Talk:JonBenét Ramsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents

[edit] Nipping Controversy in the Bud

Wikipedia is intended to be "facts only." Moreover, in a case about which literally dozens of books have been written and many hours of documentary footage, at best this article can provide "highlights" not all the nitty gritty details. Furthermore, in a case such as JonBenet Ramsey's, there's a temptation to interpret the evidence (e.g., does it point to an intruder?) and/or speculate on how the evidence might "fit" a particular possible perp. I encourage contributors to finesse some of these problems by simply pointing to relevant sections of The JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/ for readers interested in a level of detail and/or speculation not permitted here. The site allows for reasonably "pinpoint" citations (e.g., 911 call, Ransom Note, Evidence of a Stun Gun etc.) and by design is intended to provide both sides to a controversy as even-handedly as possible so that the reader can draw their own conclusions based on what is "known." This approach would allow readers here to dive into more detail if they desire without compromising the intent or scope of what's written here at Wikipedia. Even if you reject this suggestion, to the extent people feel that certain details/highlights are "missing" in the Wikipedia treatment, I encourage you to plug the holes by finding the relevant facts at the Case Encyclopedia. Miss Marple 00:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wiki is not an acceptable source, any more than another Wikipedia page is an acceptable source. Facts here should be cited from reliable sources like newspapers, books, and official publications. In addition, you are the owner of that subwiki, so your adding so many links to it comes close, if not outright breaks, the rules at WP:SPAM. If you think the wiki is valuable, by all means discuss it here, but linking to it yourself, absent any consensus, is a bad idea. Please revert your recent addition of so many links. Middenface 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
My wiki is not an opinion blog. It is heavily referenced and contains 45 pages of detail: I think many coming here and wanting to know more would find it highly useful as it not only lays out the facts and controversies, but also points readers to literally every book ever written on the case, numerous broadcast media transcripts and an extensive listing of legal documents. The whole point of pointing users to the wiki is so readers here have access to that rather substantial level of detailed discussion about all the various controversies in this case, the 911 call, the ransom note, whether there is intruder evidence, etc., WITHOUT having to dump all that detail here. There would be no way to provide the massive sourcing used at the wiki without dumping all the competing claims (properly sourced) and counterclaims (properly sourced) here. I don't view that as the purpose of Wikipedia. My wiki does NOT take a POV: it even-handedly reports the various pieces of evidence and provides all sides of these various controversies, trying in all instances to provide the strongest possible evidence to support each claim so that the reader can make their own decision after having viewed the most solid version of conflicting claims. I'm also frankly puzzled that another Wikipedia pagee is not a proper source insofar as virtually every article I've ever read contains numerous links back to other parts of Wikipedia: I thought that was at least part of the point. I would encourage you to please undo your revert. Miss Marple 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The linking to other Wikipedia articles is for more information on common items, not intended to be a source. Whenever possible, we are supposed to cite as close to the original source as possible. That would be why citing to any website (not just yours) that just points to another source, would be bad form. Anyway, that is my understanding.Mapetite526 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'm dense. Most of the pointers to my site were essentially of the form "for details, go here." That is, I'm pretty sure no one here would defend a 45 page article on JonBenet Ramsey; it would be way disproportionate to the space accorded other topics. That said, at least some fraction of the readers here would be quite interested in reading more. So if I want to read more about the 911 call and especially the controversy about whether there are additional voices at the end of the call, I'm hard-pressed to see why it's bad to provide them with what law journals call a "pinpoint citation" to the exact page on my site which walks through the competing arguments about that call in a level of detail that for non-JBR fanatics probably would be excruciating. Same for various theories of the case. I have entire pages devoted to Patsy Did It, John Did It and Burke Did It claims and counterclaims, all documented with many difference sources. I think what puzzles me is this: if there were an e-book that contained a chapter that gave the evidentiary pros and cons of whether Patsy killed her daughter, I presume it would in no way be a violation of Wikipedia policy to point users to that "legitimate" source. But somehow, when the identical content appears on a Web site or wiki, it sounds as if such links are out of bounds. I hope you can see why I'm puzzled.66.57.240.6 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add links to your own websites. It violates guidelines at WP:EL. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed links to the actual Karr-Tracey emails and phone audio files. Yes, these happen to reside on my wiki, but in the case of the audio files, I'm pretty sure there is no other place on the Web that these now can be obtained (I did a lot of searching before deciding to load them to my site). So I can sort of understand your first rv, but really don't understand what is gained by the second rv. This article has a pointer to the actual ransom note. What is wrong with a pointer to the actual emails and phone audio files? I would be astonished if there were zero interest in these among your readers. It seems that Wikipedia would be better served by considering content on its merits rather than whether it is in technical violation of some norm. I'm assuming that if I pointed to these files at a site not my own, you would have raised no objection. If the content itself is perfectly acceptable, it seems crazy to essentially say that if anyone in the world besides me added that link, it would be OK, but because I happen to be the linked site owner, it's illegitimate. As I say, I must be dense. This is my last word on this. If you can offer a reasonable explanation, wonderful. If you can't, then I probably am wasting my energies posting at Wikipedia.
If you were able to add links that are closer to the original source, or at least citeable to another source other than your site, I don't think that anyone would object. Aside from that, I personally don't think they belong here but maybe (in the John Mark Karr article, since he is not actually connected to this case any longer. Mapetite526 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I removed your links. Your site meets two criteria of the Links To Be Avoided section of our external links guidelines:
  1. Firstly, it is not appropriate for you to add links to your own website to Wikipedia articles. The guidelines very clearly state not to link to "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."
  2. I spent a lot of time on it earlier today. You cite numerous IP address and pseudonym internet posters on various message boards and I find that to be concerning and unencyclopedic for a site that purports to be an "encyclopedia". For this reason, I would object to inclusion of your site regardless of whether or not I knew you were the owner. Consequently, I think it falls under point two of Links To Be Avoided of the external link guidelines, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research."
In addition to this, as Middenface pointed out above, a Wiki is not a reliable source under WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet and WP:RS#Self-published_sources. The reliable sources guidelines are very clear about using Wikis as secondary sources: "Personal websites, blogs, posts to Usenet or wikis, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work."
I honestly don't think your site merits inclusion and I can't see any compelling reason for us to ignore the guidelines. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for this clear explanation. Although I don't entirely agree with it, I now better understand the rationale for not linking to wikis. But let me repeat me question left unaddressed. Is there something illegitimate about pointing to Karr's emails (they're the real thing, not something I invented or even transcribed) and/or phone audio files? In both cases, there are numerous files, to me it doesn't make sense to add 20+ separate URLs here. It makes more sense to point to the place where users can download any or all of these files as desired. BUT that place happens to be a wiki--my wiki. So I understand the general rule about not linking to one's own wiki and if I were doing so to provide you with my non-peer-reviewed theory of the case, I can understand the objection. But if the wiki is simply a means to an end--i.e., getting readers to "legitimate" content/documents of interest, is that still prohibited? If it is illegitimate for me to do so because of the flat-out prohibition, then I would respectfully request that as moderator you consider adding these 2 links yourself. If you concur with Mapetite's observation that perhaps they better belong on the Karr page, that's fine by me. Thanks. 152.3.243.72 16:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If we were to link to the emails and such, we would prefer to do so via a reliable source, like one of the news agencies which published them. This article has only a few lines about Karr and his place in the case, so there really is no need to link to them anyway.
Regarding your other questions about the guideline against adding your own site, just forget that for a minute. You seem to be focusing on it as though that is my objection to your link. In my view it is a minor issue. My primary objection to linking your site is not that it is your site, but rather due to its contents. As I stated in my last post, I find the presentation of anonymous usenet and forum posts as "evidence" extremely concerning and inappropriate. I don't think it is an appropriate site for articles on such a sensitive topic which is covered by WP:BLP and, therefore, requiring the finest sourcing possible.
No, I don't agree that your Wiki should be linked to in the Karr article either, for the same reasons. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter "Life"

I'm just reading this article to catch up on the case, and I can't believe some of this stuff is on wikipedia. Firstly this: Still unexplained, is the ransom note: no foreigners would use the phrase "we are a small foreign faction", nor would they be so respectful to John's business, nor would they pen the War And Peace of ransom notes. Genuine ransom notes are short 'n' sweet, and don't quote movies (Speed's "do not attempt to grow a brain"). - I don't think that's okay for Wikipedia, it's casual, it's speculation - you can't say "Short 'n' sweet", can you? and "nor would they pen the War and Peace of ransom notes?".. plus saying what a 'real kidnapper' would do... it's speculation.

The next line is casual and entirely speculation. Then "Stay tuned..."

Come on!

[edit] Photo

To everyone: Please, stop posting the photo on the JonBenét Article. 'Cause that's not JonBenét herself, that photo shows just Dyanne Iandoli in "Perfect Murder Perfect Town - JonBenét and the City of Boulder", she played JonBenét there. So stop posting a photo of her, 'cause that article isn't about her. It's about little JonBenét. If you want to post a photo, than one of JonBenét, and not of an actress who played her. So I have added a photo of her - the real JonBenét.


I'm not sure why there's no photo with this article, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the rights to these images. According to this rather interesting article from poynter.org [1] one photo agency owns the rights to basically every image, still or video, of JonBennet, and is charging news organizations a premium fee to use them. The article has a good discussion of the issues of fair use, and whether or not an image has fallen into the public domain. 208.101.91.76 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Speculation

I believe that the parents are guilty for one very simple reason: murderers do not leave ransom notes. Whoever did this wanted it to appear to be something else. Why would an unknown person care if others perceived this murder to be a kidnapping? --anon.

Bruno Hauptmann did both. I'm sure there are other examples. --71.112.120.10 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, sign your posts. (It helps if you log in.) secondly, it doesnt matter what kind of hunches people have-- were not going to solve this here, by sorting out hunches (Thats Geraldo's job ;) -戴&#30505sv 05:29, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

From the article: In December 2003, forensic investigators extracted enough material from a mixed blood sample found on the deceased's underwear to establish the killer's DNA profile. It appears that he was male and genetically unrelated to the family. This was added after the comments above. If it's accurate, it seems likely that many people owe the family an apology. Many Australians did something similar in the Azaria Chamberlain case, in which the mother of a baby taken by a dingo was jailed for murder. Later evidence supported her story, and she was exonnerated after some years, and some of the investigators severely criticised (but none were jailed). Andrewa 21:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The DNA proves that it wasn't a family member who sexually abused her, but it doesn't rule out the posibility that the abuser and the killer were two seperate people. Of course, it doesn't proove it either. Maybe this new news will prompt somebody to come forward with the vital evidence that proves them guilty/not guilty and let the matter end.
perfectblue 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they were absolutely railroaded. I added a link to the CourtTV Crimelibrary at the bottom of the article which has a lot of discussion on this case, and clears up most of the misconceptions. This was a major police blunder, and the media rolled with everything they were feed and didn't check to verify any of it. I get the impression that this was a grevious miscarriage of justice, and another sign of the poor ability of the Colorado's police to solve cases, and release information in a timely and correct manner. The Columbine_High_School_massacre case is another show of this, if anyone has ever read much about it, they'll know what I'm talking about. Pogue 03:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Girl

Hi, Moncrief.

We don't need to say she was a girl - it's obvious from "queen" that she was female and from "at the age of six" that she was a girl. As it stands, it's clumsy ("a American"?), redundant and odd (she's not famous for being a girl, after all). To use a Montrealais-ism, we don't say that Elvis was a "male American singer and songwriter...": "American singer" and "American beauty pageant contestant" suffice when the other details are just a couple of words away.

chocolateboy 12:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elvis is not generally considered to be a 'songwriter'. Grammaticus Repairo 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comma

Hi, Wik.

That post-Colorado comma is a matter of taste. To my eye (and apparently God's) it looks ungrammatical and ugly. What authority do you have for the claim that it is "correct"?

chocolateboy 12:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See for example here: http://hometown.aol.com/drcarlperrin/commas2.html. I am aware that it is an extremely common mistake (also in dates, when people write things like "On January 1, 2004 this and that happened"). --Wik 20:38, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. After your original edit, I did find quite a few style guides that confirm your usage...

Oh, well. As one editor puts it:

I feel the same way about city-state references as I do about dates -- the extra comma is unnecessary and puts a hitch into the sentence that messes up its flow. [ ... ] I'd chop out that second comma [ ... ] It's incorrect, probably, but it looks cleaner to me.

chocolateboy 10:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone has got anything that says this or that about a comma is "correct" or "incorrect" then it's bullshit. You shouldn't be using it. Put commas where they mark intonation. They're nothing to do with grammar or "correctness". ~Anon
but I intone that intonation is used in singing/music. Heh. But the second comma is warranted, because it's... to borrow your terminology, "intoned".

Nah. The intonation insurance policy is covered by emphasis, or vehemence, or reiteration, or body language :-), or DECIBELS, or... (ellipses), or even periods (AKA full stops) (Best. Foo. Ever).

There's a quote from a novel I can't remember by a writer I can't remember: "she managed to make her life exciting not by living dangerously, or by consuming drugs, but by the simple expedient of appending exclamation marks (AKA exclamation points) to the end of every sentence."

Careful commas disambiguate. See (or re-see) Oxford comma and Eats, Shoots & Leaves for the 411. Careless commas trip the fastidious feet of nimble readers.

chocolateboy 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaks

Hello Chocolateboy, just wanted to say thank you for touching up my update. Have a nice day,

Alvin 14:55, 26 Apr 2004

Hi, Alvin. Glad I didn't annoy :-) Thanks for expanding the article! chocolateboy 11:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I added JonBénet's middle name. I can't believe I forgot about that :-p. I also added how her name came to be, if the word "amalgam" is unfitting, feel free to change it.

I also added Patsy's middle name. Later in the page, I added John's middle name, but I am not sure if this seems repetitive, as I have already mentioned it once before. Again, anyone feel free to fix! Have a nice day.

Alvin 15:50, 05 may 2004

Added more information :-). I think that if this article grows larger, we may need to somehow seperate it up into sections. There is a lot of information here that for a first-time reader may seem overwhelming. I tried to keep it as chronologically structured as possible, but again, difficult to do, as many parts of the article are simply stating facts. For now, I think it's fine as it is. But if we do get any more information, anyone have any suggestions as to what we should separate the article into? "Life," "The Murder," "The Family," etc...?

Alvin 20:02, 08 May 2004

[edit] Burke Ramsey

Wasn't there, at one point, significant media attention on her older brother, Burke, at one point a suspect? Rhymeless 18:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Burke

Yes, but that theory was quickly swept aside, as (a) there was little to no evidence of him ever being involved and (b) the major shift of attention towards the parents and no one else. Burke became involved when Boulder Police investigators claimed they heard his voice on the 911 tape, and were focusing 100% of their attention on the Ramsey family. He was a person of interest at first (naturally, since he was in the house after all), but was soon cleared from the list and was no longer considered a suspect very early on in the case. The violent nature of the case itself practically ruled out Burke, as it takes a considerable amount of strength to garrote a person (and there was a lot of force put into it, as one can see from the autopsy photographs), to deliver the skull-shattering blow to JonBenét's head, and to carry around a limp body. Burke was only either 8 or 9 years old at the time of the murder, and was not "buff" for his age. JonBenét weighed 45 pounds.

Plus, the media blows everything out of proportion. Especially in a case like this - someone brings the idea of a jealous older brother into the picture and it's pure gold from a ratings point of view. Alvin 14:48, 11 Aug 2004

[edit] Photo?

It would be nice to have a photo, if somebody can find one that isn't copyrighted (other than crime scene and autopsy photos!) - Mirror Vax 13:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autopsy Photographs

I don't know if the autopsy photographs are appropriate to be added as links to this article, since the are extremely graphic. However, they are available here:

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

I also posted a link to findagrave.com in the first part of this article, which has a portrait type photograph of JonBenét, I assume it is not copywritten Pogue 03:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think they are appropriate, since they don't really provide any benefit or additional information to the article. They are just gore to "spice things up", and not what wikipedia is about.
I agree that the photos don't necessarily belong here, but the pictures do in fact add to the article since they clearly illustrate the brutality of the attack (eg her skull was not just fractured, it was split in half). 146.115.113.69 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't somebody make sure these images are legal before they are linked to here? --Hontogaichiban 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no reason for it. Just don't post 'em in the encyclopedia. (Some people are legal nuts)

[edit] "Cult Figure" section.

I took this out. It read like some sort of weird & very creepy pedophilic fantasy, and I think it is basically irrelevant, and it was definitely unsourced. I don't think what some people may or may not say or do in pedophile chatrooms is particularly relevant. Cromis 07:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • User Cromis

I agree with you 100%.-205.141.197.194 22:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] caret?

I like how the ransom note has a caret (^) "the two gentlemen looking over your daughter do ^not particularly like you." I can just imagine the member of the "foreign faction" writing the note. "s**t... oh well i'll just stick this in there."

i think the parents hired someone to do it... but WHYYYY?

To get insurance money... duh.


Speculation... duh...

[edit] suspects

I think we should put a section on the suspects of this case. KinseyLOL

That would not be polite. The list would read as follows:

  • Patsy Ramsey
  • John Ramsey

Although it is by no means certain that one of these people is the guilty party, everyone else who has been suggested as a suspect has been specifically ruled out by the police. So it has to be one of these two or else a "person unknown." Stating this in the article (although it is already implied) would be pretty harsh, not exactly NPOV. --Paul 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cross link to Boulder, CO

I noticed that someone added the sentence "JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in Boulder." to the people section of the Boulder, CO entry. Then someone took it out. Another person denies that JBR lived on University Hill. Perhaps editors of this page might help to add a section on JBR to the Boulder, CO page?

The caution reflected in the "Boulder" article is there for obvious reasons. JBR was murdered, and her body was discovered in her family's home in Boulder, but to say she was murdered in Boulder is not, strictly speaking, a known fact.

As for "University Hill," that term is quite ambiguous in Boulder. It refers to three different areas, although they are geographically adjacent to one another:

  • A seedy commercial district serving students of the University of Colorado
  • A residential district of fraternities, sororities, and run-down student rentals
  • A residential district of posh single-family homes, predominantly occupied by CU faculty several decades ago but now much too expensive for most faculty.

Most references to "University Hill" indicate the first area or the second. JBR lived in the third. Use of that phrase may be technically accurate for JBR's neighborhood, but it is misleading.

The "Boulder" article contains only minimal information on JBR, none of it particularly controversial, and refers the reader to the "JBR" article. Isn't that what it should do? There is no sense making the "Boulder" article longer by adding material that is redundant with the "JBR" article.

--Paul 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone on here go to the Boulder, Colorado page and say that there has been a suspect that was arrested? It still says that the case was deemed impossible to solve. 4.225.201.17 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam?

"JonBenét was born at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. The name is an amalgam of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett." I'm almost positive anagram is the word of choice in this situation. Can anyone confirm?

K. McGraw 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anagram would use _all_ the letters, so there would be an extra 'n' and 't', as well as an 'h' in her name. An amalgam is like when two companies merge and synthesize a new name. Chris 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All right then. I could have sworn an amalgam was a chemistry term referring to mercury alloys, but I understand the context you placed it in...thanks. :-)

K. McGraw 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the word amalgam is used in this context, and the Wikipedia entry says nothing about it used this way. I changed it to portmanteau, which I believe is the correct term. - Indecision 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Sorry for the big revert, but User:Miskin really destroyed the article with biased edits. Mirror Vax 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, this

At 5:52AM on December 26, 1996, Patsy Ramsey (JonBenét's mother) telephoned 9-1-1. She told the operator, "we have a kidnapping", and explained that "there's a note left and our daughter is gone". She said she had just woken up and found the ransom note.

was replaced by this

On December 26, 1996, Patsy Ramsey discovered that her daughter JonBenet was missing after finding a three-page ransom note inside the family residence. Despite specific instructions that the police and friends not be contacted, she telephoned the police and invited over family friends.

The first version consists of verifiable facts. The second version is someone's (unattributed) account of what happened. Mirror Vax 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not how wikipedia works. Read wp policies and guidelines before making such large-scale edits. Miskin 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) And frankly I don't understand what your problem is. It is true that she did telephone the police despite the note's warning, that's an important point in the sequence of events and it needs to be mentioned. It's one of the main reasons the local police suspected P. Ramsey, it's not just something I'm making up. Besides the article clearly says that there were signs of an invasion, and it does not focus on the girl's family. I think it's as neutral as it gets, your remarks are a POV. Miskin 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My version comes from a credible source (which you're free to look up on your own). The previous version was unsourced, therefore according to WP:CITE you have no right to revert my edits, despite what you say. Miskin 00:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your version has a few problems. Like Mirror Vax said, one of the largest flaws is: "On December 26, 1996, Patsy Ramsey discovered that her daughter JonBenet was missing after finding a three-page ransom note inside the family residence." Mrs. Ramsey very well could be lying -- perhaps she wrote the note after murdering her daughter. We're only telling one side. The prior version, on the other hand, is verifiable and NPOV -- Mrs. Ramsey called 911 claiming that JonBenét had gone missing. A citation for your "lots of burglars and pedos" assertion would also be nice. Thanks, 24.224.153.40 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This comes from a crime encyclopaedia, it's not something I came up with. However I see where you're coming from, so you could just add something like "according to mrs Ramsey's testimony, she found the note etc". Mirrov Vax reverted my edits completely to an older, poorer version, without giving any valid arguments. He refuses to acknowledge my sources, and if he keeps reverting I'll notify an administrator about it. This article has been subject to POV-pushing by various editors before, it's time we used a credible source. Miskin 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To anon: By the way, apart from your removal of a sourced paragraph, I don't have any problems with your edits. It's mirror_vax's revert which is ridiculous, and I didn't notice that you reverted him back to normal. It's true however that later investigations discovered some dodgy things about the neighbourhood. One of the sites linked to the article talks about that. Miskin 00:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion

What do you think happened? KinseyLOL 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


A few points----

given that the dna profile is not picking up a match -it would suggest ,in theory, a first time offence of this type of killing- which is very unusual .Her parents are innocent but bought a lot of suspicion on themselves with their stoical appraoch .Entering their daughter into beauty pagent contests suddenly became sexually sinister - but ,hey , they weren't the only ones - as it appears common practice in the usa, also if their was a sexual element to this - surely the police would have uncovered sexual photos/videos of her kept by her parents?. could she have been killed by a parent of a jealous pagent rival? Furthermore the use of stun gun, entering thru cellar,binding and torture are remarkably similar in modus operandi of fireman rapist thomas mccarthy. Tali - jun 06

Unless you plan on adding more information to the article, you should take this discussion to a more appropriate forum. 72.200.132.221 15:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother's name

There is a notable Patricia Ramsey in the UK so let us be careful to refer to the mother as Patsy. -- 75.23.152.73 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forking of Patsy Ramsey?

This is ridiculous. There is a link to Patsy Ramsey in this article - which redirects to this very article. They are not the same person, so it shouldn't redirect to the article, which is about JonBenet Ramsey, not Patsy Ramsey. And surely as both the child's mother and a former suspect in the case, she's independently notable. That should not be a redirect, but its own page. I have no idea how to do that, so I'd appreciate if someone could fix it? Runa27 04:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the page, where it says "(Redirected from Patsy Ramsey)", just click the link to Patsy Ramsey. Then you can edit as normal. Remove the re-direct and start writing an article. 72.200.132.221 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't abnormal. People associated with notable individuals typically redirect to the notable indvidiual's article. This is because they aren't notable enough by thsemselves to warrant their own article. For instance, Marina Oswald (wife of Lee Harvey Oswald) redirects to Lee Harvey Oswald. CJayC redirects to GameFAQs (CJayC is the creator of GameFAQs). Is she notable enough? I don't know. I think that all revelent information could be included in this article. Hbdragon88 05:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For the third or fourth time in the past year, Patsy Ramsey has been forked from JonBenét Ramsey. Of the 171 words in the Patsy article, everything except Patsy's birth date (29 December 1956) is a rehash of info already in the JonBenét article. The father, John Ramsey, does not have a separate article (and the John Ramsey dab page links directly to the JonBenét article). What are the community opinions on leaving the articles forked vs. re-merging them? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patsy's Grave

"Ramsey's grave lies in Saint James Episcopal Cemetery in Marietta, Georgia, next to the grave of her mother Patsy Ramsey (died 2006)"

Didn't Patsy just die yesterday? How can she already be buried next to JonBenet? 25 June 2006

The quotation did not say Patsy had already been buried, it simply noted the location of her (already purchased) grave. Similarly, I already have a grave, although I am not in it yet. --Paul 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motive speculation

I personally believe that JonBenét Ramsey was indeed murdered by her mother Pat Ramsey. The reason for this speculation is because there was much evidence that Pat Ramsey committed the crime that I feel was completely overlooked. The evidence was; the note pad that belonged to the Ramsey house with which the ransom note was written, the end of the paint brush came from Pat Ramseys art supplies, the knots on the cord could have been done by Pat Ramsey (knot tying is a form of art). Not to mention, why would the killer have asked for a ransom if he already left her dead in the wine cellar? That makes no sense! The unknown blood sample on JonBenéts undergarment could have come from her mother....someone random gets cut..it happens all the time she could have easily used the concieled garment to help someone wipe their blood, a nose bleed a paper cut so on....now that is speculation I know but still it is plausible (about as plausible as Pat Ramsey not commiting the crime in question). I personally feel that John Ramsey was sexually abusing his daughter JonBenét....Pat was an ex-beauty queen...she was having problems in her life with the cancer and watching her six year old daughter blossom into an even lovlier girl then Pat ever was...then finds out that her husband the father of her child was molesting their daughter, she went insane with jelousy, went to her art supplies took the rope, ripped the handle off of her paint brush, and proceeded to commit such a dirty deed. For those of you who believe in Karma I'm sure you found it just as interesting as i did that she died of ovarian cancer, (yes I know she had been battling with it since '93 nonetheless my point remains valid. Well as valid as speculation can be. Now I can't help but wonder....what's to become of John Benette, cancer of the scrotum perhaps?

  • I feel that you are completely wrong about a movtive. Patsy has no motive. However, John does. If he was abusing her, then he might want to cover it up. If Patsy discovered what he'd done, she might love him enough to try to help him cover it up, thus all the evidence of hers.
  • In response to the "karma" comment above...You've got to be kidding, right? Using your logic, everyone who dies (or at least everyone who dies after prolonged suffering, which is maybe 30-70 percent of the population) is getting their just desserts for some awful crime they've supposedly committed. Sorry. You're nuts. And I hope you (and your loved ones) never have to suffer ill health. A great many human beings (not just guilty people) do suffer.


This is not a forum for discussion of the case or the dessimination of your own personal theories about the murder/murderer. If you so choose there are infinite forums where you can do so. Please keep this page for the discussion about the subject of the article. Batman2005 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny that not only is there a speculation section in the article, there's more here, this time on motive. At least it's appropriately entitled, Motive Speculation.

[edit] Breaking News, Aug 16

http://www.cnn.com/ -> Authorities arrest a suspect in Bangkok, Thailand, in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, two law enforcement officials confirm to CNN. Ilrosewood 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed this at the top of the article as it certainly warrants mention in the lead. 149.79.121.145 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing turn up with John Karr and Reuter reference say nothing about the name of the suspect. Vapour

It's exploding all over the place now. Mdoc7 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stick to the facts!!!

The suspect's name has not yet been released. Additionally, it has not yet been reported if he "confessed to the crime", per sé. A confession entails his saying that he did it; he may simply know too much. No libel cases, please. :) Good work, though, everyone!Srose (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As of 7:41pm EST, the suspects name has been released. dposse 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Mark Karr

For what it's worth, John Mark Karr is not in the Colorado sex offender database. --Serge 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The media is saying that he is a sex offender. Let's go with what they say for now. dposse 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Say what you want, but the fact is there is no "Karr" in the national database either. I've seen that he's being investigated for another possible unrelated sex offense, but I haven't seen it stated that he's a convicted offender. --Serge 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not what i say. It's what CNN, MSNBC, ect say about this guy. dposse 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe they got it wrong when the story first came out. They're not saying it now, so far as I can tell. If you can cite a source, please do. --Serge 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article from KRON-4 (cited in the Mark Karr stub) says that he has been a fugitive in Sonoma County, CA, since 2001 over child pornography charges. So it seems we have a push here -- he's been charged in the US but not convicted or acquitted. Shawn Pickrell 03:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

His age needs to be verified. This article says 42, but the stub started on him says 41. -Fsotrain09 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This story is way too new to be sure of anything. We know only basic details at the moment. dposse 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Ramsey

Whatever became of her dad, John Ramsey?Jlujan69 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He is still among the living, but other than that... ? -Fsotrain09 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe he ran for some political position and lost. SargeAbernathy 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Jlujan69 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I have proposed merging John Mark Karr into this article, because he is notable only through his connection to the Ramsey case. I believe the guideline on notability is that in cases like this the individual should be discussed in the article on the thing for which they are known, and should not have his own article.--Srleffler 03:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is problematic since he has not been convicted of any crime related to JonBenet. Including him in this article implies a presumption of guilt and possibly borders on libel. If he is convicted and there is not enough information to give him a second article, then a merge should be considered. Mike Dillon 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether the articles should be merged or not, this is not a reason to not merge them. Whether Karr is guilty or not, the fact is, the only thing that makes him notable is his connection to the case. Merging the two articles does not imply a presumption of guilt. --Serge 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support the merge if someone would cite a few precedent examples. --Serge 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No merge. He's likely to become a very widely-recognized name in the next months, and to merge the article only to have to re-create it again would be a waste of time. Moncrief 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I also 'disagree with this merge proposal. We can put a "See also" at the top of the 2006 arrest section, but merging it in this article is a bad idea. dposse 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No merge. David Westerfield, Richard Allen Davis, and Jesse Timmendequas all have their own pages, and none of them were famous for anything other than their crimes against children. Karr, if convicted, would certainly fit into this (reprehensible) group. Raider Duck 04:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No merge. Per above. --MZMcBride 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No merge -- I suspect he will end up with his own page regardless of the outcome.
Besides, this article is about Jon-Benet, and not about her and her murderer (whoever it is). So the two should have separate pages.
I find that there is no general consensus to merge. I'll remove the tags so that we can unclutter these two articles. - Richardcavell 05:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (Administrator)

[edit] DNA Collection

I am thinking that the authorities will need to run a nice clean cotton swab collecting DNA onver John Mark Karr to help confirm the burden of proof and match it against the data that was collected way back 10 years ago
www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 06:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


There is a band giving JonBen t Ramsey in Japan.

How do all of you think?

my plastic JonBenet doll

Translation

________

I don't know if you already heard about it, but the case Ramsey was solved. Her murderer was found.

No it's not. It's still unsolved. I'm adding the category unsolved murders back. Arual 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious to know if the police ever performed DNA testing on the parents or on any locally; since they were never indicted, I guess they could not be compelled to provide a sample, but it would be interesting information for this section if anyone happens to know.

________

I also want to add that the DNA that was found on JonBenét Ramsey was in her underwear. (We had to talk about this case recently in Biology with a very truthful teacher.) So the DNA could almost be anyones. JonBenét Ramsey's herself, her parents from washing her clothes, and maybe her murderer. Just FYI. Eiceman 10:06 , 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

I wonder if anyone will apologize to John Ramsey after all of this is over? There are already articles throwing blame on the media for jumping to unfounded conclusions, e.g. The shocker in the Ramsey case
- Loadmaster 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Governor Bill Owens's political affiliation even mentioned? The political affiliation of the governor who criticized the Ramsey family is no more relevant to the story than the political affiliation of the suspected murderer. Mentioning it comes off as a cheap ploy to make Republicans look bad (whether that's the intention or not).

It's pretty much standard journalism formatting to mention political affiliation when mentioning a Governor, Senator, or State Rep. wikipediatrix 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but most of the time when journalists are mentioning a Governor, Senator, etc. they're doing so in the context of that person's political beliefs or their actions in office. This particular action wasn't political and (try as they might) Republicans don't enjoy a monopoly of making a jackass of themselves. As I couldn't see a good reason why it should be included, and given Clobbergirl's concern that its inclusion wasn't relevant, I took out the mention. I won't get bent out of shape, however, if others disagree and restore it. Middenface 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculations

This section kind of stands out now. I think it needs, aside from being thoroughly sourced, to be inserted into a point earlier in the article. Mad Jack 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just removed. Speculations don't belong in an encyclopedia anyway, and it's just POV running wild. Mdoc7 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Coverage

See [2] at the Denver Post. They have the best reporting available right now.--Brad Patrick 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Best reporting? Why is it any better than the national media? dposse 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably because they are local to the crime. -- Mapetite526 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic input

Can folk working on this take a look at Dorothy Allison (psychic). The only assertion of notability relates to this case. Either that's important and she should be mentioned in this article (she isn't atm) or she isn't important and her article should be nominated for deletion. Thanks. --Doc 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since she's deceased, it's unlikely there will be any further news to add to the article, so we might as well reduce it to a core paragraph (or just a sentence, even) to be merged into JonBenet's article. wikipediatrix 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mistakes in original investigation

What did the original investigators do wrong? --Gbleem 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we can't know until we know what they did right. And that they did it right. Mdoc7 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
To start with, they didn't preserve the crime scene and allowed family and friends to march all over everything. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
From Crime Library [3]: "It was while the police were waiting for the call that they made several critical mistakes. They did not conduct a proper search of the house, the area was not sealed off and friends were allowed to walk in and out at their leisure. No moves were made to protect any forensic evidence. The scale of their mistakes became apparent later that afternoon when a detective asked Fleet White, a friend of the Ramseys, to take John and search the house for "anything unusual." They started in the basement. " Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
They had the father and a friend search the house, without a police escort even. And for goodness sakes, the father and then the first detective both moved the body. You never move the body until forensics gets there and does their job first. -- Mapetite526 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prosecuting attorney

Did the original prosecuting attorney have to leave because of the case. What effect did this have on local law enforcement? Did they have to change their procedures? --Gbleem 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ransom Note section removed... restored

I always thought the ransom note was an important piece of the evidence in this case, and appreciated the section on it in this article. I just noticed it was missing, and had to dig around for the edit where it was recently removed. The comment for the deletion says: deleting ransom note section. completely unsourced info reflecting negatively on a living person. (only "source" given was completely irrelevant)) I'm not sure who the living person is that it reflects negatively on, or how it's "completely unsourced". I'm adding it back in. --Serge 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The living person I was thinking of is John Ramsey. If his deceased wife were complicit in the crime, that could implicate him as well. By "completely unsourced", I meant that it had no sources. The only link given was to a website about FBI procedure and said nothing about the Ramsey case. The two new sources you added help; thanks for adding them. --Allen 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Clues??

Seems like some clues are not included in the article. What about the black duct tape that was found over her mouth that John Ramsey claims he took off of her before he carried her upstairs? This was reported on from several news sources such as the NY Times. [4] Also, she had a red ink heart in her left palm, but that's something she could have done, but it should be in the article. What else is missing?--sivazh 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there some vaginal trauma and wooden splinters in the autopsy? Mapetite526 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

What's the deal with her name? Does anyone have any background to it? It's very unusual, superfluous capitalisation, accentuation over the e, if it were hyphonated it would still make little sense incorporating 'Jon' and 'Benet'. I seem to have missed the whole scandal when it went down a decade ago, but if it was covered previously, could someone rehash the weird name theorum for me? 211.30.80.121 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, her name is a portmanteau of her father's first and middle names, John Bennett. No doubt the accent is to make it sound more exotic and feminine (ideal to stand out at beauty pageants). Ridiculous, in my personal opinion, but no more so than dressing a 5 year old up in adult-styled clothing and make up an parading her around to be judged, i suppose. *shrugs*. Rockpocket 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that her middle name, Patricia, is her mother's. She was thus named for both her parents. -- ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] **The bible found on John's desk**

Someone deleted the fact about the Bible being opened to Psalm 118 on John's desk. This was irrelevant, but I found an article that may provide more information to add this piece of information back: [5] ––Blueag9 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually not irrelivant. The 118 psalm states "With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the alter" which translates to "bind the festal sacrifice with ropes and take it up to be sacrificed (killed)" and that's how JonBenet was found. So yeah. Sort of linked. It's also Christmas psalm. Just lovely, 21 Agust 2006 (UTC)


==== And the note asked for US$118,000.00

[edit] Pop Culture References

Recury removed the Pop Culture References section (2006-08-17 10:43:22), saying that it was "not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on this topic, not to mention unsourced". Citations aside, is it not relevant that the media and popular culture simply assumed the guilt of the parents, which in fact may turn out to be completely wrong? Compare this to the treatment of Bruno Hauptmann, the (alleged) murderer in the Lindbergh kidnapping. - Loadmaster 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, while i personally find such content somewhat distasteful, it nevertheless is common on Wikipedia to have pop culture sections (e.g. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, Charles Manson, Moors murders). Deciding which articles this is "appropriate" for appears to be a POV call. Rockpocket 19:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suwat Tumrongsiskul

Early news reports concerning Karr's communications with authorities relied heavily on quotations from Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul of the Thai immigration police. However, the accuracy of Tumrongsiskul's accounts of those communications is apparently questionable.

Firstly, I would like to remind everyone that Suwat Tumrongsiskul is WP:LIVING. Okay now the above seems to imply Tumrongsiskul was at fault for the one to give the inaccurate info to the media. However do we have any real evidence for this? Was Tumrongsiskul speaking in Thai or English? Especially, if he was speaking in Thai, do we have any evidence that the supposed quotations were accurate (for example, do we have an audio or TV report with him actually speaking)? If not, there is no reason to assume the media didn't just misquote Suwat. Nil Einne 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've made a minor change which I feel conveys the idea slightly better. There might still be room for improvement, I'll let others decide... Nil Einne 13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inconsistancies

As this case has been the subject of a lot of speculation, might it not be a good idea to mention some of the inconsistancies in various people's stories that have lead to this speculation in a section of its own?

For example, it was claimed that an intruder broke into the house, but the ground was covered in fresh snow, but there were no signs of footprints in the snow from an intruder, or any sign of forced entry.

I don't know wnough about the case to do a NPOV on it, maybe somebody else could do it.

perfectblue 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The snow is a red herring. Photos taken on the the 26th show footpaths without snow on them. The killer, if an intruder, could simply have used the path.

[edit] EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

1. Teddy Bear- When his possessions were searched, a photograph of a teddy bear was found. This teddy bear was traced to be the same exact one that Jonbenet received from a reported “excessive” fan.- NOTE-Proves he has been to her pageants, thus suspecting an obsession and official connection between the two before the crime occurred, establishing a before, not after obsession.Karr had been communicating via e-mail with University of Colorado journalism professor Michael Tracey prior to his arrest. Some of Tracey's students reported that someone anonymously sent Tracey a childhood photograph of himself holding a teddy bear similar to the one that was found in JonBenét's bedroom after the murder. The bear, which was never collected as evidence, did not belong to the girl, according to her parents. Investigators made a plea for information about the bear in 1999, however, and eventually concluded that the girl had received the bear from a fan in a pageant about two weeks before her murder

2. Yearbook- John Karr signed a year book “I shall be the conqueror” The ransom note is signed “Victory, SBTC” the SBTC is said to be Shall Be The Conquer” and victory meaning so.

3. Handwriting- His A’s had a box; his e’s had the same tilt. They highlighted the Ls he made and the one’s in the ransom note and I gasped. IDENTICAL. The ransom note handwriting and his are reported identical.

4. Tai Reporters- have reportedly been taking liberties with the details of the case. The school pick up was a rumor started as well as the druging detail, thus eliminating the few tails of his innocence.

5. Professor statement- The professor who had been receiving e-mails for four years had stated he knew things that were verified as unreleased evidence and some details only a killer could know. Plus the suspicion involved in order to arrest him.

6. Obsession- he was obsessed. This is obvious. The claim of it being an accident follows with the killing seeming “staged” and over exaggerated. The finger marks on her neck could mean he strangled her first, and then staged the ropes because they were tied loosely and not looking for effect-obviously done after.

7. Pedo-analysis guy – A convicted pedophile who now serves as a Pedo-Analysis man has said his behavior matches the hundreds of men that he sees every day. The weak shy almost childlike attitude is seen as very predator-like and he said I have no doubt this is the man, I have worked with hundreds of them, and he is one, I’m sure of it”

8. Previous home in Conyers, GA when The Ramsey’s lived in Atlanta while Jonbenet did pageants, he would have the opportunity to run into them, attend her pageants, and know them somewhat personally (if only on his side)

9. Jonbent’s pageants are all over-meaning he definitely might have been there-hardcore undeniable proof is the Teddy bear.

10. DNA-the dna points to a white male. He is white and male. The DNA is the only link to prove him guilty however, he still may be guilty. The DNA is only partial.

11. Physics- A physic drew a drawling two days after Jonbenet was killed. When compared, the two are identical. From other cases, regardless of your belief in physic people, it has proven true. check the pics out here: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4367/

To me, this case is solved. Either Karr is it, or he is covering up for someone, using all the stuff and data he's been told. I can't believe you people are so doubting. How can you deny all this obviousevidence. Think about it. Before DNA, he'd be a dead man by now. It all points to him, and there's little little doubt besides false reports, and a lie by his ex-wife(I know this because they found a hotel bill located near Boulder that week in 1996) oh I should have added that to the already long list of why he's guilty. It's almost like you don't want this case solved, and fail to see any logic. Fact is, things point to him. All we need is the DNA and he's locked away for good.

Just lovely 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then hurray for DNA because it cleared him. I'm not saying he's a nice guy, just that he didn't do this crime. He was just obsessed with JonBenet and wanted to insert himself into her "life" any way he could. Mapetite526 14:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Original research and speculation from psychics doesn't belong in a wikipedia article.heavensblade23 01:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur, The fact the "physic's" drawing looks more like a young Adolf Hitler crossed with Wil Wheaton circa Stand by Me notwithstanding. Rockpocket 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone asked Wil Wheaton if he has an alibi? I'm surprised the Ramseys never mentioned it could have been Hitler as well, that would've have been slightly more believable than the whole kidnap-ransom story they used. 172.188.94.252 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lara Karr and alibis

The section where it says Lara Karr has provided an alibi for her ex-husband should be edited to be consistent with the article on John Mark Karr. There's no reference provided in this article, while there is one in the Karr article. It's also stated in that article, with reference, that she never intended for her statements to be taken as an alibi for Karr. heavensblade23 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why the fuss?

Could someone explain to me why there is so much news coverage on this? Maybe I am missing something, but I can't understand why the media gives so much air time on this, there are murders, kidnappings, and ransoms created each day. Is there anything significant to the reason why her murder is such a popular media topic? Perhaps an explanation as to why it is covered in the news could be added to the article

Missing white woman syndrome. There is a mention of Ramsey there, perhaps we should reciprocate? Rockpocket 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Just for the record, to the person who says the case is solved, just because that man said he is the murderer does not mean it is so.

Today, 28-08-2006 the DA's office found Karr's DNA to be NOT consistent with the DNA found at the basement. Karr's lawyer expects his cliënt to be released soon. The search for the truth goes on. -LifeCatcher, Holland-

[edit] What makes JonBenet so different?

Don't get me wrong this is a sad situation, but what makes JonBenet so popular? What about Aarone Thompson? Nobody talks about her anymore. Is this a race issue? Still didn't answere the question.

Because it was sensational. Something was leaked about suspicion on the parents, and from there it just snowballed into a campaign against the parents, aided and fueled by thorough media coverage. Hbdragon88 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also she was a pedophiles wet dream. Her parents entered her in all those beuaty pagents. Another reason is that the case had no striaght anwers on who did it.ShadowWriter 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Beauty queen" or "beauty pageant contestant"?

In the beginning of the article, it says that JonBenet was a "beauty pageant contestant". I think "beauty queen" might be better, as "beauty pageant contestant" almost makes it sound as if she was murdered while participating in a pageant. What do y'all think? BobbyLee 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you pronounce, JonBenét?

--Greasysteve13 07:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that is is pronounced Jawn-Ben-ay, but i have heard Joe-Ben-ay also. Rockpocket 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a French J, as in Jacques or an English J, as in Jim?--Greasysteve13 08:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
French J. It sounds like zhawn-ben-ay. Some journalists, e.g. Anderson Cooper, love emphasizing the French pronunciation, while others tend to stick with the English J pronunciation. My guess would be that Joe-Ben-ay comes from people who read JonBenet as JoBenet. User:BobbyLee 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--Greasysteve13 13:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone in the know should add it in the international phonetic alphabet.--Greasysteve13 05:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normal picture

Is there a NORMAL photo of JonBenet? I know she was a contestant in beauty pageants, but she looks like a robot with that makeup. Is there a picture of her being a normal 6-year-old?

There are but I think they are hard to find online.ShadowWriter 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Try http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&q=--Greasysteve13 07:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is how she was known in the media. Maybe for that reason, the photo should remain as it is? Mapetite526 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with Mapetite. The only photos that were put out there were her beuaty pagent photos. There were a few famliy phots show in the media but not too many.ShadowWriter 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/Talk%7EJonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey_295a.html"