A Plan Interrupted? - An Addendum to the JonBenét Ramsey Video
Added 2025-04-19 09:38:04 +0000 UTCThe “Addendum” is significantly longer than the actual video, but oh well. People have asked me for my personal opinions on this case, and I think after listening to this you’ll get why I didn’t think I could just rattle them off in real time during the upcoming Creator Commentary on the vid. This Addendum contains those opinions and just about everything I’d want to outline in defending them.
It could be a good idea for some to rewatch my JonBenet vid before taking this in if you’re scratchy on the 101s, as this mainly assumes prior knowledge. I’ll be really interested to see what you all make of it. Obviously there are some very strong opinions in all sorts of directions about this case. Maybe I won’t convince you on what I see as the most likely explanation, and that’s OK, but I hope there’s at least certain angles discussed in here that get you thinking a bit.
Feel free to ask any questions and I’ll do my best to clarify where I can, though there will always be areas where I just have to concede I don’t know for sure what the answers are.
UPDATE:
I don’t even know the topic for the next main release as I’ve been focusing only on putting this together! However, I will get the Commentary JBR vid up (or are you sick of the topic now!?) in a few weeks and provide a proper update then :)
NOTES:
Calling Cyril Wecht’s theory “barmy” might have been too harsh, but it is a bit out of left field to say the least…He thinks John accidentally strangled her during a sex game. I think a lot of his observations are interesting, but he lost the plot a bit when putting it all together. Here’s a vid of him discussing his views in more depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ererA-5uiEQ
LINKS:
DocGs Blog: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/
Ruled In, DocGs book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HNWYIEM
More on the MS Word theory: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html
RDI Reddit thread on DNA: https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/l0ev4y/dna_evidence_in_the_ramsey_case_faqs_and_common/
IDI Reddit thread on DNA: https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/
Comments
I think there is more to reason for intruder to write a note like that than being crazy. (I should say by crazy I mean erratic and without reason, child murdering puts you somewhere on the spectrum of insane). My favorite theory is JonBenet had a stalker who wanted to delay the police response as long as possible. This was to give as much space between him and the crime as possible. He doesn't know when the crime will be discovered and wants to give as much space as possible. In addition, he wants the crime to be looked to implicate kidnappers not a domestic predator. Thow off the scent as much as possible. Why the body is in the house at the end of this. My problems with DocG's theory and none of them are enough to rule him out is... John has written a note that implicates himself highly in a murder. He knows it will to some degree match his handwriting it was written in his house, and the whole reason for the note is so Patsy will not call the police. So instead of say... "waking up early" to find the note and telling Patsy about the note he leaves it to chance that she won't immediately call the police. It's the one case of the theory where John is not under much time pressure, but he does something that destroys his plan. And then the state of the body. To put is delicate as possible a person who's "been" with JB for a period, would have less motive to do something to the body. Whereas a stranger would have never been alone with JB before would want to do something like that. For me those issues (and I must admit the positive vibe check I get from John) are bigger than an intruder somehow getting in and out without leaving a sign in addition to the other issues with an Intruder theory.
Adam Berck
2025-10-09 19:27:43 +0000 UTCI remember hearing/reading that the nylon cord could have been from patsy’s paintings. Used when framing to hang them on the wall.
Sharon Straker
2025-10-06 19:35:20 +0000 UTCShe probably just passed out
Queen of Hearts
2025-08-25 20:02:54 +0000 UTCthe phrase MOCAS caught my attention - i thought you were saying marcus and got confused because your name is matt. i've been edging to your ads ever since, and the reacher one made me click through and join to unlock this banger ❤️
nope not
2025-08-19 08:43:31 +0000 UTCLate reply and sorry if already been brought up below. I think the fact that Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the night before, and still had her makeup on is a severe hindrance to my believing JDI. Bearing in mind the - admittedly surface level - things we know about Patsy, that seems blindingly out of character. In my opinion she never went to bed that night. Of course the points about the note and the injury are difficult to reconcile with Patsy being a clear cut culprit, but I don't think it unreasonable to say that IF Patsy truly did not go to bed on the 25th, that she was involved. Not an expert, so if I'm missing something please let me know. :)
Danny Puzanov
2025-07-23 06:50:19 +0000 UTCI’m not particularly familiar with a lot of the details, but it seems to me that a problem with the BDI theory is that, if I understand correctly, the day this happened Burke was sent to a family friends house [without supervision from one of his parents?], and I don’t think the parents would take that risk if they knew he had done it.
David McKinnon
2025-06-23 05:52:37 +0000 UTCCo-signed. It should also be noted that Berlinger and his buddy are the ones who made the decision to open PL with the most graphic imagery of Stevie, Michael and Chris imaginable, without so much as asking any of the parents if they were okay with it (surely aware it would have been a resounding, unanimous "No!") Not just any parents of slain children, parents of slain children who had Berlinger and his buddy into their living rooms during the peak of their unimaginable grief, because they thought their participation might in some way help people in the future. Talk about demonic.
Matt Orchard
2025-06-22 06:16:59 +0000 UTCJoe Berlinger who helped create Paradise lost also made the Netflix biased show Who killed Jon Benet. Needless to say, I dont put much stock into anything he produces because its always a biased narrative that omits facts so glaring and obvious that its infuriating. Werner Spitz who helped on the "Burke did it" CBS documentary also testified for Casey Anthony and made claims, yes claims that dogs mutilated the boys in the robin hood hills in West Memphis. Its ludicrous and cruel to the memory of those poor boys, off course later on other "experts" blamed snapping turtles and fish. We are getting the entire zoo here.
Julz XD
2025-06-21 00:37:15 +0000 UTCKeep doing these! I'm constantly driving and these are engaging to listen to.
Mandoy
2025-06-20 06:08:20 +0000 UTCI found Doc G's book a few months ago after rewatching your video for the 100th time and it is easily the most convincing theory on the case. I subbed to your Patreon to watch this video specifically - honestly I was not expecting you to be a full JDI. Imagine my surprise when I clicked the description and the first thing I saw was a link to Doc G's blog! My favorite point that he's made about the DNA evidence is that it is both the biggest positive and negative for the IDI side. Because of it, IDIs forever have a phantom scapegoat they can point to - "an anonymous serial pedophile snuck into the house and killed her!" But then evil serial pedophiles actually admit to the crime - the gold star suspect the Ramseys and IDIs have waited for - and lo and behold the DNA doesn't match. The DNA doesn't mean shit.
Mack
2025-06-20 04:08:53 +0000 UTCIf Burke did the lot - head blow, garroting, paint brush, etc. I could much easier see fears of him being institutionalized. It's just hard for me to picture all of that. I mean hell, as stated, its hard for me to even see him creating the skull fracture!
Matt Orchard
2025-06-19 07:17:52 +0000 UTCThanks Steve - I gave some thoughts on the case and the problems with making a video on it, which my not be insurmountable :)
Matt Orchard
2025-06-18 05:05:02 +0000 UTCI mean, that plays out in my head just fine - yeah! I don't believe Patsy's ever characterized her actions specifically that way though.
Matt Orchard
2025-06-18 05:02:26 +0000 UTCI've been reading the updates, so I'm somewhat interested. Unfortunately that's a great example of great case/poor supporting material. Aussies do not broadcast their trials, and they are way less prone to releasing full police interviews too. Same with all countries outside the US. There's just not that many (if any) parallels to America's FOIA system. One thing I think makes that case super interesting is how it illustrates, "no motive!" isn't a very compelling argument. If all else is equal, sure...but when all else is not equal (real Darlie vibes here!). There's no good motive to be put forward for Patterson to have done what she's accused of doing. You might wanna say, "but she was broken up form her husband, and those were his friends and family!"- but that aint a motive. The starting point for finding one maybe, but not one in and of itself. Patterson had nothing to gain by killing those people that we know of - no financial gain, no custody benefits (I mean her ex didn't even wind up attending thank god), and the crown even opened their case by acknowledging as much, opting to get ahead of it rather than try to carve on out, because it's genuinely super tough to articulate what good reason she could have to want to poison those people. ...But she did. I mean dead to fucking rights she did. They have her doing online research for where to find death caps, they have her attempting to dispose of a dehydrator after the dinner, they have her attempting to fake her own illness following the meal - not to mention telling lies about her health to the dinner guests prior and pressuring her ex HARD to attend. Those are just the crib notes as I'm sure you know. Dead to rights. But no motive to speak of really - funny one for sure. I might be able to cobble something together with news reports and so forth. I might wait to see if there are any big budget docos and/or dramatic productions on the case on the horizon to give me some more visual options. I really need those to have something to talk over when there isn't trial/interrogation footage.
Matt Orchard
2025-06-17 08:59:50 +0000 UTCI’ve read the entire book by Doc G and I found it to be solid in the main and more shaky on smaller elements. For example: He spends a good deal of time comparing John’s one known handwriting sample to the note: sometimes letter by letter, sometimes in letter segments. He also quotes a handwriting analyst who agrees with him and shows links to their work (most of which are older links, some of which do not work). He then later acknowledges that the Ramsey’s attorneys claimed(in a lawsuit filled against them) that handwriting analysis is not a strongly supported science. Which is true. But undermines both the Ramsey’s assertions that handwriting analysis clears them and Doc G’s assertion that John’s handwriting appearing similar is something that can truly be counted as strong evidence. He acknowledges that this is a flaw with the Ramsey’s but doesn’t apply it to his own comparisons. I think handwriting analysis is interesting but too a red herring, much like the note itself. And it weakens his argument in my mind. But can I fault people for trying to engage with something so strange? Not really. He’s at his weakest when he presents an argument based on intuition or without baseline data, then tries to apply logic to it afterwards to make the point more robust. Which he genuinely doesn’t need to do. His logic (in the main) is sound enough on its own and doesn’t need to be supported by weaker arguments. It’s an imperfect work but if you go into it with an open mind, you can glean his stronger, compelling arguments and dismiss those you think are weaker. It’s a fascinating theory overall and, in my opinion, worth your time.
Samantha Pullen
2025-06-16 12:57:43 +0000 UTCIf there are outsiders who buy IDI, then I have no doubt Patsy could.
sampled tms
2025-06-16 06:14:10 +0000 UTCI love your story about discovering Doc G’s blog. It was a lot like my own experience, tho unlike you I am merely a causal follower of the JB case. I stumbled upon Doc G’s blog way back, maybe 10 years ago, after finding some of his writings there on the Making a Murderer (that documentary bothered the hell out of me). Doc’s case for “John did it” blew my mind. Since then I have considered this the strongest theory around. I am amazed it hasn’t gotten more traction, and that Patsy is seen by most as a more plausible suspect. Perhaps the temptation to blame the mother is just too great for some. (The mother figure is so evocative of strong feelings about protection, harm, love, betrayal…) I am equally amazed at how certain some people are about their own theories. In reality, this one of the most ambiguous and confusing mysteries ever, which is why I dip back into reading about it every few years. On a broader note, your videos are fantastic. You have an amazing ability to choose just the right word or turn of phrase to describe things. I wish I knew how to write like your scripts. They are just A+. Thanks for the enjoyable and thought provoking content.
Lb
2025-06-15 16:41:10 +0000 UTCI was very interested to listen to this, because after researching and thinking about this case a lot I’ve also come to the conclusion that it’s either John or an intruder. I’ve never found any of the Burke theories convincing and nothing in particular, except maybe handwriting anaysis (which I don’t put a lot of stock in) points to Patsy. Regarding the DNA, is there any published research on DNA transfer that would help set a statistical baseline? I’m thinking of studies where a large number of people’s clothes was analysed for contact DNA. That would help us decide how suspicious the two samples on her long johns and underwear actually is. I agree that at first glance it seems really suspicious, but thinking on it more I guess I don’t know if that’s true. Especially since was a young child who had just been at a busy party. Regarding Doc G’s book, I attempted to read the kindle sample last year but I was turned off by some very spurious logic. If I remember correctly, early on he asserts that the ransom note was written by a man because it uses phrases like “one hunted percent” or something like that, which is complete bullshit. Is the rest of the book any better?
ChiralSpiral
2025-06-12 14:46:58 +0000 UTCAnd now that I've finished listening to the whole vid, yes. It's also very weird that if IDI, this perp has not gravely offended again and not entered in a DNA db.
Amaya
2025-06-12 13:47:12 +0000 UTCI agree. I'm also very suspicious of their help. They could be the intruder (no forced entry needed).
Amaya
2025-06-12 11:09:41 +0000 UTCI never get tired of hearing about this case. In fact I only subscribed to your patreon because I wanted to hear more from you. This one is wild, I can't make up my mind on what happened here... There's weird details to "prove" any pet theory. But you are right. An adult male hit her head, no way around it. I also wonder, why are people so intent on blaming JR for the abuse (he had older children, none have reported this sort of thing. People don't become child molesters suddenly at his age when this happened, right? Also, no allegations of abuse after). I don't think he was abusing her. Thanks for sharing your views.
Amaya
2025-06-12 11:08:04 +0000 UTCI've got a left field suggestion for you. I am not sure if you know who Chris Chan is, but he was arrested in 2021 for alleged sexual crimes against his... geriatric mother. Here's the thing: He got off scott-free. All charges dropped. The common belief on the internet is that he did it. However, in a legal context, there is a reasonable doubt. Enough doubt that his case was dismissed. He is autistic, and has been shown to have a rather loose grip on reality. In the past, trolls on the internet have brainwashed him into believing some pretty bizarre stuff. Despite the fact that he made repeated claims that he was guilty in writing from jailhouse letters, charges were still dropped. The rabbit hole goes incredibly deep on that case. There is an entire wiki on the guy documenting every public statement he has made, public sightings, documentation on his trolls, etc. There are dozens of documentaries on the net about him, but none actually posing the question of whether or not he was actually guilty. It would probably bring in some mad views as well. Just something to consider. It could be interesting to explore what might have gone down in the courtroom on that fateful day his charges were dropped.
Iron
2025-06-09 18:29:39 +0000 UTCAnd/or indeed covering his tracks if he indeed sexually abused her before her death. Fearing they would be able to tell she had been abused, he created a plausible reason as to why.
Reiken Kayzer
2025-06-08 02:30:44 +0000 UTCI wonder if the note was written by somebody on crack. The maid, who worked for them at the time of JonBenet’s killing was later arrested for selling it. So it could explain where John got it. I think it would explain a lot of things I think it would explain: the note, both length & fantastical content; the varied & intricate nature of the injuries to jonbenet. maybe it even explains his motivation to do it + sexually assault jonbenet at all. or if you think john was too highbrow for crack (though i've known millionaires who do crack, lol) you could call it adderall psychosis. i think my theory makes a lot of sense if you ignore the fact that there's no evidence for it at all
Rosalind Margulies
2025-05-29 04:58:07 +0000 UTCNot Case related but what are your thoughts on the Erin Pattinson ‘Death Cap Mushroom’ murder trial? Would this be a case you would consider covering in a video?
Fletcher Henery
2025-05-29 01:46:05 +0000 UTCYour channel is my absolute most trusted place to go for true crime, because I can’t bear it when the facts of someone’s murder aren’t treated with proper respect, and you are so measured and, as you say, cross your t’s and dot your i’s. The thing that most strikes me about the JonBenet case is how one crime scene could possibly be the creation of a panicked family coverup OR a crazed, calculated maniac. How come the crime scene suggests a rushed coverup when the murder itself seems so methodical and deliberate? How can that note be so heavy handed and such an absolute failure to disguise the murderer, almost comically theatrical, yet its author and its planned effect are still unknown! I was also wondering how likely it is for an intruder to have kept quiet up to now, considering how famous this case is? Could they resist telling someone? Could those people have resisted spreading the word?
Amy Culham
2025-05-26 23:51:27 +0000 UTCjust a thought re: Patsy's phone call sounding like a mother who called the cops immediately and is rifling through the note as she's on the phone... she reads "Victory SBTC" and then maybe her eyes passed over one of the many threats not to call the police, which is why we hear her manic energy fluctuating and ultimately causes her to flat out hang up on the operator
N. M.
2025-05-25 04:06:31 +0000 UTCMatt, I have a treat for you. A&E recently relaunched their iconic true crime series, City Confidential. The first four seasons were brilliantly narrated by Paul Winfield, who died in 2004. The 45-minute episodes spend half of their time explaining the cultural setting of high-profile cases. As a student of the genre, you’ll appreciate the scripts, narration, and sometimes arch comedy. I just discovered the series because the first four seasons are now free on YouTube. The first episode is “Deadly Odds in Biloxi.”
Steve
2025-05-19 03:22:37 +0000 UTCAs to the paintbrush thing, without getting too graphic, it's easy for me to imagine him wanting some kind of, "one last time," but, knowing that any part of his body would potentially be highly incriminating, he used a paintbrush.
Matthew Thayer
2025-05-15 07:29:17 +0000 UTCFinally got around to this after being very sick for a bit. Glad I saved it when I can think it over clearly. I do agree with your conclusion that John or an intruder are really the only suspects I consider legitimate based on the strike. I just have a hard time squaring John as a pedophile given his history before and since. Sure it's possible he had a fixation on JB but pedophiles just don't act once. That is a continuous urge that must be filled which is why recidivism rates are insanely high compared to other crimes. No matter how intelligent they usually don't get away with it and surely there would at least be an inkling of something or anything in his 80 years of life. And for someone apparently pretty intelligent his plan was quite terrible and not well thought out to get rid of this supposed problem. There is no doubt easier ways to do this. Why would he wait to dispose of the body? Surely that is something you need to plan how you are going to do right away, as of course finding it in your own house makes you look insanely guilty. The ransom letter is also another point of contention. If you are going to fake this then why wouldn't you keep it pretty short and simple like most of these letters are? The rambling almost nonsensical way it is written doesn't really track with someone of a sound mind. It's hard to fathom thinking John wrote it that way deliberately. It being written like that really only points the finger at you because of how insane it is. I just have to lean with an intruder given how much of this case doesn't make sense and given how the investigation was clearly bungled and think there has to be huge stuff they missed. I also do think that experts who worked on the case largely lean towards the intruder theory which means a little, maybe there is some stuff just out of the public's eye. Hard to believe they all believe something seemingly preposterous with the same information we have. JB also wasn't a normal kid and definitely drew some attention which raises the likelihood compared to someone unknown, could've been a stalker of some sort. I think all the oddities could easily fall into place if we had the full picture. As for why there was never a hit for DNA, it could actually be transfer contact or the perpetrator could've died shortly after because I do concede it would be hard to imagine a murderous pedophile not offending again. Awesome video though, gotta be some of the most comprehensive stuff on the case!
futures
2025-05-12 02:58:40 +0000 UTCThe claim that they had Mindhunter before meeting John Douglas is false.
Captain Panda
2025-05-11 21:15:52 +0000 UTCHey Matt, here in DC, I’m following the Erin Patterson case via the Australian podcast “The Mushroom Trial: Say Grace.” I really hope a video about this case is on your to-do list. We need someone to put it in the context of what—to an outsider—seems to be a rather bizarre mushroom culture down under.
Steve
2025-05-10 14:41:57 +0000 UTCJohn Douglas published his bestselling Mindhunter in October 1995. We’ve learned Rex Heuermann (Gilgo Beach) studied it and took notes. And there are reports a copy was in the Ramseys’ master bedroom. Take a look at the intertextualities between this case and Chapter 16 (“God Wants You to Join Shari Faye”). They range from girls kidnapped from home to rare mixed motive (sex homicide + ransom demand) to no fingerprints on letter to two words: “Listen carefully.”
Steve
2025-05-10 12:21:02 +0000 UTCI have rewatched this 3 times now, amazing video! This is the only Jon Benet media that has helped me form anything close to an opinion on what may have happened. Thank you for all of your hard work!
Kevin Fox
2025-05-09 21:59:53 +0000 UTCIncredible video and I am very glad to have paused rewatching one of your videos at the intro and subscribed here. I am pleased by your refraining from discussing the paintbrush, and even taking an L so you don't have to talk about it. It does, as someone just learning this case from you, seem to be an extremely strong piece of JDI evidence. To just put it out there and let you take a shower after, it seems like this is a way to account for a certain membrane being torn that would show up in a post mortem examination, that is generally intact in 6 year old girls. Even if these sorts of tests are not generally considered medically sound and probably inadmissable in court, not everyone knows that. The paintbrush also makes BDI and probably RDI really absurd . Time me to take a shower, maybe in slight bleach solution. Probably other people have had this thought I'm sure.
sammer
2025-05-09 15:43:08 +0000 UTCThank you for ending your video with a reminder of Jon Benet's humanity - it's something I always really appreciate about how you handle true crime cases. The victims shouldn't be remembered for the way they died, but for who they were and how tragic it is we lost them.
Connor Evans
2025-05-04 17:05:23 +0000 UTCoh! the other thing that's really a huge leap for me here is the underlying assumption that John would just assume Patsy would patiently read this whole 2-page ransom note before freaking out. I've known Patsy Ramsey through a two-minute 911 call and maybe 5 minutes total TV footage and I feel like *I* already know she's a woman given to dramatic overreaction, and if that woman was my wife, I would certainly know and trust her to immediately fly into hysterics the moment she realized her child was missing. At MINIMUM i would make sure my "DO NOT CALL THE POLICE" was the first or second line in my note, and i would keep my note very short to match her likelihood of panicking. Or I just, you know, would not pin my ENTIRE murder plot around the faint possibility that my panic-stricken wife, who was often painted as the dominant one in the family, would listen to my written instructions while in the middle of panicking.
AR
2025-05-03 03:20:42 +0000 UTCi'm so glad that i signed up for your patreon just in time for this post! this is one of the cases i most love listening to my favorite podcasters cover, and the case i most judge new podcasts on (if they seriously argue that Burke did it then i know they're not serious haha). i really loved your take on this and i really appreciated the way you laid everything out in this! i honestly don't think anything you said here really excludes the intruder scenario for me, though, because 1) i've never assumed the intruder was a stranger, and 2) i've never assumed all the doors were locked just because John said so. I recently bought my first house, which is roughly probably 15 times smaller than the Ramsey's house, and even though i only have a grand total of four (4) doors to keep track of, and even though i make a point of regularly checking them to make sure they're all locked, and even though i need a key to lock the deadbolt for 3 of the 4 doors, i STILL am constantly discovering that somehow i have left one or more of the doors unlocked without realizing it, sometimes for a whole day, when i was absolutely convinced i had locked it. Just yesterday I went to unlock the patio door only to realize that while the little flip latch was locked, the deadbolt somehow wasn't, and I genuinely have no idea how that happened or how long it was standing unlocked like that. And that is just me with my four easy-to-keep-track-of doors! Not the Ramseys with their enormous house with dozens of doors and windows and balcony-doors. I say all that to say that if you are positing which scenario seems more likely, to me "John Ramsey thought all the doors were locked when they weren't and someone walked in" is a vastly simpler explanation to me overall than "John Ramsey suddenly manifested pedophilic tendencies for the first and as far as we know only time in his life." The intruder could also have easily pushed the push lock on a doorknob as they left so it locked behind them. There are multiple true crime cases in which pedophiles bide their time and target a specific child, then stalk that child and their family until they have an opportunity to harm them. Given that we know several pedophiles were in JonBenet's pageant circle, and given how public their family was and how big their social circle was, it just does not seem that far-fetched to me at all that an intruder could learn that the family would be gone to the party, realize that would give them a long time in the house, and take advantage of that time to enter, learn their way around, write the note, and lie in wait. It's most likely in this scenario that JonBenet knew them and they wouldn't have any trouble luring her downstairs. The biggest problem with this theory to me is how an intruder would know about John's $118,000 bonus for the ransom note, but again, this was a loud and public family with a big social circle, and people talk, so, not impossible. I think the biggest mental hurdle I have with the idea that John did it is that the leap from zero known pedophilic proclivities, to a specific pedophilic proclivity that still went undetected by anyone (again, despite how public a family they were!), to a specific pedophilic proclivity that immediately escalates to the murder of your own child, just all feels like such an increasingly narrowly psychopathic behavioral profile that it feels as though there's no way to reconcile it with the complete lack of psychopathy exhibited anywhere else in his life. That enormous skull fracture combined with the paintbrush assault makes this a deranged, Tommy Lynn Sells or Oba Chandler-style murder, and those were the kind of men who just couldn't stop being creepy and leaking their sexual proclivities and violence everywhere they went, even when they weren't killing. If John Ramsey really carried out this unthinkably violent act on his own daughter and then never did anything like it ever again — I don't really know who else I'd compare him to, psychology-wise. I don't even know who fits into that profile. God, maybe a total and complete narcissist like Chandler Halderson or John List? They were both motivated by the same kind of desperation you're describing here. But they were also both pathological liars — we would be swapping in a very well-known criminal profile of pathological liars with narcissism killing when their lies are discovered (Chandler, John, Sef Gonzales, Jennifer Pan, Christopher Porco, that one kid from the UK who claimed to be a tennis pro, the list goes on and on and on) for a more or less unknown profile of a narcissistic pedophile with, apparently, a middle-aged manifestation of both his narcissism and his pedophilia. I just don't know anyone else in the annals of true crime that fits that profile, at least not that I can easily recall. IDK IDK. But you've given me tons to think about!
AR
2025-05-03 02:46:08 +0000 UTCThat's a lovely idea <3
Jessa Nather
2025-05-02 13:37:49 +0000 UTCThank you, Matt!! I love your analysis of this case and I really think it's the best one out there. If you're interested in my ideas, the thing I disagree with you about is that John and Patsy were too smart to come up with that ridiculous plan with the fake kidnapping. You obviously know a lot about crime, so I think you might be overestimating the average person's understanding of how a kidnapping/murder scenario would work. I know it would be a really stupid plot, but I think it's realistic for people who have no idea about crime or any of it to think that a "small foreign faction" might kidnap a child for ransom, leaving a (comically long) ransom note to really drive the point home, because they just didn't really know that ransom notes are usually short and "small foreign factions" wouldn't do this sort of thing. Maybe they watched a lot of TV and thought of stories of terrorist or criminal gangs kidnapping people. They could have left Jonbenet in the basement, imaging that the cops would simply believe that the kidnappers' plan went awry between leaving the note and leaving the house. Maybe the kidnapper got violently carried away and killed her by accident, or when carried away by the desire for murder. That would be a scenario if you imagine that a comically evil group wanted to kidnap her, but then had a mistake along the way. Then, if they got really carried away with the imagining, they could have gone so far as to stage the evidence with the garrote and the paintbrush. I've seen many cases of parents doing horrible things to their children, and I don't doubt that it's possible, especially if they thought it would make the plot more realistic. I also think it's believable that they would think that Burke would be taken from them if he was involved, even by accident. They would probably believe that he would be branded as a dangerous child, suspected of murdering her on purpose, might be locked up in a juvenile jail or smth for years. If the killing was suspected to be really violent on his part. I can see why they would imagine that as a real possibility. Anyway, I just think that you're smarter and well-read about crime than most regular people, and this may lead to a bit of a different perspective. Thanks for your content! Much love <3
Jessa Nather
2025-05-02 13:34:32 +0000 UTCIt's this guy if you wanna say hi! https://www.youtube.com/@BonnieKiwi/videos
Matt Orchard
2025-05-01 09:36:50 +0000 UTCCheers Claire! It's a funny piece of evidence that newspaper tidbit, isn't it? So small, yet...totally not small.
Matt Orchard
2025-05-01 09:35:27 +0000 UTCIt's on the more or less "definitely" list. Not necessarily soon, but basically for sure some time or another - probably at a time I feel well rested! Looks like a massive one. I don't have a strong opinion rn, just know the basics.
Matt Orchard
2025-05-01 09:32:37 +0000 UTCYou know with that point about staging an accident, I’ve got to be careful not to go off on too much a tangent because I think it’s such an interesting crime subject in and of itself. First of all, I’d say - yes, going on a hike and having JB “trip” would seem less high risk than staging a full on kidnapping and so forth, all things being equal. All things aren’t necessarily equal though. A couple of BIG things: 1. Opportunity. From John deciding JBs death was necessary to whatever his deadline may have been (I can only speculate if he had a deadline and what the reasons would have been for it) he may well just have had no way of inconspicuously getting JB to the edge of a cliff or what have you. You might say, “well it doesn’t have to be a cliff” and I get you, but take it as a metaphor. Whatever your method is, you’ve got to create the circumstances, and contrived circumstances look suss. It’s usually way harder to kill a person on purpose and have everything come out genuinely looking like an accident than you might think. Accidents look like accidents because they’re accidents sort of thing. I’m sure there are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, staging an accident isn’t a piece of cake. 2. Certainty of Death. Staging an accident is a real “one shot/one kill” sort of strategy, and the more surely fatal you make the circumstances, the less it’s going to look like an accident. Conversely, the more you make it look like a genuine accident, as a rule of thumb, the higher the odds will be that your victim will survive. Things that make it look less like an accident: Going in for seconds/thirds, delaying calling for medical assistance. And if they do survive, good luck making any second attempt putting them in unnaturally dire circumstances and avoiding suspicion. Honestly, “It Was An Accident!” Could make a great video - you’ve got me going now! In terms of that head wound - I believe it’s pretty well subscribed to among theorists of all stripes that it was a single blow. Doing my best to explain without any expertise - the single, large, clean break, along with the gash that represents the point-of-impact, speaks to one large thwack. If she was hit multiple times, you’d expect more impact patterns - think Kathleen Peterson. Also, no external bleeding. The skull fracture was only discovered at autopsy, no one even knew she’d been hit in the head til then. “Definitively established” is probably still a bit too rich though - a pretty high bar in pathology! Obviously I just disagree that BDI is more congruent with the evidence than JDI, and I’ve outlined why in the addendum so I should probably just leave it there. All I’ll say is that I think writing off the cops being called so early with emotional distress highlights a flaw in the argument. The note spends a whole paragraph giving the Ramsey’s the perfect cover to delay calling the police. So the idea is Patsy threw out that whole fundamental part of the plan (that wasn’t all written for no reason) and calls the cops with the body still in the basement because things were just getting too overwhelming? Doesn’t wash at all with me. I still think her not knowing the body was in the basement is a much more elegant explanation for that action.
Matt Orchard
2025-05-01 09:30:22 +0000 UTCThat was a lovely tribute to Jon-Benét at the end there Matt. I'm not religious but I like to imagine her up in heaven fussing over all the baby angels and making sure they all get a turn in their heavenly games.
Claire
2025-04-27 03:44:42 +0000 UTCAbsolutely love that ransom note VO, I hear it in my head very often 😀
Claire
2025-04-27 01:28:21 +0000 UTCAgree, we often see examples where a paedophile father is particularly interested in just one of their children. Not always but it's definitely a thing.
Claire
2025-04-27 01:22:14 +0000 UTCDamn Matt this hit the spot for me! In your David Bain recap, the factoid about throwing the newspaper at the neighbour's door had a significant impact on cementing my view that he was responsible and this video had a similar effect! (An effect not an affect!). The handwriting thing was especially compelling. Personally I believe still that Burke was involved and that there were two killers - one for each major injury. Burke was adept at tying knots and whittling wood and if that was him overheard on the 911 call as he later conceeded on the grand jury witness stand, his voice (to me) contains a guilty or nervous element. It's not inconceivable that John found Burke mid-assault with the cord, possibly even with his friend Doug Stein, and used a nearby golf club or baseball bat to hit her on the back of the head. I do think it's possible for scrawny Burke to inflict that kind of damage if using a long-handled golf club or a bat. I'm impressed with your ability of persuasion regarding Patty's lack of involvement - when you take away the handwriting analysis evidence, there is not an actual lot tying her to the murder. Off to read that e-book!
Claire
2025-04-27 01:20:17 +0000 UTCI’d be so curious to hear your take on Madeleine McCann
Allison
2025-04-26 00:16:45 +0000 UTCIf John had Indeed planned this in advance (even just for a couple of days), his "solution" seems like an unnecessarily complex and risky way of getting rid of his daughter. Staging an accident (hiking/traffic/slip and fall) for instance, seems like a far better method in almost every way. Why bother with something this complicated which is prone to all sorts of dangers? I still belong to the BDI camp since I believe it is the only theory congruent with all available evidence except for maybe the knot on the garotte (although that could have been done by someone else prior with a completely different purpose or maybe Burke was just good with knots) and the Patsy phone call (which I honestly think can be chalked up to emotional distress combined with a constantly evolving gameplay in concert with John). Maybe the crack the skull is too severe for Burke to have caused with a single hit with a flashlight. But has it really been definitely established that it was caused by a _single_ impact? And if he used a golfclub to make the strike (or strikes), that damage seems very reasonable to me. The only reason for the Ramseys to conjure up a story this complicated would be if they were left with no other choice. I.e. one or both of them discovered her when she was already dead. And since there are so many facts pointing away from an intruder, only Burke could have done it.
Björn M
2025-04-25 23:03:38 +0000 UTCNot wanting to go too deep into this, but why is it such a ludicrous leap of logic to people that John could have started molesting at such a late age? I understand that it's unlikely for sure, but someone on your very CHANNEL didn't start committing crimes well into his adulthood, that being Russell Williams. Unless you want to make an argument that power corrupted Russell, but I'd wager John had a decent amount of power in his own right so that goes out the window, no pun intended. Is it unlikely John's brain just decided one day in his 60's to start molesting? Absolutely! Is it unfathomable beyond a reasonable doubt? No, I wouldn't go that far. Really enjoyed the video though Matt, thanks a lot!
Jake Stevens
2025-04-25 17:39:24 +0000 UTC[This reply has some pretty heavy ideas in it] So within JDI, there are indeed variations on the theory where people think it was spontaneous, rather than something John had been plotting. In fact, in the description there’s a link to Cyril Wecht giving a talk where he expounds on his theory that John accidentally strangled JB to death during a sex game. I don’t believe that one. I also recently came across another JDI theorist who goes by CliffTruxton. He has his own theory that involves everything being conceived night of. It also involves chronic sexual abuse, but he conceives of it being more of an incestuous *relationship.* Let me pause to be very clear here: All child sex abuse is child sex abuse. A 6 year old can never be in a legitimate romantic relationship with anyone, let alone an adult - obviously. They can think they are, though. CTs idea is that John and JB had been secretly “seeing each other” for some time. John had come to realize how this couldn’t go on, but rather than having a plan of killing her, he just wanted to “break up.” But JB was having none of it. Things got out of hand. One thing I find really intriguing about CTs idea is it incorporates a strange little piece of evidence that’s not often discussed. A magazine clipping was found near John Ramsey’s upstairs desk. The clipping featured pictures of John Ramsey and three other businessmen who had recently won business awards. The faces of the other men had the word “NO” written over them in red sharpie, while John had a sort of heart flower pattern drawn around his picture. You can see it here: https://websleuths.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.postimg.cc%2Fnr4N2FV4%2Farticle.jpg&hash=d309143fddaff2f93ddda630dad77ac1 Weird. The Ramsey’s have no explanation for the markings. CT speculates it may have been JB who made them - “I love JOHN, not THEM” sort of thing. Support for the incestuous relationship idea. TBF, a little girl could do such a thing just to innocently express she loves daddy. JB also had a heart drawn on her left hand in red ink. Patsy says it was not there when she went to bed. Could it have been drawn there as part of some sort of romantic ritual between the two? Seeing as we’ll never be able to know, I don’t like sitting around daydreaming various scenarios, it’s just all too gross. But something like that is possible. Here’s CTs write up, you can click on his username to go through more of his writings on his theory: https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/opju8w/timeline_findings_what_i_believe_happened_the/ Clearly I prefer DocGs overall theory to Cliff’s, but there’s obviously a lot of crossover, and there’s every possibility the actual truth could draw from both wells to some extent. What I put forward in my addendum is just an approximate scenario. The reason I personally, quite strongly, favor a plot in advance, is the ransom note’s length, as well as the relatively advanced plan I’m positing was behind it. I struggle to see this all being conceived and executed within a matter of hours - say 3-5. Possible, but hard to picture. This is another reason I quite like DocGs tracing idea. Even if the note was actually *penned* on the night, it would help an awful lot if the *content* of it was already written up and ready to go.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 05:29:42 +0000 UTCAnything is possible. It's been pointed out by both RDI and IDI camps that the note seems to have movie inspired lines in it. "Don't grow a brain" is a line from either Dirty Harry or Speed. There's more, ya can give it a goog! Love that movie though. "Blood has been shed, Jerry!"
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 04:20:50 +0000 UTCI think I might have worded that too strongly/confusingly. I don't THINK we're supposed to take Arndt's report as meaning between aprox 10 40 AM and Noon John was 100% AWOL. Though I have heard that claimed. What I can say for sure is between those hours he left the house to collect the mail. Arndt doesn't know when exactly he did that, or precisely how long he was gone for. Which means between those hours there's no time we can say for sure if he was in his office/the living room/outside - Arndt just can't confidently account for him at any given time in that window. So it's significant, but not as earth-shatteringly significant as if he flew the coop for a full hr and a half! I shouldn't have worded it so strongly.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 04:14:45 +0000 UTCThere are also many instances of children being believed, and when parents/guardians are convicted of such crimes, the penalties are often (rightly) very severe.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 04:07:05 +0000 UTCWell, I do agree the deranged fantasies of a madman are the second best explanation for that absolutely nutty document! If the DNA really does belong to a crazed perpetrator who's still out there (or dead for that matter) I certainly hope we get a match one day too :)
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 04:03:46 +0000 UTCI don't know specifically what part of my argument your attributing that fallacy to. It's true I do underline many of my points with my incredulity toward various notions (very hard for anyone to argue anything without ever doing that much) but I think I always put forward my own actual logic in any given instance, rather than merely say "I find that hard to believe X, therefore it's not true" For instance, I express a lot of incredulity toward the idea that upon discovering Burke had killed JonBenet by accident (hitting her way hard, but not intending to kill her) both Ramsey's agreed, and continued to agree over multiple hours, that the best approach to this situation would be to stage an incredibly extravagant kidnapping and then call the cops at 5:52 AM with the body still in the basement. My incredulity at the above certainly doesn't prove it didn't happen...but is it still not well founded incredulity?
Matt Orchard
2025-04-25 03:54:01 +0000 UTCI just love your videos, man. New Matt videos are truly a treat
Howell
2025-04-25 03:48:42 +0000 UTCafter this im definitely in the JDI camp after this-i think your analysis/points are SPOT ON. but, that being said, is it possible John woke her up in the middle of the night to sexually assault her, which maybe he’d done before, and then during the commission of the sexual assault began strangling her, realized he had gone too far, and then hit her on the head to end her life (sorry i know that’s horrific & very graphic)? then came up with his plan/the ransom note, which was ultimately not carried out, just like you said. that seems really plausible to me, but i also could be forgetting/leaving things out that would make this impossible (like whether we know is she was strangled or bludgeoned first, etc.) anyway, just something i thought of while listening, would love to hear anyone’s thoughts!! this case is truly such a tragedy. i hope her little soul is at peace now. great video as always Mr. Orchard-you are the best!
Freya
2025-04-24 19:56:31 +0000 UTCI'm just gonna say huge thanks for this one, Matt. I've always been in the JDI camp. Love seeing and hearing your workings that further convince the jury of one that lives in my mind.
Andy
2025-04-24 12:09:08 +0000 UTCAnd significantly insufficient force to put her in any mortal danger, let alone kill her outright! Her parents responded to the incident by seeking immediate medical attention, and did not try to hide the fact that Burke was responsible, though they did maintain it was an accident and I personally believe them. I've never seen the golf club incident as compelling. There's no indication it was a malicious attack, and decent indication it wasn't in the fact JBR sustained very limited enduring harm - a small scar.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-24 07:34:45 +0000 UTCThis one cuts both ways a bit - If she wore those clothes the previous night (she did), it means she was wearing them while murdering her daughter. In that case, you'd think a shower and change of clothes would be an absolute top priority before calling the police over. According to both Ramsey's, John was in the shower at the time Patsy woke up btw. Steve Thomas was especially suspicious of Patsy wearing the same clothes from the night before. The thing that really irked him about it was that Patsy was especially conscious about appearances. Wearing the some clothes two days in a row is a bit low rent, especially for a woman of her standing and background. He does have a point. However, it was a flight morning. If anyone's going to be less vigilant about their appearances than usual, it'll be when they need to get to the airport soon. This is an example of where I don't think you should let small things get in the way of the big things.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-24 07:27:22 +0000 UTCSo there’s some things here I just can’t speak to. Like with the note for instance, it doesn’t matter if I put on an IDI or any variation of RDI hat - not only could I not tell you the thinking behind every phrase written, I don’t even care to try. There’s things in there that on their face don’t seem to make sense no matter who you argue wrote it…but someone did write it, nonetheless. I believe as a whole it’s more compatible with John than anyone else, mainly because it stresses not to call the cops (the thing Patsy did) and wants John to be the one to handle everything. Toward the start of the addendum, I talk about how I think it’s really helpful for anyone looking at this case to try and at least start by focusing just on the BIG things. Patsy saying “we have a kidnapping” first rather than "my daughter is missing" is a really good example of why I’m giving that advice. You will just get yourself spun out too much if you need any theory to reconcile itself with minutia like that. Not that I find it suspicious to begin with, but she does say, “our daughter is gone” in her very next response. Is the idea that this remark was just a few seconds too late? The action of Patsy calling the police is many times more exculpatory than her choice of wording is inculpatory. I also find the call as a whole sounds like a woman in extreme panic, out of the loop. Again, I put more stock in that than her verbiage.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-24 07:08:16 +0000 UTCCould John have been influenced by watching Fargo (it came out the same year) the plan is eerily similar.
Mack The Finger
2025-04-24 03:32:40 +0000 UTCI don’t usually watch your commentary vids (sheepishly kicking the ground), but I gave this one a try on my break and now I’m pissed I have to go back work! Really, really interesting add on to the original upload. (Seriously, how can you wrap up all the information you gather - and deliver it in digestible story form - without losing the flow - and remain funny? Very impressive and I’m so grateful for you!!)
YESwayTED 024
2025-04-23 20:15:23 +0000 UTCSlow reader club REPRESENT
Grace Wagler
2025-04-23 17:45:43 +0000 UTCWait wait. John was not accounted for almost an hour and a half the morning of his daughter being reported missing???
James
2025-04-23 17:42:16 +0000 UTCHm. Okay JDI does also rely on there being a significant penalty for a father abusing his kid. We've hadecades of children coming forward and accusing their fathers of abuse and being either ignored or vilified. I don't think that was a significant risk TBH.
Frances McCarthy
2025-04-23 15:18:41 +0000 UTCGreat video, Matt! For what it is worth, I know one of the prosecutors who worked on this case. The prosecutor strongly believes in the IDI theory. The reason is there was apparently an unknown sample of DNA found on both John Benet’s neck and in her underwear that matches. The prosecutor believes that the note was the killer fantasizing, which apparently happens with some deranged pedophiles. I am hopeful that one day we will get a genealogical match to the unknown sample so that we can finally get closure and justice for the victim.
D
2025-04-23 15:04:31 +0000 UTCOh no. Okay, so most children who face harm do so from their parents. You've fallen into a trap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Frances McCarthy
2025-04-23 14:33:14 +0000 UTCI think BDI still works just fine - Burke also hit JB with a golf club in the face, with sufficient force to cause a gash and a scar.
Frances McCarthy
2025-04-23 14:21:10 +0000 UTCWe live in a house with lots of doors and windows and we never go around every night checking them all. We just tend to think that if someone opened it they would lock it. I have found some open and been surprised. So I say the weirdo came in an unlocked door, locked the door back up so no one would find it, wrote the note, snooped around, and probs just had some fun. Hid until the family went to bed. If she was deep asleep I don’t think it would be that hard to pick her up without her immediately screaming. Weirdo is insane so I can’t explain the actions with her. But, now he leaves most likely through a door or window that isn’t the basement. He probably tried that but looked elsewhere. He probably brought the rope thinking he is some action hero who’ll climb up to the balcony. The family not noticing an unlocked window or door seems the most logical thing that can go wrong out of everything that could go wrong lol
Liisa Turunen
2025-04-23 07:34:14 +0000 UTCExcellent video. It won me over from 50/50% JDI/RDI to like 95/5% JDI/RDI. The last thing with JDI that I struggle with is that I’ve seen somewhere that Patsy still had the same clothes on from the previous day, full makeup, hair, etc. The reason I bring this up doesn’t have anything with red fiber, I just think it’s strange to not change clothes unless you were up all night. There’s plausible explanations, but she gives one that I don’t think is good: She apparently said that she doesn’t like doing laundry so she wears the same outfit multiple days in a row. I would totally buy it if she had said “I called 911 in a robe, so I threw on the first thing I found, even though it was on the bathroom floor.” Or maybe even “I fell asleep in my outfit, I was exhausted/drunk” or whatever. I try not to profile her… but that just seems strange for a wealthy woman that seems to care about her appearance to say that she hates laundry so she just wears the same outfit again. People are unique, of course, and don’t always adhere to a box that you place them in. Can someone tell me what they think and if I’m misunderstanding something?
ryan
2025-04-23 07:08:03 +0000 UTCWhere was the blood? Was there no laceration from the blow to her head? Burke had behavioral problems. I believe he could have dealt the blow to her head. Kids that age can be pretty strong when enraged, even if they are small. The test shown was just one hit, and the skull can be damaged in several different ways depending on where and how it is hit. Also, there was a thick wig and adhesive on the skull. That can make a difference on how it breaks. Patsy's behavior was strange. In the 911 call, rather than saying "my daughter is missing" it's "we have a kidnapping". Then she just leaves her son in bed? I understand not wanting to expose another child to this, but it seems a mother, upon finding one child missing, would naturally want to keep the other close by out of fear. And that note looks like it was written by a female who was shaking. Minor note of other strangeness: the note says for John to use his "good southern common sense". John was born in Lincoln, NE (I can assure you we Lincolnites are not Southern) and went to school in Michigan. So, why would either of them write that? Maybe to make it look less like they were writing the letter. Maybe it was someone else who thought he was Southern. Maybe, directly after getting home, Burke was enraged, hit JonBenét, the parents sent him to bed, they had all night to do the staging, clean up the blood, write the note, they discovered she was still breathing and did the garotte, someone did the paintbrush thing (shudder) to drive home the fact that it must have been an adult. They were all involved. But, who the hell knows. I can't believe you read all of this. I wouldn't have.
Big Suz
2025-04-23 05:36:02 +0000 UTCHe's doing well! I've been taking less pics and vids as he's been settling in more, but there are a few in the Photos room on Discord :) He's taken to attacking my feet on occasion, which is a touch annoying lol.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-23 04:15:22 +0000 UTCNot here to argue about who did it, just here for kitten update :)
Bri Cousineau
2025-04-23 01:15:10 +0000 UTCMy mind is blown by the JDI theory. It makes me rethink everything I have believed about this case. It’s as if we all settled on our theories and missed the obvious. I never thought Patsy or Burke were involved. I mentally cleared them with the things I’d learned about the case. The DNA had me stuck on the intruder theory. I just realized while watching this that I didn’t rule Jon out because I never really considered him a suspect. It’s a total facepalm moment for me.
Gigi
2025-04-22 22:31:28 +0000 UTCJohn wouldn’t have found an unlocked “back door” if the intruder locked it behind him also locking himself in.
Liisa Turunen
2025-04-22 21:02:43 +0000 UTCREALLY enjoyed listening to this. Wouldn't mind more under a similar format. Please keep them coming, Matt!
Brandon Tingle
2025-04-22 19:12:01 +0000 UTCI said in the comment below why I don't really see a known associate as viable. Now keys copied by an intruder who may have sneaked in on a previous occasion....That's the sort of thing you'd file under "something massive we're all just missing." It's physically possible and would allow the intruder to get in and out, so it's good that we've got that sorted. But you have to allow so much: First, that it happened, then that the Ramsey's didn't notice a set of keys missing for that time, that the intruder made a point of returning the keys...at least there's a decent rationale for doing so, but still. And in terms of locking the exit door behind them, I guess the idea is to put attention on the family, but that seems like a pretty amazing level of forethought given the circumstances. I'd have to imagine most people in that situation would be solely focused on getting the fuck out of dodge and just take it as a given they'd already left behind some indication of their presence after everything they did. Like I said in the addendum, it seems so often when arguing for Intruder you wind up spending most of your time trying to cook up things that COULD happen, and defending them as POSSIBLE, rather than pointing to things that are actually present, observable and best lend themselves to an intruder as their explanation.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 09:09:32 +0000 UTCMy main problem with it being someone the Ramsey's knew is just...wouldn't we have caught them by now (within a year, really) if the perp had a clear connection to the family? Say what you like about investigative tunnel vision, but the police did follow up on any decent lead they were given, and the Ramsey's weren't shy about making suggestions when it came to various associates. Nothing ever went anywhere. Steve Thomas' book discusses this sort of thing a fair bit.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 08:42:47 +0000 UTCThe glaring oversight is actually one thing I really LIKE about the theory. I feel like we're often hearing about otherwise quite clever plans that fell apart because of one really boneheaded mistake. John didn't have any previous active kidnapping experience with Patsy, but he may well have had tons of reference points of her turning to him as a source of strength in difficult situations. The idea that John was so SURE Patsy would run straight to him, that he never even envisioned a scenario where she ran straight to the phone...I can just see it. It rings so true to me.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 07:48:40 +0000 UTCLike I said toward the start, there is a school of thought out there for this sort of thing. Some involve Patsy being a part of it too. Anything that has one or both of the parents as active participants falls under the RDI umbrella, it's just now there's also a 3rd (maybe 4th, maybe 5th!) party as well. Though they're not "intruders." I mean, I don't buy it. Aside from anything else it's sort of a worst of both worlds proposition, because now you've got to inculpate the Ramsey's AND figure out why there's barely any sign at all of someone else being in that house when they were.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 07:41:13 +0000 UTCThanks Christian, These are all very fair points - including the one I did my best to address. I guess the overarching point I’d start out with is - good luck finding any theory that makes every person’s behavior make perfect, intuitive sense under the proposed conditions. Some way, some how, some people were acting weird that day. Just to be thorough, with saying the doors were locked: Again, my best guess is it’s just a consequence of John having to rethink his whole strategy within mere minutes of giving his statement to the officer. Saying he checked all the doors and they were locked could have been his way of conveying he was being a responsible, non suspicious individual, and he was so preoccupied with trying to make sure the police did NOT scrutinize the basement window, he’d neglected to even think about the necessity of creating a new entry point, even one as simple as a door he’d “forgot” to lock. It could have even occurred to him how idiotic it was to say all the doors were locked the second the statement passed his lips, but ya know…too late, and he had to keep moving. I know it can feel like a lame explanation, but it’s really hard to get in the mindset of someone in total panic with no time to think while we sit at a computer considering everything with sober logic. Handing the notepad right over: It’s the same sort of thing. Is it POSSIBLE in that moment, John had momentarily forgotten the pad he just handed over was the very same he’d written the note on? Seems pretty fucking far fetched, I must say, but then again, if anyone were to make such a jaw dropping oversight, it’d probably be the guy who’s had to reset his entire murder scheme and has to try and put out multiple fires at the same time while looking normal. Additionally, it isn’t far fetched in this conception to think John had not anticipated being asked for handwriting samples. Again, internally he’s still trying to process how he’s even talking to police right now. So when Officer Whitson asks, “do you have any samples of you and your wife’s handwriting?”, and John looks over at those notepads…Think of it like “Better Vs Worse” again. What’s better and what’s worse, handing over something you’re going to have to do some serious explaining of later down the line, but at least look transparent, or replying, “Err, no. No you can’t have that.” I suppose an objection might be that he could have stalled and found a less incriminating source of handwriting samples. But could he? Based on Whitson’s report, it *sounds* like those notepads *may* have been in everyone’s line of sight at the time John was asked. He might have wagered he couldn’t inconspicuously ignore them, and he might have been right. Otherwise I feel such non-optimal plays are still explainable enough with simple panic. The “Inside Job” remark to Arndt: It’s an absolutely incredible statement, isn’t it? And personally, I find it hard to figure out what he must have been thinking when he made it, no matter what conception I’m framing it in. I imagine it most comes in handy for people who believe in an RDI conception without John’s involvement. Like Patsy covering for Patsy, or Patsy covering for Burke. We both agree those scenarios just don’t seem to wash. It’s also possible he said it with his mind on trying to get police to focus on outsiders who have a key - like the maid, who The Ramsey’s had mentioned that morning. Then there’s just the “getting ahead of it” mentality. In the JDI conception, no one would have been more aware at that moment just how little sign of an intruder was going to be found than John. That’s on top of how much was already clearly apparent to everyone by that time. I mean you just carried your dead little girl up from your basement for christ’s sake. Though I can’t think of specific examples right now, I think it’s quite common for guilty parties to play half-dumb. Can you recall moments in cases I’ve covered and elsewhere, where a very guilty person has said something along the lines of, “You know, I find it so strange because [identifies key factors that point right in their direction].” As a rule of thumb, we don’t usually take “this looks really bad” type statements to be very exculpatory. “This must have been an inside job.” - Yeah, very observant of you, John. And in light of the discovery you’ve just made, why do you still seem no more interested in that broken basement window you found open but decided to latch shut earlier this morning? Or the Samsonite briefcase so out of place beneath it. Because if you had even the faintest of suspicions of such things, it would seem to me that it shouldn’t be obvious this must have been an inside job at all. The only reason we know such things are basically non-starters is because we’re looking at all the info collected and documented about them all these years later. Standing there in that living room with Detective Arndt a bit past 1 PM on the 26th, John should not have been in a position to say such a thing with such confidence. That he did suggests to me that he was far too ahead of the game.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 07:04:52 +0000 UTC"Overall I’d agree that JDI or IDI are the most likely but when comparing two events that both seem incredibly unlikely for different reasons I’m struggling to really weigh the likelihood of one against the other." That really is one of the major unrelenting frustrations with this case isn't it? The question on the specific nature of their door locks is one that's come up already on this thread and I've been surprised to find it difficult to pin down a straight answer to. My ASSUMPTION is the doors wouldn't have had an auto-locking mechanism, because SURELY it would be a major IDI talking point if they did. But it's still just an assumption on my part for the time being. I have to believe the answer is out there. I'll keep looking. I actually began my efforts on this case (as in beginning my background reading about 6 months out from starting in earnest) with an IDI bent, and stayed that way for quite a while if memory serves. My very first introduction to the case was watching that British IDI production that Lou Smit essentially hosts back when I was in high school. It did seem everyone had just piled on the parents and ignored decent indicators of an outsider. I slowly got more skeptical of the Ramsey's for a myriad of reasons, but the thing that started to really make me harden was simply continuing to meditate on the lack of any visible entry/exit, and in a similar vein the lack of any indications of the intruder being in the house for the time between. And yet it still remains my second favorite explanation. Such a strange case...
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 04:58:30 +0000 UTCFair enough!
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 04:42:32 +0000 UTCThanks for hearing me out with an open mind, Ann. I can't expect anyone to be sold in an instant, or at all, because it is undoubtedly "out there"...Then again, out there relative to what exactly? But like I said in the description, if I can even get you to consider angles you hadn't before without actually necessarily being sold on the overall theory, that's more than good enough. If anything, Doc should probably get a cut of my Patreon this month, but no need to tell him I said that! If I can get him a few extra sales then that's the least I owe him. Hope he's still alive and kicking somewhere. He's been quiet for several years now. I thought John making quite a few media rounds recently might have brought him out of the woodwork with more observations for me to pinch, but no!
Matt Orchard
2025-04-22 04:35:09 +0000 UTCOk I’m not sold on how the force had to be delivered by a full grown man either. That just seems so subjective but important for framing John. Yeah, I’m never figuring out this riddle 😂
JB
2025-04-21 23:56:53 +0000 UTCTBH, I think the main issue with this case is motivation, and it's hard to imagine anyone, let alone a father or mother, intentionally bludgeoning this little girl to death, even though that's (IMO) the most obvious solution given the circumstances. I was sold on Matt's explanation, and I think it explains the crime scene as a strange paradox of both a mess and incredibly intentional.
Positivelypolarized69
2025-04-21 22:41:05 +0000 UTCI think intruder theory has way more issues to contend with but the locked door issue - couldn't the intruder have copies of the keys? A long term stalker or a family friend with key copies could be an explanation. Someone close to the Ramsays may have a similar motivation to be so brutal with JonBenet.
Tracy McClendon
2025-04-21 21:01:00 +0000 UTCThanks so much for that Jennifer - some really interesting thoughts and observations here. You're right, it does take us down an even darker path still, but it would help further explain some things - Burke's undeniably strange manner in his police interviews for starters. I also think your paintbrush idea is very intriguing...violent abuse used to obscure signs of previous molestation. It would help square one of the pieces of evidence I've continued to find vexing. Very interesting indeed.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 13:16:14 +0000 UTCI agree in terms of it being Jon or an intruder. I also think if it was an intruder, it was most likely someone they knew in some way, who had some type of grudge or problem with them. I think it's just the weirdness of what happened to Jonbenet in terms of injuries and assaults, I don't see why the strangulation if she's already got a serious head injury. I don't understand the paintbrush either in terms of leaving it behind. I don't know. If an abduction was planned it just seems like all of this would take place outside the house? Unless being in the house was somehow part of the cruelty, but then I'd think it would be some other part of the house for the scene, and not bothering with a ransom note.
Janissa Rose
2025-04-21 12:33:33 +0000 UTCIt's not a bad thought (well, you get what I mean) that seeing her dolled up like that could have triggered something. A pretty glaring point of difference between his other daughters from a previous non-pageant-background marriage.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 09:33:54 +0000 UTCOh, I wouldn't beat yourself up over that, I find the not-so-subtly-sexualised pageantry fare as distasteful as the next person. What I'm trying to get at with that, is that to JB there was nothing wrong with it, and her mother (and grandmother too if memory serves) just grew up in that sort of culture, so I don't think their was any deviousness in her intentions with any of it either. And for what it's worth, it wasn't ALL Little-Miss-Sexpot looking stuff. There was a big element of "Just an excuse to dance and sing" in it too, and JonBenet sometimes did her little routines at school on talent show type days without raising any eyebrows. With that stuff that is just gross in so many of our eyes though, I was just saying the thing that gets to me is how her murder made her a symbol of that grossness. The very worst aspects of a hobby she innocently enjoyed were really burned into everyone's mind as the thing that really represented her. Robbed of her life, and robbed of her legacy. So unfair.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 09:31:18 +0000 UTCNow hold on, every detail is important here! I didn’t say John was sadistic. My conception involves him taking no pleasure in what he “had to” do, and genuinely desiring for the murder to be quick and painless - not the attitude of a sadist. Only once this approach did not work did he resort to strangling. My best guess would be he might have thought continual head bashing would create too much of a mess. My conception doesn’t really involve him being a genius, though it does have him developing a very machiavellian, multi-layered criminal plot. Not a genius one by any stretch of the imagination though - it literally comes apart all because of one glaring oversight: That his wife might run to the phone before finishing the note. Now is that part unrealistic? Actually, no, not in my opinion. I think you can find a lot of that sort of stuff in true crime. Plans that are actually quite clever on a lot of levels, but that come undone due to one boneheaded mistake. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking, “smart people do smart things, dumb people do dumb things” but if we think about it a bit, we all know it’s not that simple at all. And I don’t actually think the plan I’m positing here was all that clever in the main anyway. Seems like there’s so many ways to get caught, and if I (or DocG, really) am right about this, I quite suspect Patsy running to the phone might have been a massive blessing in disguise for John. If he had been able to see through everything he wanted to do, I think he probably would have gotten caught. It was because the police walked in on a halfway realised plan that everything looked so confusing and the roads to John were far less obvious. My conception does involve John being evil, sociopathic, and a molester, but it certainly doesn’t involve him becoming any of those overnight. Now I’m not an expert in sociopathy, but it’s a subject I’m quite interested in (naturally) so I’ve been able to pick up a bit about it over the years. The first thing that’s disquieting to learn about sociopaths is that they’re rare, but not as rare as you might imagine. It seems most estimates put them around 1% of the population. Could even be a few points more, but 1 is pretty safe. If you saw 100 people as you were walking about today, chances are you had a sociopath in your sights at some point. So what are all these sociopaths doing with their days? Murdering small children for fun and throwing them off bridges? No, for the most part, thankfully! For the most part in fact, they’re just going about their day to day, much like your or I, and in most instances not even desiring to engage in heinous acts. Sociopaths aren’t defined by any special draw to criminal behavior, more so just a lack of empathy for their fellow man. They sort of view other people as objects, and they often pick up on all the right social cues and so forth to move through life like the rest of us, but there’s never any real feeling behind such things. Other people are just a means to their ends. There are even “Ask A Verified Sociopath” Quora threads you can check out to get first hand accounts of what this existence is like. Nothing to write home about really, and that’s the scariest part! What I’m getting at is sociopaths are very often not inherently dangerous, or even scary, but they are liable to become very dangerous if they wind up in a situation where hurting others is to their advantage. Scott Peterson never really raised any alarm bells with anyone, because he never had cause to do anything alarming. Then one day his wife became inconvenient for him so he murdered her and his unborn son. He didn’t become a sociopath overnight, he’d just never had a reason to murder someone before is all. Does the fact John didn’t have any massive deviousness in his past make the notion he may have been a sociopath fanciful? Not if you're positing a special reason to murder like I am. Also, he wasn’t exactly Mr. Rogers. He got in a spot of trouble for alleged embezzlement once, and people have often described him as “cold.” Neither of which prove him to be a sociopath, but ya know, he could fit the bill. If you’re saying all children more or less look the same to pedophiles, I just have to disagree, I don’t want to get deep into that sort of debate. In any event, I don’t think it’s ludicrous to conceive of a man with pedophilic thoughts and desires only actively molesting a child later in life. I’ll just copy/paste from another reply on that matter: This isn’t an area a lot of people like to think deeply about, myself included, but child molestation and incest are things that come about and develop in all sorts of ways. You start developing feelings, one night you try something a bit over the line, it doesn’t go all that badly, she still seems happy the next day, things develop, before you know it you’re past the point of no return. Horrible to think about, but is it batty? Unfortunately I don’t think so. Sorry - A very long reply to a short comment, but you gave me a lot to talk about!
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 09:10:34 +0000 UTCI hate to say it but that was a pretty damn bad self sabotaging moment …
JB
2025-04-21 07:57:13 +0000 UTCI really like the argument but my main point of contention is John’s motive. Idk, maybe I come from a really, REALLY bad place, culture, background, etc. But I think it’s very common and relatively easy for… an “arrangement” like _that_ to occur… for many years. Whether because JonBenet wouldn’t have said anything, or because no one would believe her, or because it would be swept under the rug as a “family secret,” I just doubt the looming fear of being found out led him to MURDER his own daughter, over other means of self-preservation. I also don’t think her “attractiveness” would play that much of a role. She was certainly more sexualized than the average girl her age due to the pageantry stuff—but I don’t think that level of perversion exists in a vacuum like that. From what I’ve read and researched, there’s always some sort of pattern—whether that would have been seen with his other daughters or on a hard drive somewhere. It’s incredibly rare and in my opinion, as much a stretch as the intruder being a 5’3” anorexic man, for John to suddenly be attracted to his own daughter and no other underage human ever before in his life. But most of the arguments for him being the culprit are sound and convincing. I credit this case with sealing the deal on me ever pursuing a criminal justice degree and working as a detective (once a potential dream job of mine). It’s just not fun trying to wrap your head around these sorts of things. But one of my favorite sayings is, “Truth is stranger than fiction.” And whatever happened that night is definitely stranger than anything anyone has ever concluded to this day. My answer is that we will never know for sure what happened that night. Edit: As much as I want to lean John, I can’t convince myself of it. Being separately lawyered up definitely makes it seem as if one of the Ramseys were complicit. But if that’s true, that makes them both guilty in some way IMO. So, I still lean RDI more than anything.
JB
2025-04-21 06:25:07 +0000 UTCI can’t find a solid answer on whether all the doors were/weren’t openable from the inside without a key - which is actually quite surprising. According to Grok: “While specific details about every door’s locking mechanism are not fully documented, it is highly likely that most exterior doors in the Ramsey house (e.g., the butler’s door, side doors, or front door) could be opened from the inside without a key, as this is standard for residential doors to allow easy egress for safety.” -- So even almighty AI has to default back to likelihood and presumptions. Seeing as it seems not 100% confirmed (weird after all this time and interest) let’s go with the assumption ALL doors required a key from both the inside and out. I still find the intruder not using a door to escape quite problematic if we’re going with my IDI proposition that he was in the house alone for hours while the Ramsey’s were out. Making presumptions based off how most people are again, but it’s very common for a set of keys, or multiple sets of keys, to be readily accessible and in plain sight within the house. I would have thought locating such a thing so you know where to get them later would be a top priority for the intruder. Maybe not on both counts though, in which case now we’re passed the “why not just use a door?” secondary problem and can get back to the primary problem of “no visible sign of exit”, which I have yet to see a convincing solution for. And that’s sort of a theme of IDI for me. It seems like to make it work you have to constantly navigate various problems of varying levels of severity, making one allowance after another just for the privilege of making it to yet another set of problems! Like, “great we’ve established it is at least possible (even if unlikely) none of the doors were openable from the inside without a key, so now we know why it could have been necessary for the intruder to go to an exit point that there is no sign of them passing through!”
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 05:38:38 +0000 UTCI'm already of the belief the head blow came first. I just have a firm belief it was struck with full lethal intent, very likely by a grown man. I was just saying IF the lab coats that contend the strangulation came first are right, that would help IDI just because it's so hard to imagine Patsy, or Burke, or even John for that matter, STARTING by strangling her with a garrote. Now if Patsy or Burke were to "wind up" and really deliver the strongest SMASH they were physically capable of to a static JonBenet's head, could they create the massive skull fracture under those conditions? Without any expertise, just going off what I've read/seen from various places and applying my own intuition, I'm sort of skeptical but maaaaaaybe. I'd certainly believe the outcome far more likely than if the head blow came about by some kind of accident (near impossible in my layman opinion). It's just that if you go with full lethal intent swing, much like with going with "strangulation first" you've got to come up with a scenario in which Patsy or Burke would do such a thing. Patsy I'm just at a loss. People sometimes like to point out Burke hit her with a golf club once, but her injuries from that incident were obviously minor, and I'm basically happy to take the families word it wasn't even intentional. I've just never really seen much reason to believe Burke would want to deliberately murder his sister other than he acted a little strange when talking about the pineapple and smiled at weird moments in his Dr Phil interview. Barring an Intruder, I think the most believable scenario is head blow first, with full lethal intent, from John because he wanted it to be a painless, one and done type deal. Strangulation was an improvised measure after JB failed to die instantly. The last part doesn't quite make perfect sense to me, but I can live with it.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-21 04:45:52 +0000 UTCPersonally, I think John would have known his wife well enough to anticipate she'd instantly go to the police, but thats just me.
Iron
2025-04-21 03:42:46 +0000 UTCWow… I couldn’t have requested a better topic
JB
2025-04-21 00:36:16 +0000 UTCThe Ramseys hired John Douglas. He was paid by them, so he can't be said to have a neutral, disinterested opinion. But even if the money had no influence on him whatsoever, the fact that he has "star power" shouldn't sway you on the quality of the theory. Some IDI supporters talk about the star power of Lou Smit as well, but his theory has a number of issues.
Jonathan Gill
2025-04-20 22:51:45 +0000 UTCit might be possible to combine the IDI/JDI theories into one if the "intruder" was someone John knew or was otherwise in kahoots with? Which would explain away the indirect evidence supporting IDI while also making sense of the very bizarre "coverup-esque" behavior by John afterwards
CaptainJZH
2025-04-20 20:04:40 +0000 UTCThese Addendums are amazing; they clearly take a lot of work to put together. I might comment in a few days, when I have time to respond, but I want to leave a question regarding the sequence of JonBenet's injuries. As I understand from James Kolar's book, the police's head trauma expert, Lucy Rorke, looked at the swelling the brain to estimate the length of time between the headblow and JonBenet's death. Rorke places that timeframe as 45 minutes to 2 hours. From what I've read, the strangulation is the actual cause of death. Now, point taken about lab coat expertise, and the details in this case can be tricky to wade through. But under the assumption that the headblow happens before strangulation, does that open up for you the possibility of another Ramsey doing it (specifically Patsy)?
Jonathan Gill
2025-04-20 19:26:12 +0000 UTCWow. I’m blind, don’t know how you get to “that’s a fuckable 6 year old.” But I also don’t know how you get to “That’s a fuckable adult.” Visually. All the same I both was not prepared for that, and never properly grocked her appearance as a factor. So …thanks for just saying what you meant I guess.
Dan
2025-04-20 13:30:25 +0000 UTCgreat presentation, throughly enjoyed. three exculpatory points in John’s favour: he first tells the police the house was locked and only later tries to create uncertainty here (you covered this one already obv); he gives the police the notepad on which the ransom note was composed voluntarily, in response to a general request for handwriting samples of himself and his wife; after the body is discovered he insists to arndt that the killing must have been an “inside job.” None of these totally destroy DocG’a very elegant thesis, but there is kind of a pattern, according to which John seems to act without much knowledge of the crime in the earliest hours, while later on more overtly striving to make space for an intruder and also adjusting his story in one or two other minor but to my mind significant ways.
Christian
2025-04-20 12:59:54 +0000 UTCGreat video. From the original I’d kind of suspect that you leaned RDI of some variety. I didn’t know a lot about the case before the original video but reading about it since I came to a lot of the same conclusions as you. I hadn’t really considered the exit point as so much of an issue as you’ve pointed out, possibly just an oversight as my front door opens with a latch and locks behind you when you close it so I may have just assumed it was something like that. I think for IDI the attack would need to be targeted, quite possibly by someone who knew the Ramsey’s plans for Christmas Day which I think goes a bit further in straining credulity for various reasons. Overall I’d agree that JDI or IDI are the most likely but when comparing two events that both seem incredibly unlikely for different reasons I’m struggling to really weigh the likelihood of one against the other. I’ll definitely pick up the JDI book and have a read through.
Michael Russon
2025-04-20 08:35:00 +0000 UTCI really appreciate the amount of effort you go into trying to give respect to both sides of the argument. That being said, I’m an unwavering IDI that can’t put my bias aside for even a second lol
Jeremy Baker
2025-04-20 01:04:29 +0000 UTCMatt, very well done. I’ve been in the IDI camp. I won’t rehash all the reasons why but I understand that psychopaths will stay in a house for many hours without fear of capture, there really isn’t proof about entry/exit, this has happened in their area before, etc. However, your clean, well-reasoned and ultimately horrifying idea about John has given me pause. I had also been swayed by John’s clean a record as far as being a pedo, however, it didn’t occur to me that this type might just be sexually attracted to one child. I still find it hard to imagine he’d kill her because he thought she might tell-lots of these men believe nobody will believe a child over them, plus they often think the feelings they have are mutual. (Stephan Sterns, for example: the theory is he only killed Maddie when he thought she was moving on.) Anyway, I will purchase the book from Amazon and I hope you get a percentage. :).
Ann Silberman
2025-04-20 00:56:29 +0000 UTCIf he did do it, I wonder if it wasn’t her “attractiveness” but how child beauty pageants (in my humble opinion) normalize the sexualization of children. Maybe John was fighting those urges until JonBenet got involved in that world and his mindset started to change and he started to rationalize abuse. I do hate child beauty pageants though and could just feel that way because of my bias.
gillygull
2025-04-19 22:30:40 +0000 UTCur brilliant, i wish you lived in america - sincerely, a harmless 36 y/o shameless SIMP
Katherine Bellantone
2025-04-19 21:53:14 +0000 UTCAll the contingencies and hair-splitting flies in the face of Occam’s razor. Looking at similar cases (i.e., child victim slain in their own home while the rest of the family remains undisturbed), common sense leads us to accepting the claim that one of the parents did it.
Vincent
2025-04-19 21:39:22 +0000 UTCthank you so much for this. your thoughts and analysis are always very illuminating.
Michal Tomashov
2025-04-19 21:13:56 +0000 UTCSeriously, the fact that John Douglas talked to John personally really has me skeptical of his guilt. Say what you will about Douglas' criminal profiling, there's some pretty compelling profiles he made on people who were later caught. But that guy worked in law enforcement for decades. Rule number one is the detective never rules out the guy who hired them as a suspect. Considering Douglas didn't support him as a suspect based on evidence, I think it counts for something.
Evan Monroe
2025-04-19 20:33:16 +0000 UTCSuch a good video! I really enjoyed it up until the end. When you ended with that image of JonBenet that everyone looked at so disdainfully, oh man - that was me! Big reality check, thank you!
MG
2025-04-19 20:32:36 +0000 UTCExcellent video Matt, I'd really been looking forward to this one. I will say, your slight addendum about David Bain essentially changed my mind and made me see the case differently. Not sure you've done the same here, but you did lay out and focus primarily on the facts. I haven’t read into the case all too much myself, and I will definitely check out some of the books you recommended. But in the reading I did do, there was one detail that stood out to me. Someone who gave an opinion was John Douglas, the FBI agent who wrote “Mindhunter”. In that book he explains his process of observing details in cases and profiling criminals. Regardless of if you think it's pseudoscience, he did make some pretty compelling profiles which matched specific details he laid out with suspects later caught. He was firmly in the IDI camp and supported Lou Smit’s arguments largely. But more importantly, he personally met and talked to John Ramsey and dismissed him as a suspect. It’s interesting to me that a man who profiled hundreds of criminals and worked with the FBI for decades spoke with John the night after his daughter was killed, yet Douglas didn’t square him as a killer. It goes to the whole utter monster aspect of the facts of the case you mention. With an intruder the picture in your mind has to be someone who’s a complete perverted lunatic. Obviously some really sick people can put on a face. But just looking at him you don’t get that same guttural Scott Peterson vibe. I am definitely of the camp that it wasn’t an accident staged to look like a murder/kidnapping. But I just can’t accept an intruder for two key reasons: They would have been playing with fire and burning time being in the house to stage the kidnapping. And as you said in the video, people who are that sick are usually repeat offenders. DNA is how they caught the Green River killer who proved elusive for years. The idea that whoever did that to JonBenét either never left DNA somewhere else and or didn’t kill again just seems too implausible to me. What’s so tricky about this case is that every suspect you have to square with the facts. There are a lot of facts that we unfortunately don’t have. But almost none of the puzzle pieces square with any one person or even combination of persons. However, considering how disorganized and downright mystery novel some of the details are, a plan gone awry definitely seems like the most plausible macro explanation of the crime scene rather than an accident or intruder.
Evan Monroe
2025-04-19 20:25:23 +0000 UTCThis is a great video! As someone who's also done a deep deep dive into this case and also leans JDI I think you covered everything very well and I've also studied DocG's posts and agree with a lot of their evidence. There is one other (very dark) element to the case I want to bring up because I think it's something of a missing puzzle piece that explains what happened even better and also explains a lot of the evidence that leads people to believe in BDI that you didn't go into. I used to lean BDI so I’m very aware of all the arguments/evidence BDI supporters use to support their theory. Burke allegedly had behavioral issues that are the subject of a lot of discourse that leads many to suspect him. He was also very deliberately kept away from law enforcement by his parents in the early stages of the investigation and a somewhat implausible story was presented that he basically slept through *everything*, didn’t hear anything, and wasn’t woken up or questioned by his parents after they found the note. Both JonBenet and Burke had issues with toilet training that were more typical in much younger children. These issues are also extremely common among children who are being sexually abused. From a purely behavioral perspective there is as much or more evidence for Burke having been abused as JonBenet. I also would agree with the premise that if the general JDI narrative you've presented was true, it would be somewhat expected that John might have a history of similar behavior with other children in the family. I think such a history does exist, and the victim wasn’t his older daughters but Burke. If you look at true crime stories involving incest, it's unfortunately very common for pedophiles to abuse both male and female children in the same age range. It's also disturbingly common for such pedophiles to groom one of their victims into participating in their abuse of another victim. I’m not sure the murder was premeditated (beyond maybe a few hours or so before it happened) but I do agree the upcoming Christmas trip was the impetus. I think John believed JonBenet might let something slip to someone in the extended family that he wouldn’t be able to explain away. Patsy’s illness and the medications she was on may have impaired her ability to see what was happening to her children, but John may have had reason to believe others in the family would be more perceptive. Burke had likely been groomed over a period of years to such an extent that John wasn’t worried he would talk, but JonBenet was by many accounts a more talkative and social child than her brother. Even if John wasn’t worried about Burke talking unprovoked, Burke’s involvement would create an added concern that if JonBenet did talk, Burke might back up what she was saying if directly confronted about it. It would be hard to get a conviction based purely on the word of a six-year-old, but far easier if an older child backed up what she was saying and made similar allegations of his own. This is also why Burke was taken out of the house so quickly on the morning of the murder: I suspect that was John’s idea that he manipulated Patsy into going along with by convincing her that they were sparing Burke additional trauma. It’s also why it took so long to get Burke into an interview with police, and why his demeanor was so unusual in the taped interview that is so often used by BDI proponents to suggest his involvement. I think Burke *did* know more than he was saying and had been coached by his father ahead of time. I don’t think he had direct knowledge of the murder, but he knew that both himself and JonBenet had been abused and that this was a big secret he was not allowed to tell. I also suspect he eventually did come to suspect his father’s involvement in the murder as an adult but has chosen to keep silent because his father has largely been financially supporting him. I just also want to mention that it’s been alleged there was forensic evidence JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to her murder and I think even if the killer wasn’t John, the killer and the molester were the same person and the paintbrush evidence (which I agree you were 100% right not to go into in too much detail) was designed as staging to explain away possible injuries related to the prior abuse. I think this is entirely compatible with John being the killer/abuser even if he was not intending for her body to be found in the house because he may have intended for it to be found elsewhere or at least knew that was a possibility. And if the purpose of the murder was to cover up the abuse the last thing he would want is the autopsy exposing said abuse and causing the police to start investigating who was responsible for it. Much better for it to look like the work of the deranged intruder/kidnapper/murderer which I believe is still the angle the Ramseys cling to. I also just want to bring up one more point l that I thought you were going to make when you mentioned at the beginning that one of the only things we could be sure of was that JonBenet was found murdered in the house on the day after Christmas. While the body being found in the house is a major thing pointing to RDI rather than someone outside the family, imho the significance of that particular date is also something that points away from IDI. That part of Colorado is largely Christian and almost everyone there celebrates Christmas. A lot of neighborhood sickos who looked like possible suspects were easily ruled out because they had a solid alibi for Christmas night. Christmas night in general would be a very unusual time for someone to decide to commit a crime like that, and if we're to assume the purpose of the break-in was always to kidnap or kill JonBenet the hypothetical intruder would have to either know the Ramseys enough to know they would be in town that particular night or have been stalking them for some time. This is ultimately a minor issue that doesn't really prove/disprove anything but coupled with all of the other things you mentioned that make is unlikely for an intruder to have been in the house that night, we also have to consider that it was someone who didn't have other plans Christmas night and knew exactly where the Ramseys would be. I'm sorry, this comment has gone on for way too long, but I just couldn't help myself having spent a lot of time going down this rabbit hole myself during the last few years. I also agree with everything you've said about how uncomfortable it can be exploring these theories both because of the sensitivity of the issues and the fact that you are accusing someone who might be the innocent father of a murdered child or some very disgusting and serious crimes. Great work, again! I absolutely adore all your videos!
Jennifer Ann
2025-04-19 19:12:59 +0000 UTCYou’ve converted me to Patty having been fooled (to some extent or another). Unrelated, the way John has the audacity to tell the cops he’s still flying to Atlanta is crazy.
Warren Commission Test Skull
2025-04-19 17:24:21 +0000 UTCI think Det. Arndt’s “loopy” vibe is to do with the blue-eyed stare effect more than anything. If you listen without looking at her, she seems pretty normal imo. Great video! I just finally signed up for the Patreon last night because I was starving for more MOCAS content, and I woke up to a 2hr drop to chew on. I’d never seen the autopsy photo of that skull fracture, and I was in immediate agreement that it didn’t pass as accidental in any way, let alone inflicted by a child. This is more vibes-based, but my siblings and I whacked each other a lot growing up, and I can’t imagine any of us picking up one of those maglite flashlights, of which we had a couple - it’s just too heavy, and you know intuitively, especially by the age of 10, that it’s going to do far too much damage. BDI is just silly to me. Thank you for treating this case in particular with such sensitivity. This poor little girl deserved so much better, and it’s horrible how often her murder seems to eclipse her humanity in most coverage. I hope that Patsy and JonBenét are somehow, some way, reunited and at peace.
n3bulazer
2025-04-19 16:36:32 +0000 UTCLacking sexual dimorphism, kids look androgynous and plenty of unattractive children get assaulted too. To think the man had no pedophile in him until a pretty one arrived seems way off the mark. This man goes from zero to sadistic sociopathic evil genius molester overnight in that argument, and makes no sense, incompatible with all we know about that type no? This addendum really was great, thanks!
Ross Bonander
2025-04-19 15:50:43 +0000 UTCI really appreciate that you included the skull fracture image as gross as it looks, because it's a pretty strong bludgeoning that's implied there because to any layperson blunt force trauma is blunt force trauma and just hearing that someone has that blunt force trauma makes it easy to say 'hey accidentally pushing the kid onto a bathtub ledge and willfully bludgeoning her would be indistinguishable in appearance'.
Positivelypolarized69
2025-04-19 14:55:33 +0000 UTCThis won't play for me in the Android patreon app :-( Edit: nevermind, I had to restart my device in order to get it to play.
Dzmien Nzimad
2025-04-19 14:44:31 +0000 UTC20:36 - I had the same dolly thought. I also don't understand why they wouldn't mark the exact spot on the mock up skull that needed to be struck. That seems incredibly important to replicate the fractures. Also, they asked him to hit as hard as he could. Which is an assumption. Not only one, that as you discussed, is difficult to achieve on a moving target, but there's no way to know what force would have been applied. I also can't remember, is the skull at the right height distance to the mock Burke? Because the point in the swing that contact is made matters. Basically, I have issues with this as a valid experiment on top of the many you included. The lack of a full reveal is catapulted to the top though.
PityTheHateful
2025-04-19 14:23:53 +0000 UTCAny chance of this being released on any video platform that isn't the godawful Patreon player that won't even play from a background tab when viewed on a phone? Or even just as an mp3?
Skippy From That Podcast
2025-04-19 14:15:40 +0000 UTCThanks and I’ll try to get back to your questions in due course:)
Matt Orchard
2025-04-19 13:25:27 +0000 UTCExtremely well done. And I agree, largely, with your conclusion, though I lean towards IDI instead of JDI, I acknowledge it's possible and it makes me extremely uncomfortable to look at John and think he did it, because I really don't want to believe it. Anyway, very fair presentation all around even if I don't 100% agree, and the JBR stuff is some of your best work in my opinion!
Captain Panda
2025-04-19 13:14:41 +0000 UTCThanks Matt!
Alan Holding
2025-04-19 12:41:59 +0000 UTCI can’t 100 percent promise, but the tentative idea is to make the next subject an outside the box one in some way. I’m getting fatigued with crime myself atm!
Matt Orchard
2025-04-19 12:30:34 +0000 UTCGreat stuff as per usual! Probably been asked before, but are there any plans to take on more non-murderous/societal topics like Weiner again? Absolutely love those videos
Ben Harrington
2025-04-19 12:26:40 +0000 UTCWell over an hour in, and still loving the analysis! Mostly agree with your takes, and you sell a plausible JDI theory (I had him as least likely, borderline ruled out, before this), but I think I prefer IDI to JDI for a few reasons. 1. John is educated, as you point out. So if he's a monster (and if he did this he absolutely is), he is a very intelligent one. Does a very intelligent man who just murdered his daughter pay money to call in one of the most accomplished experts on criminal profiling, John Douglas, and just assume he's done such a good job he'll fool him? If that was the gambit, it did work; he fooled the guy who founded behavioral science at the FBI. if I was an amateur who robbed a bank I would not want to draw attention from the world's foremost bank-robber-detector and I would not smugly assume that I could fool him and hire him on to clear me. I've seen some people claim that John Douglas was bought, but considering he is both independently wealthy (or I assume so, given he's written a lot of bestsellers and has an FBI pension) and has a reputation he seems to hold pretty highly, I don't think he's the type to value a consult fee over outing a murdering pedophile. On the topic of John Douglas, if you haven't read his books that touch on this case and you aren't sick of it, it's a fascinating read. The Cases That Haunt Us and Law and Disorder both go over this case among others. 2. I don't think the intruder obstacle is as challenging as you propose. If we assume the doors cannot be locked from the inside, as many doors can be, it could still easily be that the door was picked on the way in or left unlocked, and on the way out a key was swiped from a counter and used to throw a deadbolt. This doesn't seem, to me, to be difficult at all to visualize. The window idea has always struck me as a headscratcher. I agree, if that was the only possible point of entry or exit, the IDI theory becomes very implausible. I just don't see why that would be the case. 3. Is it truly reasonable to assume that John became a child molester late in life with no prior or subsequent incidents? It's possible that he has done this sort of thing and never been caught, but if one needs to posit something like this, is that really the most likely scenario? Edit: Alright, finished! I still am unconvinced it was John beyond a reasonable doubt, but the case made is at least suspicious and more compelling than I expected.
Captain Panda
2025-04-19 12:05:20 +0000 UTCYou say that because the doors were locked he couldn't have left through one, but is that the case? Genuine question. What sort of locks were present? Some you can lock as you leave, some you can't without a key. Is it confirmed they were dead bolted?
Captain Panda
2025-04-19 11:13:19 +0000 UTCI’m not ready to take it back or anything, but I would say my outside ground disturbance talking point is among my shakier ones.
Matt Orchard
2025-04-19 11:12:22 +0000 UTC36 minutes in, and I have my first major disagreement (though maybe you bring this up), but I don't think the lack of footprints in the frost or snow is relevant in any way for the following reason: the Boulder PD is comprised of people who didn't handle murder investigations and the crime scene was compromised beyond repair basically immediately. For all we know there were footprints or other markers indicating an intruder was present but, due to the contamination of the crime scene, these fine details were lost. It's entirely possible that the lack of footprints is a strong piece of evidence, or could have been, but given the fact that the police immediately botched the scene by letting everyone wander in and out unsupervised... it's hard for me to take that very seriously, myself. (Disagreement aside, loving the analysis and eagerly continuing :D) 43 minutes in. Thank you for pointing out what I have been loudly thinking for several minutes: why use the window? That seems really dumb. Just use the door. You got in already. You don't need to sneak in through a window like it's Skyrim or something.
Captain Panda
2025-04-19 10:50:21 +0000 UTCFirst post! And I've been SO looking forward to this one! Gonna comment as I go, only 13 minutes in so far. But I will say I'm in complete agreement. The moment I saw the autopsy photos and a photo of Burke in his jimjams, I knew for absolute certain it wasn't him - and that was a 180, because having only heard and read about the case I thought it was fairly likely it could be Burke. But there's just a level of force that one can expect a 60 pound child to generate, and it's not literally skullshattering force.
Captain Panda
2025-04-19 10:14:36 +0000 UTC
