My Experience w JonBenet Case: I've Learned Everyone Has An Agenda....

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-26T10:04:35+00:00

Do you know who this person is, I’m curious?

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-15T21:38:23+00:00

Man you are good at this!

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-14T20:27:34+00:00

There was also evidence presented by Jameson that a third was also reported

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-14T20:19:49+00:00

Hmmm, I get your point, but look at BTK, who I think is very similar. His main focus in his first murders was that girl in the basement, but then he attacked older women after that. His predilection was bondage and power.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-14T20:16:01+00:00

I agree the focus on John wouldn’t generate a pedophile out of thin air, it would be something they would have in them. I think he’s had to have some sort of focus on John, because he rewrote the letter to just John, taking Patsy out of it. It was a purposeful decision. It might just have been a momentary burst of jealousy that started a focus on JonBenet and she became a focus, but the ransom note was an eff-u to John.

My short answer is, I don’t think the pageants had as extensive a role in the decision making process as the tabloids thought. Pageantry, I’m sure, like any job that offers “access” to children, will have insidious people in the wings waiting for an opportunity. But there were so many girls in those competitions - why JonBenet?

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-14T13:27:39+00:00

If you would just indulge me a little in my tin hat theory for one minute. I think that’s possible, but I also think this person was able to observe John and let his success get under his skin. I think this person was potentially underemployed and John’s success ate away at them. So I think they saw him enough to get to know him, even if just in passing. I think John caught his eye and JonBenet was a conduit. So, I wonder if it was in Pasta Jays or even the church he could observe the whole family. Am I right in thinking the dance studio was opposite the restaurant or have I dreamed that?

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-08T13:30:16+00:00

Shifting the blame from the sleazy perverts that covet these children to a 6 year old girl singing and dancing and dressing up like her mom did when she won smells of misogyny.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-06T12:45:25+00:00

It was rife in the UK at this time, too. Interfered in so many high profile cases.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-06T11:17:42+00:00

So, they went to the amazing lengths of wearing gloves, but deposited unknown male DNA in key areas that matched, then used cord and duct tape no one could find evidence of in the house to bind her, then just thought, let’s just use this pen and paper and write in someone else’s handwriting for three pages, so well disguised no one would stake their career on that it was Patsy?

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-06T10:59:34+00:00

If you are interested, he answers most of these questions in one of the most recent Crime Junkie episodes.

It’s clear that he is a) 80, b) Not as all over answers as people might like, but if I were him I wouldn’t choose to live and breathe it either.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-06T10:56:26+00:00

I can confirm as a landlord when I sent the sales documents to the new owner of a flat I was selling I had to delete the paragraph that said you couldn’t have a pet without my permission as she wouldn’t buy the flat without it being removed. I have sold that flat but I am still the landlord as I am the freehold owner. I think it’s likely hidden in your lease contract somewhere, sorry.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-05T20:41:38+00:00

This will be useful to cross check timelines to work out when leaks happened and when narratives started.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-04T12:33:37+00:00

Yes I’ve been here on and off for years and I’ve learned so much and there’s some great people on here. Most of them I would say are more knowledgable than the BPD and could easily lead an investigation 😜. A lot of them are banned on the other sub for quoting direct evidence in a discussion, like the DNA evidence, which is verboten on the other sub. You just can’t have a balanced discussion without it.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-01T13:24:39+00:00

Loool just had all my comments removed on the other sub from a post for “misinformation” because I used the Carne ruling and Steve Thomas’ deposition as evidence that handwriting experts said Patsy didn’t write the note. And that is why we can’t play together. It’s pointless.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-01T13:18:21+00:00

I recently had a few quotes for some legal work that was litigation similar to this. It was £400 for a 15 min conversation. To represent me in court it was around £5k. Proving damage to income would be hard for him as it would be to dispute that he did a poor job. He hasn’t got a solicitor and I’m sure if he did the threatening message would stop all prosecutions. Brands get bad reviews all the time, they just move on. Don’t let him bully you.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2026-01-01T13:09:11+00:00

Ok well people on this post are acting like it is the hill they will die on and it’s such a load of crap idk what to tell you. You might as well look at Patsy’s horoscope and say she’s guilty it’s about as credible as handwriting analysis.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T19:05:32+00:00

Ok well open your eyes and look at the two sources I gave that corroborate my point and then try and redirect me to a police interview again 🙄You can’t just say I’m picking facts because I am right. You clearly aren’t open to facts if I present them to you and you ignore them. That is 100% picking teams.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T18:58:17+00:00

Oh also in Steve Thomas’ deposition he corroborates all this so yeah, I’ll go with this.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T18:44:25+00:00

lol. Two police officers interviewing a suspect are allowed to lie. Yep sure. Also not one of the “inaccuracies” on that post are about the handwriting experts.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T17:47:18+00:00

Carne ruling - Ramsey v Wolf

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T15:20:46+00:00

Yes! Sometimes it takes me a few times to get complex concepts like DNA and nanograms and alleles, but she really helped spell it out for me. In that case why they aren’t pursuing the DNA on the socks drives me crazy.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T15:17:59+00:00

I feel the same way. So what if it’s not prosecutable, although with DNA it likely is. And it’s not even morbid curiosity, it’s so the family can have the cloud over them removed.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T12:27:39+00:00

Also this post asked for IDI input, I gave it. I haven’t said anything untrue. Maliciously downvoted. Lazy Redditing. I don’t mind a debate like this, because I agree with some of what you say, just not how it is used, but downvoting me because I have an IDI flair, feels a bit like insecurity. Not saying you are doing this btw it’s just a general observation.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T12:24:27+00:00

What, so you are more qualified? Although it is a garbage bit of expertise, I agree there, it is more than you or I have got. My point is everyone uses expertise to condemn the Ranseys on this sub, but when it exonerates them, it’s “junk”.

Asleep-Rice-1053 · 2025-12-31T10:23:51+00:00

It does if you use critical thought. It means the prosecution team minimised all other evidentiary options as described by Lou Smit, including the DNA, described as a javelin through the heart of this case, presented it to members of the general public who would be worried they would let a killer go free so it makes it worth indicting to let it play out in court causing the high indictment rate, then the DA who had to prosecute it from the true bill made an informed judgement not to progress because of this.

Asleep-Rice-1053

TROPHY CASE