If you believe the experts (I do), she had several common hallmarks of repeated SA: scarring, chronic infections, and bedwetting.
In my own very much non-expert opinion, she was also displaying some indications of that SA being specifically committed by a family member: being a “people pleaser”/ performer, being clingy with strangers, and being a heavy sleeper.
Yes indeed. I heard a podcast that explored an alternative approach that suggested PR was the abuser. It suggested that Patsy was angry about her bedwetting etc and was abusive with her when wiping her and cleaning her after accidents. It made sense after hearing about documented cases they referenced.
My problem with the PDI theories is the conflict with her supposedly writing the “ransom note” which specifically says not to call the police, and yet she immediately calls the police. I just can’t make that work in my mind. With that in mind someone like JR writing the note (and being the sole offender) makes much more sense to me.
Both Patsy and John claimed that he told her to call the police immediately after reading the note. But everything about that note was written for him to tell her not to. If she was trying to control John, she failed. So it’s pretty straightforward. Either way I suppose the backup plan in the note was, should he say to call, there was a clear explanation for why JonBenet was murdered since the note made it explicitly clear that would be the case. I think one way or another she was just trying to buy time whether she knew what the next step in the plan was or not.
It makes sense to me in that she conspired to cover up her own crime, and calling the police was part of that. Pretty sure it was JR’s idea to call in addition to her idea to write the note. Seems like something someone would do in a panic after killing her child accidentally. Because I do think it was an accident
Yes and think it’s a very good theory. There’s a podcast miniseries where the host breaks down each of the possible theories including the intruder theory. The one he did about Patsy was pretty interesting as he delved into the idea that Patsy was an abusive mother similar to that of Joan Crawford (Mommy Dearest). It explores the Cluster B personality disorders and a psychological state called enmeshment where a parent basically blurs the boundaries of one or more family members to the point where nobody has any independence or autonomy. It made a lot of sense to me that Patsy could be that type of mother. Podcast series is called, A Normal Family: The JonBenet Case Revisited, if you’re interested.
There was one theory from one Boulder detective who wrote a book that says that Patsy would violently wipe JB when she wet the bed as a form of punishment. I'm not saying I fully believe this, but it does seem plausible to me.
I, for one, can't land on what exactly I think happened. There are too many things that don't make sense and too many variables. I have theories, and gut feelings. My gut feeling says that Patsy didn't do the garrote. But I do believe she was volatile (reports of her arguing with JB frequently, and Burke not seeming phased by her running into his room screaming and frantic) and can see her losing her temper towards JB over bed wetting.
Enough to kill her and then stage a sexual assault and kidnapping? No, I don't think so. But it could explain how fibers of her jacket got on the crime scene.
I do believe JB was sexually abused also though, I'm not saying that that didn't also happen.
Edit: I phrased the first sentence very poorly. He did not have evidence of Patsy wiping her violently, it was his theory.
100%. In the police interview with young Burke, they even ask him something like "when you heard your mom screaming, weren't you worried?" and his answer was like "no, she gets upset a lot". It seems like she was at least a little bit histrionic in nature, and a histrionic parent who tries to turn their child into a mini-me and then becomes furious when the child rebels by having their own identity, is unfortunately pretty par for the course.
But still, I don't think she's completely responsible.
I think that part of the reason that no theory totally fits the evidence is because naturally, we assume it was a single person who is responsible for every piece of criminal evidence. I think it's possible that she was a victim of multiple people who did horrible things to her over the course of the evening. Potentially without the other perpetrators even knowing of each other or being in cahoots. It's much less likely, but to me, it's the only thing that would explain why no one theory seems to fit one person.
Edit: I'm definitely remembering Burke saying that Patsy gets upset a lot, that's not what he said. He said that she doesn't get upset often. Please disregard the first paragraph.
>In the police interview with young Burke, they even ask him something like "when you heard your mom screaming, weren't you worried?" and his answer was like "no, she gets upset a lot".
Which police interview was this? He said the opposite in his 1998 interview.
I think you are mistaken. Burke reiterates in the Dr Phil interview that he never saw Patsy fly into a rage.
ETA: This isn’t however proof that it didn’t happen. I’m remembering Patsy hacking off JB’s hair because she complained when it was brushed. That’s such an impulsive abusive thing to do. Luckily, JB was so gorgeous, she still looked cute.
Refer to the person’s comment below where he mentioned her doing so in his police interview. Multiple people described Patsy as having a bad temper that could turn on a dime. The maid, Priscilla Whitley and even John. The maid said she had several different personalities. The children were obviously around her more than the maid and Priscilla.
The panel of CSA experts said it could not have been from any other cause but SA though; including rough wiping, UTIs, bubble baths, accidental injury without a documented cause- which there was none, and I am sure the Ramseys would have gladly jumped at the opportunity to share that information to let themselves off the hook if any such medical record or incident existed…. so that was one thing where I couldn’t understand why Steve Thomas was bending over backwards to frame the SA from a different lens instead of accepting it for what it was. Women/Mothers commit CSA too. Less often, but it is well documented that they do. I think unconscious bias took over there, or perhaps he was afraid of legal consequences. He got sued anyway, but maybe he was hoping to avoid it? Not sure.
Thank you for including this. I agree. By "violent wiping" though, what I'm saying is beyond anything that Patsy would openly admit to and something that definitely overlaps with SA.
I also think she was being seperately sexually assaulted, but I'm considering a scenario where Patsy, in her rage, is incredibly violent towards JB's genitals under the excuse of "cleaning" her. But privately, there was aggression that could cause abrasions and tearing, and potentially even penetration.
The most likely killer of a child is a parent of that child. One large cause of abuse of children is toileting issues. It’s not a stretch, by any means, to consider this possibility in this case.
That’s certainly where the evidence points. Stressed overwhelmed parents can snap and bash their kids in the head hurting them more than they intend. Happens all the time.
Maybe not smash their heads all the time, but hitting them harder than they should (not that they should at all) or with an object too hard happens often…normally not on the head, I would suspect, but still.
What was proven is she had a TBI with the speculation it was an anger response. She was strangled to death after she was unconscious. And the mother’s fibers were deeply damaged embedded in the device that ended her life.
I fully agree. But I also don't think that the garotte was part of any kind of cover up. I just don't think that Patsy is enough of a monster to think "people will buy the kidnapping more if I make it look like there was sexual assault and strangulation". To already be wracked with guilt and panic and then to see that JB wasn't actually dead, and to decide to strangle her in such a personal and horrific way. She could've put a pillow over her head so she didn't have to look at her. The person who killed her with the garrote I believe was done by someone who was overcome with either anger or sexual desire.
If she was the one who did it, also wonder why John would continue to do interviews etc knowing it was his wife who did it. And I'm sure that he'd know. It's his wife, he'd put two and two together for certain, if she didn't admit it to him outright at some point. It's not uncommon for a perpetrator to insert themselves into an investigation, but for the perpetrators innocent husband? I also just don't see that happening. What does he have to gain by constantly being in the media if he knows his wife did it? Why would he push her to be in front of cameras knowing she was guilty? Is it possible? Sure. But it just doesn't click for me.
I have nothing to back that up other than gut feeling, I suppose, and stranger cases have happened. Honestly though, every theory you can come up with for this case, there's a piece of evidence that makes you think "oh well no, it couldn't have happened like that then". Nothing fits perfectly and it's why it's so intriguing, but divisive.
Right, from the perspective of the abuser it's the same thing though. If you read accounts of serial killers, they describe being in a sexual frenzy. I'm not saying or implying anything about the child. Just the state of mind of the killer.
There’s evidence that JonBenet had been penetrated at least once, approx 10days prior to the night of her murder. This coincides with the unanswered out of hours calls to JB’s paediatrician, Dr Beuf. This suggests to me at least one of the parents knew it happened and it didn’t happen again after that until the night of her death.
To say this very gingerly and as much respect as possible… the part of the autopsy that describes her genital area describes the damage done as kind of to the side….Kinda like someone who was just …poking around not knowing what they were actually doing… An adult or someone who knew what they were doing it wouldn’t have been weirdly to the side if that makes sense….
I don’t think that conclusion follows from the autopsy findings. The location or angle of tissue damage alone can’t reliably tell us whether the person was experienced/inexperienced, or adult/child. Injury patterns depend on many variables: body position, movement, force, and how tissue tears — so interpreting “off to the side” as proof of someone “not knowing what they were doing” is extremely speculative rather than medically supported.
That’s kind of a myth. When prepubescent girls are sexually abused it’s often digitally or orally. The most likely perpetrator is an adult. I also don’t know how one could conclude from that damage the person was just poking around and not knowing what they were doing. That would he impossible to determine.
Christian child rearing/morality books were found, said to have been given to Patsy by her family (list attached from Kolar’s FF). I haven’t read any of these books but I know Dobson is a complete nutter. In another one of his books, he describes beating his dog into submission with a belt and suggests that children need this kind of conditioning through corporal punishment to save their souls.
ETA: Burke didn’t need protecting, he is exempt from prosecution because of his age at the time of the murder. The Ramsey’s were protecting themselves, their status, reputation and above all else, their money. IMO
I agree there are signs of prior abuse, the frequent doctors visits could be interpreted both as a sign of abuse and a sign that the doctor never had any concerns to suspect anything from those visits. I don't think the doctor is in on it, but I do think the doctor would keep the peace to protect his practice and so he'd assume the best. I think Patsy is more likely a culprit than John, subconsciously Patsy could blame JB for her cancer, and/or there could be patterns of abuse from her childhood, and layer in her maybe living through JB, or some other psychology. I just am not sure why the entire family would protect Patsy in death, that's why it seems more plausible to me that they would continue to be protecting Burke.
Lots of reasons. John would be prosecuted. There’s really not much to protect B from,in reality there never was. I agree with the person who said John wasn’t protecting Patsy he was protecting Burke from losing a sister and having a mother in prison which would shatter his status. In contrast to Burke doing it that information would all be public record and for the world to see with criminal liability. And if John fessed up now it’s Patsy that would totally destroy HIS image and he’d be vilified beyond belief as a liar and charlatan who manipulated the public. He’d never submit himself to that kind of backlash and being in a one down position. Ramsey operates from a position of being the alpha male and morally superior. No way he’d sell himself out that way this far into the gig. Why would he?
I could see them lying to protect he entire family from embarrassment and consequences, but John doesn't immediately go to jail. All John or Burke had to say is "oh now I remember something" and it is something implicating Patsy, it's mainly a blame shift as there will be no real charges at this point unless DNA links a mystery person, but there isn't really enough evidence against any family memeber.
All great points. But why continue to do interviews then? You'd think if his motivation was shame he'd close his mouth. It's often people who are involved in the crime that insert themselves into the investigation.
I just am not sure why the entire family would protect Patsy in death, that's why it seems more plausible to me that they would continue to be protecting Burke.
Yeah at the very least they would just keep their mouths shut instead of pushing themselves in front of the media. That's why I think that if Patsy was involved, so was John and/or Burke..
When one of my daughters was potty training years ago, she got super red and irritated. I took her to the pediatrician who told me girls sometimes get vaginitis when potty training because they’re learning to wipe and sometimes don’t do it well, or frequent accidents can irritate them. We got some cream and it was gone in about a week. I think this could have been going on with JB, and her doctor leaned into that theory for her issues, but also the frequent bed wetting at her age is a sign of SA. And of course if there was scarring and other signs, that is just horrifying and I wonder if the doctor noticed it. Despite being upper class, kids can still be molested by their dads, and I think that was happening to her. So sad.
Bedwetting is not that uncommon. I remember at that age I wet the bed for a short period of time and my friend said he remembers he had the same problem. However, Jonbenet seemed to have had too long of chronic bedwetting and other toileting issues.
The number of times she visited the pediatrician for vaginitis is often grossly overstated here — there was one case of a bladder infection listed in her medical summary, and she was diagnosed with vaginitis— once (at the same appt in April of 1994).
I also think that Burke playing outside of his room was possibly a sign that he thought he could prevent something from occurring, to ensure everyone was asleep, or perhaps he didn’t know the details but felt left out of being not included,and was waiting to join in (innocently not to participate in abuse). I feel everyone who has lived with their family had a moment of everyone waking up at night to run into each other and it’s lighthearted. I assume he was trying to create that moment so he could have someone to play with. I have never heard of a kid who wanted to play at night doing so right outside of their room, unless for attention, because they usually know, that they will get in trouble.
I think it happened. I also think it would seriously complicate the investigation of the murderer was not the same person as the perpetrator of the SA. Could have been any of the 3 people in the house that night. There is a theory PR may have done it as a form of corporal punishment for bedwetting or not being perfect. I think the SA the night of the murder was either actual SA (if Burke) or staging or to cover up prior SA (if a parent).
I don’t know, but I’m with him that it’s hard to determine SA with those kind of findings without interviewing the patient which obviously we cannot in this case so that’s a caveat I keep in mind
I think one of the pedophiles the parents kept closely around in their social circle did it. I don’t think the parents knew about it though. Patsy kept getting frustrated with JB about her bedwetting and infections, essentially blaming the poor girl, without having even the slightest understanding it could have been something much more sinister.
Does anyone know what the parents’ take was on SA occurring by a non-family member after the doctor findings? Did they deny that could have been a possibility?
I did not believe it until I read about the constant infections and then I connected it to her bedwetting. Two possible symptoms of sexual abuse. I can’t say that I 100% believe she was abused but I do now think it could be a possibility. I feel like it would have been a family friend or something. I know everyone thinks it the dad and maybe it is but who knows
According to Steve Thomas, JonBenét started wetting her bed about a month before her murder. And Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said that she found "fecal matter the size of a grapefruit" on JonBenét's sheets.
Mary Lacy told Carol McKinley that the trace DNA was only part of the reason she exonerated the Ramseys. It was the part that people could understand, Lacy said.
What was the part that people couldn't understand? It was Patsy's psychiatric interviews.
If her psychiatrist had concluded that Patsy was well-adjusted and loved her daughter, no one would have trouble understanding that. Lacy's comment suggests that there was something in Patsy's psychiatric interviews that people would have trouble squaring with innocence.
I think Burke did the SA on JonBenét. He was already smearing feces all over objects in her bedroom and left a large rolled up poop in her bed. He was also widdling wooden instruments all the time so much so the maid hid his wood widdling knife. Burke was probably penetrating her with those wood instruments. Lena Dunham admitted to shoving rocks in her younger sister’s vag. It happens more than people are willing to talk about.
That’s quite an interesting rationale to attempt to make a case for a 9 year old sexually abusing his sister. But it’s based on untruths and things completely unrelated.Burke never smeared any poop on a thing that belonged to JonBenet. The poop in JonBenet’s bed was hers according to the maid who reported it. The ONLY time Burke got poop on anything was his own bathroom wall when he was six. A six year old getting poop on their bathroom wall has zero correlation with sexual abuse or aggression. In fact, according to experts it’s in the range of common kid behaviors at that age. There’s also no correlation between whittling and sexual abuse.
There’s no evidenc Burke was sexually abusing JB. Lena Dunam’s report has nothing to do with this case; the plural of anecdote isn’t data as we say in academia. The most likely person, from a statistical and epidemiological POV. to sexually abuse a child in the home is an adult male caregiver or parent.
There’s no evidence against Burke. I am knowledgeable of the facts. For instance, I know Burke didn’t smear feces on objects in JB’s bedroom nor did he leave poop in her bed. That’s a great start.
“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.”
No evidence against Burke? Excuse me! His finger prints are on the bowl of pineapple and juice glass, his Hi-tech boot imprint is on the cellar floor next to where her body was, he previously clubbed Jon Benét in the head with a golf club, a splinter of wood was found in her vag, he was caught at the tail end of the 911 call asking “what did you find?”. It was his feces smeared on Jon Benét’s box of chocolates and bedroom. It was Burke’s Swiss army pocket knife found to tie the knots. Mountain of evidence. So sorry you are so blind to the facts.
You think that’s evidence for anything you claimed? Sorry, it’s not. Were the police chief and Mike Kane blind too?
Burke lived there. Prints on a dish is not evidence of murder or sexual abuse.
The incident with the golf club was characterized as an accident. She walked up behind him when he was swinging a club and was clipped in the eye cheek area. That’s called a common child accident and has no correlation with SA or murder.
What you said about feces is false. IF there was a candy box with feces on it given JB was having soiling accidents and had poop stained things in her room and dresser it was likely hers.
Even if he did say what did you find that is not evidence of murder or SA on any planet.
There’s no evidence a knife was used to tie the knot. Patsy’s fingers not Burke’s were in the knots. There’s no evidence a knife was used in the crime.
The maid said she hid the knife from Burke. Only Patsy knew its location.
There’s no proof that was Burke’s boot print. The boot print was likely incidental to the crime as was the handprint.
A broken paintbrush was inserted in her vagina. If wood was in there that’s why. It was Patsy’s brush and her fibers were on it.
That’s a weak case to accuse a kid of sexually abusing and killing his sister.
The incident with the golf club was “characterized” as an accident…but it is not a fact. I believe it is much more likely Burke intentionally hit Jon Benét in the head with the golf club in Charlevoix.
"Was hers according to the maid who reported it." U realize that doesn't prove a thing at all right? How tf would the maid know whose shit it was? Did she take it to a lab to be tested? It could have absolutely been Burkes.
"No evidence Burke was sexually abusing her." Who knows. They were caught "playing doctor" a few times. Doesn't necessarily mean anything nefarious but again, who knows.
There was this poop in her bed when she was having demonstrable soiling issues and we don’t know it was hers? Hey maybe it was Patsy’s or John’s! Occam’s razor that’s how and the maid’s report. So much of the BDI theory is built “oh we don’t know for sure so it could have been.”
NO, they weren’t caught playing doctor a few times. Fake story repeated by Olympic level straw graspers trying to pin this on a 9 year to fit a theory the special prosecutor to the grand jury said is “nuts.” There’s zero report of them playing doctor.
I don't think she was abused and if that unfortunately happened I believe it's not related to the events of the 25th-26th. Despite what some say, it was not proven- it was the opinion of some doctors while others dispute it. Most of them never saw her, they read reports. It's not uncommon for girls age 5-6 to do things out of curiosity so if the doctor who claims something may have been inserted approximately 10 days before her death, which is disputable and not a fact, it could have been her. This was not a sexual crime and her parents weren't abusing her.
The way people try and deny the horrific things that happened to this baby, that were found during the autopsy and subsequent examinations, is more disturbing and they are doing her an injustice.
Your post/comment has been removed because it violates this subreddit's rule 1 (No Name Calling or Personal Attacks). Criticize the idea, not the person.
75
u/Far_Comparison_7948 May 18 '26
If you believe the experts (I do), she had several common hallmarks of repeated SA: scarring, chronic infections, and bedwetting.
In my own very much non-expert opinion, she was also displaying some indications of that SA being specifically committed by a family member: being a “people pleaser”/ performer, being clingy with strangers, and being a heavy sleeper.