In recent years, headlines have been filled with chilling reports of people mysteriously vanishing while on vacation. If you're a regular TCG reader, you might recall my coverage of the disappearance of college student Sudiksha Konanki.

That piece focused on the alarming trend of students going missing during spring break, an unfortunately common occurrence. But these disappearances aren’t limited to young travelers or high party destinations. Increasingly, we’re seeing people vanish during what should be routine, relaxing getaways.

One of the latest cases involves 51 year old New Yorker Brian Tarrance, who disappeared while vacationing in Turks and Caicos with his wife, Maria. Tarrance was last seen on June 26 around 3:30 a.m., captured on CCTV footage leaving his vacation rental. When he failed to return, Maria reported him missing the next day.

An official search effort began on July 5. A few days later, a male body was discovered in a severely decomposed state on Grace Bay. However, due to limited forensic resources in Turks and Caicos, authorities had to import specialized equipment and personnel just to begin a proper investigation. It wasn’t until these external teams arrived that an autopsy could be performed. Using dental records, a specialist confirmed the remains were indeed Tarrance’s. The autopsy revealed no visible signs of trauma.

As of July 16, while investigators await the full autopsy and toxicology results, local police issued a statement saying they do not currently suspect foul play.

Yet this case is not an isolated incident.

Just ten days prior, on June 16 and also in Turks and Caicos, 49-year-old Polish woman Beata Sylwia Young went missing. She was last seen near North Creek Road in Grand Turk at around 7:30 p.m. and has not been found yet. Her disappearance remains unsolved, with minimal public updates.

Earlier this year, a tragic and equally mysterious event unfolded in San Pedro, Belize. On February 22, three women were found dead in their resort hotel room by housekeeping staff. While the scene included alcohol, vomit, and “gummies”, autopsy reports confirmed there were no illicit substances in their systems. Ultimately, the cause of death was determined to be acute carbon monoxide poisoning, allegedly caused by a faulty instant water heater. The gas—colorless, odorless, and silent—had quietly ended their lives.

Still, questions remain. Despite the official cause, many remain skeptical about the thoroughness and transparency of the investigation. The resort’s decision to reopen just days later, assuring guests that other units were unaffected, only fueled further distrust.

These aren’t isolated stories, they’re part of a larger, more troubling pattern. And they raise critical questions: Are these truly accidents and unfortunate coincidences, or is there a deeper issue at play? Is the lack of foul play simply a convenient conclusion, or is it driven by limited investigative resources and a lack of accountability?

This trend isn’t new. Back in 2005, high school student Natalee Holloway vanished during a graduation trip to Aruba. Despite an intensive search effort, her body was never found. It wasn’t until 2023 that a suspect was finally arrested and confessed to the crime. Her disappearance captured international media attention and remains one of the most infamous vacation mysteries to this day, underscoring how cases in resort destinations can go unresolved for decades.

It’s often said that “no place is truly safe,” and while that may be true, we should also ask ourselves whether some of these so-called “paradise” destinations come with hidden risks. When people disappear or die under mysterious circumstances, and investigations are rushed, underfunded, or unclear, are we really being told the full story?

Vacations are meant to be a time to unwind, to forget about deadlines, detach from daily responsibilities, and relax. Resorts market themselves as worry-free escapes, but that very sense of safety may be the most dangerous illusion of all. In places designed for you to let your guard down, it may be more important than ever to stay vigilant.

But on the evening of May 3, 2007, everything changed.

Kate and Gerry left their children, Madeleine and her younger twin siblings, Sean and Amelia, sleeping in their apartment while they dined just 160 feet away at the resort’s tapas bar. The doors were unlocked, but the parents and their friends took turns checking in every 30 minutes. At 10 p.m., Kate went back to the apartment and discovered Madeleine was gone.

Panic set in. Resort staff, guests, and eventually local police joined the frantic search. Some hoped the toddler had simply wandered off. But as the night wore on with no sign of her, those hopes dimmed, and darker fears took their place.

The initial police response was chaotic. Authorities failed to lock down the area, interview all potential witnesses, or search surrounding homes. As hours turned to days, critical time and evidence may have been lost.

The Portuguese police initially believed Madeleine was still alive and had been abducted. But with no solid leads, scrutiny soon turned inward toward the investigators and, shockingly, toward the McCanns themselves. Theories swirled, fueled by tabloids and online sleuths: sedation, swinging, a staged abduction. All were unsubstantiated. Still, whispers became headlines.

In August 2007, 100 days after Madeleine’s disappearance, local police publicly acknowledged she might never be found. By September, the investigation had shifted from a missing child case to a possible homicide inquiry. That same month, Portuguese police questioned Kate and Gerry McCann again after DNA linked to Madeleine was found in the trunk of a rental car. But once again, the results proved inconclusive.

The McCanns returned to the UK in September 2007, still under a cloud of suspicion. The next month, Chief Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, who had publicly criticized British involvement in the case, was removed. He later published a controversial book implicating the McCanns, launching a libel battle that would stretch for years.

Despite the setbacks, the McCanns refused to give up. They launched a global campaign, raised millions through a foundation, and secured support from celebrities like Simon Cowell and J.K. Rowling. In 2011, the British government responded to public outcry and launched Operation Grange, a renewed investigation by the Metropolitan Police. The case gained renewed interest after a 2013 BBC Crimewatch episode aired electronic facial identification photos of potential suspects.

Operation Grange reviewed tens of thousands of documents, took over 1,300 statements, and chased more than 8,000 reported sightings. But despite the exhaustive work, Madeleine’s fate remained a mystery.

Then, in 2020, a name emerged: Christian Brückner.

The 43-year-old German man, a convicted sex offender with a disturbing past, had been living in a van near the Ocean Club at the time Madeleine vanished. He had a history of child abuse and drug trafficking. German authorities named him as a formal suspect in 2022, claiming they had compelling, though undisclosed, evidence linking him to the crime.

Brückner’s background is chilling. He had previously been convicted of raping a 72-year-old woman in Portugal and is currently serving time for that assault. In 2023, an unrelated rape case against him was dropped, but interest in his potential connection to Madeleine's case only intensified.

A woman even came forward to claim she saw a German-speaking girl resembling Madeleine in 2017, and police discovered a secret cellar under one of Brückner’s former properties. Searches of his living areas revealed troubling items: guns, bone fragments, and clothing—though none conclusively linked him to the McCann case.

In June 2023, German and Portuguese authorities launched a major search of a reservoir near where Brückner once lived. Using sniffer dogs, drones, and excavation tools, investigators combed through the area for three days. However, nothing incriminating was found.

Brückner’s rape sentence is scheduled to end in September 2025. With no new charges filed in connection to Madeleine’s case, German prosecutors face increasing pressure. In January 2025, lead prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters admitted there was no current prospect of charging Brückner without more forensic evidence. Two months later, Brückner filed for early release.

This has led investigators to double down. In June 2025, another major search was launched across 120 acres of Portuguese countryside. Authorities scoured wells, ruins, and water tanks around the area where Brückner once lived. Two guns were recovered, one ruled out, and bone fragments are still under analysis.

The clock is ticking.

So, what comes next?

Eighteen years after she vanished, Madeleine McCann’s story still grips the world. Her parents, now veterans of unspeakable tragedy, continue to hold onto hope, even as years turn into decades.

The case against Christian Brückner, once so promising, remains frustratingly incomplete. Despite what German prosecutors insist is compelling evidence, no charges have stuck. With his release looming, the fear is real: that the one man who may know the truth could walk free, taking answers with him.

And yet, there's still a sliver of hope. A fragment of bone. A piece of clothing. A last-minute breakthrough. In a case filled with wrong turns and lost time, it may only take one clue to finally bring closure to a mystery that has haunted the world since that night in Portugal.

In theory, everyone agrees that parents have a right to be with their children. In practice, however, Olivia, Evelyn, and Paityn Decker were bound by zip ties and had their heads covered with plastic bags until they died. It appears reasonably clear (though not yet certain) that their disturbed father did it. He’s now on the run in Washington’s Cascade Mountains, while those meant to protect the children wring their hands over destigmatizing mental illness and fixing a “racist” child welfare system.

The alleged perpetrator, Travis Decker, is now charged with kidnapping and murder. Decker had reportedly blown off court-ordered mental-health evaluations, was homeless, and showed what his ex-wife called a "spiraling" PTSD-fueled decline. Yet he was still permitted unsupervised visitation.

Deciding when the law should allow the state to limit a parent’s access to their children is a very tough issue. It balances two extremely important, competing rights: child safety and parental rights. But ultimately, the deciding factor has to be safety.

The Law

Like most custody statutes, Washington’s domestic-relations code elevates the best interests of the child as the guiding star in custody and visitation decisions. RCW 26.09.184 encourages parents to resolve disputes without court involvement and promotes standardized parenting plans. RCW 26.09.191 allows, but does not require, courts to restrict or supervise visitation when there is a history of abuse, neglect, substance use, or other serious risk factors.

Judicial discretion is generally a good thing because it allows an individualized approach to each situation. But that assumes there’s enough time and resources for the court to fully evaluate each situation. And it assumes there’s an ongoing process for re-evaluating the situation – which is particularly important when ongoing therapy or evaluations are required. That is sadly not always the case, and statutes should stop assuming that it is.

Instead, statutes should assume the opposite when there is any indication of mental health deterioration. There should be systemic checkpoints to confirm ongoing stability so that judges can be fully informed.

Mental health is, of course, a continuum, making bright-line rules almost impossible. But what is certainly not helpful are laws that tip the scale in favor of parents struggling with mental issues. If anything, it should be the opposite. Will erring on the side of safety lead to horrible injustices? Yes. Parents will have access to their children limited improperly. And while that’s terrible (and often infuriating), it’s simply not an irreparable loss.

With respect to court-ordered mental health evaluations, Washington State Rep. Travis Couture says that they are "extremely common to be blatantly ignored, and rarely enforced." The statute itself backs him up in that nothing in RCW 26.09 requires a judge to revoke visitation if an evaluation is skipped. The statute, in fact, instructs courts to foster the parent-child bond unless restrictions are clearly necessary to protect the child - language that can paper over red flags until tragedy forces a reckoning.

Shouldn’t Washington make continued compliance with court-ordered evaluations and therapy a rigid pre-condition for seeing one’s kids? Of course they should. And non-compliance should trigger systemwide alerts. If the person was dangerous enough that evaluations and therapy had to be put in place, it is reasonable to enforce them. Indeed, it is utterly reckless not to when children are in the mix.

Court records reportedly confirm that Decker failed to go to his court-ordered counseling. Some reports indicate he tried but could not get help from the VA system. (If that’s accurate, it’s an independent abomination.) He was apparently living in his car, and the girls’ mom filed a petition with the court in September seeking to modify the father’s visitation, fearing the girls would wind up with him in a homeless shelter with strange men about - which Rep. Couture reports in fact happened. But none of that apparently triggered any state intervention until it was too late. (Indeed, Mrs. Decker could not even get an Amber Alert in place because the threat was not deemed "imminent.")

There is a proposed bill meant to address these failures, but the Washington legislature has not passed it. Kayden’s Law (HB 2010) is designed to heighten scrutiny of unstable parents and increase judicial training and accountability. Once there are credible allegations of instability or abuse, courts would be expected to prioritize child safety over reunification presumptions. In an opinion piece titled “Three more girls are gone; Kayden’s Law could have saved them,” the law’s sponsor Rep. Alicia Rule writes:

HB 2010 would change that. It requires courts to make child safety — not parental comfort — the top priority in any case involving allegations of abuse or domestic violence…

But there hasn’t been much momentum for Kayden’s Law until this point because the Legislature’s focus with respect to child welfare has not been on safety, it’s been on equity and de-stigmatizing the mentally ill and homeless.

In 2021 Washington passed a law to make it harder for the state to take children away from their families and place them in foster care. In so doing, Washington attempts to normalize by statute what would generally be considered worrisome behavior. The Keeping Families Together Act which governs state-initiated removals (not disputes between parents) specifies that mental illness, poverty, substance abuse, crowded or inadequate housing, or "nonconforming social behavior" are not, by themselves, grounds for removal. To remove a child the judge must find that physical harm is "imminent." This is a tough standard to meet.

The values on display in the Keeping Families Together Act reflect a broader legal trend in Washington and elsewhere. The effort to destigmatize mental illness and homelessness jeopardizes safety. And though this new law technically governs only cases where the state is attempting to remove children into foster care, it seems likely that this more “accepting” approach to mental illness and domestic instability will work its way into private visitation proceedings between parents, like the Deckers – at least when the state is involved in a guardianship role. It may already have.

State Representative Travis Couture is sounding the alarm:

Oftentimes, what we’re seeing here in Washington, is the courts kind of doing some gymnastics and bending over backwards to make sure dangerous parents still have access, unsupervised, to their kids... Just speaking generally about child welfare, we’ve had a stunning, skyrocketing amount of needless deaths of small children in our state over the last handful of years because of the Keeping Families Together Act.

The Act states that housing instability alone is not enough to limit visitation. Fair enough. Poverty should not be punished. But why is that parent homeless? Mental instability? Refusal to seek treatment? "Nonconforming social behavior?" And what should happen when a parent skips a mandatory mental health evaluation? That’s not a hard question: visitation should be suspended until the original judge can re-assess the risk. That’s not punishing poverty; it’s identifying a specific danger, unconcerned with any systemic trends.

Parental rights are foundational to society. The basic human right to raise your own children is a “fundamental” right in America with the highest level of legal protection. It predates, and arguably surpasses, even our most sacred constitutional rights. But so too does the right to self-defense. And because children cannot defend themselves, the law affords them heightened protections in an effort to do so. That must not change.

And here’s what you’ve probably already suspected: lawmakers in 2021 crafted the Keeping Families Together Act as a civil rights initiative in response to the "continued overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous children in the child welfare system." So another policy born in the wake of George Floyd’s death is putting citizens at risk…

Still, Rep. Couture remains optimistic. He believes the legislature can recalibrate the law and is promoting bipartisan talks. If the law is to be re-written, liberal lawmakers may have to innovate to preserve their social equity goals. That could prove an impediment. Or, Washington State lawmakers could choose to stop chasing ghosts from 2020. They could set aside concerns about stigmatizing "nonconforming social behavior" and instead focus on the most important thing about our children: their safety. But no parent should count on the system for that.

If you wish to donate to Whitney Decker, the girls’ mother, you can do so here.

The retrial of Karen Read, accused of second-degree murder in the 2022 death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, saw significant developments this week that could influence the jury's perspective.

Defense Highlights Alternative Theories

A pivotal moment came with the testimony of snowplow driver Brian "Lucky" Loughran. He stated that between 2:40 and 6:00 a.m. on the morning O’Keefe's body was discovered, he made multiple passes by 34 Fairview Road in Canton but did not see a body in the snow. This challenges the prosecution's timeline that O’Keefe was left outside for hours during a blizzard. Loughran also noted seeing a Ford Edge SUV parked unusually in front of the house, which he found odd given the homeowners' typical parking habits.

Dr. Marie Russell, a forensic pathologist specializing in dog bites, testified that wounds on O’Keefe's arm were consistent with dog scratches, not injuries from a vehicle. This supports the defense's theory that O’Keefe may have been attacked inside the house by a dog, rather than being struck by Read's SUV.

Additionally, surveillance footage from the Waterfall Bar and Grille showed a tense exchange between O’Keefe and ATF Agent Brian Higgins shortly before the incident. Read claimed she did not notice the confrontation, as she was engaged in conversation with a friend at the time .

Courtroom Dynamics and Witness Testimonies

Former Canton Police Officer Kelly Dever testified that she initially told federal investigators she saw Higgins and Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz near Read’s SUV for an extended period, suggesting possible tampering. However, Dever later retracted this statement on the stand, claiming it was a "false memory" and that she was pressured and threatened with perjury charges by the defense. The defense challenged her credibility, with attorney Alan Jackson referring to her as "Officer Diva" during cross-examination.

On Friday, Dr. Daniel Wolfe, a crash reconstruction expert from ARCCA, testified about the damage to Read’s SUV and whether it was consistent with the injuries sustained by O’Keefe. His analysis is crucial in determining the plausibility of the prosecution's claim that Read struck O’Keefe with her vehicle.

Aidan 'Turtleboy' Kearney's Involvement

Aidan Kearney, known as "Turtleboy," has been a vocal supporter of Read, alleging a cover-up by local law enforcement. He has faced multiple charges, including witness intimidation and wiretapping, related to his involvement in the case. Recently, Kearney was indicted on additional charges after an incident at a pizza shop owned by trial witnesses.

During Loughran's testimony, the prosecution questioned whether he felt threatened by Kearney, who had contacted him and posted their conversation online. Loughran denied feeling intimidated, stating he was unaware the call was being recorded.

Kearney's aggressive tactics have drawn criticism and legal scrutiny, with District Attorney Michael Morrissey condemning the harassment of witnesses and the spread of conspiracy theories . to the case.

There have been some reports that “Turtleboy” might be willing to cut a deal.

Looking Ahead

As the trial progresses, the defense continues to present evidence challenging the prosecution's narrative, focusing on alternative theories and potential misconduct by law enforcement. The jury's interpretation of these testimonies and the credibility of witnesses will be pivotal in determining the outcome of this high-profile case.

The serial killer theory, fueled by TikTok and a private Facebook group named New England SK, alleges that more than a dozen deaths since February 2025 are the work of a single killer.

But police say there’s no evidence to support that claim.

In recent weeks, users in the Facebook group have pushed the idea that a serial killer is operating across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and Connecticut. Posts connect 12 deaths between March and May, mostly involving women in their 30’s to 50’s, with some victims reportedly found in duffel bags, trash bags, or near wooded areas. One theory even links the deaths to the long-unsolved Connecticut River Valley Killer, who was active from 1978 to 1988.

Some online sleuths claim the supposed killer targets lone hikers or women on walking trails. Others believe the person is a truck driver who dumps bodies along interstates.

But police have repeatedly stated that there is “no confirmed connection” between the deaths, and in some cases, no foul play at all.

In two recent incidents, Rhode Island law enforcement deployed cadaver dogs after a member of the Facebook group posted about a “morbid discovery.” Despite the user’s history of hoax-related content, including a “rickroll” reference and a poem spelling out “HOAX”—police responded out of caution. The April 21 and April 22 searches yielded nothing, and many believe it to be a waste of police resources.

Of the 12 deaths being circulated online, only a few have been confirmed as homicides. Suzanne Wormser, 58, was found stuffed in a suitcase near a cemetery in Groton, CT—her roommate was later arrested and charged with her murder. In contrast, other cases remain unclear, such as Denise Leary, whose remains were discovered near her New Haven home months after she was reported missing; her cause of death was ruled undetermined.

Some incidents showed no signs of foul play at all, like the remains found by officers responding to a brush fire in Framingham, MA. Meanwhile, at least one case—that of Stephen Myers, 39, who was found shot behind a Taunton high school construction site—appears to be entirely unrelated to the others.

Still, the lack of public detail has fueled speculation. A recent New York Post article quoted former FBI instructor Scott Duffy, who acknowledged the danger of silence: “There is not a lot of information being released to the public, which is causing people to believe there is a serial killer,” Duffy said.

But law enforcement agencies insist speculation is outpacing facts. So far, the only notable pattern is demographic: several victims were middle-aged women found dead in various parts of New England, some in wooded areas. Beyond that, there is no consistent method of killing, no forensic connection, and no known suspect tying the cases together.

Investigators say they’re not dismissing the possibility of a serial offender outright—but they need evidence, not internet theories.

In the meantime, authorities are encouraging the public to stay alert and cautious, especially when hiking or traveling alone. But they also warn against misinformation spreading through social media and amateur investigations.

Crime podcasts, TikTok creators, and Facebook groups may draw attention to unsolved cases, but experts caution that entertainment often comes at the cost of accuracy. And in this case, the real threat may not be a serial killer—but the viral rumor of one.

Share The Ops Desk

Unsolved: The JonBenet Ramsey Mystery

The case of JonBenet Ramsey is one of the most infamous unsolved mysteries of the past nearly three decades, a story so complex and layered that it cannot be told in a simple way. To unpack this, I’ll begin by providing some background.

John and Patsy Ramsey lived in Boulder, Colorado, with their two kids: 9-year-old Burke and 6-year-old JonBenet. John built a successful career as the President of Access Graphics, a thriving computer distribution company benefiting from the rise of electronics at the time.

Patsy embraced her role as a stay-at-home mother, dedicating her time to raising their children and managing their household. However, in 1992 Patsy faced a battle when she was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. Despite the odds, after over a year of intensive chemotherapy, Patsy made a remarkable recovery and went into remission.

Now that we have established the scene – we can get into the case itself.

On the night of December 26, 1996, the Ramseys returned home from a Christmas party with friends and went straight to bed, as they planned to travel to their home on Lake Michigan the following morning. However, when Patsy woke up the next day, she discovered a three-page ransom note addressed to John. The note claimed that JonBenet had been kidnapped by a "small foreign faction" and demanded $180,000 for her safe return.

Patsy immediately called the Boulder Police Department to report her missing daughter and the ransom note. When officers arrived, they examined the note and conducted a sweep of the house but found no signs of a break-in, forced entry, or any evidence pointing to an intruder. As a result, the house was not treated as a crime scene, and family and friends were allowed back inside while the investigation continued—a decision that is particularly shocking given that the house was the only known location where the supposed "foreign faction" could have been.

Meanwhile, John followed the instructions in the ransom note and gathered the $180,000 in hopes of getting his daughter back. Although the note had advised against contacting authorities, the police had already been alerted by Patsy.

According to the Netflix documentary Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey, the tension in the house was palpable, with John repeatedly asking questions. To keep him occupied, Detective Linda Arndt of the Boulder Police Department instructed John and his friend Fleet White to search the house for anything unusual. Just minutes into their search, John entered what he and his family called the wine cellar, where he discovered JonBenet's lifeless body hidden under a white blanket.

When the blanket was removed, it was revealed that JonBenet had a garrote around her neck, her hands were bound behind her back, and her mouth was taped shut. As her father and the one who found her in his own home, John immediately removed the duct tape from her mouth and attempted to untie her hands before carrying her upstairs in a frantic effort to get help.

Boulder police could not find a pulse, and JonBenet was pronounced dead. The house was then officially deemed a crime scene. However, because the house had not been secured earlier, many potential areas of evidence had been contaminated by the Ramsey family, their friends, and the police, who had been coming and going for hours before JonBenet's body was discovered.

Now – some odd details.

Once the house was officially declared a crime scene, everything inside became potential evidence, and BPD began their investigation—at least, that’s what one would assume. Their first course of action was collecting more than 70 writing samples from friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, and others in an attempt to match the handwriting in the ransom note.

But during the investigation, it was discovered that the pen and pad used to write the ransom note were found in the Ramsey home. Detectives also found a drafted note in the same notepad, addressed to both Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey. The note was never finished or torn out, suggesting that the killer had initially planned to address it to both parents but changed his or her mind and directed it only to John Ramsey.

After careful analysis, the handwriting deemed most similar to the ransom note was believed to be Patsy Ramsey’s. A handwriting expert pointed out several key similarities between her samples and the ransom note, including distinctive letter shapes, a "feminine" style, and the fact that she would have had easy access to the materials.

Despite the similarities in handwriting, there was no definitive evidence to confirm that Patsy had written the note.

As the investigation into the ransom note continued, BPD found the requested amount—$180,000 — odd, given that John Ramsey's wealth far exceeded that amount. However, upon further investigation, they discovered that $180,000 was the exact amount John had received as a holiday bonus that year, which initially furthered their suspicion that Patsy was involved in the letter. This theory was quickly disproven, though, when a letter containing John’s bonus amount was found on his home desk where the killer could have easily found it.

Additional evidence uncovered during the investigation included:

● A broken window, which John claimed to have broken a few months prior after being locked out of the house

● A suitcase placed beneath the window, suspected to have been used to climb out

● Several footprints: two in the wine cellar that didn’t match any shoes in the house, one on the suitcase under the window, and one outside the house. One of the footprints was believed to be from a Hi-Tec hiking boot

● A pubic hair found on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, which did not match anyone in the family after DNA testing

● A foreign white rope, not belonging to the family, in the guest bedroom next to JonBenet’s room

● A handprint found on the wine cellar door

● A flashlight, wrapped in duct tape, inside the house

● An unexplained bowl of pineapple on the counter the morning after the crime

Now, turning to the body.

The autopsy revealed that JonBenet died from strangulation and/or a skull fracture, injuries that were not immediately apparent when she was first found. The strangulation was likely caused by the garrote, made from a nylon cord and the handle of a paintbrush, while the skull fracture resulted from blunt force trauma inflicted by an unknown object. Additionally, it was determined that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted, most likely with the paintbrush.

The paintbrush used in the assault was found in a tub of Patsy’s art supplies. However, despite an extensive search, the top part of the paintbrush was never located.

Based on the way the garrote was tied around JonBenet’s neck and the knot used to bind her hands, BPD believed the perpetrator had experience with knots. Given the common practice of initially focusing on the family, this led them to investigate John Ramsey more closely, as he had a background with boats, which requires knowledge of various knots.

After a thorough examination of her body, JonBenet was returned to her family for a proper burial. Her funeral, held in Atlanta, Georgia—her family's hometown—was widely televised by various media outlets.

Upon returning to Colorado, the Ramseys quickly became the focus of suspicion, with numerous theories circulating in both the media and the BPD. One theory suggested that Patsy killed JonBenet in a fit of rage over bedwetting, allegedly slamming her head against the tub and staging the crime scene to cover it up. This claim was debunked by photos showing the bed was dry. Another theory pointed to the absence of footprints in the snow outside the house as evidence of the family’s involvement, but photos from the scene revealed there was no snow at the time, discrediting this claim as well.

The media further tarnished John’s public image by spreading a rumor that he piloted his own plane back from the funeral, a claim later debunked when it was revealed that the police had provided the media with inaccurate information. Another theory tied JonBenet’s participation in beauty pageants to allegations of abuse, with some accusing John of sexually assaulting his daughter based on the sexualized portrayal of her pageant photos and videos.

An additional theory that came out less than a decade ago focused on Burke, JonBenet’s 9-year-old brother, suggesting he accidentally killed her during a late-night snack. The belief was that JonBenet took some of his pineapple, which angered Burke, leading him to strike her with a flashlight. The theory further speculated that their parents helped cover it up.

Theories unrelated to the family were largely introduced by Lou Smit, a well-known and respected homicide detective who joined the case later and believed in the family's innocence. Based on four distinct marks on JonBenet's body, Smit theorized that a stun gun had been used to silence her when she was moved from her bed. While Smit had other beliefs, he claimed this was the first time he had ever felt shunned by a department due to their differing views.

These were just some of the rumors and theories explored in the Netflix documentary. While many were ultimately debunked, the documentary primarily focused on the parents’ experience, causing most of the rumors to center around them.

At this writing, the case remains unsolved. So why do I believe we may actually be closing in on a breakthrough?

[Part II of The JonBenet Murder, next week…!]

Share

Has The Ripper Been Found?

Anyone who follows the history of crime knows that another infamous cold case is that of Jack the Ripper, who terrorized Victorian London. The Ripper, who killed at least five women, most of them sex workers, was never apprehended nor identified.

Until now?

According to new assertions by historian Russell Edwards, DNA from a shawl belonging to one of Jack’s victims belongs to a 23-year-old Polish immigrant named Aaron Kosminski, who died in a mental institution in 1919.

Some of those familiar with the case have taken issue with Edwards conclusions. But it bears mentioning that the Scotland Yard, at the time, considered a person named “Kominski” as a prime suspect.

Descendants of the Ripper’s victim’s are urging police in London to re-open the case, and to do further testing on the shawl in-question. We’ll be watching.

Department of Clueless People

Elizabeth Holmes was convicted in 2022 of the Theranos fraud, in which she defrauded investors of hundreds of millions of dollars. These investors believed that Holmes’s “invention” — a device that could diagnose maladies from a single blood drop — would change medicine forever.

The device was a phony from the start.

Holmes, now doing 11 years in a Texas minimum-security prison, recently gave an interview in People magazine, in which she revealed that:

• She doesn’t believe she defrauded anyone

• She plans on going back into the medical technology field

• That she works on new inventions “every day”

• Is working on her campaign to “reform the criminal justice system”

• Is awaiting the results of her appeal

Liz, dear: the device didn’t work.

Is there an invention that can diagnose a sociopath?

I’m not sure “I didn’t do it and I’m going to go back to doing it” is a great look for a parole board.

New Orleans and Austin Are Not So Far Apart

Lastly, we point to the recent story of the Telemundo reporter sent to cover the Super Bowl and found dead in New Orleans after a reported encounter with “The Bourbon Street Hustler,” Danette Colbert — a woman with a criminal history who may be tied to a similar previous case.

(Kenner PD)

According to police, Colbert "…has a long history of … bringing men into her confidence. The men become incapacitated by some manner, at which time they lose all their money, their property.”

In light of that m.o… and the case we covered here… has anyone spoken to the Austin, Texas PD?

Share