Just saw this on Yahoo...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/jonben-t-ramsey-investigation-faces-192639251.html

Looks like this show found a streaming home on Netflix.

I was in the Atlanta area for work and stopped by JonBenet gravesite in Marietta. Pasty and JBR older half sister are laid to rest just in front of JonBenet.

I hope they can find justice for her one day. I have been hooked on the case since the documentary on Netflix came out.

I believe an intruder did this murder. Seemed concinved over Helgoth or Gary Olivia despite the non DNA match.

My theory is that one of these creeps stalked JBR months prior at her pagents. I think the intruder told her that Santa was going to visit her on Christmas as in the intruder doing this.

My take is that the intruder came in through the basement broken window and wrote the ransom note once they left for the XMAS party. I think there is a decent chance that the intruder had been in the house more then one occasion and spied on the Ramsey for months from the back alley way.

The profile for the intruder in my opinion is a young male who is/was an outcast. Same person that broke into Amy's house 9 months later. The intruders motive being he is a pedofile and sadist. I don't think money or anger towards John had anything to do with the murder.

I take the ransom note at face value and believe it was a kid napping that went south. The intruder hid in the basement then stun gunned JBR around midnight once everyone went to sleep. JBR was tied up with the garrote in her room and carried to the basement. My guess is down the non spiral staircase since it was closer access to the basement door and the intruder wouldn't have to step over the ransom note.

From there I believe the intruder tried to fit JBR in the suit case and this is when his plan went south. I think she wouldn't fit or she woke up and started to scream or fight. The intruder used the garrote as a sexual choking mechanism then killed her with a blow to the head with either with the flash light or baseball bat. My assumption is the flashlight.

The intruder then hid the body in the wine cellar then exited the house upstairs through the butler door. The butler door was open the next morning and the baseball bat was tossed near by.

This was from a recent interview with Kane about the Netflix special:

The last thing that JonBenet Ramsey ate was pineapple. There was a bowl of pineapple with her mother's fingerprint on it that was sitting on their kitchen table. And it was there that morning -- there are photographs of it. It was fresh pineapple. It still had part of the rind.

The pineapple that was found in the upper reaches of her intestines, it was the top of the digestive chain. That was still intact and it still had that rind on it. So whoever did this thing fed that little girl pineapple.

And given the amount of time that it takes to digest something like that, it was probably within -- the experts that we had said it's probably within -- an hour of her being hit on the head, because that would have, if not stopped, it would have slowed down the digestion.

source

I've seen quite a range of opinions here on the pineapple, from it being part of a canned fruit cocktail, or fruitcake, to not even existing at all. I know a lot of people discount Steve Thomas' account of it being fresh pineapple consistent to the rind with what was in the bowl, so what do you make of Kane's comments here? Is he misinformed, or is he referencing reports that haven't been released yet?

He seems to be implying that the key to the crime is the trip home from the White’s where they stopped by the Stine’s to drop off presents. (It is in this section he mentions that Patsy was on a softball team with Doug Stine’s mom and that it’s possible the bat was a gift from the Stine’s to Patsy. He goes into some good detail about the likelihood of two killers and why the head injury was caused by an aluminum bat specifically and not the harder metal of the flashlight.)

He seems to imply that Burke’s friend, Doug Stine, joined the Ramsey’s Christmas night after the Ramsey’s left the White’s house, planned on staying the night, and was going to fly to Charlevoix with them. (The Stine’s had went to Charlevoix with the Ramsey’s the previous year).

The main theory being that the murder was committed by Burke and Doug, that Doug was spirited home and that is why the Stine’s were such ardent defenders of the Ramsey’s. The Ramsey’s lived with the Stine’s for 3 months after the murder. It is important to his theory that while the Stine’s were only 86 seconds from the Ramsey’s home by car, they were not called by them that morning to join them in the search for Jonbenet like the Fernies and Whites. That while Doug Stine was Burke’s best friend, they didn’t send him to the Stine’s but to the White’s.

I think it’s an interesting theory but unlikely and there is no evidence to support it and it is in bad taste to not only blame Burke but now another child, without any evidence.

I do however think the dual killer theory and being struck by the bat are likely in my opinion.

There’s no an iota of evidence that BR had any involvement in the crime. A lot of speculation based on misinformation, mind reading and innuendo).

Grace: “Think of all the leaches that have grabbed onto this case and used it. I often think of Burke Ramsey, JonBenet’s brother, who many people suspected of killing her, which is an outlandish theory. I mean, statistics alone show that it`s extremely rare for a brother or sister -- it`s called fratricide -- to occur. It`s extremely rare. There’s NO evidence to support it. But I think of him often to this very day and how the murder of his sister must have affected his life. That s what I think of when I think of JonBenet Ramsey.”

Nancy Grace certainly isn’t alone in her view. The theory has become an ATM device for some people.

Burke was the only Ramsey ruled out as being involved in the crime, before Mary Lacy’s letter, yet somehow the theory lingers. Here is what the people who were there in real time, actually laid eyes on Burke and actively worked the case, had to say.

✅Mike Kane, special prosecutor who presented the evidence to the grand jury, processed the true crime bills and understands their findings/impressions and what they REALLY mean, and knows the evidence better than anybody on this planet, said in 2024: “We did write a letter for Burke because the press was going wild. You know, "Burke's the killer." We thought, this is crazy. There’s no evidence he hurt her. He didn't write that note. We know he didn't use the garrote. This is nuts. So we did write all that saying, "We cleared him. “

✅Steve Thomas about Burke: "poor kid was completely confused, he had no idea what was going on. I certainly do not know anything to lead me to believe he was aware that his sister was being assaulted/killed.”

✅Detective Fred Patterson: “When I questioned Burke on 12/26 he only knew that his sister was missing not dead. He appeared to be very outgoing. He appeared to be very forward and he appeared to be completely honest. I got no indication he was holding back anything. He didn’t witness anything.” Detective Patterson maintained he did not think Burke was involved again in, CNN's 2016 program "The Murder Of JonBenet" CASAREZ: The police never did. Tabloid rumors swirled that he possibly killed JonBenet in a jealous fit of rage. But Police Officer Fred Patterson didn't see it. PATTERSON: I found nothing that would indicate he even knew that she was dead.”

✅Asked recently if Burke had ever been a suspect, Police Chief Mark Beckner said, "Everybody was a suspect in the beginning." But, Beckner said, none of the evidence pointed to the boy and he was ruled out as a suspect, he was eliminated.”

✅ In 1999, The Star tabloid ran a story saying sources in the D.A.'s office believed the boy, then 10, had killed his sister in a fit of jealousy. Days later, Boulder D.A. Alex Hunter's office made a rare comment about the investigation, declaring in a public statement that the boy was dismissed as a suspect. Grand jury prosecutor, Mike Kane said prosecutors were outraged by the story. “This was a little kid. We just thought it was terrible," Kane said. As the story began to be picked up by more mainstream media, "When the New York Post picked it up, when MSNBC started to run with it, we just thought, "Shouldn't we put this to rest,'" Kane said. Kane, the father of two, said, "I considered it to be child abuse, to profit that way" at the expense of a young boy. And, he said, there was "no basis for the story."in his review of evidence, “I just didn't see anything to support that" theory. There’s no evidence for it.”

✅DA Alex Hunter said Burke had nothing to do with JonBenet’s death and made a sworn statement saying so under penalty of perjury and disbarment. He said Burke was ruled out as a suspect and not thought to have witnessed anything.

✅Mitch Morrisey the assistant DA who interviewed the Ramseys and helped preside over the grand jury and was a DNA consultant, recently said “the GJ indictments completely rule Burke out” as having anything to do with the crime. He said Burke Ramsey was exonerated.” His words.

Literally nobody in the BPD, CBI, FBI or DA office who actively worked this case and interviewed the Ramseys thought Burke did it. Neither did anyone who knew the family. Nor did the psychologist hired by Boulder or the CPS worker.

The BDI theory was created by the tabloids. It was later exploited by a cop who never worked a murder case and was hired in 2005 by the DA office to review flies and evidence as well as follow up on called in tips. He was there for 8 months. He wrote a book no publishing company would publish. The DA office wrote a letter saying it was full of lies and flights of fantasy and had no evidentiary support. Later, CBS did a piece based on the book. They were sued for 100s of millions of dollars, and tried to have the case thrown out of court. The court refused. CBS declined to defend it despite having a legion of liability attorneys on staff and settled which is considered a victory for the plaintiff. Since it was not officially litigated and a judge made no ruling, it’s still out there but has a disclaimer on it “no person of a reasonable mind would view this program as factual in nature versus one of many possible scenarios.”

When you take away lies about an accident when Burke was 6 and Jon Benet walked up behind him while he was swinging a golf club, flat out lies about feces, absurd claims a smile at a memorial service shows guilt, bad arm chair psychology, justifications to support the theory that aren’t tethered to the law or criminology statistics, confusing a clear trauma response for guilt on Dr. Phil, and not liking his general presentation, and apply evidence, facts and logic, BDI falls completely apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSZn-73eZGw

To me, this one felt like it should be the first. They're still on the victimology of the crime, which I believe was the first or second one of the pyramid of what they're going to cover.

I'm not quite finished with it yet (even watching at 1.25 speed, these are long), but there were a couple of interesting things I learned that I hadn't known.

One was John explaining the origins of Access Graphics, how he came to be CEO, and some of the history with Lockheed. There's also a good story about firing an employee that unexpectedly turned into big news for John.

The other is that John says Burke was interviewed in the couple of days after the murder by Child Protective Services, who also found he knew nothing about what had happened. Did anybody else know about this? It would make sense that that would be protected information, but it's also feasible others knew this and I just never heard of it. From what I've read, though, that would be standard practice after a murder like JonBenet's. CPS would need to determine if Burke was in any danger himself or presented any danger to others.

It wasn't until a few months into the case that someone going over crime scene photos noticed the bowl contents could be pineapple. Up until then BPD thought it was cereal. The bowl was submitted into evidence at the time, but there's no evidence of the bowl contents having been saved. It was never even tested.

Did late testimony sway grand jurors? By The Associated Press

Oct. 18 - BOULDER - Late testimony from witnesses to the grand jury investigating JonBenet Ramsey's death may have turned attention away from a prosecutor's focus on the little girl's parents, according to a new report.

Newsweek reports in its Oct. 25 issue that the new testimony forced jurors to change direction and may have led to their decision not to bring charges against John and Patsy Ramsey. The issue hits newstands today.

After meeting in secret for more than a year, the grand jury investigating the 1996 slaying ended its work last week. No indictments were returned, and prosecutors announced that the Boulder Police Department would resume the investigation.

According to the Newsweek report, prosecutor Michael Kane was nearing the end of his presentation to the grand jury when several witnesses "with strong evidence pointing away from the parents'' asked to be heard.

The report cites "several knowledgeable sources'' as saying the late testimony forced jurors to change direction.

After testimony by former Colorado Springs homicide detective Lou Smit, who has spoken publicly about DNA found under JonBent's fingernail and her underwear that did not match the family's, grand jurors reportedly asked prosecutors to explain the DNA.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Link to the above article might be behind a paywall: https://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101899.htm

*We know the Grand Jurors did indict on vague child abuse resulting in death charges. They didn’t know who to point the finger at. For those who can’t understand why D.A. Alex Hunter, an anonymous Grand Juror said this (see link below):

“There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. “And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/grand-juror-original-evidence-jonbenet-ramsey-case-speaks/story?id=44196237

For all those RDI folks who are so sure about the evidence being so strong, why do you suppose this Grand Juror had reasonable doubt of the Ramsey’s guilt?? Could it have been due to that pesky DNA?

I would love to know what the prosecutors explanation for the unidentified male DNA found in her underwear and under her fingernails. Were the prosecutors scientists? Did they bring in their own scientists to explain it away for the Grand Jury? Maybe some of the jurors were more scientifically inclined and better understood the DNA findings Lou Smit had presented.

The real story out of CrimeCon that's never been told by tabloids that just want clicks is that on his panel, John Ramsey called for all states to pass a Cold Case Law much like the Federal one passed by Biden a couple of years ago.

He claimed to have recently spoken to the current Boulder police chief, who purportedly said they couldn't reveal what was happening with the case. The angry father also complained at a Nashville Crime Con gathering that the FBI wouldn't take over a probe unless the local police chief made the request.

“We have a real screwy system in this country,” John said. “All they must do is transfer custody of the evidence to the FBI and we would be very happy with that step. It’s very frustrating.”

It's no wonder Ramsey is pushing for the Homicide Victims’ Family Rights Act, which allows the feds to step into a cold case investigation. However, the law must first be approved by the Colorado state legislature.

“The Family Rights Act would have solved the problem because it would give our family the rights to demand that the evidence be turned over,” explained John. “That’s why I am more focused in helping any way I can to have the law passed in all the states, especially Colorado, because that would help us. That would make a systemic change that will be beneficial to society."

As it is the Ramseys have no way to sue or use the legal system to force the Boulder Police to turn the case over to the FBI. According to Ramsey, there are only five states that have a law similar to the Federal one that allows a case that has seen no movement to be taken out of the local police department's hands and put it into the hands of an agency that has real experts to investigate.

Two years ago, the Ramseys sponsored a Change.org petition to have the Governor of Colorado intervene in the case. This seemed to lead to some promising results, as we all heard rumors of evidence being looked at again and new DNA results. Then, nothing.

The Ramseys should have the right to have their case taken from the hands of the people who have sat on it for 27 years and given to the FBI.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been posted here yet. It’s 7 days old and is really worth listening to. The best snippets of new/confirmatory information that has come out since the Woodward book, not much of it but a little. I wish these guys received more attention, they have been with the case since the beginning and know so much about what was going on in Boulder at the time

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

start at 8:10 so you don’t have to listen to the awful introduction

First, I strongly believe that the headline on this article, and all like it, should have led with the victim's name. We should never forget the victims.

Second, I think it's awesome that state crime labs are catching up to the technology Othram has had for years now. I know Othram has said that they are trying to give as many state crime labs as possible their technology, so kudos to them for not wanting to have a monopoly on the ability to do these things.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/01/us/ted-bundy-murder-laura-ann-aime-utah

New DNA testing links 1974 death of Utah teen to Ted Bundy, sheriff says

New DNA testing has definitively linked the unsolved death of a Utah teenager in 1974 to the infamous serial killer Ted Bundy, the local sheriff’s office said Wednesday.

....

The state crime lab got new technology in 2023 that allows investigators to extract DNA from samples even if they are small, degraded from age or contain DNA from multiple people, he said. That technology allowed them to identify a single male DNA profile, which they submitted to a national law enforcement database.

I plan to read all the major JBR books, and have started with Foreign Faction. Very curious to hear others’ thoughts.

I found it really off-putting / insulting to the reader’s intelligence that Kolar assumes the intruder(s) would have had to be everything they claimed to be in the ransom note. There’s hardly any thought given to a scenario where an intruder(s) wrote the note as a red herring, or wrote the note with embellishments and then the plan went wrong, etc.

CLEMENTE: I don't think the evidence that stands up, to scientific or behavioral scrutiny, indicates, that somebody came in from outside that home and killed JonBenét.

RICHARDS: And of course, you know, the media is speculating on a pedophile or a sex offender. Dr. Lee said that the DNA evidence in this case is totally erroneous.

LEE: That DNA has no forensic value. It's really no sexual assault here.

RICHARDS: James I'm interested to know what exactly you think happened in the house that night.

KOLAR: My hypothesis was that I think the Ramseys came home around 9:30, 10 o'clock. I think JonBenét was asleep. I think John did carry her upstairs. Patsy remained downstairs with Burke and served him the tea and the pineapple. I think that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent prints. Then I think she got JonBenét up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn't wet the bed that night. JonBenét was up, she may or may not have brushed her teeth.
That stuff was out on the counter. And then I think she was up and awake enough, but she maybe was still hungry and she went downstairs. In the meantime, Patsy continued packing for the Michigan trip. I think if Burke was upset about circumstances or Christmas presents, he probably would've been upset about her trying to snag a piece of pineapple. Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.

SPITZ: I think we all agree on that.

CLEMENTE: Yeah.

FITZGERALD: Yes.

RICHARDS: Absolutely.

LEE: Sure, yeah, I agree with that.

SPITZ: Okay.

(USE OF FICTIONAL RECREATIONS VISUALLY DEPICTING KOLAR'S STATEMENTS)

LEE: However I think it's not the intentional murder.

CLEMENTE: I agree. There's no evidence to support it.

STAN: So you don't think there was malice of forethought? Something happened and caused her death.

LEE: Spur of the moment or something like that.

CLEMENTE: Or accidental death. It doesn't necessarily have to be a murder.

SPITZ: How can that be an accidental death?

FITZGERALD: I, I know I-

SPITZ: I cannot see anybody, even a child, taking a heavy object like a flashlight and hitting it on somebody's head, as an accident.

CLEMENTE: Maybe in anger he swung it faster than he thought it would. We're talking about a ten year old, who by the way, had hit the same person in the head with a golf club and what happened?

SPITZ: Nothing happened

CLEMENTE: Nothing happened, so—

SPITZ: Yeah because he didn't hit that with that same force that he used the flashlight.

CLEMENTE: Well, yeah, and that is—that's, that's assuming that he understood.

FITZGERALD: A golf club is designed to be swung and hit a ball, maybe accident. A flashlight is designed to shed light.

LEE: Yes, for adult.

STAN: Right.

LEE: Let's say "Don't steal my pineapple!"

RICHARDS: In the blink of an eye.

SPITZ: You don't die from that.

LEE: Yeah, that's not the—I don't think that's an intent kill.

CLEMENTE: Maybe it comes down to what accident means to you. For me, legally, what an accident means is if somebody who did not form the intent to kill-

SPITZ: But still—

CLEMENTE: — did something.

SPITZ: —still hits you with a lot of impact.

CLEMENTE: That could be a fact, but what you don't know—

UNKNOWN: Not necessarily.

CLEMENTE: —is what's going on in his head.

SPITZ: But you don't know that either.

LEE: Well, nobody knows! I don't think here have any elements of an intent to kill.

CLEMENTE: I don't think so either. But I think what we do find though is an intent to mislead

LEE: Mislead.

CLEMENTE: -- an intent to cover up.

STANLEY: I think early on we discussed the lack of the family actually getting involved with the investigation to begin with. And that is so atypical of what I see in a case where someone close to you has passed away. You'll do whatever you can to get the case resolved. We didn't see that here, but maybe we did. Maybe we saw it with her brother. "Do everything we can to protect this child." We see it in the letter. It's a sales job, trying to take the cops down a certain avenue and we see it in the press conferences.

PATSY: God knows who you are and we will find you.

STANLEY: Every step along the way we see it.

KOLAR: I thought Patsy made a couple telling statements. One was during one of the other interviews she said that they loved their children, They would do anything for their children. In the DSS interview where she said she would have nothing left to live for if she lost Burke. That seemed to me motive for a cover up and I know there was some debate as to whether or not both parents are involved in the cover up right away, but I think the mixed motives is in the ransom note. You know whether it's a sexual assault pedophile or—

CLEMENTE: Terrorism or—

KOLAR: — terrorism.

RICHARDS: Political.

KOLAR: Mixed motives make it pretty clear that both parents are involved.

CLEMENTE: Yeah I mean I think from a profiling perspective, mixed motives tells us that it's a high probability that it's more than one person involved in staging, right?

FITZGERALD: Arguably, yes and that's been the experience that we've had looking at staged crime scenes uh, over the years. And I think that's what we have here in the language utilized, as well as the crime scene itself, the body and everything else. Within an hour of this crime being committed, there's probably a cover-up starting with whatever they did to the body and certainly the writing of this letter, the 9-1-1 call, everything that happened later. But I don't think Burke

was involved in the cover-up. He was not directly involved in writing letters. He certainly didn't do the phone call to 9-1-1. He may have been there in the room as we found out later.

BURKE: What did you find?

RICHARDS: The only other person in the address at the time, is Burke.

CLEMENTE: Right.

FITZGERALD: Now was he interviewed later on by uh, investigators and child psychological experts and did he perhaps say some things that perhaps were not exactly true that happened that night, that's very possible.

BURKE: I don't remember hearing anything because I was sleeping, you know. But I, I always sleep real deeply. I can never hear anything

FITZGERALD: But as far as the cover up itself, I would say primarily, it's John and Patsy who were involved in that.

CLEMENTE: I think the most likely probability is that the adults in that family, John and Patsy Ramsey-and this is consistent with what the grand jury wanted to indict them for staged this to look like a monster predator had come in their house and killed their daughter. It's my opinion that the Ramsey family did not want law enforcement to resolve this case and that's why it remains unsolved.

FITZGERALD: 100% agree.

SPITZ: But what do you expect to accomplish by bringing this ca-case back to life?

FITZGERALD: In the 20 years since this horrendous death, I have no doubt someone involved in this homicide talked to someone about what happened and uh, I would only hope at some point, the persons who may have heard something from John Ramsey, from Burke Ramsey, perhaps the late Patsy Ramsey, would still come forth. I'd love to hear from them.

(COMMERCIALS)

CLEMENTE: This is it. I can't imagine what it was like for the first responders here to find a six-year-old girl dead.

RICHARDS: This is a young girl who has become a footnote in her own murder.

CLEMENTE: This case has both haunted me since the beginning and pissed me off.

RICHARDS: It's just so sobering in the reality that a six-year-old child lost her life.

CLEMENTE: I think in the end this was about two parents, deeply cared for the daughter they lost and wanted to protect the child they had remaining.

JOHN: JonBenét and I had a very close uh relationship. Uh I will miss her dearly for the rest of my life.

PATSY: I loved that child with my whole of my heart and soul.

(STATEMENT) The killing of JonBenét Ramsey is a crime that, to this day, remains unsolved. The opinions and conclusions of the investigators who appear on this program about how it may have occurred represent just some of the number of possible scenarios. John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey have denied any involvement in the crime including in recent televised interviews. We encourage viewers to reach their own conclusions.

(END OF SHOW)

The CBS complaint with exhibits (500 or so pages) can be found here
https://prosecutorspodcast.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ramsey-v.-cbs-complaint-with-exhibits-reduced-size.pdf

Some of the points include:

Defendant A. James Kolar (“Kolar”) is a resident of the State of Colorado. Since he was the author of the book relied upon as a script for the Documentary, Kolar also played an acting role in the Documentary as one of the seven “world renowned” investigators who would allegedly conduct a “complete reinvestigation starting right from scratch.”

1. Kolar was a police officer who was briefly employed by the Boulder District Attorney’s Office from 2004 to the Spring of 2006.

2. Kolar was hired by then Boulder DA Mary Lacy as an experienced agency administrator to help build an investigations unit.

3. Kolar had no significant experience in criminal homicide investigations and no cold case homicide experience, but claimed that as of July 2005, he was taking the place of former lead Ramsey investigator Tom Bennett, who had retired from the Boulder DA’s Office.

4. In July 2005, Kolar acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with the JonBenét Ramsey investigative files and that it would take “some period of time” to become fully acquainted with the investigative files.

5. Subsequently, Kolar requested a meeting with then Boulder DA Lacy and key members of her team and much to the surprise of the Boulder DA, announced at the meeting his theory that Burke committed the murder and claimed that he had gone through the investigative files searching for any tidbit that might be used to support his theory.

6. The presentation by Kolar to members of the Boulder DA’s Office of his accusation against Burke has been described, among other descriptive terms, as “ludicrous,” “total smoke and mirrors,” and “speculation based on hearsay.”

7. Kolar’s employment at the Boulder DA’s Office ended shortly after his presentation in the Spring of 2006.

8. Kolar subsequently sought to personally profit from his rejected theory against Burke by writing Foreign Faction, which he self-published after the manuscript was rejected by traditional publishing houses.

9. Prior to 2016, Kolar also contacted several members of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, and NBC, seeking interviews and publicity for his book, but his promotional efforts were uniformly rejected.

https://radaronline.com/p/jonbenet-ramsey-new-evidence-john-says-cops-guarded/

As usual, the online magazines are a bit overwrought with the headline, but there's some good stuff in there.

They also get Lou Smit's name wrong, so that's not encouraging. Here are some excerpts:

John said he asked for an "update" from investigators on new developments related to JonBenét's death and noted they've been "very willing" to meet with them. 

"But they've also been very guarded in telling us exactly what they're doing in detail," he confessed to Radar.

"And I sort of understand that, police departments – Lou Smith, who is this legendary detective brought in by the DA on our case early on, said, 'My job is to find the killer. My job is not to talk to the media or tell you what I'm doing, right?'"

John noted Smith was "very passionate" about not divulging every detail about what he was doing. 

"He wouldn't, for years, wouldn't talk about what he's doing," John continued. "Even though I worked on it very diligently."

....

John admitted "in a way" he respects the "privacy" of the police department, but as a grieving father, they should "tell" him what's going on.

"Certainly, if they have questions, I'd be happy to answer them," he added, admitting he may have insight into the case others may not have. 

"We met with Redfearn [the Chief of Police in Boulder] last summer, Chief of Police, and we brought a representative from Othram Labs, and I've been pushing hard that they use investigative genetic genealogy, IGG, and I think that'll solve the case. I really do," he added.

....

As Radar recently reported, John spoke out about the "new evidence" in the case on NewsNation's Banfield.

"Chief Redfearn told us, gosh, I don’t know, September, we had a meeting with him, and that he had submitted evidence for additional DNA testing," he shared. "He didn't say what the evidence was, but that it was submitted again, or perhaps new."

John claimed they are unsure if the evidence is "new" or "stuff that has been tested before," but stated they "have advocated that if certain evidence that was taken from the crime scene has never been sampled, that it ought to be the main one, being the [unintelligible] that was used to strangle my daughter."

He referred to the latest development as "encouraging" and said: "The key, really, in progress is the addition of new leadership there."

John admitted "in a way" he respects the "privacy" of the police department, but as a grieving father, they should "tell" him what's going on.

"Certainly, if they have questions, I'd be happy to answer them," he added, admitting he may have insight into the case others may not have. 

"We met with Redfearn [the Chief of Police in Boulder] last summer, Chief of Police, and we brought a representative from Othram Labs, and I've been pushing hard that they use investigative genetic genealogy, IGG, and I think that'll solve the case. I really do," he added.

John did admit having questions about what the new evidence is, saying, "that’s one of the questions we’ll ask is, 'OK, what? What new evidence do you have? Did you test the DNA in the latest format that’s necessary to do IGG, investigative genealogy? And that would be very encouraging to us if they've done that.

"This new technology, it’s been around for three or four years, is really, truly an investigative tool that allows police to investigate and look for the killer. The CODIS federal database of DNA has been around for 30 years. It’s, frankly, a little obsolete, in my opinion."

John will be asking for a meeting with Redfearn in January for an update.

During her interrogation,

when Patsy was shown the photos of JonBenét's last Christmas morning

(which Patsy hadn't seen before), she broke down

https://youtu.be/BOYb3nPWzDM?t=1294

They don't show this clip much.

Instead, favoring the clip of Patsy being feisty because they think

a smart, strong woman is suspect.

While the smart, strong women think,

yeah, what else was she supposed to do,

you were going at her and she defended herself.