Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The case of Jon Benet Ramsey has always facinated me.  I love cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.  This case in particular has some of the most confusing clues I’ve ever seen. 

• JBR had eaten pineapple shortly before her death
• JBR had two small burn marks on her head consistent with a stun gun
• JBR’s mouth was covered with duct tape found in the house
• JBR was strangled with a garrote made from a paint brush from inside the house
• A randsom note was left demanding $118,000
• Mr. Ramsey (father) just received a Christmas bonus of exactly $118,000
• The handwriting on the note did not match either parent
• The note was writen on paper that came from inside the home
• In the basement, there was a suitcase placed directly below a window
• The was a scuff mark on the wall of the basement right below a window
• There was a boot print from the basement floor that has not been matched to any family member or friend
• There were no footprints in the snow outside the home
• DNA found on JBR does not match either parent

So now what?  The demand note is erie.  $118,000?  Did the murderer knew Mr. Ramsey?  Or did he just stumble upon a paycheck while he was going through the house?

What about the lack of footprints in the snow?  It seems that there was some snow around the house, but most of it had melted away.  Was it possible for an intruder to leave the home without leaving any footprints?

I always thought that the parents were innocent, but I could never quite believe the theory that a person entered the home, went to JBR’s bed, moved her from her bedroom to the downstairs area, fed her pineapple, found duct tape, found a paint brush, removed her to the basement, killed her, wrote a random note, and left through the same window he entered.  Does that sound plausible?

Will we ever know?  Until the DNA found on JBR’s body is matched, we will likely won’t have any new clues in this case.  Which mean we’re right back to where we started, stuck in the snow.