by the suspect(s).
For the most part, this report believes that in the suspect(s) mind the suspect(s) had concocted a flawless plan, even if the original intent was to burglarize the home. Once the suspect(s) changed course and moved to abduct JonBenet in an attempt to force the Ramsey’s to follow the suspect(s) demand and pay the ransom money there was no turning back. The ransom letter is the key to the success of collecting the ransom believing the Ramsey family would not risk their daughter’s life if they were thoroughly convinced the kidnapping was part of a larger plot orchestrated by multiple people. The suspect(s) most likely had not considered an alternate plan for what would happen if the Ramsey’s did not follow the ransom letters instructions. Instead, the suspect(s) believed if the seriousness of the ransom letter was believed to be an authentic threat the Ramsey’s would be less inclined to involve Law Enforcement and seek to immediately secure the ransom money in the hopes of bringing their daughter back home and unharmed.
The suspect(s) after abducting Jon Benet would stay close by and monitor the house and would improvise on what to do if the Ramsey’s did not follow the instructions and contacted Law Enforcement. If the Ramsey’s were to disobey the suspect(s)s demand and contact Law Enforcement, the suspect(s) would be nearby to see if Law Enforcement arrived at the Ramsey home, and perhaps at this point would have aborted this plan and either let JonBenet go free, or take her to an isolated location and murder her. Nevertheless, if the suspect(s) plan worked, they would be nearby to watch John Ramsey leave the home, follow him, and hope he would drive directly to his bank and secure the ransom money and the suspect(s)
would approach John Ramsey and make the exchange within minutes rather than waiting to make a call and arrange a meeting place to make the exchange later the same day.
Throughout this report, the usage of the word suspect(s) is done so because it is unknown if more than one suspect was involved in the crime. Although this report’s opinion is only one person was responsible, it cannot rule out the possibility that the crime was committed by more than one person.
It is plausible this may be the reason for what began as an intent to burglarize the home took a drastic turn in which one suspect wanted to abort the burglary altogether once the home was found to be occupied and not empty while another suspect changed course and convinced the other of the scheme to abduct JonBenet. Yet this report cannot rule out only one suspect was involved and was not working with a partner. Both scenarios are plausible.
This report does believe the original intent whether by one suspect or by more than one suspect was to burglarize what was believed to be an unoccupied home, and once the home was discovered to be occupied one suspect did not want to waste the opportunity by leaving the home empty-handed and changed course from burglary to kidnapping. Once the change of plan was made the suspect went from being organized having followed a strict disciplined pattern in the past and became disorganized as the original intent evolved into a plot to abduct JonBenet from her home. In theory, the plan to abduct the six-year-old was worth the risk to attempt to collect the ransom, once the ransom letter was written and placed on the spiral staircase. The suspect(s) would then proceed upstairs, ambush JonBenet while she slept, tie her and gag her, and then carry her out of the room quickly down the spiral staircase and right out the nearby butler door and to the suspect(s) car and from that point would watch and wait to see if the Ramsey’s would follow the demands of the ransom letter.
Theoretically, it should have been a very simple task, but in the course of abducting JonBenet, it is believed the suspect(s) did not take into account the seemingly vulnerable six-year-old girl would prove more difficult to take without her putting up a fight and when this happened, what in theory should have been a perfect plan the suspect(s) lost control, the suspect(s) panicked and struck the girl with a blunt object, fracturing her skull, and when the suspect(s) were unable to wake her, and as JonBenet’s fracture caused her brain to swell and she began to either convulse or making a guttural and unnatural snoring sound known as a death rattle, the suspect(s) abandoned the plan to whisk her away through the butler door and instead panicked and moved back into the wine cellar area to prevent waking anyone in the house.
Once in the wine cellar, the suspect(s) was unaware of the severity of the injury to JonBenet’s brain that alone would have caused death, but she did not die quickly and the suspect may have tried in vain to wake the girl. When all attempts to revive her failed and the suspect(s) became disturbed by the horrific sounds JonBenet made as her brain swelled and her body began shutting down, this report concludes the suspect(s) in an act of mercy, or in an act of sheer panic, strangled JonBenet, covered her body, and moved back upstairs to the first floor and fled the scene leaving behind the ransom note and perhaps the blunt object used to cause a skull fracture, a large flashlight behind.
This report has taken into account all dissenting theories and examined multiple people of interest including the Ramsey family and finds no credible evidence to suggest the Ramsey family were involved in the murder or coverup of the murder. The main contributing factor of discounting the expert’s opinions explained in the CBS documentary is if in fact the DNA evidence is weak and should not be used to exonerate the Ramsey family, by making this claim it also implies that each person of interest who has been ruled out as a result of no match to the DNA found at the crime scene cannot be ruled out either. The CBS documentary did not discuss the multiple points of entry the suspect(s) may have used to gain access to the Ramsey home, but only sought to disprove the theory the suspect(s) most likely did not enter the home through the basement window. Another issue and perhaps the most compelling of reasons to rule out the Ramsey family and most especially the theory posited by the experts in the CBS documentary which concluded that JonBenet’s nine-year-old brother in a fit of rage fractured JonBenet’s skull with a blunt force object, and caused the Ramsey family to panic and stage the incident to appear as an attempted abduction, is it seems more likely based on the evidence the skull fracture although serious and most likely would have caused certain death, the Ramsey family would have been compelled to call an ambulance in an attempt to save their daughter’s life. From her parent’s perspective, although the head trauma was serious, it is not known to have broken the skin and cause bleeding, and they’d have no rational reason to believe JonBenet if she received emergency medical attention would not recover from her injury.
It is also important to note that the official autopsy report is unable to determine a time of death. The medical examiner is also unable to determine if JonBenet was a victim of a sexual assault the night she was murdered, although there were minor injuries discovered during the pelvic examination. The contents of her stomach were also examined and fragments of what are believed to be pineapple were found in JonBenet’s digestive tract, but there are multiple differing medical opinions as to when JonBenet ate the pineapple.
Again the same issues of differing expert opinions arise when examining the DNA evidence. Multiple handwriting experts who have examined the original ransom letter against the handwriting of the Ramsey family has ruled them out as being the author of the letter, while other experts who have relied on copies of the ransom letter without access to the actual ransom letter and compared to the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey, proclaim she is the author of the letter.
It is known that the Boulder Police were ill-equipped on how to handle a kidnapping case and made multiple errors during the initial investigation. The Boulder Police did not seal the home as a crime scene from the outset of the investigation and allowed multiple friends and family of the Ramsey’s to enter the home during the course of the day. The Boulder Police did not search the entire home and admittedly bypassed the wine cellar room. The Boulder Police did not check each window or door for any signs of entry from an unknown intruder. The only room in the house sealed and considered a crime scene was JonBenet’s bedroom. And although the police arrived at the Ramsey home around 6AM it would be another seven hours before JonBenet’s lifeless body would be found in the wine cellar by her own father after he was given permission by a detective at the scene to search the house again around 1PM. Once her distraught father found his daughter’s body he carried her upstairs, and the detective on site did not protect the integrity of the evidence but instead allowed for her grieving mother to lay across her daughter’s body and weep, afterward allowed the body to be covered by a blanket, and even more troublesome the detective moved JonBenet’s body a second time into another room. Only then was the entire house sealed by police and considered a crime scene and it would be another seven or eight hours before the medical examiner arrived at the home to collect evidence and remove the body to be taken to the coroner’s office.
However, this report does recommend this case as one that should be studied by students who want a career in Law Enforcement, or is practicing criminal law. This particular case is an example of how important it is to protect the integrity of all crime scenes; it is a case in which demonstrates the appropriate response by a district attorney’s office to not rush to judgment and arrest someone based on a presumption of guilt and press to find probable cause to make an arrest because they have a duty to not only find justice for the person responsible for committing this heinous crime but also have a duty to protect the innocent people from being prosecuted based on an assumption of guilt when the evidence collected contradicts even the most likely suspect.
The MCSTEM model has been created to examine cases that have gone cold, have little or no evidence left behind by a suspect and attempt to create a forensic triad through deductive reasoning by utilizing forensic tools from analyzing psychological criminal profiles, examining the Victimology, geography, by formulating hypotheses based on the known facts of the case to arrive at a functional operational theory to aid in identifying a suspect; locating the missing person (alive or deceased), if deceased create a grid system to be searched for a disposal site of a deceased person, and aiding in identifying deceased victims who have been discovered but have not been identified through forensic technology.
The MSCTEM is based on Erwin Schrodinger’s Thought Experiment in which he posed a scenario involving a “hypothetical” situation in which a cat is locked inside a box with a small amount of radiation inside the box; Schrodinger opined that the experimenter has no way of knowing before opening the box if the cat is still alive or has died due to the release of the radiation. Thus, he postulated that the cat just prior to the box being opened was in two states at the same time: dead and alive, and only until after the box is opened will the experimenter know for a fact whether the cat is alive or dead. Schrodinger used this thought experiment to explain the tribulations scientists face in regard to Quantum Mechanics.
The MCSTEM utilizes this thought experiment to better understand criminal psychology, missing person cases, unsolved cases, and unidentified person cases. For example, the MCSTEM not only questions whether the “cat” is alive or dead, it also suggests the “cat” may not be in the box, and thus, the box may hold all the answers as to why the “cat” is alive, dead, or missing; furthermore, the MCSTEM infers that the “box” containing the evidence is also missing, and in order to complete the forensic triad of connecting the victim to the suspect and both to the crime scene one has to locate the “box” where in many cases the victim or suspect(s) have possession of the “box”.
In order to complete the forensic triad when there is little or no forensic evidence left behind, no body, or no identification of a body, the MCSTEM establishes a deductive reasoning based profile on the suspect(s) and victims to attempt to construct a psychological profile of the suspect(s), to create waypoints to locate a missing person (in most cases disposal areas) or a profile of the unidentified person by using methods and protocols established by the FBI, and Forensic Investigators, who have studied multiple disciplines in their respective fields.
This report concludes based on the known evidence the forensic triad cannot be completed entirely because the suspect(s) are unknown but can deduce based on the Routine Activity Theory which stipulates three necessary conditions for most crimes: a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian coming together in time and space, the crime originated with the intent to burglarize the Ramsey home once the “Offender” targeted the home believing the upscale home would be a prime location to find items of value which could afterward be fenced, believing the homeowners, the Ramsey’s were not in the home.
However, once the suspect(s) entered the home and found it to be occupied by the owners, what began as an intent to burglarize evolved into a scheme to abduct the most vulnerable person in the home and hold her captive until the suspect(s) were paid a ransom by the Ramsey family for her safe return.
This report concludes the Crime Classification according to the Crime Classification Manual as a SITUATIONAL FELONY MURDER 108.2. Situational felony murder is defined as an unplanned murder prior to commission of a felony. The homicide is committed out of panic, confusion, or impulse.
This report concludes that on December 25, 1996, an unknown person(s) who have been responsible for several burglaries in the city of Boulder, Colorado targeted the Ramsey home in the weeks before or the day of as a prime place to burglarize. It is believed the suspect(s) drove and parked near the Ramsey home, exited the vehicle and then entered the home through an unlocked door on the Northside of the Ramsey Home referred to as the Butler Pantry door around 11PM-12AM. Once inside the home the suspect(s) moved through the kitchen and may have immediately moved up the spiral staircase which led to the second floor of the home near the bedroom where JonBenet was sleeping.
The suspect(s) may have panicked at this time when realizing the home was not empty and contemplated aborting the plan to burglarize the home, but not wanting to leave the home empty-handed and seizing on the opportunity to make an even bigger score decided to abduct JonBenet Ramsey and hold her captive until her family paid the ransom demand.
Around 1230AM-100AM the suspect(s) take pen and paper from the kitchen in the Ramsey home and looks for a private location to write out the ransom letter, and finds the perfect location in the wine cellar located in the basement. This location allowed the suspect(s) privacy, and an ability to hear if anyone was moving through the house and the suspect(s) prepped the basement window also at the north side of the home in case the suspect(s) needed to make a quick escape.
One inside the wine cellar, the suspect(s) found personalized items belonging to the Ramsey family and were able to utilize those personalized items to make the ransom letter more specific appearing from an outsider’s perspective the suspect(s) knew John Ramsey personally.
The suspect(s) write the ransom letter which most likely takes 30 minutes to an hour to complete. Around 230AM and 3AM the suspect(s) having finished the ransom note moves back to the first floor, places the pen and paper back where they were found, and places the three-page ransom letter on the steps of the spiral staircase.
The suspect(s) is an experienced burglar and carries with him items such as rope, duct tape, and perhaps a stun gun in case the suspect(s) are confronted by someone inside the home and if the suspect is unable to flee he has the items to subdue someone within the home, but the suspect’s intent is not to harm or murder, nor is the suspect(s) crimes sexually motivated. The suspect(s) organized, and can and will flee or abort the burglary if it risks being captured or having to confront someone.
This report believes in this case the suspect(s) for unknown reasons ignored his instincts and saw an opportunity the suspect(s) found too difficult to resist. Whether it was greed, or whether it was financially motivated and the suspect(s) believed the ransom would be a far greater score than the items the suspect(s) would have to fence after stolen from the house, the suspect(s) proceeded upstairs to JonBenet’s bedroom with rope and duct tape at the ready to ambush the sleeping six-year-old girl in a blitz style attack.
Once the suspect(s) had control, she would be carried back down the spiral staircase and out the butler door to the suspect(s) vehicle. From there the suspect(s) would watch the Ramsey home and observe any movements inside the home and hope to see John Ramsey leave once the ransom note was discovered and follow him to the bank where Mr. Ramsey would secure the ransom money.
It is believed the abduction in the bedroom took place as planned, but somewhere between moving downstairs and arriving on the first floor near the kitchen something went wrong and JonBenet managed to break away from her abductor(s).
Panicked, the suspect(s) swing the Mag-Lite style flashlight in an attempt to knock the six-year-old unconscious. However, the suspect(s) is unaware the blow caused a significant skull fracture which did not kill her instantly but would have ultimately caused her death.
Soon after striking her, it is believed that JonBenet began making a loud guttural snoring sound known as a death rattle, and fearing someone in the house would hear the commotion and unable to wake JonBenet, the suspect(s) left the flashlight on the kitchen table picked her up off the floor and carried her into the basement.
The suspect(s) attempts to wake her but are unable to do so and the death rattle becomes louder and the suspect(s) begins to understand the gravity of the situation. The suspect wants the loud guttural sound to stop, but cannot face her and strangle the dying girl with his hands, so the suspect(s) looks for something to fashion a piece of rope onto to make a garotte. The suspect(s) locate a paintbrush, break off the tip, and ties the rope to the wooden brush. The suspect turns JonBenet onto her stomach, wraps the rope around her neck several times and tightens the garotte by twisting it until she stops breathing.
Ashamed of what has happened at the suspect(s) own hands the suspect(s) finds a blanket in a nearby hamper and covers her body to hide her. Soon after the suspect(s)goes back upstairs and leaves through the butler door, back to the vehicle and leaves the area.
This report concludes the crime was most likely committed by one suspect instead of two. One rational reason for this is that two suspects may have been able to maintain their hold on JonBenet. Another rational explanation is that if two individuals were responsible for the murder, one or the other might, if ever confronted by Law Enforcment or even if bragging to friends or seeking the confidence of a loved one to ask for forgiveness risks being exposed. Whereas if one person commits the crime this person does not have to worry about the secret being exposed if they never tell anyone or are ever linked to the crime by forensic evidence.
This report posits the suspect is a white male between the ages of 18 and 25 years of age at the time of the murder in 1996. The suspect is small in stature and able to slip in and out of small windows and he uses this as an advantage to break into homes. It is believed the suspect most likely started out as a petty criminal, shoplifting, stealing from family and friends, perhaps has a drug habit to support, and has overtime began taking greater risks by breaking into homes.
The suspect is of average intelligence perhaps having graduated high school, and perhaps moved to Boulder after school to attend college but soon dropped out after falling into a spiral of depression and substance abuse, but is too ashamed to admit failure and go back home.
It is plausible to suggest that if the aforementioned scenario is indeed correct, the unknown suspect or “unsub” left Boulder and perhaps Colorado and moved back home.
This report suggests the unsub was a non-violent offender prior to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey on December 25th 1996, but most likely has a criminal record for petty misdemeanors in Boulder and perhaps if he had come to Boulder to attend college has a crimal record in his hometown. It is not believed the unsub is a known or unknown sex offender and that sex was not a motivating factor in the attempted abudction and murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
One could opine the murder was a wake up call for the unsub and afterwards sought help and has moved on with his life and has married and settled down and has been able to psychologicaly distance himself from the crime. However, one cannot rule out the unsub has never recovered and may still committ burglaries or petty crimes, or has died as a result of overdose or suicide or even natural causes.
Furthermore this report concludes that it is highly unlikely the unsub will be caught and brought to justice because the unsub is so far on the periphery of the investigation he has been overlooked or never brought to the attention of law enforcement. However, this report suggests that the chances are greater if investigators expand their DNA databases to include ancestral DNA which has been responsible over the last few years of bringing closure and justice to unsolved murder cases that have over the last twenty years have gone cold, where many of the suspects were never considered as part of the investigation and would have continued to evade capture had it not been for the advancements in forensic sciences. Even if the unsub has passed away since 1996, ancestral DNA may still be utilized to identify the person responsible for murdering JonBenet and at least give her family closure.
December 25th 2019 will be the 23rd anniversary of JonBenet’s murder. JonBenet would be 29 years old had her life not been so tragically taken away from her. When investigating crimes, especially one as complex and with so many persons of interest and when you add the spectacle, the glamour shot photos or beauty pageant videos, one can lose sight of the fact that performing in beauty pageants was only a small fraction of JonBenet’s life. People have become obsessed with the case and some have taken that obsession to a dark and twisted place in their own minds, having fallen in love with an image, even confessing to having killed her.
What I find more disturbing is how it feels as if the suspect not only was able to sneak into the Ramsey home on Christmas night, abduct her and murder in the only place she had ever known as home, is the seemingly laksodascial effort from Law Enforcement to disregard standard operating procedures and allow the suspect to slip out of sight and into the abyss.
Yet we’ve seen this time and time again, a child goes missing or is murdered, Law Enforcement feel pressured in solving the case to ease the mind of the community, refuse help from other law enforcement agencies who may be better equipped, whether it’s pride or who knows, once the leads stop pouring in, it becomes easier to find a scapegoat, whether it be the parents, or someone people define as “acting strange”, and begin building a case against an innocent person. Even more frightening is the fact that many innocent people have been found guilty and some have been exonerated as the years pass and science improves,while others have died waiting on the wheels of justice to stop and reexamine their case, and some are still behind bars and may never be freed.
In this particular case however, one can say it wouldn’t have been too difficult for the Boulder DA to arrest the Ramsey’s even if the evidence was weak and build a case and perhaps convince a jury that most likely has already been tainted by the constant stream of media reports casting negative aspersions on the Ramsey’s as being guilty, maybe not of murder, but of allowing their child to dress in provacative costumes and wear make-up and yet this didn’t happen. The DA stopped short of pressing charges. One must opine that perhaps it was because the Ramsey’s were wealthy and had hired experienced defense lawyers where in many similar cases a defendant cannot afford an attorney of their choice.
Still, one would like to believe the DA stopped short because the evidence was weak, even if he could have manipulated the evidence in the courtroom, the DA refused to bend to the pressure of law enforcement and those in the community who had already concluded the Ramsey’s were guilty because it would have been against the very oath he had sworn to uphold. Had he had arrested them and were able to convince a jury of the Ramsey’s guilt, the DA would have been lauded by many as a hero and a champion of justice and may have sought higher office after, because everyone knew the Ramsey case and would know he was the one who brought justice to JonBenet. The DA may have committed political suicide by not bringing charges against the Ramsey’s but this case should be studied by law students and law enforcement officers bring charges against an innocent person to close a case is not justice. It’s not justice for the victim, and it’s an injustice to an innocent person, and sometimes even when one wants closure, be patient and allow advancements in science to evolve. It really is only a matter of time and patience where many cold cases will eventually be solved and those who thought they had escaped punishment find themselves behind bars.
Ultimately, even though the Ramsey’s were never arrested or charged with a crime, the death of their daughter would forever change their lives. After JonBenet’s death the Ramsey family never set foot back in their home in Boulder. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006 after a long battle with cancer. John Ramsey was no longer a successful businessman, but would eventually remarry and settle down in a home far away from the media frenzy that would overwhelm the Ramsey family for several years. Burke Ramsey has grown up and is in his early 30’s and has a good job, and recently gave an interview with Dr. Phil where he again denied any involvement in the death of his sister.
23 years have passed, and although the case has not been solved, I have faith that it will be. Someone knows the truth.
I am not affiliated with Law Enforcement. If anyone has any information that may lead to an arrest in this case please contact the Boulder Police Department at: (303) 441-3333
LINKS TO SITES ABOUT THE MURDER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: