New Theory accounting for the death of Jonbenet.

[Robittybob1]

what I do know is that people can make a slip of the tongue

What I hear in this video confused me to begin with, https://youtu.be/_bMKzzGoWEQ?list=PL7y_212E2kmu-XC9218Jr6xtNQOav9nkq&t=510.
But I listened to it a few times and he does say "NEITHER  Patsy or I gave Jonbenet pineapple to eat".

To begin with I thought he said: "EITHER  Patsy or I gave Jonbenet pineapple to eat".

[Robittybob1]

there was duct tape on her mouth and a ligature around her neck and loosely tied cords on her hands.

What order would you as a parent undo the restraints?

I think removing the duct tape is first but surely  the binds on the hands is less important than the garrote around her neck.

In this interview John says the knot on the hands was too tight, but that is not correct as one wrist the ligature just slipped off and on the other hand the knot could be easily undone.

It was the knot on the neck that could not be undone IMO.

The order that he tries to undo the restraints seems wrong if he was attempting to save her life.
https://youtu.be/WLKsEEcINyo?t=950  or thereabouts.

[Robittybob1]

https://youtu.be/WLKsEEcINyo?t=2296 
Do you really think John Ramsey didn't know what the Grand Jury  has decided?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKsEEcINyo&feature=youtu.be&t=2360  .... "accessory  ... I don't know what that really means?"  I struggle to believe that.

[Robittybob1]

https://youtu.be/WLKsEEcINyo?t=2451

Writing the wrong date on Jonbenet tombstone is also a bit dubious. 

[Robittybob1]

So just in that one video I find three things where I end up questioning John Ramsey's honesty. 

1  The illogical order of removing the restraints,
2  Not understanding the findings of the Grand Jury,
3  the incorrect date on the tombstone. 

If there was a common reason behind these, could that all be made to point to the one thing?  Can these 3 things all have a common cause?

If Burke did it, and Patsy and John did a cover-up, I suppose that theory could also result in these three things happening.  Obviously that is a powerful theory also and as the CBS documentary showed it got considerable support.

I might think it is a un-Christian thing to make a crime look as if it was done by someone else.
Burke was too young to be charged with murder so why cover it up?  The blow to the head didn't kill her.  In fact if she had been given medical attention the brain swelling could have been controlled, the bleeding could have been relieved.

If Burke had hit her on the head with whatever, it still took up to 2 hours to get the brain swelling that was found histologically before one of the parents strangled her from behind.  That is murder IMO even if it was done as a mercy killing.  Even if they thought "well she is going to die in any case, let's make it look like an outsider did it".
But an outsider would hardly wait around for 2 hours, no an outsider could have just given her another blow to the head, and fled.

Definition Histology "Histology: The study of the form of structures seen under the microscope (light, electron, infrared ). Also called microscopic anatomy, as opposed to gross anatomy which involves structures that can be observed with the naked eye. ... The word "histology" came from the Greek "histo-" meaning tissue + "logos", treatise."

[Robittybob1]

Looking at the video produced by the Armchair Detective  "#51, Patsy Ramsey "why did they do it ""  https://youtu.be/xivBSm0WD24, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

 The statement by Linda Arndt (LA) that she knew the killer was in the room, is more a paranoia rather than a fact.

If John Ramsey had killed his daughter I can't imagine why he would ask LA if JBR was still alive?  Or was it "Is she dead?"

We don't know what was going on in JR's head at that moment, but would LA be able to tell the difference between JR having killed JBR or JR thinking maybe one of his elder kids from his first marriage had killed her.

Later on he is told that the kids alibis are solid and the DNA seems to show it was done by a male, maybe the thought "one of his elder kids from his first marriage had killed her" was finally able to be put aside as the DNA by that stage was pointing to one or more male offenders.

[Robittybob1]

From the video "Spirits say what happened to Jonbenet Ramsey (2018)"

Lady talking gets some facts wrong.    She says the Ramsey's hired Lou Smit, when Lou was hired by the DA.

The 1500 people walked through the Ramsey house several years before (??).  Not that year.

She brings up a good point that it might be possible to talk the spirit of Patsy Ramsey now!

There are sounds like they are tuning a radio and quickly passing the stations (they call this "spirit box").   I find videos such as these totally BS.

https://youtu.be/5fIkY1a12BA

[Robittybob1]

What is this?  "Patsy Ramsey/ She wrote the practice ransom note"  I think the claim here was wrong.

Sorry about that I had not given you the link "The Smoking Gun! Patsy wrote the Note!"  https://youtu.be/4qEDoEk6q0I  (did the title change overnight?).

Has the author got a valid point?

I feel it is the testimony that carries the evidence, and Patsy says "No" she never told anyone she wrote the practice ransom note.

[Robittybob1]

On a similar line "And Even MORE proof John Ramsey wrote the Ransom Note!"   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTITeF5A0Rk  on lindalovesmusic1 channel.

So who wrote the note Patsy or John?

[Robittybob1]

Would it be able to apply the findings of the New Theory to find the critical faults in the CBS documentary "The Case Of: Jonbenét Ramsey" https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4 ?

[Robittybob1]

I think an additional handset had been raised.  If there were other voices they weren't from Patsy.  This happens if one can accept the kidnappers were still on site listening into the 911 call.  The CBS team say "there were only 4 people in the house"  OK that was a wrong assumption IMO.

So the whole program starts from a possible misconception. 

[Robittybob1]

Kim Archuletta the 911 operator thinks she hears completely different phrases to what the documentary claims.
Both are probably wrong IMO.

[Robittybob1]

When the team analyses the ransom note they find several similarities to dialogue from movies.  That would be rather bizarre IMO if someone could come up with these references in an unplanned kidnap situation.  A cover-up IMO would be an unplanned kidnap. 
To me it suggests whoever did this had the idea of using the movies about kidnaps as a source of inspiration.  In other words the kidnapping scenario was planned. Plan to get the money rather than to kill the child even if the note mentions "she dies" often enough.

https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4?t=1742  the mention of two practice notes surprises me.  I had heard of one practice notes but two??????

[Robittybob1]

Jim Clemente comes to the conclusion the letter was staged. https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4?t=1866

I disagree with that idea, IMO it was test in compliance for John to pass.  "don't try and grow a brain, use your head."  or words to that effect. 

It may not have been intended as an kidnap note but an intelligence test.

[Robittybob1]

https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4?t=3830

They come to the wrong conclusion that "the garrote does not cause the death but the blow to the head does".
https://youtu.be/kBUQO2u-eD4?t=3900  "the cause of death is blow to the head by a blunt object".

As I said earlier the histological evidence showed brain swelling and the death was 45 mins to 2 hours after the blow to the head.

In the "New Theory" discussed here the ligature around the neck is applied first, then a blow to the head, then later the ligature has the handle attached to it and converted to a type of garrote which is the ultimate cause of death.