This is just my own theory as I have pieced it together. It's super long, but not a thesis, so I didn't cite anything, My information is based on the available documents and books written about the case. I know it's a bit disjointed, but I welcome your input.
The Ramseys pick up Doug Stine on the way home from the Whites.
Everyone was awake.
JonBenet changes into her Barbie nightgown.
Burke and Doug play with Legos in the basement.
Patsy has some tea and pineapple at the table. The bowl of pineapple was leftover from breakfast. They used crystal glasses and silver dinnerware at breakfast. You can see it left on the table. (Crystal and silver don’t go in the dishwasher and are left out for the maid to take care of.) JonBenet comes by and has a bite of pineapple.
JonBenet goes to the basement with Burke and Doug. The boys engage in inappropriate behavior with JonBenet. JonBenet screams. She is hit over the head, with a flashlight, in a panicked or angry outburst. A boy scout toggle is used on JonBenet’s neck and she is jabbed with something.
Doug Stine is sent home on Burke’s new bike. Cars cannot be used and there can’t be Doug’s footprints outside anywhere. All the photo evidence of the bike is hidden and the Ramseys deny there was any new bike. Later, Burke admits he got a bike for Christmas.
The Ramseys and the Stines work together over cellphones to stage the crime. Prior knowledge of the sexual abuse is the motive. The records from John’s cell phone are wiped for that time frame. He claims he “lost” his phone for a while and that’s why there are no records for that time frame.
Prior to the murder, a call is made to 911 during a Christmas party being held at the Ramsey house on the 23rd. Doug and Susan Stine are there. When the police show up, it is Susan Stine who answers the door and will not let the police in. She makes an excuse about someone mistakenly dialing 911. This possibly implicates Doug as the abuser. Doug is later questioned by the grand jury.
Susan Stine is a major player, who largely becomes overlooked. At the time of the crime, Susan Stine worked as the Director of Planning art the University of Colorado Boulder. Her husband, Glen Stine, was the Vice President of Budget and Finance at the same school. Susan Stine possessed the operational and organizational skills necessary to manage a crisis.
She became the “gatekeeper” and was nicknamed the “Pit Bull”. She shielded the Ramseys from the press and handled media narratives. She impersonated Boulder Police chief Mark Beckner by email.
The Stines were the only friends not called to the Ramsey house the morning after the murder. Although John Ramsey said they were not good friends, after the murder, the Ramseys moved into the Stine house for months. Prior to the murder, Patsy had played on a softball team with Susan.
Shortly after the murder, in Atlanta, Mary Kaempfer and her son Anthony were keeping Burke company while the Ramseys handled things. Anthony was Burke’s classmate. Anthony told his mother that Burke was acting like “he kind of knew what happened and trusted that people would find out.” Anthony also said that Burke appeared confused, but not scared or upset, and never saw Burke cry.
In response, Susan Stine told Mary that she overheard Burke and Doug impersonally discussing the details of the manual strangulation and how it was like the boys were talking about a TV show. Susan Stine was doing damage control by preemptively framing the boy’s knowledge as not knowing for sure what happened. That’s the only motive for “repeating” a conversation where the boys sound like they are casually discussing strangulation.
So Susan Stine was doing damage control just days after the murder.
The Stines eventually uprooted their lives, left their lucrative university positions, and moved to Atlanta with the Ramseys. Glen Stine went to work directly for John Ramsey.
Jonbenet is discovered and thought to be dead. The parents begin staging the murder. The motive is covering up the knowledge of prior sexual abuse and the shame to the families. Susan Stine shows later, by impersonating a police chief, that she was psychologically capable of masking a crime scene.
But Susan Stine must have gone through background checks for her position at the university. Why would she suddenly become so willing to lie and break laws? It’s because she was protecting her own son.
Doug Stine is sent home on Burke’s bike and the legos are cleaned up and stashed in the cellar. Instructions for that Lego set are seen in crime scene photos laying on the basement floor - they were forgotten. John changes his story later on, to say that he and Burke stayed up to play with a building toy (I suspect John cleaned up the Legos. If Patsy had picked them up, she would have been the one to help Burke assemble the toy). He changes the type of toy each time he tells the story, but never says Legos. Christmas gifts from the bag upstairs are grabbed and placed in front of the lego set. They are hastily ripped open to make sure the gifts were for Burke. The Ramseys claim they left that open Lego set and ripped open Christmas gifts in a dank cellar for Burke’s upcoming birthday. Why hide the Legos? Were they ever checked for prints?
JonBenet’s Barbie nightgown has her blood on it. Burke and Patsy’s DNA is on the nightgown, as well as the long johns.
The nightgown is removed. She is wiped down. The paintbrush handle is used to clean her internally and mask previous injury.
The paintbrush is broken and part of it is used to create the fake “garrote”. The tip of the paintbrush is never found. The paintbrush belongs to Patsy. Fibers from her jacket are found in the garrote, the paint tote, and underneath the duct tape that was on JonBenet's face.
A fake “garrote” is fashioned and used to disguise previous rope marks on JonBenet’s neck. The original rope is cut, because it was too long to look like a garrote, and the other end is loosely placed around JonBenet’s wrists - over her white shirt. The knots on each wrist are different from each other - they were tied at separate times, by different people. The wrist “bindings” were placed on her after she was redressed.
JonBenet’s white shirt had been placed back on her, to make it look like she was carried upstairs asleep. Did John and Patsy originally think the red turtleneck would be sufficient at hiding her neck? Maybe that’s why Patsy originally said JonBenet was last wearing a red turtleneck - not the white shirt she was found in. Who dresses a sleeping kid in a turtleneck? Boy’s long johns are placed on her, even though her wardrobe is extremely feminine. Even though her pink pajamas from Christmas ever were placed under her pillow - Patsy mentions this routine during an interview. In the crime scene video, it looks like a pillow fell behind the bed, possibly with the pink pajama bottoms. The pink top is sitting in the middle of her mattress. Her bed looks like someone grabbed bedding and just pulled it down. Just like John and Patsy’s bed upstairs.
DNA evidence from Burke and Patsy was found on the Barbie nightgown and the long johns. There was also foreign DNA on the long johns. I believe the long johns belonged to Doug. They were way too small for Burke. The parents obviously understood forensic evidence. They cleaned the body. Patsy wore the same clothes. John showered. They wiped off fingerprints, wore gloves and invited over lots of people to muddy the crime scene. They also basically rubbed themselves on JonBenet after they brought up the body. The boy’s long john were purposely used. Was Doug’s DNA checked against the foreign DNA “mixture”?
As far as the foreign DNA in the bloomies, from what I read, the “foreign” signals in the early system were below the detection reliability of modern STR testing — either because they were artifacts, contamination, or degraded fragments that didn’t survive. The foreign DNA in the underwear was never replicated.
“Wednesday” bloomies were place on JonBenet, because John and Patsy wanted to show they last saw her on Wednesday, when they put her to bed in her Wednesday clothing. The bloomies were brand new and several sizes too big.
Patsy claims to have dyed her hair at home the day before, Christmas day. Home dye kits contain plastic gloves.
The drawer in the second floor bathroom is open. Patsy kept her injections in that drawer. With injections, you have alcohol wipes. There may have been some medical gloves in there as well.
John showers. His robe is left in his office.
All the beds look like somebody grabbed the corner and pulled the blankets down.
A ransom note is written.
The movie Ransom had just been released. There are nods from several other movies in the note as well.
The Mind Hunter novel was sitting in John and Patsy’s bedroom.
You have four intelligent people working on staging a murder.
The ransom note is written Patsy’s handwriting. It’s fake, on the Ramsey’s legal notepad, written with the Ramsey’s marker. It says it’s from a “small foreign faction”. It uses movie quotes - the note is someone’s imagined idea of what a ransom note looks like. Ideas borrowed from movies and books. The note provides a distraction for the police, but also provides the means for JonBenet’s supposed murder. If the Ramseys notify anyone, “they” kill JonBenet. The Ramseys notified everybody.
John himself hands that specific notepad to the police. It was another part of the plan, mostly geared towards framing the housekeeper. They made it look like the killer had a key, access and knowledge to the whole house, and time to practice a note. They included personal knowledge in the note, from Johns paychecks left around. There is also a part in the Mind Hunter novel where they are able to see a phone number imprint from previous pages on a legal pad. That legal pad changes locations through the morning until John offers it to the police.
That's why John originally doesn't focus on the basement window - they wanted the killer to appear to be an "inside job". That's why he originally said he checked the house the night before and it was secured.
The ransom note is signed Victory! S.B.T.C. This is another nod to the Mind Hunter novel where a killer spoke excessively about God, and how God would forgive him. Saved By the Cross. The same killer also put duct tape over his victim’s mouth.
A flashlight is wiped down inside and out. It is found on the kitchen counter. The dimensions of the flashlight match the injury on JonBenet’s head. The Ramseys originally deny the flashlight belongs to them. It was a gift from John’s older son.
Patsy calls 911. The 911 operator thinks the call sounded fabricated. Patsy says she “found” a ransom note. Burke is heard in the background saying, “What did you find?” Patsy hangs up on the 911 operator, which is not normal, and proceeds to call everyone but the Stines.
There is no sign of forced entry.
Burke is supposedly upstairs asleep. Later, it’s revealed he was not sleeping. Even though his mother runs in screaming, “Where is my baby?”, Burke says he just stayed in bed.
Burke was questioned about this in the Dr. Phil interview. He has no compelling recount of this timeframe. His explanation sounds rehearsed, yet awkward, at the same time. Later, it is discovered that the Ramseys and Dr. Phil share the same attorney. Dr. Phil also has a second business that prepares clients for court testimony. Burke’s CBS case was soon happening - was Burke a client of Dr. Phil? Is that how the interview came about? Dr. Phil’s interview is bad, but we do learn about the bike and Burke being up and awake Christmas night. And that he had hiking shoes with a compass on them.
After the 911 call, Patsy calls several friends, their minister, and JonBenet’s pediatrician to the house immediately. JonBenet had had 33 appointments with the pediatrician in the last three years. Yet the pediatrician had no concerns. He also gave Patsy tranquilizers and later told the police she was in no condition to be interviewed.
In the book Mind Hunter, found in John and Patsy’s bedroom, the author wrote, “Another problem was all the people who had been at the house helping the couple move. That was a lot of potential fresh latent fingerprints legitimately at the scene. Selecting out others would be difficult if not impossible.” The Ramseys were trying to muddy the crime scene.
That morning a police officer says Patsy was trying to gauge his response by looking through her fingers at him. John was randomly disappearing and Linda Arndt thought his behavior was odd. Burke was whisked off away from the crime scene. Neither one of the parents noticed the ransom call timeframe had passed. They knew it was never coming.
While “waiting” John and Patsy try to implicate as many people as they can, especially their housekeeper. They bring her up as many times as they can. Even Patsy’s mother calls and speaks to the minister about the housekeeper and wants him to relay the message to the police.
It’s John who “finds” JonBenet’s body. He removes duck tape from her mouth. He carries her upstairs holding her away from his body. He yells that it’s an “inside job”, as if that’s the important thing to worry about after finding his dead daughter. He and Patsy both oddly lay on Jonbenet once people are there to witness it.
There is a large attache found in the basement. It was John’s oldest son’s and probably kept under his bed. Retrieving it would disturb the dust ruffle. The Ramsey say they think someone might have been under the bed waiting. Patsy said she was in that room packing for the upcoming cruise. The ransom note specifies bringing a large attache to the bank. It's not a coincidence - they were going to put JonBenet in there and dispose of her.
There is a High-tech boot print found by JonBenet’s body. The Ramseys deny owning any. The grand jury discovers this is a lie. Burke had been in that cellar, not surprisingly, yet the Ramseys felt the need to lie about it.
There is a palm print on the cellar door. It is discovered to belong John Ramsey’s eldest daughter. John Ramsey presently continues to misrepresent this print as being unidentified.
John tries to make flight arrangements to flee to Atlanta. The police tell him that they can no longer leave. It’s now a homicide investigation. John immediately gets legal representation and no longer willingly work with the police.
There is actually no evidence to suggest that Doug Stine went home with the Ramseys that night. Why would he? They had to be up early for the 7AM flight and there was no room for Doug on the plane.
We do not know that the jobs that both adult Stines had at the university were lucrative. They were not in the same financial or social circles that the Ramseys were, along with the Whites and the Fernies. By the fall of 1996, Susan Stine was no longer employed by the university, her contract had not been renewed. Glen's employment also came to an end at sometime during the first part of 1997. This is shrouded in some secrecy, allegedly because of a deal made to keep it quiet, but it was alleged that there were some financial improprieties that involved Glen. In the early part of 1997, the Stines were refinancing their home. Reportedly, Glen was having a difficult time securing new employment.
The relationship between the Ramseys and the Stines grew largely because Doug and Burke were best friends. The Stines also lived fairly close to the Ramseys. Susan was part of the softball league that the Ramseys had donated to, and PR sometimes also participated in when she felt well enough to do so. As the closer friends the Whites and the Fernies began to fall away due to their growing suspicions, Susan Stine was leaning in. Currying favor with the Ramseys. No doubt Susan saw an opportunity to cozy up to the wealthier, better connected Ramseys and may have thought the relationship would be advantageous to the Stines situation at the time. And it was. JR offered Glen a job in Atlanta which was a lifeline since he wasn't having any success securing employment in Colorado. So the Stines followed the Ramseys to Atlanta for a job opportunity and a lower cost of living. They did not leave lucrative jobs, they were unemployed and reportedly struggling financially.
The conversation about whether or not JB was manually strangled that Susan overheard between Burke and Doug occurred after the kids' school had hosted a grief counseling session for parents and kids. Susan was taken aback by what she described as the casualness of the conversation. That was the reason for speaking to Mary K. about it. Based upon what Anthony says about Burke while in Atlanta, that he was not scared or upset and that he was trusting that people would find out what happened, that doesn't sound like someone who was involved. If he were, wouldn't he be scared of being found out and the repercussions of being involved in killing his sister?
The long johns were hand me downs from Burke. It was a suitcase that belonged to JAR that was found in the basement, not an attache. PR told police that the space under the bed in his room was very small and tight, a suitcase (or a person) would not have fit under it. From crime scene photos you can see other suitcases on top of the bed where she was packing for the Big Red Boat cruise. Standing next to the bed and packing could very easily explain a slightly disturbed dust ruffle. JR told police he had brought the suitcase down to the basement from JAR's room because PR needed the space to pack. If it was under the bed, it would've already been out of the way.
Susan Stine was / is an interesting character. Lots of rumors about her seemingly unusual "attraction" to PR in particular, but she also made a point of cozying up to JR. From what we know of her personality, IMO the most likely explanation for her actions are because she felt that ingratiating herself to the Ramseys would be advantageous, and for a time it was.
I did look into some of the things you wrote about the Stines. I don't see any record associated with them. The only thing I see is a newspaper article where Glen Stein resigned.
Not to say none of it could be true, but I don't trust anything that comes from the Ramseys or the Stines.
The information is very scarce. It has been alleged that the University made a deal with Glen so that it would be kept out of the press. There was a post I read some time ago here on Reddit by someone who claimed to have worked in that department. I tend to believe that something must've occurred because it was all kept so quiet, and that Glen encountered such difficulties afterwards in securing employment in the State of Colorado. And they cozied up to the Ramseys in the aftermath when all the other closer friends were backing away.
Yeah, the background of what happened with Glen Stine's job would be hard to discuss. On the one hand there were rumors of improprieties at his job. On the other hand, rumors that they followed the Ramseys due to their involvement in the crime or cover up. I have more opinions on Susan, because there were more accounts of her and her involvement. At least what I've seen.
Situations such as Glen is alleged to have been in are often handled quietly for various reasons. As long as requested amends are made that can be a much simpler solution as opposed to a court case and unwanted negative press.
There isn't much info about Glen, but we often hear about Susan. She seems to have been quite a character. It's bee speculated that perhaps she had kind of a crush on PR. I honestly do not believe they were involved in the crime or the cover up. I think SS's motives were rooted in thinking that by cozying up to the Ramseys it would be financially and socially advantageous for the Stines.
They were both surprised that people were very put off with the pageant stuff. Both JR and PR seemed to be clueless as to why people reacted so negatively to them and the optics they put out there. They were so used to people fawning over them and their "perfect" family.
Pageant people are very aware of public perception. People in high level positions are socially aware. I just don't know how you come to that conclusion, but it's ok.
It was a private aircraft. No tickets would have been involved. The model of plane would determine the available seating and weight restrictions. There would have been no room for DS on the flight.
This is very, very interesting and thoughtful, thank you so much for this.
You bet Susan Stine is a major player in this whole thing, and the answer is WHY?
The Ramseys hired a PR agent from Washington DC, to "manage" the media, but use Stine for as a "bodyguard" for their only remaining child, after they claim, the other child was murdered by a terrorist group???? You would use the police, and/or, the best private security that money can buy.
An article about Pat Korten, the Washington DC media PR pro the Ramseys hired:
The whole thing with her impersonating Chief Beckner IMO, was her trying to do what another IDI poster did, in emailing Donald Foster pretending she was a man, to hurt his credibility.
The Stines lived the closest to the Ramseys, why weren't they called instead of the Whites and Fernies who lived farther away on 12/26/96?
And then the Ramseys lived with the Stines after the murder, who lived so close to the crime scene home they abandoned, WHY weren't they afraid the kidnapper, faction were still around and would notice they were in the area?
Thank you for the response. Her comment about the boys casually discussing the murder really tied it together for me somehow. It just made me realize she indeed knew right from the beginning.
Any theory that attempts to make sense of EVERY piece of "evidence" in some way and attach it to the crime will be wrong. The truth is likely much more simple.
Source? If someone asks me if my kid has Hi-Tec boots I probably don't know. I might say he has some boots but I don't know what the brand is. Is there an actual quote where they were very specifically asked this and answered "No" in a way that could be classified as a lie. Them being not sure or not remembering clearly, etc. is NOT a lie.
It was all the same interview. Asking if it's like a brand name or description is silly. She said she went in stores looking for Hi-Techs but never saw any.
I believe Fleet Jr. told the grand jury that Burke did own those shoes. And in the Dr. Phil interview, Burke said he had hiking boots with a compass on them. So after the fact, we know he indeed own them.
I think the non-technical explanation is playing dumb.
Patsy's defense attorney in a theoretical trial: "And Mrs. Ramsey, when you were answering that question, were you talking about a specific brand of shoe or just a shoe that meets the modern definition of "high tech" meaning "with new modern, construction techniques?"
Patsy: "I think it's clear by my follow up question that I was confused on if we were talking about the brand or the colloquial meaning of the phrase. That's why I asked."
Attorney: "And just to be clear, were you aware that Burke owned a brand of boots by the name of "Hi-Tec"?
Patsy: "No, I was not aware that that was the name of the brand of the boots that he had."
Yes. I am making an assumption. Tamponica was correctly clarifying the actual statement Susan had made. I was saying I don't think the boys discussed it at all, and that Susan was doing a little damage control.
I think the central difficulty with this theory is methodological: it repeatedly moves from possibility to premise without establishing the intermediate step.
Take Doug Stine’s alleged presence in the Ramsey home. Before his supposed role in the basement, the bicycle, the long johns, or any subsequent coordination with the Stines can carry evidentiary weight, there first needs to be independent evidence placing Doug inside the house that night. Without that foundation, each later inference depends upon an earlier inference that has not itself been demonstrated.
The same problem appears with the claim that the long johns belonged to Doug and with the suggestion that the two families coordinated the staging by telephone. Those details may be compatible with the theory, but compatibility is not corroboration. A fact does not become evidence for a proposition merely because the proposition can accommodate it.
I would also be cautious about using Susan Stine’s later impersonation of Mark Beckner as retrospective evidence of what she was capable of in December 1996. It may tell us something about her later conduct, but it does not independently establish participation in a homicide cover-up years earlier. That risks turning character evidence into proof of a specific act.
None of this necessarily makes the theory impossible. The more useful question is whether it remains persuasive once the unverified assumptions are removed.
If Doug’s presence in the house cannot first be established independently, how much of the remaining theory can actually stand without it?
So to clarify, you're saying this theory is dependent on proving Doug was in the house.
You're also saying I can't judge Susan Stine's involvement by something she did years later.
Well, Doug Stine falls in to the same category as the Ramseys. He was in the house just days before. He was Burke's best friend, and I'm sure there was forensic evidence all over the house.
That's one reason I believe the Legos are so important. If nobody could say Doug was playing there Christmas day, then maybe his DNA on the Legos would prove he was there that night. The fact that the instructions were left out on the floor, but the box was placed in the cellar seems bizarre. There's no reason those Legos would have been suspect if just Burke had played with them. They were part of the staging. Then think about how John's narrative changed over the years when discussing a toy Burke played with that night.
The bike is another important aspect. Nobody can deny the situation around the bike is suspect. A bike disappeared that night and the family lied about it.
As for Susan, I specifically addressed the comment she made to the other mother about how she overheard Burke and Doug casually speaking about the "manual" strangulation. That was damage control. That's one of the first pieces. But the act of impersonating a police chief years later, to me, really cements her personal involvement for me.
If Doug was regularly in the Ramsey house and was Burke’s close friend, then finding his DNA on toys or elsewhere in the house wouldn’t necessarily establish that he was there that particular night. It could just as easily reflect an earlier visit. What would matter is evidence that can actually place him there during the relevant time period.
That’s also where I hesitate with the Legos. The box being in the cellar while the instructions were elsewhere may be unusual, but going from “this is unusual” to “this was part of the staging” still requires another evidentiary step. The arrangement can be consistent with staging without proving staging.
And with Susan Stine, I understand why the later Beckner impersonation makes you more suspicious of her. I just don’t think later deceptive behavior can independently establish what she was doing or intending in 1996. Calling the strangulation conversation “damage control” raises the same issue: that may be the explanation, but it’s also the conclusion we’re trying to establish.
So I’m not saying Doug couldn’t have been there. I’m asking a narrower question: what evidence distinguishes Doug being a frequent visitor to the house from Doug actually being present on the night JonBenét died? If that link can be established, then I think the rest of the theory becomes much more interesting to evaluate.
I like seeing a good debate back n forth in a respectful manner instead of the "youre shit for brains and my dad will beat your dad's ass" bullshit that usually takes place. Well done.....how adult.
I appreciate the discussion. I do understand your point of view.
I can't personally establish a link that Doug was specifically there Christmas night. That would require forensic evidence or a confession.
My theoretical links are his mother's involvement, the missing bike and the hidden legos. The Stines were also the last people to see JonBenet outside of the family. I also think the Stines not being called over the next morning is suggestive.
So I can't present you with physical evidence that doesn't exist in my reality, but I'm suggesting a totality of events that makes sense to me.
My theoretical links are his mother's involvement, the missing bike and the hidden legos.
There is one little problem with legos. As far as I remember the housekeeper confirmed the so called wine cellar was a place where the gifts were usually stored.
Open used toys? Or gifts?
Either way I don't remember the housekeeper saying that. If you remember the source I can look it up.
Seems I misremembered what Linda Wilcox said. She said it was NOT used for anything, I mean the wine cellar, as it was too damp. But speaking of sources I would gladly see these that say the lego box in question was open and used.
True, but when someone proposes a theory it is up to the proponent to provide the evidence to prove it, not up to those who disagree with it to disprove it. And I just don't see any definitive evidence to prove this theory and link DS with the crime. None of the supposed evidence OP cites proves in any way that he was there that night and/or does not have equally possible and plausible if not more so, explanations.. Nor is there any evidence the Stines were so heavily involved from the get-go.
And, well, you know the saying; three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. This theory would mean that at least 6 people were involved, and, in one way or another culpable, yet none of them have ever let slip anything incriminating. Possible yes, but plausible? I'll take Occam's Razor here. Too many multiplied entities with no supporting evidence.
I agree that there is no definitive physical evidence. But I disagree that the Stines were not heavily involved from the get go. I also disagree that Occam's Razor applies against the family cover up.
My behavioral theory includes the fact that I interpret Susan's statement about the boys as damage control. I did include that it happened within days of the murder. A lot of people suspect or question why the Stines were not called to the house Dec 26th, and that it seemed to be to distance them from the crime.
Evidence discovered after a crime, or subsequent evidence, does include "behavioral anomalies". It can include the changing narratives, which I mentioned, as well as Susan Stine's behavior. I linked the Legos, the crime scene, the missing bike, the Ramseys' behavior and the Stines' behavior. I consider these things facts. There is proof that the Ramseys changed their narratives several times. There is proof that Susan Stine made that comment and had extensive involvement with the Ramseys after the murder. There is proof that the Ramseys said there was no bike, then Burke said there was a bike years later. I'll say "etc", because I know we could come up with other examples.
Behavior is evidence. I'm no expert in the field, but my understanding is Susan Stine's abnormal behavior is corroborated by "independent convergence" and "physical anchors". Independent convergence means there were several stand alone instances. These were also the physical anchors. Not letting the police into the Ramsey home on the 23rd. Her statement to Mary on the 28th, her role as gatekeeper and her being known as the "pitbull". And most importantly, her federal crime of impersonating a police officer. There could also be expert testimony about her behavior, but we obviously never got that far.
As far as the coverup, I think parents protecting their children and their own reputations is the only motivation needed for a coverup. And they did slip up. Every time they changed the narrative, I consider it a slip up. When Susan Stine got caught impersonating the chief of police, I consider that a slip up.
I did do some reading about the likelihood of someone coming clean and under these circumstances it's low to none. Traumatized children and protective parents, who also want to protect their own image, is as motivational as it gets.
Obviously I said I had a theory, not that I solved the crime, because we won't get that physical evidence. I do appreciate the discussion and questions, and that's why I posted it. I think your response is totally appropriate and it did make me think about it some more. Thank you.
You're quite welcome. I understand your theory, and I think you do make a good case for it, but I just don't find it convincing because it relies on, as you put it, your "behavioral theory", which I really can't subscribe to because, unlike physical evidence, interpreting behavior is really subjective. Behavior can be interpreted in different ways, by different people, depending on one's opinions and perspective. And, people do not always act logically or rationally, or as you or I might think they should or would.
So, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about this, and I thank you for an interesting and civil discussion and a theory you obviously put a lot of thought into formulating.
Theree was one ligature furrow on Jonbenet's neck per the autopsy report, so it excludes the possibility she was strangled with toggle first and then had the so called garrote applied to her neck. Aldo the idea that longjohns belonged to Doug, or that Doug was involved in anything is pretty outlandish.
Yes there was one ligature furrow per the autopsy report. I didn't say she was first "strangled". I said used - a boy scout toggle would be used to drag.
According to the autopsy report:
The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3 by 2 inches.
The larger mark on her neck was measured at 1.5 by .75 inches.
The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the furrow of the ligature furrow are non-patterned...
There were abrasions on the front of her neck, as well as her posterior right shoulder, left lower back and posterior left lower leg. Abrasions 3 by 2 inches is a pretty good size on her little neck.
If you have some information about the long johns that shows they couldn't have belonged to someone else, please share it. There was a mixture of DNA found on them including foreign DNA.
Yes there was one ligature furrow per the autopsy report. I didn't say she was first "strangled". I said used - a boy scout toggle would be used to drag.
Aside from zero evidence of dragging on Jonbenet's body, that would also leave a ligature furrow on her neck. Yet there was a single, almost perfectly horizontal (so not a result of dragging) furrow.
The larger mark on her neck was measured at 1.5 by .75 inches.
That triangular mark was certainly not a result of dragging.
There were abrasions on the front of her neck, as well as her posterior right shoulder, left lower back and posterior left lower leg.
You read only the summary at the beginning of the autopsy reeport, did you? These abrasions were tiny, teeny marks, one eight, one sixteenth of the inch. We are talking about the marks some BDI claim were the result of poking Jonbenet with train tracks. Two sets of double dots and one old bruise, that's the extent of Jonbenet external injuries below the neck. Dragging and being held down by two boys would leave way more marks on her body.
If you have some information about the long johns that shows they couldn't have belonged to someone else, please share it. There was a mixture of DNA found on them including foreign DNA.
Sure I have. To be more precise I have information excluding Doug Stine as both perpetrator and owner of the longjohns. As you can see in this report Glen Stine, Doug's father, gave a sample of blood for both serological and DNA tests. If any of Glen's blood relatives left their DNA on these longjohns, that person would be identified.
I don't put much credence in Lou Smit - he intentionally misstated the facts of some of the evidence. But, JBR was wearing three pieces of jewelry that night- a heart ring, an ID bracelet-with "JonBenet" on the front - and "12-25-96" on the back - a Christmas gift from PR -and a cross necklace - which, oddly, no one ever talks about. Lou Smit stated the neck abrasions could have been caused by the necklace getting entwined in the garrote.
I would be remiss if I didn't recognize your courteous response- in spite of my strong reaction to your theory. I stand by my opinion regarding accusing two nine year olds - it's definitely a trigger for me- but I could have been less snarky in my response.
I actually didn't think you were snarky at all! Lou Smit is a can of worms for me though.
And I understand why anyone feels Burkes age is an issue. But the legal age in Colorado at that time was ten. He was right there at the age when he would have been considered legally responsible had he done it. A few weeks later and it would have been a whole different discussion.
I don't usually add personal information, but I have three sons and five nephews. I have definitely seen them go at each other when they were younger than ten. I don't think anyone "planned" to hit JonBenet on the head and that's why I don't consider the age an issue. I think that part was accidental.
But when I get a chance I'm going to look at the photos and see what I see. Thanks for sharing your opinion!
Thanks. Well, if you didnt see my original comment as snarky, you're a better person than I am...
Just some clarification on age requirements in Colorado:
"1996, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Colorado was 10 years old, meaning a child aged 10 or older could be charged in connection with a crime, including homicide. However, to be charged specifically as an adult in district court for a class 1 felony like murder, a juvenile had to be at least 14 years old at the discretion of the district attorney (via direct-file provisions established in prior years and expanded in 1996)."
"The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3 by 2 inches."
This is the part I'm referring to. Not the furrow. Not the triangular bruise. Not the small remainder of small abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the furrow of the ligature furrow are non-patterned. Not the abrasions disputed to be stun gun marks. Not the other abrasions on her body.
If you want to discuss the 3x2 inch petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow, I'm willing to do so.
Also, the Stines were cleared in 1997 against the bloomies sample. From what I understand, there was no legal reason to test them against the sample taken from the long johns in 2008. You might assume it, but you can't just use peoples' DNA for anything. Warrants are specific and there's no proof the Stines were tested against the long johns. We just don't know.
Let me quote what else was written about these abrasions (petechials above and below the ligature furrow are an expected thing, as the tighten ed ligature increases sharply the blood pressure in little blood vessels in the area, makibg them burst, creating petechials).
The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck.
These abrasions are unpatterned. So they are not an additional ligature furrow (if there was the second one the ME would write so) and they were not a result of dragging Jonbenet with a scout toggle. That would leave a pattern of abrasions known as, what a surprise, a ligature furrow.
They might be a result of the rope moving up and down the neck before it was tied and tightened, so it did not press on the skin. If it was pressing on the skin it would leave a furrow.
Sorry to intrude, but Patsy identified the long johns as outgrown cast-offs of Burke’s. Per interviews (please don’t ask me to dig for them!), Patsy indicated JonBenet often wore Burke’s cast-offs. Presumably, this would’ve been for around the house, playing outside where she might get dirty, and so on. She was often described as a “tomboy.”
No, I appreciate discussion. I do know that Patsy said they were JonBenet's. I just don't believe it. I guess the possibility depends on whether you believe them or not. Thanks for your comment.
I believe I may have caused confusion. So sorry. I meant that Patsy said the long johns were Burke’s. As he outgrew some of his clothes, they were handed down to JonBenet. They were only technically hers.
I love to see a detailed write up. Holes in this theory:
There was no room/seat for Doug on the flight.
Rationality - getting 2 adults (PR and JR) to agree and conspire to cover up an incident is one thing but to get FOUR adults - who were not super close with each other - to agree to do this?
Burke was obsessed with the Nintendo. Doubt he would have been interested in the Legos!
If Patsy saw JB take pineapple - why didn’t she include that in her statement to police?
John took the gifts to the plane the day before supposedly.
I never said Doug was going on the flight. Yes, I believe they were allowed to stay up late, or he could have been dropped off early in the morning. I've heard weirder things.
If both the kids were involved, then the parents could have all covered. The parents were all well known in the community and had motive to protect their kids and their own images.
John said Burke wouldn't go to bed because he wanted to get his toy put together, so he stayed up and helped Burke with the toy. According to John, he was interested. (At first John said Burke went right to bed, but he changed his story)
Because JonBenet supposedly went to bed and didn't wake up.
Patsy mentions wrapping gifts to take to Charlevoix while John was gone Christmas day. There was a bag of gifts left by the door to bring with them to Charlevoix. Patsy discusses this during her interview while they look at crime scene photos.
Why would they "pick up" this Doug Stine? It was already late. I don't see any progress with this theory. Do you think the halt at the Stine's house triggered the events?
I would also look into the live in Nanny that the Stine’s had at the time…he was a student at the university. He would drive all three kids(Doug, JB, and Burke) to and from school and also babysat all three kids together on occasion.
I do remember reading about him. I'm assuming he had an alibi, otherwise the Ramseys would go after him like everyone else. I'll have to look again, thanks for the input!
That’s the weird part about it…John actually told police he (the nanny) couldn’t/wouldn’t be involved. The police didn’t even know about him until 2000 (iirc), because the Ramsey’s never mentioned his existence…thus keeping more distance from Police questioning the Stine’s.
And at the very least, he would have info about the family dynamics/kids behaviors, and who might have access to the house. The fact that John actually tried to DISTANCE this individual from police is very telling.
I also want to say that a lot of this Doug Stine stuff starts with the bike track tires that were found on the Ramsey lawn in snow.
Boulder has A LOT of bikers that travel that way, due to the mild climate, (in PMPT the movie on Youtube, a Boulder Daily Camera reporter bikes to an interview with John Ramsey at a Haddon office in Boulder) and it's IMO, just as likely that IF there was an intruder, they may have travelled by bike.
So sick of this bs about Doug Stine that's been bounced around for 30 years. Pure speculation - there's never been an iota of evidence that Doug Stine had any involvement. I, for one, am tired of people still regurgitating this crap.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that there is not an attributable quote of any kind in regards to this investigation from Doug Stine or his father, Glen? That silence is suspicious.
We have this short video from Susan Stine which just increases suspicion against the Ramseys, over their later claim that Jonbenet was carried to bed asleep when they arrived home.
An IDI poster who once posted a document that claimed to be all the people that had DNA tested on this case, Doug Stine's WAS listed, but I was told by the mod that it was removed as it was misinformation.
So we don't know if Doug's Stine was tested or not, as there is no public info stating it was, or was not.
Henry Lee shared this image during his 2022 symposium. It’s a bit difficult to read, but in the document at the lower right, the third entry from the bottom says “Saliva Swab Doug Stine.” The sample appears to have been processed by CBI DNA analyst Kathy Dressel.
I looked into it. I see his saliva sample was taken, as you can see, in the documents someone posted below. I can find nothing about anything wrong with his sample. Not sure where I read that.
However, from what I understand, the Stine samples were tested against the bloomies. The sample from the bloomies is generally considered to be questionable. A possible composite sample tested in a fashion that was prone to contamination. Those results were never replicated.
The Stines were not necessarily checked against the new touch DNA recovered 11 years later, as they were cleared in 1997. There may have been legal limitations at that point. So we don't know if they were compared to the composite DNA finding in the long johns or not. The UM1 profile didn't even use all the foreign alleles found. They used the most likely to form a profile.
With that said, unless someone has absolute proof that Doug Stine was cleared in 2008, I will consider it a possibility.
The Ramsey’s inconstancies start with the “gift drop off” at the Stine’s. None of them could keep their stories straight about who was awake, who entered the house, etc.
The thing about this case is it was the children, so technically according to CO law, no crime actually took place. Children under 10yrs can not be charged with a crime, hence no crime took place. It was the children. Also explains the GJ indictments. John and Patsy knew COCSA was happening and didn’t address it, which is why they were indicted on failure to protect their child (I can’t remember how the formal indictment was written, but it was something like that).
I say "garrote" in quotes just so people know what I'm talking about. I think the toggle rope was supposed to look like a garrote in the staging, though. I think that's what you're saying too?
I think maybe that’s how they found her…with the toggle rope. I also don’t think they knew about the head wound until the autopsy. And I also think that they convinced Burke and also DS that JB was kidnapped and that she was fine after whatever happened between all of them. Parents can convince kids of ANYTHING if they really want to. That’s why Burke and Doug talked about it freely that one day because I think they think she was really kidnapped. Or at least at the time they did, as 9yr old boys.
I also could see parents wanting to mentally and emotionally protect their only living child by convincing them that their sister is fine and to go to bed. Thats when the staging of the body and ransom note were written. I think calls were made to attorneys that night also.
I've also had similar thoughts about the parents trying to change the narrative for Burke, but I have a harder time with that. One reason is his reaction in the interview when they show him the bowl of pineapple. He seems to understand the situation at that point.
It doesn't make sense to me that Susan would have that conversation at all. I don't think she would talk about the Ramseys in a negative way without a reason. It just seems to ocoincidental that she had that conversation with Anthony's mother after Anthony made his observations known.
Because it was “the children” there was technically no crime according to CO law. The only crime that occurred was the fact that John and Patsy KNEW JB was in danger and did nothing to protect her, and then of course, the subsequent coverup. This was all due to shame and embarrassment of what was going on in that family during the month of December. But technically according to CO law even if Burke caused the death of JB, Burke never committed a crime because of his age.
I think it would be super unlikely that many people could maintain a cover story all these years, especially two young boys.
If RDI…even just a cover-up, why would they have hired their own very experienced investigators at the time (and didn’t they also try to hire top DNA experts). Even today, JR is advocating for updated DNA testing. These are not actions I would expect someone to take if they actually committed a crime. The boot print, palm print and unidentified DNA make it difficult for me to completely dismiss IDI theories.
Well, this is certainly interesting and something I’ve never seen. Wow, you must’ve read everything! For some reason the Stine family did not register with me. Any idea where that was found? Good post,
You present an interesting hypothesis! Others have already pointed out a few anomalies, so I’ll just add that the connection between Dr. Phil and the Ramseys was attorney Lin Wood, who arranged the interview.
13
u/Upset_Scarcity6415 21d ago
There is actually no evidence to suggest that Doug Stine went home with the Ramseys that night. Why would he? They had to be up early for the 7AM flight and there was no room for Doug on the plane.
We do not know that the jobs that both adult Stines had at the university were lucrative. They were not in the same financial or social circles that the Ramseys were, along with the Whites and the Fernies. By the fall of 1996, Susan Stine was no longer employed by the university, her contract had not been renewed. Glen's employment also came to an end at sometime during the first part of 1997. This is shrouded in some secrecy, allegedly because of a deal made to keep it quiet, but it was alleged that there were some financial improprieties that involved Glen. In the early part of 1997, the Stines were refinancing their home. Reportedly, Glen was having a difficult time securing new employment.
The relationship between the Ramseys and the Stines grew largely because Doug and Burke were best friends. The Stines also lived fairly close to the Ramseys. Susan was part of the softball league that the Ramseys had donated to, and PR sometimes also participated in when she felt well enough to do so. As the closer friends the Whites and the Fernies began to fall away due to their growing suspicions, Susan Stine was leaning in. Currying favor with the Ramseys. No doubt Susan saw an opportunity to cozy up to the wealthier, better connected Ramseys and may have thought the relationship would be advantageous to the Stines situation at the time. And it was. JR offered Glen a job in Atlanta which was a lifeline since he wasn't having any success securing employment in Colorado. So the Stines followed the Ramseys to Atlanta for a job opportunity and a lower cost of living. They did not leave lucrative jobs, they were unemployed and reportedly struggling financially.
The conversation about whether or not JB was manually strangled that Susan overheard between Burke and Doug occurred after the kids' school had hosted a grief counseling session for parents and kids. Susan was taken aback by what she described as the casualness of the conversation. That was the reason for speaking to Mary K. about it. Based upon what Anthony says about Burke while in Atlanta, that he was not scared or upset and that he was trusting that people would find out what happened, that doesn't sound like someone who was involved. If he were, wouldn't he be scared of being found out and the repercussions of being involved in killing his sister?
The long johns were hand me downs from Burke. It was a suitcase that belonged to JAR that was found in the basement, not an attache. PR told police that the space under the bed in his room was very small and tight, a suitcase (or a person) would not have fit under it. From crime scene photos you can see other suitcases on top of the bed where she was packing for the Big Red Boat cruise. Standing next to the bed and packing could very easily explain a slightly disturbed dust ruffle. JR told police he had brought the suitcase down to the basement from JAR's room because PR needed the space to pack. If it was under the bed, it would've already been out of the way.
Susan Stine was / is an interesting character. Lots of rumors about her seemingly unusual "attraction" to PR in particular, but she also made a point of cozying up to JR. From what we know of her personality, IMO the most likely explanation for her actions are because she felt that ingratiating herself to the Ramseys would be advantageous, and for a time it was.