Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

we shouldnt call it 'forking patsy ramsey',it sounds real bad..like we a forking her.id never fork her,she aint my type

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)

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

• http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html
• http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

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)

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)

**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: [1] ––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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. [2] 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)

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)

"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)

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)

Current Coverage

See [3] 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)

"Please add an image"

I'm aware an image is needed. I'm also aware that people know an image is needed, and a big ugly 'PLEASE ADD AN IMAGE' notice isn't needed. It's a matter of ignoring all rules. Besides, there's already a notice here (the talk page) that states the need for an image. 1ne 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

if ignoring all the rules is you smartass way of saying it's been discussed, and YOU don't like something...well i guess i'm ignoring all the rules. i doesn't really matter to me one way or the other...only trying to be helpful. i do, however, find your citing WP:IAR hysterically ironic.--emerson7 | Talk 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

ZHAWN-b'NAY or Jon-b'NAY Joie de Vivre 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing statement

This statement "...her middle name is that of her mother, Patsy Ramsey, who enrolled her daughter in a variety of different beauty pageants in several states. In addition, she funded some of the contests in which Ramsey was involved." is worded confusingly. Is it trying to say that Patsy Ramsey funded contests in which JonBenet participated? Crana 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words and a bad ref.

I put citeneeded tags at "some medical experts believe" and "others say" in the "murder case" section, as that is a classic example of weasel wording. I also changed the ref. following "pens of the same type" to a citeneeded tag, as I can't find anything relevant in the linked page. --Slashme 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Everything you want to know about this case is at the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/ I have no interest in resurrecting the firestorm of controversy by adding links back to this wiki (see Nipping Controversy in the Bud), but you should feel free to check out the site and use whatever documentation is provided to fill in the missing sources. I'd truly be surprised if you didn't locate every single one. Miss Marple 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a real word

In the third paragraph under the Murder case section it says somewhere The official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma., Craniocerebral is not a real word, i checked in the dictionairy and could not find it, i believe this word may have been mispelt so could sombody please ammend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.134.45 (talk • contribs) 03:16, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=craniocerebral <-- Google is your friend, 58.172.16.70 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find Islamofascism in a dictionary but that doesn't stop Hannity from using it. Craniocerebral is a word when used in the context that it is used here, but you probably won't see it much in normal conversation. Shostie 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of unsourced statements

I'm referring specifically to the part about the pineapple and the type of paper and pen used for the ransom note. This is my first time viewing this article, but I think that something like this should be meticulously sourced. --Joelmills 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of this article myself as part of a criminology wp-project a long time ago, before the ref tags became popular. Many people have edited ever since but I believe that it is generally a very well sourced and neutral article and I find that the pov-check tag is unnecessary. I replaced some fact tags with inline sources, although the information about the pineapple and the type of pen is really something undisputed. Same goes for the recent DNA developements in the section below, but I couldn't be bothered with that right now. Miskin 16:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not too familiar with the case, so I don't know what is disputed and what is not. I'm not sure why there is a POV tag on the article - the person that added it should have explained why here. --Joelmills 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some more inline sources and removed some suspicious unsourced statements. For some reason there are many editors, usually anons, who have a personal agenda with this topic. There are often POV-injections either pro or against the Ramsey family, so the article does need surveillance. However I think the pov-check tag was exaggerated. Miskin 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapter "Life"

Um, right now, it says at the end, "john did it," and when I try to edit this out, it doesn't appear on the screen. What gives?

- - - - - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.44.67 (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 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!

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.

Here is a picture i found on one of the translated pages here on wikipedia. Is that the actress who plays JonBenet in the movie or the real one? Either this article or the translated article needs editing so please reply to this message. Here is the photo: http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1930/jonbenet2pp4.jpg

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 [4] 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)

-- Is this photo acceptable? If so, someone else will have to make the edit. I am unsure of how to do so. http://zyberzoom.com/JonniebSmile.gif

Myoutbackshed (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement Removed

“The case drew attention when no suspect was charged and suspicions turned to possible family involvement,” is inaccurate. The case drew attention on day one because a cute little rich girl was murdered on x-mass. The longevity of attention drawn to the case could be attributed to the above statement but it is very clear that the initial on slot of media attention was not the result of the fact that no suspect was charged. The two sentences that follow, with the inclusion of “possible family involvement,” sufficiently and accurately describe the events. --DanKilo (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

Do we have a better way to phrase "she likely was sexually assaulted either digitally or with a paintbrush" ? For a second, I was looking at it, thinking "How do you digitally assault someone"... looking at my keyboard, I realized "with your finger". Is there another phrase that isn't as easy to confuse? Especially for those who only know English as a second language, may not know that digit==finger. Ahanix1989 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of "digit" as a finger either and I'm a native speaker, so you're not the only one who would be confused. Hbdragon88 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the use of the word "digital" to mean "of or pertaining to a finger" is very common in medical and legal contexts. I am not a doctor or a policeman, and I know it well just from reading and watching TV. YMMV. --Slashme 18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Second this -- I knew the phrase too. Joie de Vivre 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have felt torn over believing this family did not know or have something to do with the murder of this child. I hope not, but when i read the ransom note and all of the particulars about it, it just seems like there had to have been some involvement. If im judging harshly, then God forgive me and I stand corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.9.49 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Roger Depue, in his book Between Good And Evil, makes some interesting remarks about the ransom note. According to his book he was asked to review the note and give some speculation about its authenticity and origin. He was the creator of the FBI's BSU and was (I think) a colleague of John Douglas mentioned in the article. I borrowed the audio cd from the library a while ago, so I don't have the book to take direct quotes and proper citations, but if anyone is familiar with the book I think it would be a great addition to the article - probably under "Speculation." K Revival (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed "child beauty queen" tabloid wording

Calling her a "child beauty queen" as her primary identity smacks of creepy tabloid journalism. She was a little girl. Dolling her up and trotting her out on stage like a trained poodle displaying choreographed "personality", a pasted-on smile etc. to prove she was more superficially precious than YOUR child was her mother's dream, certainly nothing a child that age is going to pursue of their own volition.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Letter from District Attorney

I am shortypk, I wrote part of the original statement about the letter written on July 9th 2008, under the "speculation" segment. (to clarify, I wrote it when I wasn't signed in so I signed in and wrote it again so my name was visible...that may explain some questions about the changes.) Now, I don't mind that it has been placed in its own segment, (Letter from District Attorney) however, I personally think it should still be directly under the "speculation" segment because it is strongly related to this segment. Obviously this segment is controversial, and my opinion of whether or not it should be on Wikipedia is irrelevant, but while it (the "speculation" segment) remains, I think that the news of the Ramsey family being cleared of any suspicion of involvement should be right under the line of thought that their was any doubt in the first place. (does that make sense?lol) As it is right now, it is listed right under the "later developments" segment where John Karr is being discussed. Not that I have a problem with it being right under "later developments" but I personally think it would run more fluid under the "speculation" segment. It seems like the whole article is jumping back and forth with different lines of thought.

Added 'exonerated' to the 'Letter' title. They've been cleared. Tapered (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To Nwbeeson: (I'm assuming you changed it around) I can appreciate the changes made. Thank you for your consideration. Shortypk (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be in the "Speculation" section at all? It is a fact that the DA gave out the letter first hand delivered to the Ramseys and later to the general press as a official announcement. Not speculation at all. It belongs in a "Recent development" section. Hunter2005 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Speculation" section is poorly named. This information should be presented in the body of the article and speculation left up to the investigators on the case. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a speculation section per sae; it is just that the letter didn't fall under speculation. It is an official statement. Hunter2005 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "speculation" is not the right name for this segment, I think it should be more specific.

@Hunter. I understand where you are coming from completely. This letter is an official announcement as you say (I agree 100%) However, It does belong at the end of the discussion of the DA's quote/unquote "speculation" Do you know what I mean? This segment has nothing to do with personal, biased opinion. It has to do with the fact that they were, at one point, suspects and now they are not. So, Like I said, I think that the "speculation" segment should be renamed to something more specific to what the Da's POV was and what it has changed to. This line of thought also agrees with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia not a place for personal views/opinions to be projected. If you read the "speculation" section carefully, it sticks to the Police/DA pov, it does not rant on about what people think about the Ramsey family.

My whole point here, is that it does not flow where it is now, regardless of whether or not it is in fact "later developments" It does flow in the discussion of the mindset of the Boulder Police department and the DA's office. Perhaps we can rename the "speculation" section and merge it with the "Police Investigation" segment. There is a huge difference between what the general audience derived from the news (speculation) and actual facts of the investigative process in this case. I'm sure we can state the facts of the investigation while still giving indication that the family was under suspicion (speculation) by the police as well as the DA.

If we can't agree on this, we still need to rearrange the article so that it flows when reading it. Right now, it just seems, um... disarranged.Shortypk (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Questioning JonBenét Brother Burke

According to an author on the Ramsey case, police plan to question her brother: see http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-reportedly-hope-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-may-provide-clu/19654258 However, as the police themselves have not said they will interview him, should this be added to the article or not? Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"torture"?

Why is this page categorized among 'American torture victims' ? Uucp (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Semantics about whether the Ramsey's are cleared but are still suspects or not.

^{Superscript text}

Boulder County District Attorney to the Ramsey family:

"...To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law.

... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered."

Now, what does that mean? Do anyone think that if the DA thought that ANY of the Ramseys had ANYTHING to do with JonBenet's death, ANY involment, they would send a letter like that knowing the press will get a hold of it? Would they, the Ramseys, have any "sympathy" from the DA? They were cleared by this letter if anything. The DA has publicly declared the Ramseys innocent. Someone show were they are still considered persons of interest or anything. Hunter2005 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just changed the semantics of the opening paragraph to hopefully bulletproof the semantics from the witch hunters among us, and make clear the Ramseys' status. It's on my watchlist. Witch hunters have strong motivation. Tapered (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of Death

JonBenet could have died on either the night of December 25th or the early morning of December 26th. Only her killer could possibly know for sure. However, the official record and her autopsy report state her date of death as December 26th not the 25th. See here and here.

This is now the 2nd time I'm making this change to this article. Wikipedia requires factual and verifiable information. I am aware that her tombstone says "December 25th" however unless her parents are the killers, they cannot know that for sure and a tombstone is not a form of public record. The autopsy report says "DEATH D/T: 12/26/96" and that is what this article must go by unless someone can provide a more reliable source than the official autopsy report. --Lord Galen 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your result, but the reasoning is shaky. The autopsy actually states: DEATH D/T: 12/26/96 @1323. Hopefully no one believe JonBenet DIED at 1:23 PM that day. Clearly this was the time somebody officially ASCERTAINED whether she was dead (Officer Arndt or somebody else), or perhaps the estimated time her body was FOUND. She was last seen around 10 PM and people began arriving around 6 AM and since one individual searched the basement at 6:15 AM (and a police officer somewhat before or after that), presumably she was killed sometime in that 8 hour block. Since Ramseys went to bed after 10 and didn't hear anything and since no killer would have waited until the sun was practically rising to leave the house, it seems more likely the period was from 11-5. Since 5 of the 6 hours within this block of time fall on 12/26, I would argue that 12/26 is simply MORE LIKELY than 12/25 since each time within that 6 hours is roughly equally probable from the standpoint of the available forensic evidence. This is a conclusion one can draw without ANY reliance on the autopsy report and actually seems more sound than assuming that the medical examiner put down 12/26 on grounds that he KNEW from his autopsy observations that the actual date of death was that day. On the contrary, the coroner quite explicitly acknowledged NOT trying to estimate a time of death. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Body#TimeofDeath Miss Marple 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the reasoning is shaky, however that is to be expected when there is apparently no way to ascertain beyond a doubt when she died exactly. The autopsy report, fallible as it may be, is still the only citable public record and therefore the only source acceptable for use on Wikipedia, from my understanding. --Lord Galen 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Her tombstone says December 25. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I see that you've already mentioned her tombstone. But doesn't the date on her tombstone count for anything? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot know the literal time of death, just say the suspected time range of death... Just change the wording... Last I checked, there is absolutely no value in an exact time of death. And, the parents selecting the earlier day is only a giveaway that they in fact did it. No one with a functional brain in their head could have watched the news, saw the evidences, and thought it was anyone but the dad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.103.31 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

You know... That ego over being fake French is exactly why real French people are known to look down on French-Canadians. You want to start fights with Americans on being cliche? Try looking at your own reflection before thinking you're a snooty European when... Oh, wait... You're not a European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.103.31 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep the petty arguments and snappy comments off of the pages? Thanks. 94.15.207.226 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

The comma is required to avoid one form of dog-leg sentences.

"I have found that it helps students remember the second comma if they think of the year after a date as an appositive, and when you open the gate to an appositive with a comma, you have to remember to close the gate with an appropriate punctuation mark." --Deborah Gump, PhD (founding member of the American Copy Editors Society and recipient of a Knight Fellowship for Copy Editors, as well as a renowned former professor of editing, etc.)

Of course, Dr. Gump's suggestion applies to the state reference as well. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (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)

I hate when the closing comma isn't there. If the word has to be separated by a comma coming before it, obviously it should be balanced by one following it. This is simple logic. (I am speaking of dates, towns, etc. set off by commas, not where they appear in a list or at the end of a sentence, of course.) It just sounds run-on and babbly to keep going without acknowledging that we're finished with that section of the sentence. Sentences like "I was in Denver, Colorado a beautiful town..." just look and sound like a drunk is talking.Codenamemary (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whose half-sister ?

"JonBenét is buried at Saint James Episcopal Cemetery in Marietta, Georgia; next to her is her mother, who died of cancer in 2006, and her half-sister Elizabeth Pasch Ramsey, who died in a 1992 car accident at the age of 22."

So this Elizabeth is the half-sister of JonBenet, or the half-sister of Patsy ? Neither interpretation seems quite plausible.Eregli bob (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This "Elizabeth" is the half-sister of JonBenet. Elizabeth's father is John Ramsey, but her mother is John's previous wife, not Patsy Ramsey. When Elizabeth was born, her father was about 26 years old. (At that time, Patsy was about 13, so yes, it would be somewhat implausible for Patsy to be the mother.)Paul (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DNA proves non-involvement

How can DNA prove "non-involvement"? At most it just proves at the very least that someone else was involved, and if there is no other DNA it suggests that the person to whom the DNA belongs is the only person responsible.

Also I see reference hear to semantic witch-hunters? Wikipedia is not about saying things in a way that is either pro- or anti-witch-hunt. We should just say what the evidence (literally or figuratively) is, not use specific phrases to try to push one view or another.

Theshibboleth (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Forensics DNA & Patsy Ramsey should still be suspect no.1

The expert on the case had the same DNA. He said that the DNA was in such minuscule amounts that it could have come from the factory where they were made. This has happened before. If so then there was no murderer and that points back to her mother who didn't want to do a lie detector and stalled the police. Highly suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is more likely she died on December 26th rather than on Christmas. Her parents claim they last saw her alive in her bed on Christmas at 10:00 PM. They claim that on the morning of December 26th they woke up about 5:30 AM. Her body was only "discovered" by John Ramsey at about 1:00 PM on December 26th. So if the first claim by the parents is true and if they did not kill her, there are a lot more hours after midnight than the 2 hours befor midnight. So it is more likely she was killed between midnight and say 6:00 AM on 12-26-1996 than between 10:00 and 11:59 PM on Christmas. Here is a reference http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461 74.233.64.46 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC) /December%2026

Why is so much real estate given to John Douglas?

John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys. Many top FBI investigators on the case disagree with his analysis. Other experts, such as Detective Steve Thomas, have far more knowledge of the case, yet Thomas' words are nowhere to be found and Douglas takes up several paragraphs of a complicated case that requires far more real estate than Wikipedia will allow for. Douglas' commentary should be shortened in order to allow some other points of view. He is not considered to be the foremost expert on the case, yet this article treats him as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediamogul99 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jon-Benet photo

The license of the photo is clearly wrong. I think I fixed it, but I'm not sure. I can't find the copyright information. --187.126.187.228 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

It was the father. Not the mother. Not the brother. Not some non-existent intruder. You can whine all you want about not wanting people to have working brains in their heads, but the fact is that some people simply have competent minds and cannot erase what they saw on the news... A pedophilia+incest fetish man who pimped his six-year-old daughter out in beauty pageants to show her off, and raped, molested, and even in the end murdered her in the privacy of their home. And, this sick person did not go to prison. Neither did the mother who was condoning it. And, even those who think the mom did it do so because she knew the father was sleeping with her. The media, the police, they ALL skirted the evidence and obvious situation, but refused to say that obvious. They even tried to get the submissive wife to go to prison in this man's stead... Clearly, her father was a man of hidden power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.103.31 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Facts are irrelevant, only the media portrayal of the crime counts in your world? Sorry, both courts of law and Wikipedia are places where FACTS are considered. The FACTS state clearly that the father is NOT guilty of any crime, other than utilizing his constitutional rights. Frankly, people who believe in guilt by press should never be permitted to vote, as they don't support their own constitution and laws, why should they screw up our government even more?Wzrd1 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please get corrected in the second sentence of the article that she was found dismembered in the basement. It's not in the police reports, not reported that way by any law enforcement, Boulder PD or others. She was found lying on her back, her hands tied with cord and stretched above her head. Black duct tape was across her mouth. Her torso only was wrapped in a blanket from her bed, with her arms sticking up out of the top and her legs sticking out of the bottom. This is an egregious error and there's about a million other incorrect pieces of information in here. This article reads like a National Enquirer and has about as much credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emory (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Canoe1967, the error about dismemberment was fixed. That said, if you see errors, be bold and fix them! Not everyone is so well informed as to the specifics of the case as you are.72.92.25.110 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But WHICH brother?

"Colorado law enforcement agencies initially suspected JonBenét's parents and her brother". JonBenet had more than one brother. Please specify *which* brother by name.

(There was an adult brother, and a minor. Was the minor brother ever an actual suspect? A book I read stated that a pocket knife that belonged to him was part of the murder scene; an item that had been removed from him by a house-worker that day or previous, the whereabouts of where it was then placed known to him, but not likely known to some stranger breaking into the house. Same book detailed the progress of the conderation of an older, adult brother - possibly half brother - as a suspect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.86.160 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is in the lead. Later in the body the article mentions her brother Burke.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 17 November 2013

The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Crime Magazine 174.31.189.8 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done It's already in the External links section. Please make any further edit requests in the format "please change X to Y". Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Role of Michael Tracey in the Karr affair

I think it could be mentioned here as well. See [5] [6]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich BLP violation

I removed what I saw as a violation but I invite discussion on any point if there are concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Using female pronouns for Karr is a BLP violation on this page just as much as it was on Alexis Reich. If you see other violations, please correct those.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is moot now that I've tweaked the whole thing. BTW, an interview where Reich discusses her own transitioning is likely to deflate that argument. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You claim there were "worse" violations, yet you failed to state what they were in an edit summary or on this page. I'm not a mind reader.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That Wikipedia waives about the cild pornography charges and never admits that all charges were dropped. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I support that removal, but (and I would have to look at the sources again) should we include the reasoning behind the dropped charges? BTW, where is this interview you mention? If you had brought this up sooner, perhaps you might have saved everyone time?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it all well alone for now. That's why i didn't bother before as I thought deleting the Reich article was better for all concerned. If it wasn't for BLP rules I would more fully express my thoughts on that individual but it's all moot. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Horribly misleading sentence

From the "Suspicion" section, there's the following gem:

"With such contradictory evidence, a grand jury failed to indict the Ramseys or anyone else in the murder of JonBenét."

But in the preface, it is claimed that:

"On October 25, 2013, previously sealed court documents were released, showing that a Colorado grand jury had voted in 1999 to indict John and Patricia Ramsey in the murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in death and being accessories to a crime. However, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter decided not to sign the indictment, saying the evidence was insufficient."

Sure, there wasn't a grand jury indictment, but the grand jury voted for it. The grand jury saw the "contradictory evidence" and voted for an indictment. It was only the action of the District Attorney that quashed it. Might want to change the language there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.18.209 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable as a beauty queen?

She "was an American child beauty pageant queen who was murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado, in 1996" (lede). Isn't this misleading?

Sure, she was indeed a beauty queen, but was she ever a notable beauty queen? Would she ever have had a WP article had she not been murdered? I really doubt it. So, introducing her as "a beauty queen who was murdered" is as misleading as calling Harry S. Truman "a pianist who became US President". No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed, in the absence of any objections. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reddit Ama

Should we include any quotes from the police chief's reddit Ama? It's not a case I've followed very closely, but it might be relevant. Bali88 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good article regarding the AMA here http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/ex-police-chief-reveals-new-details-jonbenet-ramsey-murder Chiefeditorscott (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone remove the redlink to "Burke Ramsey" in the "See Also" section? Clearly he is not a notable individual unlike the parents and it is very unlikely we will have an article about him.

Does the Article Contradict Itself?

The summary at the start says that the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys; yet in the body of the article it states, "Because of such contradictory evidence, a grand jury refused to indict the Ramseys or anyone else in the murder of JonBenét." Also, the introductory clause in that sentence starts with "Because." Yet the preceding context doesn't provide "contradictory evidence." The because clause is not cogent. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

• I removed the "contradictory evidence" sentence and replaced it with text from the summary. The grand jury did indict, but the DA, Alex Hunter, refused to sign the indictment. Wahrmund (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)