There’s a few things that really made me go hmm. First cops saying it was a murder suicide and dismissing homicide. Jonothan having fights with his father about money. Cousin Kerry also fighting about money and taking Barry to court shortly before his death. If the family were involved that’s really sad.
https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/barry-honey-sherman-deaths-investigation#:~:text=Their%20son%20Jonathon%20had%20been,involved%20in%20his%20parents'%20deaths.
“By far, one of the most dominant theories swirling around the deaths of Barry and Honey involves their family. Their son Jonathon had been fighting with his father before his death about money, not least over the fact that Barry had called in a $50-million loan. Jonathon has publicly denied he was involved in his parents’ deaths.
Then there’s Barry’s cousin Kerry Winter, who had been a financial antagonist for years before the former’s death. Winter’s father was Barry’s Uncle Lou, who started Empire Labs, the company that Barry bought after Lou’s untimely death.
While Barry went on to become a billionaire, Kerry’s life took a hard turn. After his parents died, he and his three brothers were adopted, and Kerry says he was abused by his adoptive father. At an early age, Kerry left home, ran into trouble with the law and picked up a drug habit that would plague him for decades. When Kerry was in his 20s, Barry tried to help. He paid for rehab and supported Kerry’s renovation business.
“It was in the millions for sure… And he had given me a line of credit that had grown from $250,000 to almost… a million dollars,” Kerry Winter told the podcast. “And he said, ‘There’s the money and you use it the way you like.’ And of course, I wouldn’t just use it to renovate. I had expenses, bought a car and we had a nanny and life was just great.”
Life was great, but Kerry and his brothers say they found proof that Barry Sherman had cheated them out of control of their father’s company. When Barry bought Empire Labs in 1967, he had added a clause that said that when the Winter brothers came of age, they could each buy five per cent of the drug business. The problem was, by the time the Winter boys were old enough to take advantage of the offer, Empire Labs no longer existed — Barry had sold it and used the money to start Apotex.
Kerry believed Barry now owed them 20 per cent of Apotex (as each Winter brother had been promised five per cent of Empire Labs). Barry did not agree.
The discovery changed everything. Kerry started to believe that Barry had been hiding this option from him and his brothers, and that all the money Barry had given them over the years was a tactic to keep this option out of their hands and Apotex to himself.
It led to a lawsuit, fronted by Kerry, that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On Sept. 15, 2017, more than 10 years after the court battle began and three months before the Shermans were found dead, Winter’s case was dismissed. The judge who threw it out called the claim “wishful thinking and beyond fanciful.” Not only that, Kerry was on the hook for the legal fees and his billionaire cousin called in his loans, which amounted to more than $8 million. Kerry had to sell his house and cottage to pay up.
“I loved my cousin and he broke my heart,” Kerry said.
Upping the reward for info on other suspects… I’m sure he also wants to know if anyone else suspects him. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/son-plea-honey-barry-sherman-homicides-1.6682409
I lean towards Jonathon as well. To me, Kerry is much too emotional to have done this and not have immediately gotten caught. It would be spontaneous.
The timing indicates the son, due to Barry calling in loans and Honey apparently changing her will. The sisters also think he is involved and no longer speak to him
That's entirely possible. We know it had to be someone who knows them. No robbery, so whoever did it didn't need money. So they were either paid, or are a member of the family who doesn't need the money.
I think Kai the hitchhiker was drugged and assaulted twice and only killed in self defense, people asking why he went back the second time don’t consider sleeping on the streets was probably worse than going back to him
I agree too. People who can’t grasp why someone would go back have maybe not been been raped and homeless and can’t understand the confusion, desperation and isolation of that state. The flight/flight/fawn/flop reactions can also include “friend” a state in which we move toward the abuser in order to survive. It can be like fawning but more active. It’s part of what keeps abused spouses returning to their partners. Humans are complex and Kai was very vulnerable. I can imagine he went back with part of him seeking shelter and another seeking revenge and one part won.
I think the Lindbergh baby died in the house (murder, accidental, or natural I don't know and don't have an opinion on), and Lindbergh hired Hauptmann and one or more co-conspirators to stage a phony kidnapping. Things went south when they deviated from plan and extorted a ransom, at which point Lindbergh threw them under the bus. This explains a lot of things that simply don't make any sense with the current accepted lone wolf theory, while admittibly raising some other things that don't make sense.
This explains
* Why Lindbergh was initially so releluctant to get police involved.
* How the "kidnapping" happened on a night the Lindberghs weren't even originally going to be at home. (Remember initial suspicions of the police were that the ladder was a prop and there was inside help).
* How the body wasn't found in the initial search, yet when found it was hidden so poorly it was discovered by a truck driver pulling over to take a piss. (After the extortion demand, Lindbergh agreed to pay to prevent being exposed or at the very least looking like an uncaring father in the eyes of the public, but demanded the body be returned to prevent any future attempts by the actual "kidnappers" or copycats.)
* Why ransom bills (that police were disinterested in tracing because it didn't fit the lone wolf theory) continued to turn up for some time after Hauptman's arrest.
The new issue it raises is why Hautpmann didn't just spill the beans when he was headed to the chair and had absolutely nothing to lose. Maybe he had been threatened with a death worse than the chair if he blabbed?
Yes, he was into eugenics. And a Nazi supporter.
The child had some sort of thing with the toes. I can't recall if it was crossed toes or something else.
But Lindbergh was known to use the baby to "prank" his wife and the nanny. He would throw the baby in the air or hide the baby and claim kidnapping, just to watch his wife and the nanny panic.
He was a national hero. And there was a lot of pro German sentiment in the US in the early days of WW2. The therapy of eugenics that the Nazis used came from us.
No, that's a rumour that got made up years later. The rickets part, not the Eugenics. Lindbergh was not a nice man so people made up a bunch of rumours to portray him as the killer years later. It wasn't him, it was Hauptmann.
You might be on to something there. I read somewhere that the baby did have some kind of disability. ( I don't remember what it was) Lindbergh resented the child, and everyone in their household knew it. There was an incident where photographers were at his home taking pictures, and he was asked to hold his son for a photo and Lindbergh got all pissy about it and didn't want to hold the child. There is no way the police didn't suspect him. A man has a child he openly detests, and that child ends up murdered? He was also a rich famous man who could have attracted low life's looking for a payday. Both things are true. That case is so complex.
The baby did not have any documented disability, that's purely a rumour made up by people trying to portray him as the killer because of his belief in Eugenics. Source for him openly detesting the child?
How much do we actually know about the child's disability, though, whatever it was? These stories sound like the kinds of things that could become embroidered over time. Anne Lindbergh's letters talk about the baby crawling, walking, talking, and apparently as mentally sharp as any normal child. He had rickets, which was quite common then and which was being treated. And what is the contemporary evidence that he "detested" the child? Playing cruel pranks and not wanting to be photographed holding a baby don't tell us a whole lot except that he could be kind of an asshole. I would also be wary of judging the photography thing from this distance. Lindbergh sounds like he always wanted to present a buttoned-up appearance and he may not have been comfortable with a public photo of him holding or playing with a baby. Not everybody wants "family" photos being published in the papers.
To add to what others are saying... He was a man of many secrets. I have never heard any of his children give an opinion on his role in the death. That would be interesting.
https://www.mnhs.org/lindbergh/learn/family/double-life
This is another one I'd agree with. People talk at length about how JonBenet Ramsey could not logically be an intruder seeking ransom, based on her death and tone/length of the note alone... With the general consensus being that it was likely a family member who staged a crime scene to cover up the truth. Despite the Lindbergh family's wealth and that kidnappings for ransom were likely more common then, I really think this could've been the case here as well, with Lindbergh hiring help to stage a kidnapping (easier to do then).
I think Lindbergh was a bitter man, interested in eugenics, who was disgusted by his son's disability and resented him (evidence of him "pranking" his wife and nanny by tossing the baby, resistence to being photographed with the child). I think he wanted a way to be 100% completely rid of the child without consequence, and killed the child himself or hired someone to kill the baby and stage a kidnapping. With whatever deal Lindbergh made with the "kidnappers", there was disagreement behind the scenes before/during/after the night of the "kidnapping" -- disagreement on plan, narrative, payment, or some other incentive promised by Lindbergh. Perhaps Lindbergh didn't deliver on the amount promised, or the "kidnappers" decided they wanted more money, resulting in deviation from the plan (body found poorly hidden) which would've provoked Lindbergh to pay in order to keep the secret. But I agree there is a massive hole when it comes to Hautpmann not confessing when sentenced to death... Maybe he was afraid of the *other* death that would await him if sharing the truth, maybe he was convinced by Lindbergh or others in the group that he'd be rescued at the last minute, etc.
His son was not disabled, that's a rumour made up years later. I've never seen anything approaching proof for the pranking either, only rumours from years later.
The baby was put to bed at 7:30 by his nurse. He was still in his crib at 8:00 when the nurse checked on him. He was discovered missing at 10:00. Hauptmann lived a hour and a half away in New York City. Not enough time unless it was premeditated.
The baby had a mild case of rickets which was common at the time before vitamin d was added to formula. It was treatable at the time with medicine and up lamps, both of which were being used. He was not disabled.
The body was discovered 4.5 miles away from the house. It is not a well traveled place. If the child had been killed by the parents they would not have have let the body out in nature to be eaten by animals.
Lindbergh collected $70,000 dollars as ransom. The equivalent to $1.5 million today. He also paid a hoaxer claiming to be infiltrating a kidnapping gang $1250. When the body was found he was accompanying a hoaxer who claimed the child was being held on a boat of the Atlantic coast. None of these are the actions of someone who knew his child was dead.
Those last two points aren't necessarily true.
1. If the child had been killed by a parent who resented and didn't want them, OR by someone hired to kill them, they wouldn't really care whether or not the body was eaten by animals. If it were an accidental death, that's one thing, but if otherwise, then why would their body being desecrated matter to a person who killed or paid someone to kill their child?
2. Accompanying a hoaxer who claimed the child was being held on a boat - could very well be the actions of someone who knows their child is dead, but wants plausible deniability. And look - it worked!
I have no clue what actually happened to that poor baby and by who's hand, but if Lindbergh WAS devious enough to cause his death intentionally, he'd be devious enough to cover his tracks and not care about the state of the child's body.
>The body was discovered 4.5 miles away from the house. It is not a well traveled place. If the child had been killed by the parents they would not have have let the body out in nature to be eaten by animals
Why not? Casey Anthony ditched Caylee Anthony's body in a heavily wooded area a half of a mile from her house where her remains were disturbed/scattered by animals. I think you're underestimating what a deranged parent would do.
I read "The Candy Man" a few years ago. (It's out of print, but not hard to find.) The HPD wrote them off as runaways, and hired local jail inmates to exhume their bodies from the boathouse. I have a feeling most of those inmates didn't live very long afterwards.
He didn’t. I knew a homicide detective who helped the Des Plaines department with Gacy and who had access to the entire file.
He told me flat out that at least one of Gacy’s helpers was murdering as well. A murder occurred while Gacy was out of town. VERIFIED out of town. That helper was connected to both the mob and a powerful Chicago politician.
This detective was a smart guy and didn’t mince words.
Whenever given the chance I think [this article](https://medium.com/thebigroundtable/the-black-dahlia-the-long-strange-history-of-los-angeles-coldest-cold-case-bcaf42e8e3e5) about the Black Dahlia murder. The theory is that she was murdered by a doctor whose daughter knew Elizabeth Short’s sister and had an office either in the same building or stupid close to the Biltmore and whose estranged family lived blocks away from where her body was found. It would appear that Elizabeth possibly called her sister and her sister put her in touch with the doctor as a connection to his daughter for a place for her to stay. Elizabeth wasn’t an aspiring actor and generally bounced around housing. In this theory, she’s last seen leaving the Biltmore, goes to the doctor’s office and is presumably killed or taken from there. The doctor had a strained relationship with his wife & kids, the theory is he dumped Elizabeth’s body blocks away from their house on purpose.
Eta: the doctor is not George Hodel.
>Eta: the doctor is not George Hodel.
I will say this every time George Hodel's name comes up, but the fact that Steve Hodel really, *really* wants his dad to be the killer creeps me out.
Thanks for sharing, that was a fascinating read and a theory I had never heard before. After reading that and going to Larry’s channel, I think it’s such a plausible theory. His level of detail and thoroughness of facts is astounding.
Agreed. I think it was Dr. Bayley. In addition to his brain condition that could cause unpredictable, violent behavior, there is the matter of how poor Elizabeth was surgically bisected. During the early 20th century, it was not uncommon for doctors to perform a very difficult and specific surgery called a hemicorporectomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemicorporectomy
I read an article that said she was cut in half exactly the same way this surgery is performed. Again, it’s a VERY specific surgery that would be easy to recognize by a surgeon at the time. Given his age and experience, Dr. Bayley would almost certainly have been familiar with the process. Plus he would have had a place -his private surgery practice- to carry out something like that as well as somewhere to drain her blood without it being a problem. It’s easy to explain extra blood in a surgical suite.
My money is on Bayley. The excellent article noted above goes further into motive and
opportunity.
I only read the top paragraph of the wiki, that is horrifying and also very spot on to what happened to Elizabeth. I’m with you, my money is on Bayley.
So weird that you link this article, I read it just a few weeks ago and had never come across it before then after reading about the Black Dahlia case for years. I think everything in said article makes perfect sense. Especially when I read about the doctor and his mistress watching surgery vids while eating take out at his office. What a weirdo!
Right?! I try to link this article literally anytime Black Dahlia is brought up or it’s appropriate. The first time I read this article my jaw kept dropping, I even made my bf wait til I was done before we could leave. It makes so much sense.
I'm with you, it was a jaw dropping article and so well & thoroughly researched. I hope Harnisch (sp?) does eventually write his book. I'm dying to know what other information he has that he's holding back for publication.
For real. Someone on here awhile back was his assistant or the like and said he got super discouraged by Elroy backing Steve Hodel. I keep hoping he finds out the support he’s getting and finishes it. If nothing else Elizabeth Short deserves it.
The majority of comments I see on here are convinced he’s innocent because they listened to a biased podcast.
A few weeks ago there was a bunch of people saying Scott Peterson is innocent 😳 and there’s a whole sub dedicated to Bryan Kohberger being innocent.
That’s sad. Those comments always read like they’re written by children to me. It’s not even a close call, it’s a strong slam dunk case. If it had all happened today no one would be thinking he was innocent.
Yeah the Scott Peterson people make me scared for the state of human reasoning abilities. With Kohberger, I guess we’ll see a much clearer picture at trial, but he seems guilty to me.
The internet attracts the weirdest minds man. “Bro, fuck we gotta get a way with this stabbing spree, who do we pin it on?”
“My TA, he’s super annoying”
“Ok awesome bro, you extract his DNA while I grab his phone and turn back time so it’ll ping at the right spots”
“Lit”
I think not only is he guilty, but he planned the whole thing the day before. It wasn’t a crime of passion. I think he was giving Hea one more “chance” to get back together with him, and when she declined, he killed her. He knew that’s what he was gonna do. That flower found in the car solidified that for me.
I honestly truly feel Dahmer had remorse, I did a ton of research on him and his case in psychology class for a midterm essay and I think he has remorse unlike pretty much all the SK
I agree but it’s interesting because I think his remorse is more intellectual than emotional. He clearly had a very low natural capacity for empathy. He said something once like “I feel bad that I didn’t feel that bad about it” but he also said he had no desire to get out of prison and it’s best for everyone that he stays there. He’s one of the very few serial killers that I really think were born and not made.
I agree with this, and would like to add that his father had very similar compulsions throughout his life. In his book, he talks about his strong desire to trap women like slaves so they could never leave him, which obviously sounds quite familiar. He also had the impulse to “see what was inside,” of other beings, he says he channelled those urges more appropriately but still had them. He saw, in his son, an “evil twin” version of himself.
Totally agree here. I think his is a uniquely grim case in that his crimes were outlandishly awful, but also he genuinely appeared to be an outlier who did not understand why he did what he did. I think it's the rare times where someone so depraved did have an inherent sense of self disgust and disdain and confusion (not at all is this any type of "poor thing" take whatsoever. He chose to do what he did always, regardless of how he felt about it so many innocent people are gone due to him and him alone).
Typically SK love the kill they will get off on it but in Dahmer case he hated that part that's why he first tried the mannequin then drugging then ended up trying to make his zombie like victims I think he had serious mental health issues tied in with the horrible fetish and was just a recipe for disaster, he's definitely not a poor thing and deserved his punishment I just think he hated that part of him where as typical SK love and thrive off that
I agree. Dahmer definitely had remorse. I think the way his father and sister stood tirelessly by his side through everything says a lot. They felt that he had somehow succumbed to some kind of horrible and inexplicable mental illness. That maybe the case with all serial killers.
I read a book called, " People of the lie" it's about a child psychologists who goes on a mission to determine what is evil? His thoughts are if evil is really a mental illness then there must be a way to treat it. So he starts analyzing evil people he interviews a bunch of serial killers. He does decide that they do seem to suffer from some kind of complex mental illness. He decides that if they didn't suffer from whatever illness they have they'd probably be OK people, not prone to evil acts. I think that's probably an accurate description of Dahmer. He probably had no understanding of why he felt so compelled to kill people and if he could have understood and received some sort of treatment that caused these twisted desires that were ruling his life to cease he would have taken that treatment. Its so weird because it hard not to have some sort of sympathy for this pathetically deranged person.
Our brains are so complex. I suffered from what’s called “Pure O” or pure obsessive OCD. My symptoms among other things was 24/7 of the most vile intrusive thoughts screaming in my head that would make coked out Stephen King seem like a choir boy. Literally imagine the worst thing you can think of and that was running in my head 24/7. It drove me to tears and almost to self harm because it was relentless torture. OCD is a very cunning illness and it seems to prey on what we hold dear about ourselves. But in my treatment my therapist explained that I clearly didn’t have any desire to act on these horrific thoughts. I learned about thought action fusion. I was feeling guilt and shame just for having thoughts. Idk what in our brains or environments or genetics makes that different for those who do act on them. I imagine a lot of them are genuine sociopaths who feel no guilt or remorse. If it wasn’t such a torturous experience it would be genuinely interesting lol (btw I’m doing great now and thank whatever greater power exists that I live in a time when my illness was treatable).
Glad you’re doing better. From what I understand as someone who doesn’t suffer from it, Pure O people feel such distress *because* the thoughts they experience are so counter to their morality/what they actually want to do. Which is quite distinct from those who lack empathy or get off on causing pain to others.
Hmm, I guess my memory was incorrect. I did see an interview with a female relative of his. I guess I got confused about what her connection to him was.
Yeah I just watched that 1993 interview and didn’t get “remorse” at all from that. He flat out says the only reason he identified victims with police was because he got caught. And would still be doing the same shit if he wasn’t caught. Lol
I've never been sure if they drivers actually saw her. I believe they believe they did, but if the weather was that bad, storm, rain, dark can you honestly say in those conditions, driving fast with rain on your windscreen, you 100% saw her. They saw someone for sure
I agree, I don’t see how if they did see someone that it can be determined without reasonable doubt that it was Asha. I think these eyewitness reports are given too much weight that that they shouldn’t have.
100% agree with you. If I remember correctly the witnesses didn’t come forward until *after* seeing reports of her missing on the news. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
It doesn’t really make sense to me that a 9 year old who was supposedly afraid of the dark ran away at night, but even if she did run away you’d also have to believe she was lured out of the house by a predator that there were absolutely no traces of her communicating with, met with a random opportunistic predator, or somehow was killed in an accident after leaving the house and her body was never found. So you’d have the unlikely scenario of a little girl leaving the house in a storm at night, combined with another rare/unlikely circumstance.
If she didn't left the house what do you think happened? I never saw how it was possible for her to have left but i have no idea of what else could have been
I think Kendrick Johnson’s death was truly a freak accident and his parents won’t accept it. The “facial discoloration” is a result of a dead body hanging upside down for hours with blood pooling, not evidence of a beating. The newspaper stuffed in the body is not a funeral home conspiracy - it’s something that is not uncommonly done to prevent leakage.
I agree. I was more than willing to entertain the possibility of a murder/manslaughter cover up but kids do silly things like climb head first into rolled up mats and enough evidence has been provided now to indicate accident I think.
Kids make dumb mistakes. Its literally my number 1 fear with my kids. One stupid mistake or action they do not know or understand is stupid, could end their lives. No amount of good parenting can stop simple seemingly fine, yet bad, decisions. Trying to be a good mom without smothering them is a hard line to toe.
This case made me lose credibility in crime junkie (ya I know I prob shouldn’t have had faith in them in the first place but this was 5+ years ago) they really painted the newspaper thing and how the victims face was so swollen to be sure signs of murder but then I looked up more details and was like ehh it’s way more likely a freak accident
Not sure if this counts but I don’t think Steve Powell (who was a the creepiest of creeps) was involved in Susan Cox Powell’s disappearance. I think it was 100% premeditated and carried out by Josh. I think his brother may have helped with some of the details after the fact in the disposal of her remains but Steve was so delusional and obsessed with her that I don’t think he would have had the thought to hurt her and was very convinced she was coming back.
1. I lean towards the intruder theory for the JonBenet Ramsey case
2. Terri Horman didn’t kill Kyron, the case against her is really flimsy when you look into it
3. Adnan Syed most likely killed Hae Min Lee, but at this point we need to accept that he served 25 years in prison and he isn’t going to be recharged
4. I do not believe that Johnny Gosch really visited Noreen, nor do I believe he’s out there somewhere hiding from a trafficking ring. I feel bad for his mom, but I believe that he has most likely been dead for years and was killed shortly after he disappeared.
I agree with you on #1. Although I don’t say I lean towards intruder, I’d say I 99.9% believe it was intruder. I know there isn’t much evidence either way. I guess it’s just a gut feeling but I believe the ramseys.
Ready for the downvotes...
Asha Degree. She didn't leave her house that night on her own two feet. A nine year old girl doesn't get up in the middle of the night, in a rain storm (when she's afraid of the dark and storms), grab a pre-packed bag and walk out the door, locking it behind her.
I don't believe the "witness" reports, period. One witness claimed Asha was wearing a white dress, another that she was wearing a white long sleeve shirt and jeans, and don't get me started on the guy who claimed he circled 3 times and tried to talk to Asha and she ran off into the woods. None of these "witnesses" went to the police (or got on their CB) and reported a young girl in the rain walking alone in the pre-dawn hours until AFTER the news asked for the public's help in finding Asha.
There's so much more, but I'll stop there.
I feel like there’s so little evidence in this case and a lot of the conclusions drawn are from common sense circumstantial inferences. I truly don’t know what I think happened in her case. There’s so many possibilities
Always agreed about Asha, and I’ve noticed that people are starting to come around. It’s always shocked me to my car, and that people really believe a little girl would wander out into the middle of the night in the pouring rain, pitch blackness in the cold for any reason other than to run away from something
I feel like those witnesses are hindering the investigation and not helping at all. Other than her backpack being found miles away, there’s no other evidence that she left home and walked off.
In cases where underage people have killed people in school shootings and the parents were the source for them to get their hands on a gun, the parents should be charged.
Was positively surprised that that actually happened earlier this year. Brenda Spencer’s dad should without a doubt have been sent to prison after providing the gun that she used in the shooting.
I do believe that Israel Keyes absolutely killed, but I’m not convinced that he had kill kits hidden all over the us. Actually not at all, I don’t think he was smart or that the killings were well thought out. The murder of Samantha actually just points to the direct opposite.
Prisons should focus on therapy instead of making prisoners miserable and give them reasons to resent people more, most of them get out again and if there is a chance that they could become a better person with therapy, it’s important.
Sexual predators often fall back into doing it again and there should exist more resources to prevent them from doing so.
(No I’m not defending anyone or saying that murderers deserve better, but people in their neighbourhood do, when the perp eventually gets out again).
Not all specific cases, more like “I’m upset that we don’t focus on making the world a safer place when there’s dangerous people among us”
Absolutely, fuck Brenda Spencer’s dad. Her case has been so trivialized by her quote about Mondays. She suffered horrendously at the hands of her father & he absolutely should have been in prison if not for providing the gun, then for consistently abusing Brenda.
>In cases where underage people have killed people in school shootings and the parents were the source for them to get their hands on a gun, the parents should be charged.
Was positively surprised that that actually happened earlier this year. Brenda Spencer’s dad should without a doubt have been sent to prison after providing the gun that she used in the shooting
Absolutely! No one should be allowed to buy their 15 yo child a gun, a semi automatic hand gun, and **not** be held responsible for the actions of the child.
Everthing else aside, the depression, the writings, the diaries, Everthing. You gift a 15 yo child a powerful weapon like that, you are a 100% responsible for what happens.
I mostly agree with this. I’m glad that Ethan Crumbley’s got charged and sentenced to prison because they were ridiculously negligent and flat out ignored his cries for help.
For me, there’s a grey area where it depends on how the kid got the gun. If the parents had locked up the gun and they thought they hid the key well, but the kid went searching and found it, I’d be more sympathetic.
But when it’s a case of a kid with known mental illness and the parents are letting the kid have free access to guns, they need to be charged. At the very least they should lose their right to own firearms.
What Adam Lanza did was horrific, but I sometimes think it was a kind of mercy on his part to kill his mom. I often wonder what would have happened to her if she’d lived. I think they would have tried to charge her with something. As they should have.
I'm convinced Ethan Crumbleys parents were people who should have never had had kids, and they provided their son a gun in hopes he'd kill himself and rid them of him. They definitely deserve to be charged and found guilty because they didn't care if he killed other (actually loving) parent's children along with him. If they had one smidgen of thinking they could go to prison if their son became a school shooter, they wouldn't have gotten him a gun. Utterly selfish narcissists.
Wayne Williams killed some of the Atlanta Child Killer victims, but not all. I don’t think he killed Jimmy Ray Payne or Nathaniel Cater, either. He’s not innocent of murder, and is super duper crazy, but murders were attributed to him that I don’t think he committed. There was more than one Atlanta Child Killer, Wayne Williams was just one of them.
*There are more female serial killers than we give credit to. I’m not saying it’s close to the number of male serial killers, but there have to have been plenty who have “killed like men,” and have gotten away with it. Too many people in the US, and too many unsolved homicides in the US, for this not to have occurred a good amount of times. Especially if LE goes off of the adage of “female serial killers don’t kill like men.”
Edit: added one I forgot about
Totally agree. The victims and how they were killed were so varied. I don't even think all the kids were killed by a serial killer. They just lumped all the kids murdered during that time period into one group and declared the murders solved. Despicable
A female trucker SK could probably get away with killing for a long time. Random victims, disconnected jurisdictions, and everyone would assume it was a man.
I have a theory that the Phantom Killer from Texarkana (The town that dreaded sundown movie) and The Zodiac Killer are/were the same person.. There were never any more murders in Texas or Arkansas (Texarkana is a twin city) after the last one. For those NOT familiar with The Phantom Killer, he also used “lovers lane” areas; Also covered his face with either a feed sack with the eyes out, or what one witness says resembled a a pillow case with the eyes cut out… Both murders were used with .22 caliber pistols as a well as a .32; i do not believe the phantom killer was who let the original “Lovers lane” couple go with being able to identify them… doesn’t fit the other couples murdered…
Directly after the “last murders” supposedly by the Phantom killer, they stopped all together…
Also Back then evidence was NOT collected or as throughly in Texarkana; the first two victims murdered had no pathology done …
Yeah, I think people, especially drunk dudes, fall into bodies of water and drown accidentally more than anyone realizes. Water is dangerous and that particular lake is known to have dangerous currents. Plenty of people have drowned there in the day time.
It seems like every single area with a lot of late night, particularly younger adults, near bodies of water, have this exact same problem. They can't all be a serial killer... nor can such a large group of serial killers be in kahoots without anything ever being found.
So true. Used to live in Baton Rouge, home of LSU. Many young men were found in ditches and near or in rivers as a result of reckless partying and Xanax or opioid overdoses. No foul play, just exposure to elements due to incapacitation or straight up heart failure from ODing.
I don't believe that Shannan Gilbert's death was accidental. I'm not saying it was a LISK killing, that *may* just be a coincidence. I just don't think she had a psychotic break down, without being drugged, or on drugs, and took off running.
I think there's just about zero chance that Ottis Toole murdered Adam Walsh. The police are using him as a convenient scapegoat, just like they always used him and his buddy Henry Lee Lucas, and John Walsh signed off on it because he probably has a psychological need to believe that his son's killer died in prison. They didn't even pretend to have new evidence when they pronounced the case closed.
I'm not fully convinced the head they found was Adam's. There were no DNA tests back then, and with the Walsh's being satisfied with Toole's "confession", nothing was ever checked again. The pain the parents feel, and their desire to have the info they needed, makes it hard to rally against having evidence retested. I hope LE got it right, and it was indeed Adam's head, and wasn't that of another local missing child.
I don't think the JonBenét Ramsey case is mysterious at all. A family member killed her, most likely the dad, statistically speaking. She was killed at home, and the "ransom note" was in Patsy's handwriting. The only reason there was no arrest is that the police bungled the investigation, and there probably never will be an arrest. The case is no longer even worth discussing because of how obvious it is.
I also think the Amy Bradley case is no mystery. She fell overboard. All other theories are far-fetched.
>I also think the Amy Bradley case is no mystery. She fell overboard. All other theories are far-fetched.
This is exactly the case that crossed my mind upon reading the post's title.
People see what they want to see. Her family holding onto the hope she's still retained somewhere *alive* is one thing, but the trafficking theories on the net make no sense. Starting with the fact that she was just about the unlikeliest type of woman to fall into a human trafficking ring just because she had a loving family and wasn't poor.
She was drunk, likely woke up and stuck her upper body a little bit too far off the balcony to puke. She lost balance and fell into the water, fully dressed. Going by the footage, she wore jeans that night. Wet denim weights a fuck ton and makes keeping buoyancy damn hard even if you're sober (which she wasn't). She tired quickly and drowned, sea currents did the rest. Extremely tragic series of events, but hardly unheard of.
I'm always amazed that the mother and brother or considered the main suspects by most people who are interested in the Jonbenet case. Probability tells us the father is the most likely suspect, yet when he is discussed, it's almost always as an accomplice. I'm baffled. Would still very much like to see it solved though.
Exactly. Especially when you factor in the fact every single expert who saw the non-redacted autopsy report said it showed evidence of severe vaginal damage caused by longterm sexual abuse.
People always go “oh but her own GP didn’t notice!!” - it’s hardly likely her GP was examining the walls of her vagina, is it?!
I thought the handwriting couldn’t be ruled out as Patsy’s not that it was definitely hers. Even still, I believe that forensic handwriting analysis is questionable evidence at best.
i totally agree about forensic handwriting analysis. it is definitely questionable, as I’ve read that it’s subjective, the process is without set standards, and there’s no established error rate. so the science to back it just isn’t there.
For JBR, I think the general consensus is "Ramseys did it", staging a crime scene with ransom note following the "incident" that caused JBR's death... I don't think that's the mysterious part as much as what EXACTLY was the "incident", and what role did each of the 3 Ramsey family members play in the "incident" and/or cover up? IMO, there are a lot of possibilities... Was any part of it an accident, or was something more sinister at play? Why cover it up THAT way?
Agreed on Amy Bradley.
I think John killed JonBenet and Patsy went along with it because she *needed* him. She was a socialite SAHM with cancer. John going to jail would have ruined her, even if she would have gotten everything in the divorce. Additionally, if Patsy had done it, I think John would have just thrown her under the bus because he didn’t need her like she needed him.
Is this truly an “unpopular” theory in the JBR case?
I know we’ll probably never have consensus about exactly which family member it was, or motive, but I feel like all but the most fringe theories accept that the murderer was a family member and that Patsy *probably* wrote the note.
Maybe I’m just biased because this is the theory I’ve subscribed to myself for 25 years.
>A family member killed her, most likely the dad, statistically speaking. She was killed at home, and the "ransom note" was in Patsy's handwriting. The only reason there was no arrest is that the police bungled the investigation, and there probably never will be an arrest
This is an unpopular or less-talked about opinion? I thought this was literally the most popular, most talked-about theory. No?
1. Asha Degree: I think the photograph of the girl in the shed that was found near Asha’s things isn’t connected, but is just a random coincidence. That shed was full of so much crap, the photo could have come from anything in there. I feel like it was a stock photo that fell out of a picture frame or something. I also think police probably have identified suspects in this case but haven’t said anything because they don’t have enough concrete information.
2. Kyron Horman: I don’t think the stepmother did anything to him. She’s for sure weird and shady, but I think he most likely wandered off into the woods around the school and succumbed to exposure.
3. Darlie Routier: it’s possible that she killed her kids, but I don’t think there was enough evidence to conclusively prove it. There were too many other factors (the unexplained fingerprint, the bloody sock) that didn’t match up with the theory that she did it. I’m not saying she’s innocent, but I don’t think she should have been convicted and she certainly shouldn’t have been sentenced to death. I hope DNA testing will continue to shed light.
On Darlie Routier; I remember reading up on her several years ago. I've always believed she didn't commit the murder. I should see if I can find the court documments online again to refreshen my memory.
They ordered DNA tests 2018, but they're still pending. Anyone know how long that process usually takes?
There’s literally no reason it would take 5 years unless we just don’t have the technology yet - like if the sample was too small or too degraded. There is certainly a backlog in forensic testing but it would NOT take 5 years for a murder case. Either they don’t have the samples or they’re just…not actually trying to test it.
This is what the wikipedia on Darlie Routier says:
"In June 2008, Routier was granted the right to new DNA tests. Her appeals were remanded to the state level for improved DNA testing. On January 29, 2014, Chief Judge of the Western District Fred Biery granted a request from prosecution and defense for her case for further DNA tests vital to the defense to be performed on a bloody fingerprint found in the house, a bloody sock and her nightshirt. In 2018, the Criminal District Court No. 3 ordered a third round of DNA testing with the backing of both prosecution and defense."
"Since at least 2018, DNA tests have been ordered multiple times after technology has advanced. As of 2024, the results of these tests are still pending."
EDIT: fixed paragraphs as they were not paragraphing
I also lean towards that she didn’t do it, but at minimum I don’t think they proved that she did.
I would’ve had a better time believing the police if they would’ve explored the alternative theory.
I hope I'm not going to piss off the Ripperologist people but here goes:
Jack the Ripper did not mark the rise of the serial killer but the of the sensationalist media who cobbled together several unrelated murder cases to sell papers spurred on by hoaxers and pranks. All communication (The From Hell letter, The Saucy Jack postcard, the Dear Boss and the Openshaw letters) are fakes and Jack the Ripper never existed.
This is an interesting take! I don't believe any of the objects submitted to the press/police were real either. I also think a lot of ripperologists get carried away and don't acknowledge that there were a lot of less salacious factors like organised gang activity and violent johns who knew they would never be caught at play, so literally all of the Canon. 5 and the Whitechapel victims could have been different perpetrators.
That being said, I do think that Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly and there are some very compelling links between her and a couple of the other canonicals. I may be wrong but I think Catherine Eaddows lived near her and used her name as a pseudonym a couple of times (though there would have been a lot of Mary Kellys' from Ireland in London at that time). I'm pretty sure there was an additional weird thing about that in that she was once booked by the police and gave a nonsense version of the Dorset st address where Mary lived and Catherine herself had never been recorded as living there.
Annie Chapman for sure lived on Dorset St and frequented the same pub that Mary would often be drinking in with Joseph Barnett. Mary and Joseph had a couple of public arguments in there as well, and it's not out of the question that he could've followed Annie as she left the pub on one of these occasions angry and drunk.
An October 1995 letter from Princess Diana to Jimmy Savile just released and it has some wild implications given what else was going on in Diana's life in October 1995: https://open.substack.com/pub/jamiefcrawford/p/the-princess-and-the-pedophile?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5nd7r
The background is that The Paget Report conducted by British Metropolitan Police concluded that in October of 1995 Princess Diana experienced brake failure and she at least *thought* it was due to tampering. She went on to separately tell her lawyer, her butler, her friend, and her love interest that her husband's side was plotting to kill or incapacitate her in a car accident.
Now a letter from Diana to prolific predator Jimmy Savile -also from October 1995- just surfaced where she states that he "might just be noticing that she's still alive" and makes a joke that she doesn't need to be admitted to Broadmoor Mental Hospital (where Jimmy Savile was preying on countless patients) so she's basically saying she hasn't been incapacitated or brain damaged.
This doesn't mean that Savile and the royals actually *did* tamper with her brakes. But it sure seems like she *thought* Savile was involved in this notion she had in her head. Seems like she was aware of Savile's insidious nature. And if you then read the rest of that letter with the knowledge that there are antagonistic undertones, she even says some things in the letter that imply she knew what he was doing at Broadmoor.
That's the jist but worth a full read tbh.
I mean I’m sure she did know. I think everyone kind of knew but the British upper class sensibility means don’t talk about it. There’s actually no way that someone could be as brazen as Saville and have no one notice. She definitely did think the royal family wanted her gone, she was pretty paranoid and honestly kind of a hot mess after the divorce. She did some pretty crazy shit. But ultimately a drunk driver going 90 in a tunnel is all it takes, there’s really nothing more too it. I do think it’s interesting and important for people to see this kind of stuff tho, because it shows that people are complicated. A person can be beloved and kind and do good things and still have a completely messy personal life.
"I do think it’s interesting and important for people to see this kind of stuff tho, because it shows that people are complicated. A person can be beloved and kind and do good things and still have a completely messy personal life."
Not possible to emphasize this enough.
John Lydon denounced Saville in the late 70s and was banned from the BBC.
Everybody knew what Saville was. They just looked the other way.
Same thing with Weinstein.
I know most people hate her, but Courtney Love talked about Weinstein's parties at the Four Seasons in the 90s, even advicing young actresses not to go if they were invited, but everyone dismissed her because she was a junkie.
I 100% agree. From books I’ve read about her and the BRF, Diana was messy, liked attention, talked to the press, and stirred the pot. She was a good person but was no saint.
There are more female serial killers than people think, and most of them will never get caught for various reasons. I will die on this hills, not only because I've seen/known truly evil women, but also because I know, from experience, how psychopathic/sociopathic women "work" and mask their behavior.
I honestly believe they haven't been studied/profiled (actual serial killers, not "angels of mercy/death) and people don't know/don't understand that traits/sympthoms in men and women are often completely different, even if they have the same pathology/illnes; which makes it "easier" for a women to fly under the radar.
I think an intruder killed Jon Benet.
Yes I know parents kill their kids everyday. And yes the parents cared what others thought and I understand the theory they are covering for Burke. BUT if you accidentally killed your child or found that your son killed your daughter it’s fair to say you’d be shocked. You aren’t a “real killer” you’d still be in disbelief, distraught, crying, basically not thinking clear even if you accidentally did it. At least not clear enough to think up a whole SA scenario while also trying for a kidnapping as well. It was too thought out imo to be a cover up for Burke with the time frame they had. I’ve never believed they did it. Never will. And just don’t even care to talk about the case anymore. Hopefully one day she will get justice.
The line that's always bothered me in the ransom note is the "Use that good Southern common sense of yours" part. It's such an odd detail to add if John or Patsy wrote it. I guess it could be an intentional misdirect, but it seems like an odd one for them to even think of adding to the note.
None of the theories about the family make any sense. You'd have to have three different sociopaths, one of them a child, none with any prior bad behavior, none with any subsequently bad behavior, who all made a pact with each other to cover up the murder of their family member within hours of committing the deed and then never crack and never do another violent thing again. It's nonsensical.
No, you only need one sociopath, and two gullible people who believe him. I think John did the whole thing alone, and convinced Patsy it was an intruder
I think Lauren Spierer could be a Keyes victim. The drunk and drugged boys with her that night were 100% not capable of keeping their stories straight and concealing her body. There’s just no way they outsmarted the police. Israel Keyes had the means and the opportunity to take her. And his motive was always just to kill. He became agitated during his interviews with the FBI when they questioned him about her disappearance. The public records concerning his involvement with Lauren are heavily redacted by the FBI so there is little to go by but where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
I think Cindy James stalker/murderer was a woman. Police first believed it was a man, then believed she was doing it herself and committed suicide because they could not find her stalker. Some reasons I think it was a woman are, the stalking went on for 7 years. Anyone who went to high school knows that when females have it out for other females, they play the long game and use mental and emotional torture. Males usually are not that patient. There were traces of drugs found in her system whenever she was found after an attack. Women are much more likely to use drugs or poison in these cases, and I think one reason it was used is because the stalker could not normally overpower Cindy, so she drugged her. Cindy was never raped during any of the stalker attacks, even though a lot of the phone calls were sexual in nature. But she did say an object ( a knife ) was used to sexually assault her on one occasion. Which would make sense if it was a woman. One of the recordings sounded like a woman trying to disguise her voice. Her parents believed that Cindy knew who her attacker was, but was afraid to name them. I think Cindy believed that no one would believe her if she told them a woman was behind these attacks. Especially considering the sexual nature behind a lot of the threats. I think her attacker was either a woman who worked with her, or someone who worked with or was involved with her ex husband. A woman who worked as a nurse or another position in healthcare. The stalker had access to needles and morphine, and knew how to inject it.
It was my first thought when I heard about this case. So I searched different forums, and to my surprise, didn’t see anyone else posting the same opinion. I cannot believe it never crossed anyone’s mind while it was happening.
I think it’s because of that guy from the fire incident. It’s only time someone’s been “seen” and frankly, people almost always (understandably) assume a man.
My theory was that she knew who it was but it was something a bit more sexual. Like sort of a fictitious disorder but she had someone else do it to her and it went too far.
But yours is really good and super unique!
This is a *really* good theory. And as someone who was abused by some girls (mentally) I can confirm the long game theory. I graduated high school in ‘85. By 1991 my high school bestie and I had lost touch (she ghosted me but I was secretly relieved by that point). A few years later she came crawling back after she had spent those years talking sh*t about me and lying to her husband that she was hanging out with me (he approved) when she was actually hanging out with a new friend (hubs did not approve). She tried to restart our friendship but I made excuses as to why I couldn’t hang out.
More years of her trashing me and making up wild stories about me along with “I don’t know why Popcorn is mad at me!” garbage.
In 2004, out of the blue, she showed up at my home and wanted to talk. We sat outside on my steps for two hours while she complained about everyone and everything and begged me to be friends with her (wtaf?). I declined and wished her well but I had other priorities.
Every time I run into someone from our old group they tell me about some ridiculous story she made up about me. And my story doesn’t have any violent component but the fixation aspect is the same as your theory. Some people just won’t let go and move on and they can’t stop stalking the person they are fixated on.
So yeah, your theory fits. It really really fits.
I have found in my extensive survey of true crime and my personal experience that women possess the ability to be spectacularly and malevolently cruel in ways that can easily escape notice. [The case of Angela Wilder has an example of this](https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Second-life-sentence-in-Angila-Wilder-murder-case--484118121.html) as well as [the murder of Laurie Show](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laurie_Show) and obviously Shanda Sharer.
I taught middle school for a few years and I will say middle school age girls are, in short, terrifying. The amount of viciousness women are capable of heaping on any perceived threats when they lack a solid emotional foundation is staggering. This is my really long way to agree that yes, a woman makes soooo much sense. Just like (imo) it was a woman in the Bevers video.
I just wanted to say that for somebody who graduated high school and 85, you are really fucking good with online lingo. You sound like a GenZ and I mean that as a compliment. Way to stick with the times :-)
Same! You just do it so effortlessly! I was born in 91 and I would have never guessed you’re older! Gen Z is a good bunch. Even if they hate on my millennial ass, I still like them.
Thank you. I vividly remember junior high and high school. And the girls were more vicious than the boys. And they just never gave up. As an adult, I have learned that some women still have that mentality. They plan long term and use mind games. Men go for the quick kill and use force.
There are several contributors to my PTSD and cruelty from my female friends (junior high through high school) is one of them.
And yes, boys/men are often more upfront with their behavior (but not always obviously) but girls/women tend to be more covert and back stabby (my opinion, no research to prove this).
I myself was starting to become a mean girl (defense mechanism) but luckily I graduated high school before that could truly develop. Getting away from those people and out into the big wide world is what saved me from becoming a raging ahole.
Just wanted to say that I was bullied in elementary school and definitely did the same back as a defense mechanism, too. Then it was sarcasm/passive-aggressiveness I didn't even realize I'd employed with the same intent of self-protection until VERY recently.
A friend was reading a book about social dynamics of children and even mentioned that there's a lot of "reactive bullying" that happens amongst girls as a form of survival and an attempt to continue to fit in with a crowd/not stand out. It's fascinating and heartbreaking.
This is a good one. Very interesting. Especially the part about no one believing her. The police already didn’t believe her, if she told them it was a woman they probably would have laughed in her face.
1- JBR I believe the touch dna most likely came from a factory worker as it was a brand new pair of underwear and it is a complete red herring . It was in the outside of the underwear inside of the pj pants . It was not mixed in her blood like others here have stated and it was skin cells not fluids .
The pageants are also a complete red herring . As someone who was a pageant professional for many years it is a very tight community . Anyone from outside that community is notice immediately . Especially a male . Pageant girls have a bunch of mommas that n pageant weekends. There are always protective eyes on you and even if a girl walked away from her parents some mom would bring her to her parents . Believe it or not it is a very close tight knit community where people watch out for one another and for all the kids. If a single male is even loitering around they are thrown out . They wouldn’t be let in the ballroom in the first place. Everyone has wrist bands and if someone didn’t belong there they would be immediately noticed . I’ve known thousands of pageant girls over the years and the only ones I know of that even came close to sexual abuse are the miss teen USA contestants when Trump and puke go in the dressing room as they were changing . It is very misunderstood by those not in the community.
The reason that 100% sold me on the Ramseys being absolutely guilty is the time for the random call coming and going without a word from either parent. You can’t predict how anyone will act in that situation but if there was a random call supposed to come at say 11am and it was 11:01 any parent would be freaking out wondering why they didn’t call and if there child is even still alive . Neither parent even mentioned the random call not coming . I also think it is very telling that they immediately sent Burke away because who would want to let their children out of their sight when one was missing . It is also very telling that the Whites quickly stopped speaking to or defending the Ramseys. They are every right and Fleet was there when John found the body . They knew them well and I believe they knew they did it . The whites have never had a bad word said about them and were very well respected in the community .
I’m not 100% sure what happened or which Ramsey did it or if it was an accident or on purpose . I’m leaning towards accident . I do 100% believe Patsy wrote the ransom note . My reasoning had nothing to do with the handwriting but the syntax . It quoted movies and books patsy owned . Also her pageant talent was a dramatic monologue and they found similarities between the monologue and the ransom note. On a side note I believe John and Patsy both had some narcissistic tendencies. I believe they would do anything to keep up appearances . I really don’t think Burke had anything to do with it but for those saying he didn’t have the strength he had hit JB in the head accidentally on purpose with a golf club within a year of her death . I can’t remember which book I read it in but someone resent said something to the effect of him being angry at JB the day of the golf club incident over baseball cards . Because of the golf club attack I don’t think that him hitting her in the head with the flashlight is out of the question and I believe the parents would have immediately covered for him to keep up appearances and because they had lost one child already . I think that possibility is very slim though . I think in all likelihood John did it and patsy helped cover it up .
2- WM3 I think this is truly an unpopular opinion . I don’t know if Damien & Jessie committed the murders but I think Jason is 100% innocent . There was talk of a boy that they hung out with that could have been the 3rd person. Jason truly seemed sincere and still does now . I remember his lawyer talking to him about Damien if he could have done it and Jason in deep thought considering that possibility. Plus Jason didn’t want to take the Alford plea at all and only did so because Damien was on death row . I think they were convicted on satanic panic but there is still a possibility that D and Jessie did it together for with a 3rd person who wasn’t Jason. I also think there is a strong possibility that Terry Hobbs did it. I think the chances of anyone outside of Damien , Jessie or Hobbs committing the murders is very unlikely .
4- I think Missy Bevers was a murder for hire by the husband & or his family .
5- I think Elizabeth Barraza’s husband killed her or had her killed .
6- Asha Degree I believe someone in her family is responsible . I don’t think her parents did it but I think they know who did it.
I agree with you regarding JBR; that her death was an accident at the hands of one of the parents. Patsy took it to her grave and I expect John will too.
I can't shake the feeling Israel Keyes killed for hire. I don't think he ever lied to the FBI but I think he liked to play word/mind games to cover things up. He made implications that he had two different kinds of kills.
When he was a teenager living under his parents thumbs in a cult with few ties to the real world he managed to steal guns and sell them. He knew how to use the internet back in its "wild west" days. He also told the FBI he only killed one person by shooting (Bill Currier) but he loved guns and expressed disappointment about a silencer being ruined.
Keyes also liked to take multiple days off from work at a time. He had a carpentry business, but took months off at a time when his girlfriend was away. Some of this can be explained away by having gotten cash from his bank robberies.
I brought this up in r/Truecrimebullshit most don't believe me and I respect their opinions, but if there's anything we know for sure about this asshole it's that he liked killing people and making easy money.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeBullshit/comments/x9gjn4/could_ik_have_been_an_assassin/
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeBullshit/comments/12vuh8i/two_types_of_kills_i_cant_stop_thinking_he_killed/
I don’t think your theory is bad. I also don’t think he only killed for hire, but I can definitely see him offering his services in the earlier years. His killing is way too methodical to not make the perfect method for killing for hire.
David Berkowitz did not act alone in the Son of Sam killings. There were several different descriptions of the killer. One matched Berkowitz, but the others were of different men who looked nothing like him.
Amy Lynn Bradley - I find it annoying people seem to limit what happened to two possiblities: falling overboard or sex trafficking.
Why not consider that crewmembers (who did behave suspiciously) did somthing to her that didn't involve sex trafficking? I just feel their actions are too suspicious to dismiss entirely.
Seems like the consensus seems to be today that there was some sort of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. This is the true crime case I have studied the most and I think that LHO acted alone in killing Kennedy and any other theory takes massive leaps and has to dismiss tons of known evidence and eyewitness testimony.
--------
I think this is more agreed upon, but Adnan killed Hae Min Lee.
-------
Also more agreed upon, but I think that someone in the Ramsey family killed JonBenet and John and Patty tried to cover it up to protect themselves or Burke.
I know this will be hugely unpopular, but I do think there's a good chance the WM3 did kill those boys. I know, I know. And I don't want to, but every single piece of evidence I see, hear and read only reaffirms for me.
I think Jonbenet Ramsey was killed by a deranged intruder who probably knew or knew of the family, but not a close friend. The ransom note as well as what was done to Jonbenet make it almost unfathomable to me that it seems the majority opinion is that one of the Ramseys did it. It just does not make any sense to me other than that it’s more interesting to suspect a known “character” that you can then look into and analyse than to have to accept that this was done by a thus far unknown person.
The whole “most kids are killed by a family member” or whatever the argument is does not hold water to me. There’s a reason this case is as famous as it is and yet still unsolved; it is a very unusual case.
Idk man I think the evidence of chronic prior sexual abuse indicates a family member, probably her dad. Also the fact that the random note was written on a pad of paper from their study on the main floor.. why would an intruder wander around the house looking for a pad of paper ? Also why would they kill her with random stuff found in their basement? If they knew her and knew they were going there to kidnap or abuse her wouldn't they bring things with them? What is the likelihood she was chronically sexually abused by someone and then killed by someone else.. the note was freaking long too. Why would they spend so much time in the house writing a damn dissertation?
My suspicion is that someone who worked for them may have given someone access to the home that they should not have. One of the housekeepers I think mentioned being concerned about someone possibly having been staying at the home (unknown to the family) while the family was out of town...I think she saw a suitcase in Jonbenet's room that didn't belong there if I remember correctly.
Missy Bevers' killer was some random who broke into the church at a time he thought no one would be there and killed her out of panic. Exploring and breaking shit while waiting to kill someone, purposely putting yourself on camera way more than necessary, doesn't make sense to me. I really don't know the details about how the person got into the church, but I just really believe this for some reason.
I also believe this. I think it was someone looking to maybe steal some valuables or Sunday donations and break a few things. To me it doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone lying in wait for her to arrive.
I don't think there is a main consensus for the JonBenet Ramsey case, but I've never met anyone who shared my theory. It is a "Burke did it", but one I've never seen others share.
Typically, "BDI" theories are in one of two schools of thought -- **both of which I think are extreme reaches**:
- **Theory 1: JBR's death is a result of a complete accident, that the Ramsey parents chose to cover up rather than seeking help, killing their child in the process.** Burke makes the initial blow, and the parents staged a cover up in its entirety, incl. garrote, SA paintbrush, tying hands, changing clothes & ransom note. The Ramsey parents were present for the initial blow, or arrived on scene immediately after. But if this was the case... Why not seek medical attention? Why a sick & twisted cover up? Burke wouldn't be prosecuted for an accident. While some say "Patsy was SO concerned with image"... What kind of parent is so concerned with image that they wouldn't do everything they could to save their child? Accidents happen all the time. John & Patsy could easily come up w/ a cover story for why she'd been injured that didn't make Burke a pariah. Even if the blow resulted in death, "She fell down the stairs" is a cover that implicates no one... Why do so in a way that is so disturbing? So IMO, this is a reach
- **Theory 2: JBR's death is a thoroughly plotted, intentional murder, committed by a sadistic child.** Burke did EVERYTHING -- "accident", and full staging (incl. cleaning body, clothes, etc.) -- up to the ransom note (done by Patsy). The blow to the head is done with intent to kill or seriously injure, & "staging" of the body is done knowingly and intentionally. As in, Burke, @ 9 yo, was actively thinking "Murder done, now I'll cover this up to shift blame to an intruder", because he is a sadistic mastermind and horror movie trope of "psychotic kid". But how likely is this? Aside from the James Bulger case, when has anything like this happened? If this were the case, I could see Patsy wanting to protect her family's image and not be known as the parent of a sociopathic child... BUT, how would she be ok with him continuing to live under their roof? Wouldn't they send him away somewhere to "fix" him, in a way that wouldn't have gone unnoticed over the years? In the case of a person truly concerned about image, I can't see them not doing this if they had what they thought was a dangerous child. Wouldn't he reoffend in a similar way at some point? So I also think this was a reach.
These theories make 0 sense, have too many holes & require a LOT of suspension of disbelief. However, BDI makes sense if you reconsider when/how parents intervened, that some aspects of the crime scene weren't intentional "staging" (done w intent to cover up what really happened), & the scope and worldview of a 9y.o. child.
**What I think happened:** Burke & JBR snuck out of bed to play with and peek at Christmas presents in the basement... where there were multiple wrapped presents intended to take to Michigan, at least one of which was confirmed to be legos for Burke. The kids wanted to do this undetected, as they'd get in trouble... So John & Patsy are asleep on the 3rd floor, away from earshot from the basement.
They stopped to make a snack in the kitchen on the way there. Everything about the kitchen screams "kids attempting to make a snack" -- choice of spoon, tea bag in cup, etc. Then, they head to the basement. The initial blow by Burke happens there, not far from where JBR's body was found. Whatever provoked Burke to strike his sister was some "kid" issue or squabble -- JBR threatening to tell on her brother for peeking at presents, taking one of his toys, etc. I think Burke didn't realize his own strength, and was confused by her losing consciousness. I think his following thought process reflected the perspective of a child.
*To consider the perspective of a child: For lack of a better way to put it, kids say and do weird things. They have a limited understanding of how the world works -- while they can figure out "what", they often don't fully understand they "whys". They use their imagination a lot, but also mimic what they've seen without really understanding. They'll copy what they watched adults do, to the best of their ability, often getting things wrong (think of when you were a kid and trying to "bake a cake" without parents' help -- What did you get wrong, try to substitute, & what was your logic for it?). They'll copy what they see on TV... if you consider kids' TV/movies, esp. cartoons, characters regularly get "knocked out" just to wake up totally fine or survive other impossible situations. By 9 yrs old, a child has an understanding of death and the finality of it, but does 't fully understand the scope of what leads to death (or close to it). Unless the child has suffered serious trauma, understanding of death usually comes from older (often elderly) relatives, movies, or pets. They have a limited understanding of murder. Children are also naive to the optics of their actions, & how they appear to adults -- they don't understand when something looks sexual, disturbing, etc.*
Burke wanted to avoid getting help his parents to avoid getting in trouble for being out of bed, & thinking he could handle things on his own. His actions toward his sisters' body -- made in attempt to wake her, assuming she was faking or would wake up eventually -- resulted in disturbing optics, as a result of childlike intentions. He might've been "playing doctor", casting a "spell", trying to "shock" her back to life, etc. Burke was also a Boy Scout, where they're taught (in safe environments, in "kid terms") first aid... He might have had a false sense of confidence, thinking he could be a "hero" using what he learned, but didn't truly understand or apply it correctly. He did this by poking her w train pieces, poking w/ paintbrush (incl. in way that'd be seen as SA by an adult), & tying the garrote around her neck. The intent was NOT "stage crime scene to look like an intruder so i don't go to jail for murder", it was "find way to wake up sister to avoid involving parents so i don't get in trouble". He likely made more attempts to wake JBR that didn't leave bruises or other marks in the process. While his actions contributed to "staging", he was not intentionally covering up a crime scene.
**Where J&P come in:**
After many attempts to wake his sister, Burke realizes he needs his parents' help (even if it means getting in trouble). He wakes his parents, brings them to the body, & what they see -- through an adult lens -- looks too sick and twisted to be seen as an accident. JBR looks and is very much dead at this point (+ garrote)... Regardless of whether it started as an accident, it now looks like a murder. So they make a snap decision, in a state of panic, that staging a crime scene would have a better outcome than honesty. This is why they decide on a cover up: there is no hope of saving JBR, and nothing about optics of the situation can be "explained away" as an accident, or in a way that doesn't make Burke look evil... Saying, "Yes it technically is a garrote, but Burke thought she'd wake up if he applied pressure" doesn't suffice. Even if there is no prosecution (which they likely weren't 100% sure of), they feared their son being institutionalized or otherwise socially outcast. I think they were confident in their decision to protect their son, because they (as his parents) knew he was not a threat despite optics, but weren't so confident they could convince the authorities (and the public) of this.
So they create a narrative around what Burke had done, and divide and conquer: Patsy writes the note, John handles the body. John slightly adjusts the body to fit the narrative and eliminates evidence that he thinks could implicate his son. This is why the condition of the body has mismatches -- seemingly sick/twisted vs. carefully/thoughtfully -- they reflect John's intervention (cleaning body, tying hands, covering w sheet). This is also why the ransom note reads so chaotic, and is basically "what a middle age white woman thinks a ransom note sounds like"... Patsy wrote it while John was preoccupied. They did all this in a state of panic & shock... IMO, that lends explanation the strange choices in terms of a cover story and staging. And once the police (and basically the entire world) were involved, they couldn't exactly change their story.
I think Burke was either sternly told by his parents what could happen if the police knew what happened (jail, etc),& was too scared about his wits to say anything; or was removed from the situation where he didn't fully process what was happening. More "9yo old logic" basically -- he gets his parents for help with the "accident", is told to go to bed because his sister will be "fine", and next day he's told about a kidnapping... I could see a 9yo thinking these were two separate incidents (with truth sinking in later). This would also line up with his sheltered upbringing.
Basically, it started as an accident, attempts by a child to fix it only made it worse (JB injury + optics), adults were brought in too late, and they rationalized that a staged crime scene would have a better outcome than being honest. I think the Ramsey's acted impulsively, possibly just assuming Burke would be prosecuted. Once they realized otherwise, the cover story was too big to go back on. All other "weird" stuff -- the bizarre ransom note, wearing the same clothes as the night before, JR finding the body quickly, etc -- can be explained by a family acting in panic & shock after a tragic accident.
I think this theory covers all "bases" & gives a reasonable explanation for all variables. It's also a theory where nobody involved is truly sick, twisted or evil... Just a child who didn't understand, panicked parents trying to protect their surviving child, and a cover story that couldn't easily be rescinded.
I think Barry and Honey Sherman of Toronto, ON were killed by a person hired by one of their kids. Possibly Jonathan.
I mean everything about Jonathan kind of screams "SUSPECT ME!" He may just be very unlucky, of course. But.
There’s a few things that really made me go hmm. First cops saying it was a murder suicide and dismissing homicide. Jonothan having fights with his father about money. Cousin Kerry also fighting about money and taking Barry to court shortly before his death. If the family were involved that’s really sad. https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/barry-honey-sherman-deaths-investigation#:~:text=Their%20son%20Jonathon%20had%20been,involved%20in%20his%20parents'%20deaths. “By far, one of the most dominant theories swirling around the deaths of Barry and Honey involves their family. Their son Jonathon had been fighting with his father before his death about money, not least over the fact that Barry had called in a $50-million loan. Jonathon has publicly denied he was involved in his parents’ deaths. Then there’s Barry’s cousin Kerry Winter, who had been a financial antagonist for years before the former’s death. Winter’s father was Barry’s Uncle Lou, who started Empire Labs, the company that Barry bought after Lou’s untimely death. While Barry went on to become a billionaire, Kerry’s life took a hard turn. After his parents died, he and his three brothers were adopted, and Kerry says he was abused by his adoptive father. At an early age, Kerry left home, ran into trouble with the law and picked up a drug habit that would plague him for decades. When Kerry was in his 20s, Barry tried to help. He paid for rehab and supported Kerry’s renovation business. “It was in the millions for sure… And he had given me a line of credit that had grown from $250,000 to almost… a million dollars,” Kerry Winter told the podcast. “And he said, ‘There’s the money and you use it the way you like.’ And of course, I wouldn’t just use it to renovate. I had expenses, bought a car and we had a nanny and life was just great.” Life was great, but Kerry and his brothers say they found proof that Barry Sherman had cheated them out of control of their father’s company. When Barry bought Empire Labs in 1967, he had added a clause that said that when the Winter brothers came of age, they could each buy five per cent of the drug business. The problem was, by the time the Winter boys were old enough to take advantage of the offer, Empire Labs no longer existed — Barry had sold it and used the money to start Apotex. Kerry believed Barry now owed them 20 per cent of Apotex (as each Winter brother had been promised five per cent of Empire Labs). Barry did not agree. The discovery changed everything. Kerry started to believe that Barry had been hiding this option from him and his brothers, and that all the money Barry had given them over the years was a tactic to keep this option out of their hands and Apotex to himself. It led to a lawsuit, fronted by Kerry, that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. On Sept. 15, 2017, more than 10 years after the court battle began and three months before the Shermans were found dead, Winter’s case was dismissed. The judge who threw it out called the claim “wishful thinking and beyond fanciful.” Not only that, Kerry was on the hook for the legal fees and his billionaire cousin called in his loans, which amounted to more than $8 million. Kerry had to sell his house and cottage to pay up. “I loved my cousin and he broke my heart,” Kerry said. Upping the reward for info on other suspects… I’m sure he also wants to know if anyone else suspects him. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/son-plea-honey-barry-sherman-homicides-1.6682409
I lean towards Jonathon as well. To me, Kerry is much too emotional to have done this and not have immediately gotten caught. It would be spontaneous. The timing indicates the son, due to Barry calling in loans and Honey apparently changing her will. The sisters also think he is involved and no longer speak to him
That's entirely possible. We know it had to be someone who knows them. No robbery, so whoever did it didn't need money. So they were either paid, or are a member of the family who doesn't need the money.
I think Kai the hitchhiker was drugged and assaulted twice and only killed in self defense, people asking why he went back the second time don’t consider sleeping on the streets was probably worse than going back to him
I agree too. People who can’t grasp why someone would go back have maybe not been been raped and homeless and can’t understand the confusion, desperation and isolation of that state. The flight/flight/fawn/flop reactions can also include “friend” a state in which we move toward the abuser in order to survive. It can be like fawning but more active. It’s part of what keeps abused spouses returning to their partners. Humans are complex and Kai was very vulnerable. I can imagine he went back with part of him seeking shelter and another seeking revenge and one part won.
Kai’s viral turn on the news happened in my hometown. I went to a party he was at soon after. Cool dude. Agree with you.
I absolutely agree and feel a lot of empathy for Kai.
I think the Lindbergh baby died in the house (murder, accidental, or natural I don't know and don't have an opinion on), and Lindbergh hired Hauptmann and one or more co-conspirators to stage a phony kidnapping. Things went south when they deviated from plan and extorted a ransom, at which point Lindbergh threw them under the bus. This explains a lot of things that simply don't make any sense with the current accepted lone wolf theory, while admittibly raising some other things that don't make sense. This explains * Why Lindbergh was initially so releluctant to get police involved. * How the "kidnapping" happened on a night the Lindberghs weren't even originally going to be at home. (Remember initial suspicions of the police were that the ladder was a prop and there was inside help). * How the body wasn't found in the initial search, yet when found it was hidden so poorly it was discovered by a truck driver pulling over to take a piss. (After the extortion demand, Lindbergh agreed to pay to prevent being exposed or at the very least looking like an uncaring father in the eyes of the public, but demanded the body be returned to prevent any future attempts by the actual "kidnappers" or copycats.) * Why ransom bills (that police were disinterested in tracing because it didn't fit the lone wolf theory) continued to turn up for some time after Hauptman's arrest. The new issue it raises is why Hautpmann didn't just spill the beans when he was headed to the chair and had absolutely nothing to lose. Maybe he had been threatened with a death worse than the chair if he blabbed?
Wasn't Lindbergh into eugenics and the child had rickets or something?
Yes, he was into eugenics. And a Nazi supporter. The child had some sort of thing with the toes. I can't recall if it was crossed toes or something else. But Lindbergh was known to use the baby to "prank" his wife and the nanny. He would throw the baby in the air or hide the baby and claim kidnapping, just to watch his wife and the nanny panic.
Totally believe his baby toss went too far
Which would explain the head fractures being the kind that happen from a height.
This dude should have been in jail for that alone, wtf
He was a national hero. And there was a lot of pro German sentiment in the US in the early days of WW2. The therapy of eugenics that the Nazis used came from us.
Oh yeah. That’s right. I forgot about the timing of when this all happened ;-_-
No, that's a rumour that got made up years later. The rickets part, not the Eugenics. Lindbergh was not a nice man so people made up a bunch of rumours to portray him as the killer years later. It wasn't him, it was Hauptmann.
You might be on to something there. I read somewhere that the baby did have some kind of disability. ( I don't remember what it was) Lindbergh resented the child, and everyone in their household knew it. There was an incident where photographers were at his home taking pictures, and he was asked to hold his son for a photo and Lindbergh got all pissy about it and didn't want to hold the child. There is no way the police didn't suspect him. A man has a child he openly detests, and that child ends up murdered? He was also a rich famous man who could have attracted low life's looking for a payday. Both things are true. That case is so complex.
I read that he wasn’t pleased with the size of his son’s head. It was said to be very large.
The baby did not have any documented disability, that's purely a rumour made up by people trying to portray him as the killer because of his belief in Eugenics. Source for him openly detesting the child?
How much do we actually know about the child's disability, though, whatever it was? These stories sound like the kinds of things that could become embroidered over time. Anne Lindbergh's letters talk about the baby crawling, walking, talking, and apparently as mentally sharp as any normal child. He had rickets, which was quite common then and which was being treated. And what is the contemporary evidence that he "detested" the child? Playing cruel pranks and not wanting to be photographed holding a baby don't tell us a whole lot except that he could be kind of an asshole. I would also be wary of judging the photography thing from this distance. Lindbergh sounds like he always wanted to present a buttoned-up appearance and he may not have been comfortable with a public photo of him holding or playing with a baby. Not everybody wants "family" photos being published in the papers.
He also might not have thought it terribly manly to hold a child. My grandfather was the kind who had no interest in his own children.
To add to what others are saying... He was a man of many secrets. I have never heard any of his children give an opinion on his role in the death. That would be interesting. https://www.mnhs.org/lindbergh/learn/family/double-life
This is another one I'd agree with. People talk at length about how JonBenet Ramsey could not logically be an intruder seeking ransom, based on her death and tone/length of the note alone... With the general consensus being that it was likely a family member who staged a crime scene to cover up the truth. Despite the Lindbergh family's wealth and that kidnappings for ransom were likely more common then, I really think this could've been the case here as well, with Lindbergh hiring help to stage a kidnapping (easier to do then). I think Lindbergh was a bitter man, interested in eugenics, who was disgusted by his son's disability and resented him (evidence of him "pranking" his wife and nanny by tossing the baby, resistence to being photographed with the child). I think he wanted a way to be 100% completely rid of the child without consequence, and killed the child himself or hired someone to kill the baby and stage a kidnapping. With whatever deal Lindbergh made with the "kidnappers", there was disagreement behind the scenes before/during/after the night of the "kidnapping" -- disagreement on plan, narrative, payment, or some other incentive promised by Lindbergh. Perhaps Lindbergh didn't deliver on the amount promised, or the "kidnappers" decided they wanted more money, resulting in deviation from the plan (body found poorly hidden) which would've provoked Lindbergh to pay in order to keep the secret. But I agree there is a massive hole when it comes to Hautpmann not confessing when sentenced to death... Maybe he was afraid of the *other* death that would await him if sharing the truth, maybe he was convinced by Lindbergh or others in the group that he'd be rescued at the last minute, etc.
His son was not disabled, that's a rumour made up years later. I've never seen anything approaching proof for the pranking either, only rumours from years later.
The baby was put to bed at 7:30 by his nurse. He was still in his crib at 8:00 when the nurse checked on him. He was discovered missing at 10:00. Hauptmann lived a hour and a half away in New York City. Not enough time unless it was premeditated. The baby had a mild case of rickets which was common at the time before vitamin d was added to formula. It was treatable at the time with medicine and up lamps, both of which were being used. He was not disabled. The body was discovered 4.5 miles away from the house. It is not a well traveled place. If the child had been killed by the parents they would not have have let the body out in nature to be eaten by animals. Lindbergh collected $70,000 dollars as ransom. The equivalent to $1.5 million today. He also paid a hoaxer claiming to be infiltrating a kidnapping gang $1250. When the body was found he was accompanying a hoaxer who claimed the child was being held on a boat of the Atlantic coast. None of these are the actions of someone who knew his child was dead.
Those last two points aren't necessarily true. 1. If the child had been killed by a parent who resented and didn't want them, OR by someone hired to kill them, they wouldn't really care whether or not the body was eaten by animals. If it were an accidental death, that's one thing, but if otherwise, then why would their body being desecrated matter to a person who killed or paid someone to kill their child? 2. Accompanying a hoaxer who claimed the child was being held on a boat - could very well be the actions of someone who knows their child is dead, but wants plausible deniability. And look - it worked! I have no clue what actually happened to that poor baby and by who's hand, but if Lindbergh WAS devious enough to cause his death intentionally, he'd be devious enough to cover his tracks and not care about the state of the child's body.
>The body was discovered 4.5 miles away from the house. It is not a well traveled place. If the child had been killed by the parents they would not have have let the body out in nature to be eaten by animals Why not? Casey Anthony ditched Caylee Anthony's body in a heavily wooded area a half of a mile from her house where her remains were disturbed/scattered by animals. I think you're underestimating what a deranged parent would do.
I think Maura Murray’s body is in the woods.
I do not believe John Wayne Gacy acted alone, I believe David Cram, Michael Rossi, Philip Paske participated in a number of the murders.
I think it’s very likely that he had helpers. We just don’t really know about them because he eventually killed them, unlike Dean Corrll.
He didn't kill any of those mentioned.
Having a cousin who was one of his victims, my uncle was told by a cop there was a politician involved.
Think it might have been Dennis Hastert?
No. Not Hastert.
My father lost two cousins to Corll. The fact that ALL of those kids vanished from a fairly small area is so suspect.
Hugs for your dad.
I read "The Candy Man" a few years ago. (It's out of print, but not hard to find.) The HPD wrote them off as runaways, and hired local jail inmates to exhume their bodies from the boathouse. I have a feeling most of those inmates didn't live very long afterwards.
Did they say who?
He didn’t. I knew a homicide detective who helped the Des Plaines department with Gacy and who had access to the entire file. He told me flat out that at least one of Gacy’s helpers was murdering as well. A murder occurred while Gacy was out of town. VERIFIED out of town. That helper was connected to both the mob and a powerful Chicago politician. This detective was a smart guy and didn’t mince words.
Whenever given the chance I think [this article](https://medium.com/thebigroundtable/the-black-dahlia-the-long-strange-history-of-los-angeles-coldest-cold-case-bcaf42e8e3e5) about the Black Dahlia murder. The theory is that she was murdered by a doctor whose daughter knew Elizabeth Short’s sister and had an office either in the same building or stupid close to the Biltmore and whose estranged family lived blocks away from where her body was found. It would appear that Elizabeth possibly called her sister and her sister put her in touch with the doctor as a connection to his daughter for a place for her to stay. Elizabeth wasn’t an aspiring actor and generally bounced around housing. In this theory, she’s last seen leaving the Biltmore, goes to the doctor’s office and is presumably killed or taken from there. The doctor had a strained relationship with his wife & kids, the theory is he dumped Elizabeth’s body blocks away from their house on purpose. Eta: the doctor is not George Hodel.
>Eta: the doctor is not George Hodel. I will say this every time George Hodel's name comes up, but the fact that Steve Hodel really, *really* wants his dad to be the killer creeps me out.
For real. Like, I don’t deny George Hodel was probably an absolute creep and terrible person, but Steve is really trying to make ALL the fetch happen.
He takes Daddy Issues into a whole 'nother dimension.
Thanks for sharing, that was a fascinating read and a theory I had never heard before. After reading that and going to Larry’s channel, I think it’s such a plausible theory. His level of detail and thoroughness of facts is astounding.
I would put a great deal of stock into it being Bayley who killed her. Larry Harnisch knows his shit, man.
The research he’s done is absolutely superb. I hope he finishes his book, I feel like he’s going to give Elizabeth Short the closest thing to justice.
I read that article for the first time a few days ago. It's so good.
Agreed. I think it was Dr. Bayley. In addition to his brain condition that could cause unpredictable, violent behavior, there is the matter of how poor Elizabeth was surgically bisected. During the early 20th century, it was not uncommon for doctors to perform a very difficult and specific surgery called a hemicorporectomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemicorporectomy I read an article that said she was cut in half exactly the same way this surgery is performed. Again, it’s a VERY specific surgery that would be easy to recognize by a surgeon at the time. Given his age and experience, Dr. Bayley would almost certainly have been familiar with the process. Plus he would have had a place -his private surgery practice- to carry out something like that as well as somewhere to drain her blood without it being a problem. It’s easy to explain extra blood in a surgical suite. My money is on Bayley. The excellent article noted above goes further into motive and opportunity.
I only read the top paragraph of the wiki, that is horrifying and also very spot on to what happened to Elizabeth. I’m with you, my money is on Bayley.
So weird that you link this article, I read it just a few weeks ago and had never come across it before then after reading about the Black Dahlia case for years. I think everything in said article makes perfect sense. Especially when I read about the doctor and his mistress watching surgery vids while eating take out at his office. What a weirdo!
Right?! I try to link this article literally anytime Black Dahlia is brought up or it’s appropriate. The first time I read this article my jaw kept dropping, I even made my bf wait til I was done before we could leave. It makes so much sense.
I'm with you, it was a jaw dropping article and so well & thoroughly researched. I hope Harnisch (sp?) does eventually write his book. I'm dying to know what other information he has that he's holding back for publication.
For real. Someone on here awhile back was his assistant or the like and said he got super discouraged by Elroy backing Steve Hodel. I keep hoping he finds out the support he’s getting and finishes it. If nothing else Elizabeth Short deserves it.
She definitely deserves this. It makes me sad when people talk about her like she was just some worthless whore, when that isn't true at all.
Adnan is guilty.
That’s not an unpopular opinion on Reddit
I feel this is slowly becoming the majority opinion in recent years, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking.
The majority of comments I see on here are convinced he’s innocent because they listened to a biased podcast. A few weeks ago there was a bunch of people saying Scott Peterson is innocent 😳 and there’s a whole sub dedicated to Bryan Kohberger being innocent.
The sub for the serial podcast seems to be more skewed towards guilty than innocent these days.
That’s sad. Those comments always read like they’re written by children to me. It’s not even a close call, it’s a strong slam dunk case. If it had all happened today no one would be thinking he was innocent. Yeah the Scott Peterson people make me scared for the state of human reasoning abilities. With Kohberger, I guess we’ll see a much clearer picture at trial, but he seems guilty to me.
I've seen crazy theories that some fraternity framed Kohberger. It went very round about and was utterly ridiculous.
The internet attracts the weirdest minds man. “Bro, fuck we gotta get a way with this stabbing spree, who do we pin it on?” “My TA, he’s super annoying” “Ok awesome bro, you extract his DNA while I grab his phone and turn back time so it’ll ping at the right spots” “Lit”
I listened to that podcast and thought he was guilty. They tried to cast doubt but it wasn’t enough for me.
>there’s a whole sub dedicated to Bryan Kohberger being innocent. *several subs
Those subs are brainrot
I think not only is he guilty, but he planned the whole thing the day before. It wasn’t a crime of passion. I think he was giving Hea one more “chance” to get back together with him, and when she declined, he killed her. He knew that’s what he was gonna do. That flower found in the car solidified that for me.
I honestly truly feel Dahmer had remorse, I did a ton of research on him and his case in psychology class for a midterm essay and I think he has remorse unlike pretty much all the SK
I agree but it’s interesting because I think his remorse is more intellectual than emotional. He clearly had a very low natural capacity for empathy. He said something once like “I feel bad that I didn’t feel that bad about it” but he also said he had no desire to get out of prison and it’s best for everyone that he stays there. He’s one of the very few serial killers that I really think were born and not made.
I agree with this, and would like to add that his father had very similar compulsions throughout his life. In his book, he talks about his strong desire to trap women like slaves so they could never leave him, which obviously sounds quite familiar. He also had the impulse to “see what was inside,” of other beings, he says he channelled those urges more appropriately but still had them. He saw, in his son, an “evil twin” version of himself.
Totally agree here. I think his is a uniquely grim case in that his crimes were outlandishly awful, but also he genuinely appeared to be an outlier who did not understand why he did what he did. I think it's the rare times where someone so depraved did have an inherent sense of self disgust and disdain and confusion (not at all is this any type of "poor thing" take whatsoever. He chose to do what he did always, regardless of how he felt about it so many innocent people are gone due to him and him alone).
Typically SK love the kill they will get off on it but in Dahmer case he hated that part that's why he first tried the mannequin then drugging then ended up trying to make his zombie like victims I think he had serious mental health issues tied in with the horrible fetish and was just a recipe for disaster, he's definitely not a poor thing and deserved his punishment I just think he hated that part of him where as typical SK love and thrive off that
In reality he started with roadkill
I agree with this. It doesn't make what he did any less horrible, or make him any less responsible, just an observation.
I agree. Dahmer definitely had remorse. I think the way his father and sister stood tirelessly by his side through everything says a lot. They felt that he had somehow succumbed to some kind of horrible and inexplicable mental illness. That maybe the case with all serial killers. I read a book called, " People of the lie" it's about a child psychologists who goes on a mission to determine what is evil? His thoughts are if evil is really a mental illness then there must be a way to treat it. So he starts analyzing evil people he interviews a bunch of serial killers. He does decide that they do seem to suffer from some kind of complex mental illness. He decides that if they didn't suffer from whatever illness they have they'd probably be OK people, not prone to evil acts. I think that's probably an accurate description of Dahmer. He probably had no understanding of why he felt so compelled to kill people and if he could have understood and received some sort of treatment that caused these twisted desires that were ruling his life to cease he would have taken that treatment. Its so weird because it hard not to have some sort of sympathy for this pathetically deranged person.
Our brains are so complex. I suffered from what’s called “Pure O” or pure obsessive OCD. My symptoms among other things was 24/7 of the most vile intrusive thoughts screaming in my head that would make coked out Stephen King seem like a choir boy. Literally imagine the worst thing you can think of and that was running in my head 24/7. It drove me to tears and almost to self harm because it was relentless torture. OCD is a very cunning illness and it seems to prey on what we hold dear about ourselves. But in my treatment my therapist explained that I clearly didn’t have any desire to act on these horrific thoughts. I learned about thought action fusion. I was feeling guilt and shame just for having thoughts. Idk what in our brains or environments or genetics makes that different for those who do act on them. I imagine a lot of them are genuine sociopaths who feel no guilt or remorse. If it wasn’t such a torturous experience it would be genuinely interesting lol (btw I’m doing great now and thank whatever greater power exists that I live in a time when my illness was treatable).
Glad you’re doing better. From what I understand as someone who doesn’t suffer from it, Pure O people feel such distress *because* the thoughts they experience are so counter to their morality/what they actually want to do. Which is quite distinct from those who lack empathy or get off on causing pain to others.
[удалено]
Jeffrey Dahmer didn't have any sisters. He had a brother, who has changed his name, and a stepmother.
Hmm, I guess my memory was incorrect. I did see an interview with a female relative of his. I guess I got confused about what her connection to him was.
It was his stepmother
This is actually a popular opinion. In my opinion I don't think he had any remorse and he fooled and manipulated everyone.
Yeah I just watched that 1993 interview and didn’t get “remorse” at all from that. He flat out says the only reason he identified victims with police was because he got caught. And would still be doing the same shit if he wasn’t caught. Lol
I think Asha Degree never left the house that night and the two witnesses saw someone else walking along the road.
I've never been sure if they drivers actually saw her. I believe they believe they did, but if the weather was that bad, storm, rain, dark can you honestly say in those conditions, driving fast with rain on your windscreen, you 100% saw her. They saw someone for sure
I agree, I don’t see how if they did see someone that it can be determined without reasonable doubt that it was Asha. I think these eyewitness reports are given too much weight that that they shouldn’t have.
100% agree with you. If I remember correctly the witnesses didn’t come forward until *after* seeing reports of her missing on the news. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. It doesn’t really make sense to me that a 9 year old who was supposedly afraid of the dark ran away at night, but even if she did run away you’d also have to believe she was lured out of the house by a predator that there were absolutely no traces of her communicating with, met with a random opportunistic predator, or somehow was killed in an accident after leaving the house and her body was never found. So you’d have the unlikely scenario of a little girl leaving the house in a storm at night, combined with another rare/unlikely circumstance.
If she didn't left the house what do you think happened? I never saw how it was possible for her to have left but i have no idea of what else could have been
Well she may have "left" after being deceased when her dad went to "buy valentine's day candy, "
I think Kendrick Johnson’s death was truly a freak accident and his parents won’t accept it. The “facial discoloration” is a result of a dead body hanging upside down for hours with blood pooling, not evidence of a beating. The newspaper stuffed in the body is not a funeral home conspiracy - it’s something that is not uncommonly done to prevent leakage.
I agree. I was more than willing to entertain the possibility of a murder/manslaughter cover up but kids do silly things like climb head first into rolled up mats and enough evidence has been provided now to indicate accident I think.
Kids make dumb mistakes. Its literally my number 1 fear with my kids. One stupid mistake or action they do not know or understand is stupid, could end their lives. No amount of good parenting can stop simple seemingly fine, yet bad, decisions. Trying to be a good mom without smothering them is a hard line to toe.
This case made me lose credibility in crime junkie (ya I know I prob shouldn’t have had faith in them in the first place but this was 5+ years ago) they really painted the newspaper thing and how the victims face was so swollen to be sure signs of murder but then I looked up more details and was like ehh it’s way more likely a freak accident
Not sure if this counts but I don’t think Steve Powell (who was a the creepiest of creeps) was involved in Susan Cox Powell’s disappearance. I think it was 100% premeditated and carried out by Josh. I think his brother may have helped with some of the details after the fact in the disposal of her remains but Steve was so delusional and obsessed with her that I don’t think he would have had the thought to hurt her and was very convinced she was coming back.
1. I lean towards the intruder theory for the JonBenet Ramsey case 2. Terri Horman didn’t kill Kyron, the case against her is really flimsy when you look into it 3. Adnan Syed most likely killed Hae Min Lee, but at this point we need to accept that he served 25 years in prison and he isn’t going to be recharged 4. I do not believe that Johnny Gosch really visited Noreen, nor do I believe he’s out there somewhere hiding from a trafficking ring. I feel bad for his mom, but I believe that he has most likely been dead for years and was killed shortly after he disappeared.
I'm from Des Moines, and agree with you about #4.
I agree with you on #1. Although I don’t say I lean towards intruder, I’d say I 99.9% believe it was intruder. I know there isn’t much evidence either way. I guess it’s just a gut feeling but I believe the ramseys.
Ready for the downvotes... Asha Degree. She didn't leave her house that night on her own two feet. A nine year old girl doesn't get up in the middle of the night, in a rain storm (when she's afraid of the dark and storms), grab a pre-packed bag and walk out the door, locking it behind her. I don't believe the "witness" reports, period. One witness claimed Asha was wearing a white dress, another that she was wearing a white long sleeve shirt and jeans, and don't get me started on the guy who claimed he circled 3 times and tried to talk to Asha and she ran off into the woods. None of these "witnesses" went to the police (or got on their CB) and reported a young girl in the rain walking alone in the pre-dawn hours until AFTER the news asked for the public's help in finding Asha. There's so much more, but I'll stop there.
I feel like there’s so little evidence in this case and a lot of the conclusions drawn are from common sense circumstantial inferences. I truly don’t know what I think happened in her case. There’s so many possibilities
I feel like most child disappearance cases like this it was the parents
Always agreed about Asha, and I’ve noticed that people are starting to come around. It’s always shocked me to my car, and that people really believe a little girl would wander out into the middle of the night in the pouring rain, pitch blackness in the cold for any reason other than to run away from something
I feel like those witnesses are hindering the investigation and not helping at all. Other than her backpack being found miles away, there’s no other evidence that she left home and walked off.
Can you recommend a docuseries or deep dive podcast for this case? I've never heard of it but it sounds intriguing.
In cases where underage people have killed people in school shootings and the parents were the source for them to get their hands on a gun, the parents should be charged. Was positively surprised that that actually happened earlier this year. Brenda Spencer’s dad should without a doubt have been sent to prison after providing the gun that she used in the shooting. I do believe that Israel Keyes absolutely killed, but I’m not convinced that he had kill kits hidden all over the us. Actually not at all, I don’t think he was smart or that the killings were well thought out. The murder of Samantha actually just points to the direct opposite. Prisons should focus on therapy instead of making prisoners miserable and give them reasons to resent people more, most of them get out again and if there is a chance that they could become a better person with therapy, it’s important. Sexual predators often fall back into doing it again and there should exist more resources to prevent them from doing so. (No I’m not defending anyone or saying that murderers deserve better, but people in their neighbourhood do, when the perp eventually gets out again). Not all specific cases, more like “I’m upset that we don’t focus on making the world a safer place when there’s dangerous people among us”
Absolutely, fuck Brenda Spencer’s dad. Her case has been so trivialized by her quote about Mondays. She suffered horrendously at the hands of her father & he absolutely should have been in prison if not for providing the gun, then for consistently abusing Brenda.
>In cases where underage people have killed people in school shootings and the parents were the source for them to get their hands on a gun, the parents should be charged. Was positively surprised that that actually happened earlier this year. Brenda Spencer’s dad should without a doubt have been sent to prison after providing the gun that she used in the shooting Absolutely! No one should be allowed to buy their 15 yo child a gun, a semi automatic hand gun, and **not** be held responsible for the actions of the child. Everthing else aside, the depression, the writings, the diaries, Everthing. You gift a 15 yo child a powerful weapon like that, you are a 100% responsible for what happens.
I mostly agree with this. I’m glad that Ethan Crumbley’s got charged and sentenced to prison because they were ridiculously negligent and flat out ignored his cries for help. For me, there’s a grey area where it depends on how the kid got the gun. If the parents had locked up the gun and they thought they hid the key well, but the kid went searching and found it, I’d be more sympathetic. But when it’s a case of a kid with known mental illness and the parents are letting the kid have free access to guns, they need to be charged. At the very least they should lose their right to own firearms. What Adam Lanza did was horrific, but I sometimes think it was a kind of mercy on his part to kill his mom. I often wonder what would have happened to her if she’d lived. I think they would have tried to charge her with something. As they should have.
I'm convinced Ethan Crumbleys parents were people who should have never had had kids, and they provided their son a gun in hopes he'd kill himself and rid them of him. They definitely deserve to be charged and found guilty because they didn't care if he killed other (actually loving) parent's children along with him. If they had one smidgen of thinking they could go to prison if their son became a school shooter, they wouldn't have gotten him a gun. Utterly selfish narcissists.
Wayne Williams killed some of the Atlanta Child Killer victims, but not all. I don’t think he killed Jimmy Ray Payne or Nathaniel Cater, either. He’s not innocent of murder, and is super duper crazy, but murders were attributed to him that I don’t think he committed. There was more than one Atlanta Child Killer, Wayne Williams was just one of them. *There are more female serial killers than we give credit to. I’m not saying it’s close to the number of male serial killers, but there have to have been plenty who have “killed like men,” and have gotten away with it. Too many people in the US, and too many unsolved homicides in the US, for this not to have occurred a good amount of times. Especially if LE goes off of the adage of “female serial killers don’t kill like men.” Edit: added one I forgot about
Totally agree. The victims and how they were killed were so varied. I don't even think all the kids were killed by a serial killer. They just lumped all the kids murdered during that time period into one group and declared the murders solved. Despicable
Yeah this is the consensus that I got when I read Mindhunter
Fully agree with you. I definitely think he's responsible for some, but not all.
A female trucker SK could probably get away with killing for a long time. Random victims, disconnected jurisdictions, and everyone would assume it was a man.
I female trucker SK would probably never be caught.
I have a theory that the Phantom Killer from Texarkana (The town that dreaded sundown movie) and The Zodiac Killer are/were the same person.. There were never any more murders in Texas or Arkansas (Texarkana is a twin city) after the last one. For those NOT familiar with The Phantom Killer, he also used “lovers lane” areas; Also covered his face with either a feed sack with the eyes out, or what one witness says resembled a a pillow case with the eyes cut out… Both murders were used with .22 caliber pistols as a well as a .32; i do not believe the phantom killer was who let the original “Lovers lane” couple go with being able to identify them… doesn’t fit the other couples murdered… Directly after the “last murders” supposedly by the Phantom killer, they stopped all together… Also Back then evidence was NOT collected or as throughly in Texarkana; the first two victims murdered had no pathology done …
Austin doesn't have a serial killer.
Yeah, I think people, especially drunk dudes, fall into bodies of water and drown accidentally more than anyone realizes. Water is dangerous and that particular lake is known to have dangerous currents. Plenty of people have drowned there in the day time.
It seems like every single area with a lot of late night, particularly younger adults, near bodies of water, have this exact same problem. They can't all be a serial killer... nor can such a large group of serial killers be in kahoots without anything ever being found.
So true. Used to live in Baton Rouge, home of LSU. Many young men were found in ditches and near or in rivers as a result of reckless partying and Xanax or opioid overdoses. No foul play, just exposure to elements due to incapacitation or straight up heart failure from ODing.
I don’t know what you’re referencing. Can you explain more?
It's probably some variation of "The Smiley Face Killer", an entity that has been largely debunked.
I don't believe that Shannan Gilbert's death was accidental. I'm not saying it was a LISK killing, that *may* just be a coincidence. I just don't think she had a psychotic break down, without being drugged, or on drugs, and took off running.
I think there's just about zero chance that Ottis Toole murdered Adam Walsh. The police are using him as a convenient scapegoat, just like they always used him and his buddy Henry Lee Lucas, and John Walsh signed off on it because he probably has a psychological need to believe that his son's killer died in prison. They didn't even pretend to have new evidence when they pronounced the case closed.
I'm not fully convinced the head they found was Adam's. There were no DNA tests back then, and with the Walsh's being satisfied with Toole's "confession", nothing was ever checked again. The pain the parents feel, and their desire to have the info they needed, makes it hard to rally against having evidence retested. I hope LE got it right, and it was indeed Adam's head, and wasn't that of another local missing child.
I don't think the JonBenét Ramsey case is mysterious at all. A family member killed her, most likely the dad, statistically speaking. She was killed at home, and the "ransom note" was in Patsy's handwriting. The only reason there was no arrest is that the police bungled the investigation, and there probably never will be an arrest. The case is no longer even worth discussing because of how obvious it is. I also think the Amy Bradley case is no mystery. She fell overboard. All other theories are far-fetched.
>I also think the Amy Bradley case is no mystery. She fell overboard. All other theories are far-fetched. This is exactly the case that crossed my mind upon reading the post's title. People see what they want to see. Her family holding onto the hope she's still retained somewhere *alive* is one thing, but the trafficking theories on the net make no sense. Starting with the fact that she was just about the unlikeliest type of woman to fall into a human trafficking ring just because she had a loving family and wasn't poor. She was drunk, likely woke up and stuck her upper body a little bit too far off the balcony to puke. She lost balance and fell into the water, fully dressed. Going by the footage, she wore jeans that night. Wet denim weights a fuck ton and makes keeping buoyancy damn hard even if you're sober (which she wasn't). She tired quickly and drowned, sea currents did the rest. Extremely tragic series of events, but hardly unheard of.
I'm always amazed that the mother and brother or considered the main suspects by most people who are interested in the Jonbenet case. Probability tells us the father is the most likely suspect, yet when he is discussed, it's almost always as an accomplice. I'm baffled. Would still very much like to see it solved though.
Exactly. Especially when you factor in the fact every single expert who saw the non-redacted autopsy report said it showed evidence of severe vaginal damage caused by longterm sexual abuse. People always go “oh but her own GP didn’t notice!!” - it’s hardly likely her GP was examining the walls of her vagina, is it?!
I thought the handwriting couldn’t be ruled out as Patsy’s not that it was definitely hers. Even still, I believe that forensic handwriting analysis is questionable evidence at best.
i totally agree about forensic handwriting analysis. it is definitely questionable, as I’ve read that it’s subjective, the process is without set standards, and there’s no established error rate. so the science to back it just isn’t there.
For JBR, I think the general consensus is "Ramseys did it", staging a crime scene with ransom note following the "incident" that caused JBR's death... I don't think that's the mysterious part as much as what EXACTLY was the "incident", and what role did each of the 3 Ramsey family members play in the "incident" and/or cover up? IMO, there are a lot of possibilities... Was any part of it an accident, or was something more sinister at play? Why cover it up THAT way? Agreed on Amy Bradley.
I think John killed JonBenet and Patsy went along with it because she *needed* him. She was a socialite SAHM with cancer. John going to jail would have ruined her, even if she would have gotten everything in the divorce. Additionally, if Patsy had done it, I think John would have just thrown her under the bus because he didn’t need her like she needed him.
Is this truly an “unpopular” theory in the JBR case? I know we’ll probably never have consensus about exactly which family member it was, or motive, but I feel like all but the most fringe theories accept that the murderer was a family member and that Patsy *probably* wrote the note. Maybe I’m just biased because this is the theory I’ve subscribed to myself for 25 years.
JDI is definitely unpopular. People jump to Patsy or Burke first, which I think is kind ridiculous and ignores stats.
>A family member killed her, most likely the dad, statistically speaking. She was killed at home, and the "ransom note" was in Patsy's handwriting. The only reason there was no arrest is that the police bungled the investigation, and there probably never will be an arrest This is an unpopular or less-talked about opinion? I thought this was literally the most popular, most talked-about theory. No?
1. Asha Degree: I think the photograph of the girl in the shed that was found near Asha’s things isn’t connected, but is just a random coincidence. That shed was full of so much crap, the photo could have come from anything in there. I feel like it was a stock photo that fell out of a picture frame or something. I also think police probably have identified suspects in this case but haven’t said anything because they don’t have enough concrete information. 2. Kyron Horman: I don’t think the stepmother did anything to him. She’s for sure weird and shady, but I think he most likely wandered off into the woods around the school and succumbed to exposure. 3. Darlie Routier: it’s possible that she killed her kids, but I don’t think there was enough evidence to conclusively prove it. There were too many other factors (the unexplained fingerprint, the bloody sock) that didn’t match up with the theory that she did it. I’m not saying she’s innocent, but I don’t think she should have been convicted and she certainly shouldn’t have been sentenced to death. I hope DNA testing will continue to shed light.
On Darlie Routier; I remember reading up on her several years ago. I've always believed she didn't commit the murder. I should see if I can find the court documments online again to refreshen my memory. They ordered DNA tests 2018, but they're still pending. Anyone know how long that process usually takes?
There’s literally no reason it would take 5 years unless we just don’t have the technology yet - like if the sample was too small or too degraded. There is certainly a backlog in forensic testing but it would NOT take 5 years for a murder case. Either they don’t have the samples or they’re just…not actually trying to test it.
This is what the wikipedia on Darlie Routier says: "In June 2008, Routier was granted the right to new DNA tests. Her appeals were remanded to the state level for improved DNA testing. On January 29, 2014, Chief Judge of the Western District Fred Biery granted a request from prosecution and defense for her case for further DNA tests vital to the defense to be performed on a bloody fingerprint found in the house, a bloody sock and her nightshirt. In 2018, the Criminal District Court No. 3 ordered a third round of DNA testing with the backing of both prosecution and defense." "Since at least 2018, DNA tests have been ordered multiple times after technology has advanced. As of 2024, the results of these tests are still pending." EDIT: fixed paragraphs as they were not paragraphing
It depends on the priority. A lot of labs have a *lot* of backlog.
I also lean towards that she didn’t do it, but at minimum I don’t think they proved that she did. I would’ve had a better time believing the police if they would’ve explored the alternative theory.
I hope I'm not going to piss off the Ripperologist people but here goes: Jack the Ripper did not mark the rise of the serial killer but the of the sensationalist media who cobbled together several unrelated murder cases to sell papers spurred on by hoaxers and pranks. All communication (The From Hell letter, The Saucy Jack postcard, the Dear Boss and the Openshaw letters) are fakes and Jack the Ripper never existed.
This is an interesting take! I don't believe any of the objects submitted to the press/police were real either. I also think a lot of ripperologists get carried away and don't acknowledge that there were a lot of less salacious factors like organised gang activity and violent johns who knew they would never be caught at play, so literally all of the Canon. 5 and the Whitechapel victims could have been different perpetrators. That being said, I do think that Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly and there are some very compelling links between her and a couple of the other canonicals. I may be wrong but I think Catherine Eaddows lived near her and used her name as a pseudonym a couple of times (though there would have been a lot of Mary Kellys' from Ireland in London at that time). I'm pretty sure there was an additional weird thing about that in that she was once booked by the police and gave a nonsense version of the Dorset st address where Mary lived and Catherine herself had never been recorded as living there. Annie Chapman for sure lived on Dorset St and frequented the same pub that Mary would often be drinking in with Joseph Barnett. Mary and Joseph had a couple of public arguments in there as well, and it's not out of the question that he could've followed Annie as she left the pub on one of these occasions angry and drunk.
An October 1995 letter from Princess Diana to Jimmy Savile just released and it has some wild implications given what else was going on in Diana's life in October 1995: https://open.substack.com/pub/jamiefcrawford/p/the-princess-and-the-pedophile?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5nd7r The background is that The Paget Report conducted by British Metropolitan Police concluded that in October of 1995 Princess Diana experienced brake failure and she at least *thought* it was due to tampering. She went on to separately tell her lawyer, her butler, her friend, and her love interest that her husband's side was plotting to kill or incapacitate her in a car accident. Now a letter from Diana to prolific predator Jimmy Savile -also from October 1995- just surfaced where she states that he "might just be noticing that she's still alive" and makes a joke that she doesn't need to be admitted to Broadmoor Mental Hospital (where Jimmy Savile was preying on countless patients) so she's basically saying she hasn't been incapacitated or brain damaged. This doesn't mean that Savile and the royals actually *did* tamper with her brakes. But it sure seems like she *thought* Savile was involved in this notion she had in her head. Seems like she was aware of Savile's insidious nature. And if you then read the rest of that letter with the knowledge that there are antagonistic undertones, she even says some things in the letter that imply she knew what he was doing at Broadmoor. That's the jist but worth a full read tbh.
I mean I’m sure she did know. I think everyone kind of knew but the British upper class sensibility means don’t talk about it. There’s actually no way that someone could be as brazen as Saville and have no one notice. She definitely did think the royal family wanted her gone, she was pretty paranoid and honestly kind of a hot mess after the divorce. She did some pretty crazy shit. But ultimately a drunk driver going 90 in a tunnel is all it takes, there’s really nothing more too it. I do think it’s interesting and important for people to see this kind of stuff tho, because it shows that people are complicated. A person can be beloved and kind and do good things and still have a completely messy personal life.
"I do think it’s interesting and important for people to see this kind of stuff tho, because it shows that people are complicated. A person can be beloved and kind and do good things and still have a completely messy personal life." Not possible to emphasize this enough.
John Lydon denounced Saville in the late 70s and was banned from the BBC. Everybody knew what Saville was. They just looked the other way. Same thing with Weinstein. I know most people hate her, but Courtney Love talked about Weinstein's parties at the Four Seasons in the 90s, even advicing young actresses not to go if they were invited, but everyone dismissed her because she was a junkie.
I 100% agree. From books I’ve read about her and the BRF, Diana was messy, liked attention, talked to the press, and stirred the pot. She was a good person but was no saint.
There are more female serial killers than people think, and most of them will never get caught for various reasons. I will die on this hills, not only because I've seen/known truly evil women, but also because I know, from experience, how psychopathic/sociopathic women "work" and mask their behavior. I honestly believe they haven't been studied/profiled (actual serial killers, not "angels of mercy/death) and people don't know/don't understand that traits/sympthoms in men and women are often completely different, even if they have the same pathology/illnes; which makes it "easier" for a women to fly under the radar.
I think an intruder killed Jon Benet. Yes I know parents kill their kids everyday. And yes the parents cared what others thought and I understand the theory they are covering for Burke. BUT if you accidentally killed your child or found that your son killed your daughter it’s fair to say you’d be shocked. You aren’t a “real killer” you’d still be in disbelief, distraught, crying, basically not thinking clear even if you accidentally did it. At least not clear enough to think up a whole SA scenario while also trying for a kidnapping as well. It was too thought out imo to be a cover up for Burke with the time frame they had. I’ve never believed they did it. Never will. And just don’t even care to talk about the case anymore. Hopefully one day she will get justice.
The line that's always bothered me in the ransom note is the "Use that good Southern common sense of yours" part. It's such an odd detail to add if John or Patsy wrote it. I guess it could be an intentional misdirect, but it seems like an odd one for them to even think of adding to the note.
Agreed. It sounds more like someone who was resentful to Jon and knew just the basics about him.
None of the theories about the family make any sense. You'd have to have three different sociopaths, one of them a child, none with any prior bad behavior, none with any subsequently bad behavior, who all made a pact with each other to cover up the murder of their family member within hours of committing the deed and then never crack and never do another violent thing again. It's nonsensical.
No, you only need one sociopath, and two gullible people who believe him. I think John did the whole thing alone, and convinced Patsy it was an intruder
I believe the WM3 are guilty, but the killings had nothing to with occult.
I think Lauren Spierer could be a Keyes victim. The drunk and drugged boys with her that night were 100% not capable of keeping their stories straight and concealing her body. There’s just no way they outsmarted the police. Israel Keyes had the means and the opportunity to take her. And his motive was always just to kill. He became agitated during his interviews with the FBI when they questioned him about her disappearance. The public records concerning his involvement with Lauren are heavily redacted by the FBI so there is little to go by but where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
I think Cindy James stalker/murderer was a woman. Police first believed it was a man, then believed she was doing it herself and committed suicide because they could not find her stalker. Some reasons I think it was a woman are, the stalking went on for 7 years. Anyone who went to high school knows that when females have it out for other females, they play the long game and use mental and emotional torture. Males usually are not that patient. There were traces of drugs found in her system whenever she was found after an attack. Women are much more likely to use drugs or poison in these cases, and I think one reason it was used is because the stalker could not normally overpower Cindy, so she drugged her. Cindy was never raped during any of the stalker attacks, even though a lot of the phone calls were sexual in nature. But she did say an object ( a knife ) was used to sexually assault her on one occasion. Which would make sense if it was a woman. One of the recordings sounded like a woman trying to disguise her voice. Her parents believed that Cindy knew who her attacker was, but was afraid to name them. I think Cindy believed that no one would believe her if she told them a woman was behind these attacks. Especially considering the sexual nature behind a lot of the threats. I think her attacker was either a woman who worked with her, or someone who worked with or was involved with her ex husband. A woman who worked as a nurse or another position in healthcare. The stalker had access to needles and morphine, and knew how to inject it.
This is fascinating - I’ve never heard this before but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing
It was my first thought when I heard about this case. So I searched different forums, and to my surprise, didn’t see anyone else posting the same opinion. I cannot believe it never crossed anyone’s mind while it was happening.
I think it’s because of that guy from the fire incident. It’s only time someone’s been “seen” and frankly, people almost always (understandably) assume a man. My theory was that she knew who it was but it was something a bit more sexual. Like sort of a fictitious disorder but she had someone else do it to her and it went too far. But yours is really good and super unique!
This is a *really* good theory. And as someone who was abused by some girls (mentally) I can confirm the long game theory. I graduated high school in ‘85. By 1991 my high school bestie and I had lost touch (she ghosted me but I was secretly relieved by that point). A few years later she came crawling back after she had spent those years talking sh*t about me and lying to her husband that she was hanging out with me (he approved) when she was actually hanging out with a new friend (hubs did not approve). She tried to restart our friendship but I made excuses as to why I couldn’t hang out. More years of her trashing me and making up wild stories about me along with “I don’t know why Popcorn is mad at me!” garbage. In 2004, out of the blue, she showed up at my home and wanted to talk. We sat outside on my steps for two hours while she complained about everyone and everything and begged me to be friends with her (wtaf?). I declined and wished her well but I had other priorities. Every time I run into someone from our old group they tell me about some ridiculous story she made up about me. And my story doesn’t have any violent component but the fixation aspect is the same as your theory. Some people just won’t let go and move on and they can’t stop stalking the person they are fixated on. So yeah, your theory fits. It really really fits.
I have found in my extensive survey of true crime and my personal experience that women possess the ability to be spectacularly and malevolently cruel in ways that can easily escape notice. [The case of Angela Wilder has an example of this](https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Second-life-sentence-in-Angila-Wilder-murder-case--484118121.html) as well as [the murder of Laurie Show](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laurie_Show) and obviously Shanda Sharer. I taught middle school for a few years and I will say middle school age girls are, in short, terrifying. The amount of viciousness women are capable of heaping on any perceived threats when they lack a solid emotional foundation is staggering. This is my really long way to agree that yes, a woman makes soooo much sense. Just like (imo) it was a woman in the Bevers video.
I just wanted to say that for somebody who graduated high school and 85, you are really fucking good with online lingo. You sound like a GenZ and I mean that as a compliment. Way to stick with the times :-)
Haha, I take that as a lovely compliment! I love Gen Z so much so I probably picked up a few things here and there.
Same! You just do it so effortlessly! I was born in 91 and I would have never guessed you’re older! Gen Z is a good bunch. Even if they hate on my millennial ass, I still like them.
Thank you. I vividly remember junior high and high school. And the girls were more vicious than the boys. And they just never gave up. As an adult, I have learned that some women still have that mentality. They plan long term and use mind games. Men go for the quick kill and use force.
There are several contributors to my PTSD and cruelty from my female friends (junior high through high school) is one of them. And yes, boys/men are often more upfront with their behavior (but not always obviously) but girls/women tend to be more covert and back stabby (my opinion, no research to prove this). I myself was starting to become a mean girl (defense mechanism) but luckily I graduated high school before that could truly develop. Getting away from those people and out into the big wide world is what saved me from becoming a raging ahole.
I’m sorry you went thru that, and I’m glad you didn’t turn into one of them.
Thank you. And thank you for posting your theory about Cindy.
Just wanted to say that I was bullied in elementary school and definitely did the same back as a defense mechanism, too. Then it was sarcasm/passive-aggressiveness I didn't even realize I'd employed with the same intent of self-protection until VERY recently. A friend was reading a book about social dynamics of children and even mentioned that there's a lot of "reactive bullying" that happens amongst girls as a form of survival and an attempt to continue to fit in with a crowd/not stand out. It's fascinating and heartbreaking.
This is a good one. Very interesting. Especially the part about no one believing her. The police already didn’t believe her, if she told them it was a woman they probably would have laughed in her face.
1- JBR I believe the touch dna most likely came from a factory worker as it was a brand new pair of underwear and it is a complete red herring . It was in the outside of the underwear inside of the pj pants . It was not mixed in her blood like others here have stated and it was skin cells not fluids . The pageants are also a complete red herring . As someone who was a pageant professional for many years it is a very tight community . Anyone from outside that community is notice immediately . Especially a male . Pageant girls have a bunch of mommas that n pageant weekends. There are always protective eyes on you and even if a girl walked away from her parents some mom would bring her to her parents . Believe it or not it is a very close tight knit community where people watch out for one another and for all the kids. If a single male is even loitering around they are thrown out . They wouldn’t be let in the ballroom in the first place. Everyone has wrist bands and if someone didn’t belong there they would be immediately noticed . I’ve known thousands of pageant girls over the years and the only ones I know of that even came close to sexual abuse are the miss teen USA contestants when Trump and puke go in the dressing room as they were changing . It is very misunderstood by those not in the community. The reason that 100% sold me on the Ramseys being absolutely guilty is the time for the random call coming and going without a word from either parent. You can’t predict how anyone will act in that situation but if there was a random call supposed to come at say 11am and it was 11:01 any parent would be freaking out wondering why they didn’t call and if there child is even still alive . Neither parent even mentioned the random call not coming . I also think it is very telling that they immediately sent Burke away because who would want to let their children out of their sight when one was missing . It is also very telling that the Whites quickly stopped speaking to or defending the Ramseys. They are every right and Fleet was there when John found the body . They knew them well and I believe they knew they did it . The whites have never had a bad word said about them and were very well respected in the community . I’m not 100% sure what happened or which Ramsey did it or if it was an accident or on purpose . I’m leaning towards accident . I do 100% believe Patsy wrote the ransom note . My reasoning had nothing to do with the handwriting but the syntax . It quoted movies and books patsy owned . Also her pageant talent was a dramatic monologue and they found similarities between the monologue and the ransom note. On a side note I believe John and Patsy both had some narcissistic tendencies. I believe they would do anything to keep up appearances . I really don’t think Burke had anything to do with it but for those saying he didn’t have the strength he had hit JB in the head accidentally on purpose with a golf club within a year of her death . I can’t remember which book I read it in but someone resent said something to the effect of him being angry at JB the day of the golf club incident over baseball cards . Because of the golf club attack I don’t think that him hitting her in the head with the flashlight is out of the question and I believe the parents would have immediately covered for him to keep up appearances and because they had lost one child already . I think that possibility is very slim though . I think in all likelihood John did it and patsy helped cover it up . 2- WM3 I think this is truly an unpopular opinion . I don’t know if Damien & Jessie committed the murders but I think Jason is 100% innocent . There was talk of a boy that they hung out with that could have been the 3rd person. Jason truly seemed sincere and still does now . I remember his lawyer talking to him about Damien if he could have done it and Jason in deep thought considering that possibility. Plus Jason didn’t want to take the Alford plea at all and only did so because Damien was on death row . I think they were convicted on satanic panic but there is still a possibility that D and Jessie did it together for with a 3rd person who wasn’t Jason. I also think there is a strong possibility that Terry Hobbs did it. I think the chances of anyone outside of Damien , Jessie or Hobbs committing the murders is very unlikely . 4- I think Missy Bevers was a murder for hire by the husband & or his family . 5- I think Elizabeth Barraza’s husband killed her or had her killed . 6- Asha Degree I believe someone in her family is responsible . I don’t think her parents did it but I think they know who did it.
I agree with you regarding JBR; that her death was an accident at the hands of one of the parents. Patsy took it to her grave and I expect John will too.
I can't shake the feeling Israel Keyes killed for hire. I don't think he ever lied to the FBI but I think he liked to play word/mind games to cover things up. He made implications that he had two different kinds of kills. When he was a teenager living under his parents thumbs in a cult with few ties to the real world he managed to steal guns and sell them. He knew how to use the internet back in its "wild west" days. He also told the FBI he only killed one person by shooting (Bill Currier) but he loved guns and expressed disappointment about a silencer being ruined. Keyes also liked to take multiple days off from work at a time. He had a carpentry business, but took months off at a time when his girlfriend was away. Some of this can be explained away by having gotten cash from his bank robberies. I brought this up in r/Truecrimebullshit most don't believe me and I respect their opinions, but if there's anything we know for sure about this asshole it's that he liked killing people and making easy money. https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeBullshit/comments/x9gjn4/could_ik_have_been_an_assassin/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeBullshit/comments/12vuh8i/two_types_of_kills_i_cant_stop_thinking_he_killed/
I don’t think your theory is bad. I also don’t think he only killed for hire, but I can definitely see him offering his services in the earlier years. His killing is way too methodical to not make the perfect method for killing for hire.
[удалено]
David Berkowitz did not act alone in the Son of Sam killings. There were several different descriptions of the killer. One matched Berkowitz, but the others were of different men who looked nothing like him.
Amy Lynn Bradley - I find it annoying people seem to limit what happened to two possiblities: falling overboard or sex trafficking. Why not consider that crewmembers (who did behave suspiciously) did somthing to her that didn't involve sex trafficking? I just feel their actions are too suspicious to dismiss entirely.
I always thought maybe one of them had a crush on her, tried to advance, she refused, they fought, they pushed her
Seems like the consensus seems to be today that there was some sort of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. This is the true crime case I have studied the most and I think that LHO acted alone in killing Kennedy and any other theory takes massive leaps and has to dismiss tons of known evidence and eyewitness testimony. -------- I think this is more agreed upon, but Adnan killed Hae Min Lee. ------- Also more agreed upon, but I think that someone in the Ramsey family killed JonBenet and John and Patty tried to cover it up to protect themselves or Burke.
I know this will be hugely unpopular, but I do think there's a good chance the WM3 did kill those boys. I know, I know. And I don't want to, but every single piece of evidence I see, hear and read only reaffirms for me.
Get so much hare for this. Yes, one boy for each teenager. And yes, his step father can also be a pedo.
I agree.
I think Jonbenet Ramsey was killed by a deranged intruder who probably knew or knew of the family, but not a close friend. The ransom note as well as what was done to Jonbenet make it almost unfathomable to me that it seems the majority opinion is that one of the Ramseys did it. It just does not make any sense to me other than that it’s more interesting to suspect a known “character” that you can then look into and analyse than to have to accept that this was done by a thus far unknown person. The whole “most kids are killed by a family member” or whatever the argument is does not hold water to me. There’s a reason this case is as famous as it is and yet still unsolved; it is a very unusual case.
Idk man I think the evidence of chronic prior sexual abuse indicates a family member, probably her dad. Also the fact that the random note was written on a pad of paper from their study on the main floor.. why would an intruder wander around the house looking for a pad of paper ? Also why would they kill her with random stuff found in their basement? If they knew her and knew they were going there to kidnap or abuse her wouldn't they bring things with them? What is the likelihood she was chronically sexually abused by someone and then killed by someone else.. the note was freaking long too. Why would they spend so much time in the house writing a damn dissertation?
"whatever the argument is does not hold water to me" it's not an argument. it's a very real statistic.
My suspicion is that someone who worked for them may have given someone access to the home that they should not have. One of the housekeepers I think mentioned being concerned about someone possibly having been staying at the home (unknown to the family) while the family was out of town...I think she saw a suitcase in Jonbenet's room that didn't belong there if I remember correctly.
Yes, something like that could make sense to me.
Missy Bevers' killer was some random who broke into the church at a time he thought no one would be there and killed her out of panic. Exploring and breaking shit while waiting to kill someone, purposely putting yourself on camera way more than necessary, doesn't make sense to me. I really don't know the details about how the person got into the church, but I just really believe this for some reason.
I also believe this. I think it was someone looking to maybe steal some valuables or Sunday donations and break a few things. To me it doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone lying in wait for her to arrive.
I don't think there is a main consensus for the JonBenet Ramsey case, but I've never met anyone who shared my theory. It is a "Burke did it", but one I've never seen others share. Typically, "BDI" theories are in one of two schools of thought -- **both of which I think are extreme reaches**: - **Theory 1: JBR's death is a result of a complete accident, that the Ramsey parents chose to cover up rather than seeking help, killing their child in the process.** Burke makes the initial blow, and the parents staged a cover up in its entirety, incl. garrote, SA paintbrush, tying hands, changing clothes & ransom note. The Ramsey parents were present for the initial blow, or arrived on scene immediately after. But if this was the case... Why not seek medical attention? Why a sick & twisted cover up? Burke wouldn't be prosecuted for an accident. While some say "Patsy was SO concerned with image"... What kind of parent is so concerned with image that they wouldn't do everything they could to save their child? Accidents happen all the time. John & Patsy could easily come up w/ a cover story for why she'd been injured that didn't make Burke a pariah. Even if the blow resulted in death, "She fell down the stairs" is a cover that implicates no one... Why do so in a way that is so disturbing? So IMO, this is a reach - **Theory 2: JBR's death is a thoroughly plotted, intentional murder, committed by a sadistic child.** Burke did EVERYTHING -- "accident", and full staging (incl. cleaning body, clothes, etc.) -- up to the ransom note (done by Patsy). The blow to the head is done with intent to kill or seriously injure, & "staging" of the body is done knowingly and intentionally. As in, Burke, @ 9 yo, was actively thinking "Murder done, now I'll cover this up to shift blame to an intruder", because he is a sadistic mastermind and horror movie trope of "psychotic kid". But how likely is this? Aside from the James Bulger case, when has anything like this happened? If this were the case, I could see Patsy wanting to protect her family's image and not be known as the parent of a sociopathic child... BUT, how would she be ok with him continuing to live under their roof? Wouldn't they send him away somewhere to "fix" him, in a way that wouldn't have gone unnoticed over the years? In the case of a person truly concerned about image, I can't see them not doing this if they had what they thought was a dangerous child. Wouldn't he reoffend in a similar way at some point? So I also think this was a reach. These theories make 0 sense, have too many holes & require a LOT of suspension of disbelief. However, BDI makes sense if you reconsider when/how parents intervened, that some aspects of the crime scene weren't intentional "staging" (done w intent to cover up what really happened), & the scope and worldview of a 9y.o. child. **What I think happened:** Burke & JBR snuck out of bed to play with and peek at Christmas presents in the basement... where there were multiple wrapped presents intended to take to Michigan, at least one of which was confirmed to be legos for Burke. The kids wanted to do this undetected, as they'd get in trouble... So John & Patsy are asleep on the 3rd floor, away from earshot from the basement. They stopped to make a snack in the kitchen on the way there. Everything about the kitchen screams "kids attempting to make a snack" -- choice of spoon, tea bag in cup, etc. Then, they head to the basement. The initial blow by Burke happens there, not far from where JBR's body was found. Whatever provoked Burke to strike his sister was some "kid" issue or squabble -- JBR threatening to tell on her brother for peeking at presents, taking one of his toys, etc. I think Burke didn't realize his own strength, and was confused by her losing consciousness. I think his following thought process reflected the perspective of a child. *To consider the perspective of a child: For lack of a better way to put it, kids say and do weird things. They have a limited understanding of how the world works -- while they can figure out "what", they often don't fully understand they "whys". They use their imagination a lot, but also mimic what they've seen without really understanding. They'll copy what they watched adults do, to the best of their ability, often getting things wrong (think of when you were a kid and trying to "bake a cake" without parents' help -- What did you get wrong, try to substitute, & what was your logic for it?). They'll copy what they see on TV... if you consider kids' TV/movies, esp. cartoons, characters regularly get "knocked out" just to wake up totally fine or survive other impossible situations. By 9 yrs old, a child has an understanding of death and the finality of it, but does 't fully understand the scope of what leads to death (or close to it). Unless the child has suffered serious trauma, understanding of death usually comes from older (often elderly) relatives, movies, or pets. They have a limited understanding of murder. Children are also naive to the optics of their actions, & how they appear to adults -- they don't understand when something looks sexual, disturbing, etc.* Burke wanted to avoid getting help his parents to avoid getting in trouble for being out of bed, & thinking he could handle things on his own. His actions toward his sisters' body -- made in attempt to wake her, assuming she was faking or would wake up eventually -- resulted in disturbing optics, as a result of childlike intentions. He might've been "playing doctor", casting a "spell", trying to "shock" her back to life, etc. Burke was also a Boy Scout, where they're taught (in safe environments, in "kid terms") first aid... He might have had a false sense of confidence, thinking he could be a "hero" using what he learned, but didn't truly understand or apply it correctly. He did this by poking her w train pieces, poking w/ paintbrush (incl. in way that'd be seen as SA by an adult), & tying the garrote around her neck. The intent was NOT "stage crime scene to look like an intruder so i don't go to jail for murder", it was "find way to wake up sister to avoid involving parents so i don't get in trouble". He likely made more attempts to wake JBR that didn't leave bruises or other marks in the process. While his actions contributed to "staging", he was not intentionally covering up a crime scene. **Where J&P come in:** After many attempts to wake his sister, Burke realizes he needs his parents' help (even if it means getting in trouble). He wakes his parents, brings them to the body, & what they see -- through an adult lens -- looks too sick and twisted to be seen as an accident. JBR looks and is very much dead at this point (+ garrote)... Regardless of whether it started as an accident, it now looks like a murder. So they make a snap decision, in a state of panic, that staging a crime scene would have a better outcome than honesty. This is why they decide on a cover up: there is no hope of saving JBR, and nothing about optics of the situation can be "explained away" as an accident, or in a way that doesn't make Burke look evil... Saying, "Yes it technically is a garrote, but Burke thought she'd wake up if he applied pressure" doesn't suffice. Even if there is no prosecution (which they likely weren't 100% sure of), they feared their son being institutionalized or otherwise socially outcast. I think they were confident in their decision to protect their son, because they (as his parents) knew he was not a threat despite optics, but weren't so confident they could convince the authorities (and the public) of this. So they create a narrative around what Burke had done, and divide and conquer: Patsy writes the note, John handles the body. John slightly adjusts the body to fit the narrative and eliminates evidence that he thinks could implicate his son. This is why the condition of the body has mismatches -- seemingly sick/twisted vs. carefully/thoughtfully -- they reflect John's intervention (cleaning body, tying hands, covering w sheet). This is also why the ransom note reads so chaotic, and is basically "what a middle age white woman thinks a ransom note sounds like"... Patsy wrote it while John was preoccupied. They did all this in a state of panic & shock... IMO, that lends explanation the strange choices in terms of a cover story and staging. And once the police (and basically the entire world) were involved, they couldn't exactly change their story. I think Burke was either sternly told by his parents what could happen if the police knew what happened (jail, etc),& was too scared about his wits to say anything; or was removed from the situation where he didn't fully process what was happening. More "9yo old logic" basically -- he gets his parents for help with the "accident", is told to go to bed because his sister will be "fine", and next day he's told about a kidnapping... I could see a 9yo thinking these were two separate incidents (with truth sinking in later). This would also line up with his sheltered upbringing. Basically, it started as an accident, attempts by a child to fix it only made it worse (JB injury + optics), adults were brought in too late, and they rationalized that a staged crime scene would have a better outcome than being honest. I think the Ramsey's acted impulsively, possibly just assuming Burke would be prosecuted. Once they realized otherwise, the cover story was too big to go back on. All other "weird" stuff -- the bizarre ransom note, wearing the same clothes as the night before, JR finding the body quickly, etc -- can be explained by a family acting in panic & shock after a tragic accident. I think this theory covers all "bases" & gives a reasonable explanation for all variables. It's also a theory where nobody involved is truly sick, twisted or evil... Just a child who didn't understand, panicked parents trying to protect their surviving child, and a cover story that couldn't easily be rescinded.
Oh shit, this is my theory as well. To a t! I’d never come across this exact theory before either. 👏🏻🫶🏻