#Justice For JonBenét

[niyasruledbyvenus]

Arudha Lagna in the Signs

Arudha Lagna is how others perceive us (especially society/public/media). It is our projected and illusionary personality. Referred to as “the seat of Maya” Maya=illusion/Rahu. Which usually differs from our true personality represented by our Lagna/ Ascendant.

How to calculate Arudha Lagna?

1. Find your Lagna/ascendant the Lord (Aries ascendant-> Mars)

2. Count how many houses from your ascendant Lord to your ascendant. (ex. how many houses mars is from ascendant= 8 houses)

3. Count that same number from Ascendant lord. That is your Arudha Lagna (ex. 8 houses away from mars= Aquarius AL)

Benefics sitting in the Arudha can give a positive public image. Making one appear good and trustworthy, even if they aren’t.

Malefics sitting in the Arudha/or ruling the sign can tarnish one’s reputation, making the public distrustful or critical.

For example- Saturn, Mars, Rahu, Ketu sitting in AL can tarnish one’s reputation

Signs ruled by Malefics such as Scorpio (Mars & Ketu), Aries (Mars), Capricorn & Aquarius ( Saturn) doesn’t have as severe of an effect as a malefic siting in AL. But it does make one appear controversial or questionable to public at some point in time.

AL In Aries- Bold, competitive, intimidating, leader, pioneer, aggressive, action oriented, sexual/ promiscuous

Women tend to be accused of competing with other women or men competing with other men

Ex. Marilyn Monroe, Christina Aguilera, Muhammad Ali, Tyra Banks

AL in Taurus- Stable, grounded, Sensual, refined, gentle, patient, charismatic, trustworthy, noticed for voice, stubborn

Usually seen as harmless or down to earth. Like Libra, Venus ruled, they tend to be known for their sensuality & looks

Ex. Keanu Reeves, Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Bruno Mars

AL in Gemini- intellectual, witty, youthful, curious, versatile, social, communicative, recognition from siblings

Tend to be recognized for their unique voice

Ex. Beyoncé, Madonna, Rita Hayworth, Mariah Carey

AL in Cancer- Sensitive, Gentle, Homebody, Comforting, Nurturing, Proud of country/heritage/family, Protective, intuitive, Caring, Empathetic, Moody, emotional

Home dynamics or family life can be put on the spotlight. Others see them a caring, mother like figure (unless malefic influence)

Ex. Princess Diana, JonBenét, Brandy

AL in Leo- Charismatic, Authoritative, creative, dramatic, Natural Leader, Arrogant, Center of Attention, Performer/arts, fashionable, someone of importance, Extroverted

Spotlight is always on them so they tend to gain fame & attention in whatever they do. Type to feel like all eyes are on you when entering a room.

Ex. Al Capone, Catherine Hepburn, Halle Berry, The Weeknd

AL in Virgo- Analytical, practical, intelligent, resourceful, reserved, health conscious, detail oriented, logical, rational, educated

They come off as controlled and put together. Can’t get them to react easily.

Ex. Prince Harry, Bruce Lee, Jennifer Lawrence

AL in Libra- Charming, diplomatic, balanced, harmonious, sociable, peaceful, intellectual, good at negotiating/comunicating, influential, Justice seeking

Tend to be either known for their beauty, charisma, or justice/law industry.

Ex. Monica Bellucci, Oprah, lady Gaga, Aubrey Hepburn, Barack Obama

AL in Scorpio- Mysteroius, intense, powerful, secretive, magnetic, respected, morally grey, dark, sexual/sexy, controversial, sensual, occultist/witch/astrologer, taboo, hiding secrets, Spiritual dangerous, seductive

Due to malefic Mars/Ketu influence they do tend to be very controversial but despite this they still turn out to be respected

Ex. Angelina Jolie, Sharon Stone, Pamela Anderson, John F Kennedy, Jim Morrison, Bill Gates

AL in Sagittarius- Optimistic, philosophical, adventurous, independent, wise, free-spirited, benevolent, Justice seeking, educated, Humorous, experienced, travels a lot

They are seen as knowledgeable and in-tune with other cultures. They make good comedians, business owners, teachers

Ex. Jeff Bezos, Jacqueline Kennedy, Adam Ant, Demi Moore, Hugh Hefner

AL in Capricorn- Ambitious, disciplined, responsible, structured. authoritative, grounded, serious, mature, dignified, sturn, wiser than age, melancholy, pessimistic, cold

The list is questionable because Saturn influence can, like I said, make one appear questionable depending on other influences. But they make good leaders, business owners.

Ex. Lana del Rey, Adolf Hitler, Charlie Chaplin, Angela Merkel, Brad Pitt

AL in Aquarius- Innovative, unconventional, intellectual, humanitarian, forward-thinking, eccentric, unorthodox, friendly, good with media/technology, rebellious, cares about welfare of society/world, leader, influencer

People usually say their style, ideas & attitude are ahead of their time, due to Rahu.

Ex. Steve Irwin, Cher, Tamera Mowry

AL in Pisces-Spiritual, imaginative, empathetic, dreamy, otherworldly, artistic, siren like, mysterious, gentle, kind, serious, spiritual/devoted, adventurous, open-minded, philosophical, interested in higher learning/knowledge, introverted, emotional

Seen as creative, artistic (music, art, acting etc). Inventing/creating something new. Emotional imbalance/mental illnesses might get public attention

Ex. Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Elon Musk, Picasso, Ariana Grande

Disclaimer- some of the people I listed have two Arudha Lagnas (ie Scorpio Asc or Aquarius Asc) ex Princess Diana Cancer & Aquarius AL

I tried to find both positive & negative representations

Astromartine has a very knowledgeable playlist; going more in depth for each Arudha Lagna & Arudha houses

[movingthisblogcelestialtarot11]

Degree Theory in Charts and Observations 🤍

Moon/sun at 8 or 20 degrees can signify trauma, releasing your ego and patterns that have hurt you subconsciously. 8 degrees and 20 both signify scorpios energy, and when placed on the big 3, it can dampen your signs energy. You may be a Leo sun, but when it's at 8 degrees your passion, creativity, and aspects of yourself can largely remain private. You are passionate, only to those you trust. Introverts become extroverts around the right people.

Gemini degrees on your moon/venus/sun 3, 15, 27 can suggest being a logical thinker, preferring to analyze your emotions and think deeply. You may like hearing podcasts on philosophy, emotional processing, books informed on trauma, and be interested in dissecting religion, spirituality, and occult related topics. Or how different cultures overall approach mental health or spirituality as a whole.

Luigi Mangione has Venus at 3 degrees and early on he wrote an essay portraying how christianity benefitted by appealing to the lower classes of ancient Rome at 15. His words not only reach a few people but a mass global scale, sharing his pain with those who suffered at the hands of the medical system. To this day he is currently seen as smart, intelligent, and romanticized even. He openly speaks out about the failing health care system. It's possible he may go on to write books in prison detailing his experiences and exposing the truth.

Also, his Mars is at 15 degrees of gemini, and it's a theory that this degree is associated with assassinations or killings. With Mars here, he was motivated by his anguish to make a move that started change. His sun is conj mars, so, he already has a following of those who look up to him as a savior, activist, and an important person in social justice.

George Orwell has his moon at 8 degrees in the 8h in Gemini, and he went on to describe the dangers of totalitarianism rising in the west. He wrote 1984 as a warning to the US, and his scorpio degrees also made him incredibly adept to the rising dangers in our politics.

He was intelligent, a philosopher, a politician, and someone who feared humanities behavior much more than the government itself. His sun sits in the 8h, further conveying his desire for truth, honesty and revealing how dark politics are and can be. He not only described the governments regime, but how mind control worked to steer us away from facts.

His sun was in cancer at 2 degrees (taurus) signifying his need for stability in an unstable world, applying practicality to his reasoning and not just spewing words of anger. He was strong in his reasoning, yet flexible to agree with Huxley (another philosopher)

The 22 degree (Capricorn) is considered heavy, intense, challenging and even traumatic whether it's placed on your personal planets or Chiron. It's usually associated with ruthlessness, discipline, and rigidity in the native. It's why people see them as powerful, and intimidating. Capricorn is destructive here, but ultimately leads to a transformation.

Sun at 13 degrees can indicate leaving a legacy, popularity, fame over media. Depending on where the sun sits, this will tell you how it happens. For example JonBenét Ramsey’s had her sun in the 4h at 13 degrees, which is critical. She was thrust into a family related legacy, and was required to uphold it through beauty pageants.

She was a star, with Leo in the 4h. But Aries degree here suggests an infliction of Mars, and her sun was weak (opposing moon) its possible this critical degree conveys what happened behind the scenes of her family life. Surrounded by pressure, aggression, all that responsibility being put onto her at a young age. It’s possible having an afflicted sun had her Mars energy amplified even more, conveying the aggression and high standards in her home life.

Moon at 12 degrees can suggest an empathetic, intuitive and sensitive individual. Someone who can read the room, perceives body language well, but can suffer from anxiety, overstimulation and overthinking. This can dissolve boundaries as well, leading to codependent behaviors, a lack of commitment to one’s healing journey for the sake of being there for others. This native can prefer to be by water, either at a beach, stream, river, etc. anywhere where they can be around nature is best for them.

Extra

Thanks all for reading! Let me know if I should make a pt 2 of this <3

Paid readings 🤍

[drivemysoul]

Read any good books lately?

SO MANY i’ve been a lil reading kick again. sao novels aside (which fyi i would beg my followers to give a chance even if you don’t like sao/anime bc the books are soooo fucking good and immersive and the characters are so………), ANYWAY lately i’ve really enjoyed:

the stepford wives — ira levin

feminist horror. but it’s more a psychological horror, despite the murder etc. it’s something i first read at about 15 ish? and when i revisited it this year it just gripped me. especially relevant given current events.

lance — vladimir nabokov

a collection of short stories, and they’re beautiful. i adore nabokov as a writer though, i can’t recommend his work enough. my personal favourite was the lance story.

rosemary’s baby — ira levin

it’s one of the greatest horror books and inspired one of the most popular horror movies of all time. rosemary gets pregnant by this demon creature. again, it has those feminist body horror elements to it that i personally really enjoy in stories.

foreign faction — james kolar

this is actually a non-fiction book written by someone who worked on the jonbenét ramsey case. it’s one of the best books on the case and imo one of the few worth reading. i sat and read it in two days and i keep going back to certain sections. jonbenét keeps me up at night because her story and case hits especially close to home and i’m beyond crushed and ropeable that she’s never going to get justice.

the little mermaid — hans christian anderson

i actually read this one as a kid and i reread it every few years lol. it’s one of my favourite books of all time. my most recent reread was inspired by my boyfriend and it was like it unlocked a new meaning in the story for me (yay queerness), seriously it’s gorgeous.

[jonbenetrunsolved]

Hoffman files

STATE OF VIRGINIA

NORFOLK COUNTY

DAVIB S.LIBBMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. Iam a board certified forensic handwriting expert who is also court qualified.

2. My curriculum vitae is attached to the end of this affidavit.

3. I have been qualified to testify as an expert witness in cases involving disputed handwriting and written documents in federal and state courts.

4. I have made a careful examination of the available exemplars of Patsy Ramsey, and I have compared her handwriting with the "ransom!' note. In my professional opinion Patsy Ramsey's writing and the "ransom note are highly likely to have been written by the same writer.

5. The number of exemplars I examined were limited and there were!no verified exemplars of Patsy Ramsey writing available. Access to the original "ransomff note and additional known writing of Patsy Ramsey would be highly desirable in ox-der to confirm my opinion.

6. However, in the light of the many similarities, which are not likely to be the result of coincidence between the "ransom" note and the handwriting of Mrs. Patsy Ramsey,I am convinced!that Patsy Ramsey is highly 'Likely the "ransom" note writer.

7. I will include a report of my findings and conclusions with this affidavit.

DATED: November 13, 1997.

DAVID S. LIEBMAN, M.A., B.C.D.F,. 1 9.9 7 pq

Sworn to befor4 me on November

CINA L WONG, B.C.D.E. Court Qualified / Board Certified Document Examiner 1131 Granby Street Norfolk, VA 23510

(757) 622-9606

September 28, 1998 Mr. Alexander M. Hunter, Esq. District Attorney for Boulder Box 471 Boulder, CO 80305

Dear Mr. Hunter:     This letter is meant to be a formal request to appear before the Boulder County JonBenét Ramsey grand jury.     I am making this request pursuant to C.R.S. 16-5-204(4)(1). I am a board-certified, court-admitted questioned document handwriting expert who has developed evidence showing that Patsy Ramsey is the author of the ransom note left at the Ramsey home on December 26, 1996.     Attorney Darnay Hoffman has already forwarded copies of my affidavit, handwriting report and curriculum vitae for your examination. If you wish to discuss my testimony before I appear before the grand jury, you are welcome to call me at the above number.     Thank you for your consideration in this matter.     Sincerely,     Cina L. Wong, BCDE     cc: Michael Kane

THE STATE OF COLORADO TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALEXANDER M. HUNTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTICE CENTER 1777 6th Street Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306

January 20, 1999

Ms. Cina L. Wong 1131 Granby Street Norfolk, VA 23510

Re: Request to appear before the Boulder County Statutory Grand Jury

Dear Ms. Wong:

After due consideration of your request to appear and testify before the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, I wish to inform you that your request is denied. We have determined that your proposed testimony would not serve the interests of justice which is the controlling standard by which to judge your request. (Comment by New York attorney DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In the nearly eighteen months that the police and Boulder DA have had the handwriting reports of experts Thomas Miller, Cina Wong and David Liebman, there has not been a single phone call from any investigator willing to spend even five minutes discussing the handwriting evidence with arguably some of the finest questioned document examiners in the country -- provided free of charge at my own expense. Compare this with the time and expense spent on searching for "Santa bears" and the periodic pleas by the police and the DA to the public to "come forward with any information that might help solve this crime." The ONLY reason the DA has even bothered considering the handwriting evidence of Liebman and Wong at this late date is due to the legal requirement under Colorado law that every request to appear before a grand jury be met with a written reply after "careful" consideration of such a request. Under Colorado law, a judge is allowed to review the basis for any rejection to determine it's "reasonableness." )

The primary reason that we have reached this decision is that we believe that the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusions does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic questioned documents examiners in this country. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "What Michael Kane fails to mention is the fact that David Liebman is the president, and Cina Wong the vice president, of the National Association of Document Examiners, NADE, which is a distinguished professional organization that sets the "methological standards" of its members and of the entire field of questioned document examination. Wong and Liebman, in effect, help formulate and set the "standards" used in the field. Curiously, Kane does not explain why every court Liebman and Wong have testified in have accepted their methodology into evidence. Please notice that Kane fails to mention what these"methological standards" are that Liebman and Wong have "failed" to meet except for the single objection which appears in the next paragraph. Clearly, Kane is "reaching" for a reason to reject the reports of Wong and Liebman and their damning conclusions about Patsy Ramsey's authorship. Compare Kane's use of Donald Foster's handwriting report before the grand jury as described in Schiller's book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." Schiller reports on page 470: "Hunter...considered linguistics a good investigative tool, but he did not think it would be deemed admissible in a Colorado court. Also, Foster had never testified in a criminal trial. They could use linguistics testimony with the grand jury." Then on page 488: "Hofstrom and some other deputies thought that under the circumstances, which pointed to inadmissibility in court, the professor's [Foster's) report and conclusions should not be presented to the grand jury...DeMuth pointed out that it would not be admissible in a Colorado court. "My guys think you're an asshole," Beckner said to him (DeMuth), "but we're going to need an asshole to fight for us." He (Beckner) asked DeMuth to persuade Hofstrom and Hunter to use Foster's report and conclusions before the grand jury." QUESTION: Why is Michael Kane using Donald Foster's report, despite Hunter's legitimate reservations, before the grand jury, while at the same time turning his nose up at Liebman and Wong?")

Most significant is your complete failure to account for or even reference any unexplained dissimilarities between the questioned and known samples. You are willing to conclude with 100% certainty that a writing was authored by a particular person based on some threshold level of similarities without any mention that there may be 10, 100 or 10,000 unexplainable dissimilarities between the known and unknown writings. I know of no reputable forensic document examiner who will not agree that unexplainable dissimilarities between a person's natural writing and questioned handwriting will preclude a positive identification. In fact, where the degree of unexplained dissimilarity is high, it may result in a (sic) elimination in spite of the existence of a number of points of similarity. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This paragraph is the only reason Kane gives for rejecting Liebman and Wong on methological grounds. Please note how bogus it is: First, Liebman and Wong never cite 100% "certainty" in their reports as Kane claims. Wong cites 85% in her report, and Liebman 90-95%. Kane misstates the degree of their certainty in a transparent attempt to mislead people into believing that Liebman and Wong look ridiculous and that their conclusions should not be trusted. Second, there are no "unexplained dissimilarities" between Patsy's writing and the ransom note. Why? Because the whole purpose of disguising handwriting in a ransom note is to purposely create as many dissimilarities as possible -- that is the whole reason for disguising handwriting, to create as many dissimilarities as possible. Both Liebman and Wong account for these "dissimilarities" by noting that the handwriting was written by someone trying to disguise their identity, which is certainly a common sense way of explaining the "dissimilarities." Kane almost sounds like a defense attorney arguing for the Ramseys with this "objection.")

Because of this, it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado. We recognize that the rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, but it would be rather pointless to allow the grand jury to indict based in part on opinion evidence that a petit jury might never be permitted to hear in a trial. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "In light of Hunter's and Hofstrom's reservations about the admissibility of Donald Foster's linguistics report, which I've already discussed, this "explanation" by Michael Kane is so bogus it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. It speaks for itself.")

In addition to your technical deficiencies, there are other reasons for our decision. I would note that you have engaged in a campaign of promoting your opinion in a manner that would surely open your credibility to doubt on cross examination in a judicial proceeding. As an experienced trial attorney. I believe that an expert witness who has attempted to insinuate herself into a particular criminal investigation through a public media campaign would appear less than objective and professional to a jury. It would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examiners who are not tainted in this way. (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "Kane makes a good point if it were not for the following facts, as described in Schiller's book on pages 568-9: "Foster had written to Patsy Ramsey in the spring of 1997, before he agreed to work for Hunter...In Foster's letter to Patsy, he had written, "I know you are innocent--know it absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it. Indeed my faith in humanity." He also said that his analysis of the note {at the time} "leads me to believe you did not write it and the police are wasting their time by trying to prove that you did." Even though Foster's spring 1997 conclusions were based only on the fragments of the ransom note that were available at the time, there was a powerful contradiction between his conclusion at the time and what he said in 1998...In his final report, Foster used strong language to state that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note. In the letter to Patsy claiming he was sure she didn't write it, Foster had used almost the same language." Let's face it, Donald Foster is an expert witness with lots of personal and professional "baggage." And yet the Boulder newspapers report that Kane is using Foster's handwriting analysis before the grand jury. QUESTION: Why was this guy taken seriously for so long by both the police and the DA while Liebman and Wong were completely ignored? And if experts who are "publicity hounds" bother Kane, then what about Barry Scheck and Henry Lee, who have made numerous TV appearances as talking heads repeatedly commenting on the JonBenet Ramsey case? They are on TV almost as much as Homer Simpson.")

You, of course, may appeal this decision. If your (sic) choose to do so, you should be aware of an order entered by Judge Daniel Hale and Judge Roxanne Bailin when the grand jury began its work. The order requires that all pleadings filed in this case be filed under seal. Thus, if you plan to appeal, you should be aware that any public dissemination or discussion of your pleadings may be seen by the court as a violation of the order and could result in a (sic) the issuance of a citation for contempt of court. I would suggest that you make your attorney aware of the existence of the order which is on file with the district court clerk. He can advise you in this regard (DARNAY HOFFMAN: "This not so subtle attempt at "intimidating" two handwriting experts who have come forward at their own expense to help the DA "solve" this case is almost beneath contempt. Does anyone believe Michael Kane is trying to discover who leaked "secret" grand jury information to Fox News reporter Carol McKinley?")

Very truly yours,

Alexander M. Hunter District Attorney

By:___________ Michael J. Kane Deputy District Attorney

THE STATE OF COLORADO TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ALEXANDER M. HUNTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTICE CENTER 1777 6th Street Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306

January 20, 1999 Mr. David Liebman 981 South Quail Street Norfolk, VA 23513

Dear Mr. Liebman:     After due consideration of your request to appear and testify before the Boulder County Grand Jury in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, I wish to inform you that your request is denied. We have determined that your proposed testimony would not serve the interests of justice which is the controlling standard by which to judge your request.     The primary reson that we have reached this decision is that we believe that the methodology which you have used in reaching your conclusions does not meet the standards employed by the vast majority of forensic questioned document examiners in this country.     Most significant is your complete failure to account for or even reference any unexplained dissimilarities between the questioned and known samples. You are willing to conclude with 100% certainty that a writing was authored by a particular person based on some threshold level of similarities without any mention that there may be 10, 100 or 10,000 unexplainable dissimilarities between the known and unknown writings. I know of no reputable forensic document examiner who will not agree that unexplainable dissimilarities between a person's natural writing and questioned handwriting will preclude a positive identification. In fact, where the degree of unexplained dissimilarity is high, it may result in a elimination in spite of the existence of a number of points of similarity.     Because of this, it is not clear that your analytic methods would pass the test for admissibility in the courts of Colorado. We recognize that the rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, but it would be rather pointless to allow the grand jury to indict based in part on opinion evidence that a petit jury might never be permitted to hear in a trial.     In addition to your technical deficiences, there are other reasons for our decision. I would note that you have engaged in a campaign of promoting your opinion in a manner that would surely open your credibility to doubt on cross examination in a judicial proceeding. As an experienced trial attorney, I believe that an expert witness who has attempted to insinuate himself into a particular criminal investigation through a public media campaign would appear less than objective and professional to a jury. It would be pointless to utilize the services of an expert who is vulnerable in this regard, given that there are hundreds of other qualified document examniners who are not tainted in this way.     You, of course, may appeal this decision. If your (sic) choose to do so, you should be aware of an order entered by Judge Daniel Hale and Judge Roxanne Bailin when the grand jury began its work. the order requires that all pleadings filed in this case be filed under seal. Thus, if you plan to appeal, you should be aware that any public dissemination or discussion of your pleadings may be seen by the court as a violation of the order and could result in a (sic) the issuance of a citation for contempt of court. I would suggest that you make your attorney aware of the existence of the order which is on file with the district court clerk. He can advise you in this regard. Very truly yours,

Alexander M. Hunter District Attorney

By:____________ Michale J. Kane Deputy District Attorney

[newchapter24]

A Fresh Look at the JonBenét Ramsey Case

uncover new revelations in the JonBenét Ramsey case. Watch Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey on Netflix and support the call for justice!”

Nearly 30 years after the shocking murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey, the case remains unsolved. A new Netflix documentary series, Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey, directed by Oscar-nominated filmmaker Joe Berlinger, revisits the high-profile case and puts pressure on authorities in Boulder, Colorado, to finally seek justice.

uncover new revelations in the JonBenét Ramsey case. Watch Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey on Netflix and support the call for justice!”

Lou Smit’s Investigative Work

The documentary highlights the efforts of Lou Smit, a retired Colorado Springs detective who was brought in to assist Boulder’s district attorney. Smit concluded early on that the Ramseys were not involved in their daughter’s murder, a stance that clashed with local police. His findings focused on the possibility of an intruder, suggesting that someone could have entered the Ramsey home, waited for the right moment, and committed the crime.

Smit firmly believed that advancements in DNA technology would eventually solve the case. However, viewers may be surprised to learn that authorities in Boulder have yet to fully leverage DNA testing on crucial evidence.

uncover new revelations in the JonBenét Ramsey case. Watch Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey on Netflix and support the call for justice!”

DNA Evidence Ignored

The series reveals that a DNA report exonerating the Ramseys was handed to Boulder police by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) just months after the murder. However, because the findings did not align with the local police’s theory implicating the family, the report was allegedly suppressed. This allowed the media to perpetuate narratives painting the Ramseys as suspects.

According to Smit’s notes, the DNA report was only shared with prosecutors months later. Despite the evidence, it wasn’t until 2008 that the Ramseys were publicly cleared, leaving their reputation scarred by decades of accusations.

Calls for Advanced DNA Testing

Berlinger argues that the case could be solved today with modern DNA technology. He points out that older evidence should be retested, and some items that were sent to the crime lab decades ago remain unanalyzed. JonBenét’s father, John Ramsey, has also urged authorities to use advanced genetic genealogy and cutting-edge DNA techniques. He believes that six or seven key pieces of evidence, including the garrote used in the murder, have yet to undergo proper testing.

The Role of the Media

The documentary also critiques the media’s role in distorting public perception of the case. Berlinger highlights examples of irresponsible journalism, such as sensationalized daytime talk shows and unfounded accusations. He laments the decline of journalistic standards and the rise of opinion-based reporting, which he views as divisive and damaging.

uncover new revelations in the JonBenét Ramsey case. Watch Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey on Netflix and support the call for justice!”

Seeking Justice

Berlinger’s goal is to inspire action from Colorado authorities and provide closure to the Ramsey family. John Ramsey has expressed his belief that a masked intruder who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl in Boulder nine months after JonBenét’s murder may be the same person responsible for his daughter’s death. He suspects the killer was hiding inside their home when the family returned the night of the murder.

Through Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey, Berlinger sheds light on the unresolved aspects of this haunting case, urging authorities to take decisive steps toward justice for JonBenét and her family.

[khaledism2002]

Shadows of Boulder: The Enduring Mystery of JonBenét Ramsey

The Fateful Night On December 26, 1996, the quiet affluent neighbourhood of Boulder, Colorado, was shattered by a crime that would become one of the most infamous mysteries in American history. Six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey, a child beauty pageant star, was found dead in the basement of her family’s home, launching an investigation that would captivate and perplex the nation for decades.

The Initial Investigation: A Complicated Narrative The morning began with Patsy Ramsey’s frantic 911 call, reporting her daughter missing and a bizarre ransom note demanding $118,000 for JonBenét’s return. Hours later, John Ramsey would make the heartbreaking discovery of his daughter’s body in the basement, wrapped in a white blanket.

Know more from Google news

Key Investigation Highlights:

2.5-page ransom note written inside the Ramsey home

Unusual crime scene with conflicting evidence

Multiple potential suspects emerged over the years

Forensic Insights Autopsy reports revealed a complex crime scene:

Cause of death: Skull fracture and strangulation

Evidence of prior sexual assault

The ransom note suggested potential insider knowledge

Suspect Profiles and Theories

Intruder Theory

Unknown male DNA found on JonBenét’s clothing

Potential break-in scenarios

Unexplained footprints and unidentified DNA

Family Scrutiny The Ramsey parents initially faced intense public and legal suspicion:

Inconsistent statements

Unusual behaviour during investigation

John and Patsy’s media appearances raised questions

Burke Ramsey Controversy JonBenét’s brother Burke became another focal point of speculation, though he was only nine at the time of the murder.

Know more from Google news

Legal and Investigative Challenges

Multiple jurisdictional conflicts

Lack of conclusive forensic evidence

Changing investigation teams

Public pressure and media interference

Technological Advancements Recent developments in DNA testing have reignited hope.

Advanced genetic profiling techniques

Genealogical DNA databases

Potential for new investigative leads

Cultural Impact The case transformed true crime reporting:

Sparked nationwide discussions about child beauty pageants

Highlighted media sensationalism

Inspired numerous documentaries and books

Recent Developments Netflix Docuseries Revelations:

New witness testimonies

Reexamination of existing evidence

Potential breakthrough technologies

Know more from Google news

Expert Perspectives Forensic experts and criminal profilers continue to debate the case, offering various theories:

Professional criminal hypothesis

Family dynamics investigation

Psychological profile analysis

Ongoing Investigation Despite multiple grand jury proceedings and extensive investigations, the case remains unsolved. The Boulder Police Department and FBI continue to keep the investigation open.

Social Media and Public Engagement The case continues to trend across platforms:

True crime podcasts

Reddit investigation threads

Social media detective work

Hashtag Movements: #JusticeForJonBenet #UnsolvedMystery #ColdCaseBreakthrough

Emotional Resonance Beyond the forensic details, JonBenét’s story represents a broader narrative about child protection, media ethics, and the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion: A Lasting Enigma Decades after that tragic Christmas night, JonBenét Ramsey’s murder remains a complex puzzle. Each new piece of evidence, each technological advancement brings hope, yet the ultimate truth remains elusive.

Know more from Google news

Disclaimer: This article represents a comprehensive overview based on publicly available information and maintains respect for the ongoing investigation and the Ramsey family’s privacy.

Trigger Warning: Contains references to a child murder investigation.

[incoldbloodsblog]

Unsolved Murder Mysteries: Cold Cases That Haunt Us

Throughout history, numerous murder cases have remained unsolved, leaving behind a trail of questions and chilling mysteries. These cold cases continue to captivate the public's imagination, often becoming the subject of intense speculation and investigation. Here, we explore some of the most notorious unsolved murder mysteries from around the world.

1. The Isdal Woman

In 1970, the body of an unidentified woman was discovered in Norway's Ice Valley. Dubbed the Isdal Woman, her remains were found charred and surrounded by personal belongings, including a bottle of liqueur and clothing with labels removed. Investigators uncovered suitcases filled with wigs and maps, indicating she had been living under multiple aliases. Despite extensive investigations, her identity and the circumstances surrounding her death remain a mystery, with authorities initially ruling it a suicide due to sleeping pills.[1]

2. The Black Dahlia

One of the most infamous cold cases in American history is that of Elizabeth Short, known as the Black Dahlia. In January 1947, Short's mutilated body was discovered in Los Angeles. The brutal nature of her murder and the subsequent media frenzy led to numerous theories about her killer. Despite various suspects being proposed over the years, including connections to Hollywood elites and local criminals, no one has ever been charged with her murder.[2]

3. Jack the Ripper

Operating in London during 1888, Jack the Ripper is perhaps the most notorious serial killer in history. His gruesome murders of at least five women in Whitechapel left authorities baffled. The killer's taunting letters to police added to the intrigue, leading to over a hundred suspects being investigated. Modern forensic techniques have yet to conclusively identify him, making this case a lasting enigma.[3]

4. The Zodiac Killer

Active in Northern California during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Zodiac Killer is known for sending cryptic letters and ciphers to newspapers. While some codes have been deciphered, including one in 2020, his identity remains unknown despite extensive investigations. The Zodiac claimed responsibility for multiple murders but only five have been confirmed. His ability to evade capture continues to haunt law enforcement and amateur sleuths alike.[2]

5. JonBenét Ramsey

The murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey in 1996 shocked the nation. Found dead in her family's Boulder, Colorado home shortly after a ransom note was discovered, JonBenét's case has been marred by controversy and speculation. Despite numerous investigations and media coverage, no one has been charged with her murder, leaving many questions about what truly happened that fateful night.[2]

6. The Jeannette DePalma Murder

In 1972, the body of Jeannette DePalma, a 16-year-old girl from New Jersey, was found on a cliffside adorned with occult symbols. Her death sparked theories involving witchcraft and human sacrifice due to the eerie circumstances surrounding it. Despite extensive searches and investigations, no definitive cause of death was established, leaving this case shrouded in mystery.[1]

7. The Monster with 21 Faces

In Japan from 1984 to 1985, an unknown group known as The Monster with 21 Faces terrorized candy companies through extortion and threats. They kidnapped a company president and sent letters challenging police efforts to catch them. Despite extensive investigations into their identity and motives, this group vanished without a trace, leaving behind an unsettling legacy.[1]

Conclusion

These unsolved murder mysteries not only highlight the limitations of forensic science and investigative techniques but also reflect society's fascination with crime and justice. Each case carries its own unique story filled with intrigue and unanswered questions that continue to haunt families and communities alike. As technology advances and new methods emerge, there remains hope that some of these cold cases may one day be solved, bringing closure to those affected by these tragic events.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more about these cases on:

https://spyscape.com/

2. www.britannica.com

3. www.geeksforgeeks.org

[bafflingmysteries1]

Delve into the perplexing and unresolved mystery surrounding the tragic death of JonBenét Ramsey, a young beauty queen whose murder continues to captivate public interest and elude definitive resolution. Explore the details of the case, the various theories, and the enduring quest for justice. JonBenét Ramsey: Unsolved Case published first on https://www.youtube.com/@bafflingmysteries/

[yes-no-maybe-soo]

10 things for people I'd like to know better:

Thank you for the tag @catbolt ⸜(｡˃ ᵕ ˂ )⸝♡

last song: uhh it's been a few days since I listened to music but pretty sure it was either Headlock (Imogen Heap) or Where I End and You Begin (Radiohead)

favorite color: green

last book: (; •v•) it's been 84 years... but it was The Grass Crown by Colleen McCullough. Still haven't finished it. It's a fantastic book but a doorstopper. Need to get back to it soon.

last film: Restoration.

last tv show: Diabolik Lovers. It's garbage. But it's my garbage. And the soundtrack is 🤌🏻✨️

sweet/savory/spicy: this is like asking me to pick a favorite child wtf. If I had to choose I'd probably say savory though solely b/c of pizza and french fries

relationship: oh hell no lol. The awful way almost all the people I've known throughout my life have been treated by their partners has put me off relationships. I'm happy with my boss of Onychinus thank you 🩷

last googled: brunch foods. I was trying to tell my brother about the amazing french toast I'd had but got a bad case of memory loss and was going insane trying to remember the name of the damn thing dhdjfj

current obsession: true crime. I've been binge listening/watching to podcasts and Youtube vids these past few days. Currently going through The Lore Lodge's ongoing series about the Jonbenét Ramsey case, and getting more and more pissed by the minute. It's the case that frustrates me more than any other b/c it feels so obvious who did it — (but not why) — and yet the likelihood is it will never get solved. Justice will never be served. Which is so devastating.

looking forward to: Magnum Opus. Sylus' bday event and memory. Sylus' missing content. My trip to Italy (my priorities are clearly in order lol)

Tagging w/ no pressure: @sylustful @jinwoosbabyboo @littlecrowkitten @voidsylus

10 THINGS FOR PEOPLE YOU’D LIKE TO KNOW BETTER

thank you mick!! @solardrop for the tag!!

Last song: E.T by katy perry, but the rock version

Favorite color: umm... right now i think it's either a soft pink or the brightest yellow in the world (or black)

Last book: the scorpio races <3

Last film: alice in wonderland, the live action! it is a very nostalgic and happy movie for me. i love the insanity of it

Last tv show: smallville!! it's so good omfg (yes, i did start it for clark...)

Sweet/savoury/spicy: sweet!! love when it hits my sweet tooth real good, but i also crave savory foods sometimes,, need a mix of both fr

Relationship: clark kent's girlfriend <3

Last googled: "how to describe a college party" 😭 the life of a writer...

Current obsession: CLARK KENT!! from smallville... if you didn't know already... i need him so bad in every way shape and form oml... he is so stupid and i love him and i need to kill him.

Looking forward to: graduating highschool... i am so mentally done with it DAMN

no pressure tags!! @bonesnplywood @rigorwhoring @vaaaaaiolet @tojicide @starpoweredv1b @losermuse @myjiro @teddybeartoji + anyone who would like to join!!

[jonbenetrunsolved]

CBS MISLED VIEWERS - 3 Big Ways ‘The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey’ Got It Wrong

From confirmation bias in the 911 tape analysis to dissecting an 'appropriate' response to death, how CBS's documentary didn't tell the whole story

This month, two new TV documentary specials about the unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey have aired in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the six-year-old’s tragic and mysterious death on Christmas night, 1996. Viewers who hoped to learn conclusive proof of who killed the child beauty queen sometime after she was put to bed in her Boulder, Colorado, home were likely disappointed. Two decades later, and the debate over whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder rages on, with A&E and CBS taking startlingly different positions.

Though each promised new exclusive details, both programs largely relied on the available evidence gathered during the investigation and interviews with members of law enforcement involved in the original case. As was the case in 1996 – and every year since – the interpretation of that evidence remains at the center of this unsolved crime. A&E’s documentary, which maintained that the Ramseys were rightfully exonerated by DNA evidence in 2008, concluded that because the intruder theory was dismissed early on by Boulder police, there simply isn’t enough evidence to name a suspect without a complete reinvestigation.

A complete reinvestigation is what CBS’s The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey promised, but the only thing they delivered was a witch hunt that culminated in naming Burke Ramsey, JonBenét’s then nine-year-old brother, as her killer, and implicating John and Patsy Ramsey in a coverup. (Burke Ramsey, now 29, appeared on Dr. Phil last week in his first-ever public interview, and insisted that neither he, his father John nor his late-mother Patsy has anything to do with JonBenét’s death.)

Absent any new physical evidence ormeaningful new witness statements, the fruits of this reinvestigation, led by former FBI agent and criminal profiler Jim Clemente and behavioral analyst Laura Richards, were almost entirely subjective, at times dangerously misleading and dependent on a flawed police investigation that will very likely never result in the killer being brought to justice. 

Here, three big ways CBS mislead viewers with their reinvestigation into JonBenét Ramsey’s murder

Confirmation bias, selective hearing and the misleading 911 call analysis The first step in Clemente and Richards’ reinvestigation was analyzing Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call, specifically an inaudible portion at the very end when the phone clicked but did not disconnect. Because the operator did not hang up, the call continued to record, but no one has ever been able to conclusively decipher the extremely muffled, inaudible voices heard faintly in the background.

But many have tried. One such example is the Aerospace Corporation, who in 1997, at the request of the Boulder Police Department, conducted a test of the 911 tape, but the results were never officially released. However, in 1998, the National Enquirer leaked the results, which were subsequently quoted in Larry Schiller’s 1999 book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenét Murder and the Grand Jury’s Search for the Final Truth, and former Boulder Police Detective Steve Thomas’s book, JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, in 2000.

Clemente and Richards made a vague reference to this analysis, but didn’t disclose that it had been leaked and that they were aware of its conclusions, as any investigator in this case surely is. Instead, they claimed they were going to use “more modern audio technology” to figure out how many voices were on the tape and what they were saying. Sitting in a recording studio, the pair listened as the engineer fussed with levels and knobs. As Clemente and Richards began to “figure out” what was allegedly being said and who was allegedly saying it, subtitles popped up on screen in a flagrant attempt to convince the viewers that they, too, could hear it. There were three voices speaking, they claimed, and one of them was Burke Ramsey, whom Patsy and John told investigators was asleep in his room the morning they discovered JonBenét was missing.

A cursory review of the Twitter reactions to this segment indicates that many viewers could not make out any of what Clemente and Richards claimed to hear. “In the headphones it was incredibly clear,” Clemente tweeted, the implication being that despite devoting substantial time to playing back the audio over and over again, viewers should just trust what Clemente and Richards said they heard.

The problem is, at least as far as the 911 call analysis goes, Clemente and Richards lost credibility by failing to disclose that the leaked results from the Aerospace Corporation’s analysis are word for word what they seemed shocked and awed to hear on the other end of those headphones. Here is what the Aerospace Corporation found in their analysis of that 911 call, according to a report in local newspaper the Daily Camera: “Those sources say enhancement of the tape reveals Burke’s voice in the background, asking his parents ‘What did you find?’,” the paper writes. “John Ramsey allegedly can be heard shouting to Burke, ‘We are not talking to you,’ and Patsy shouts ‘Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus.'”

This is what Clemente and Richards concluded, verbatim. It’s not clear if and how their analysis is new or more advanced than what was done previously. Far more egregiously, not disclosing their knowledge of the conclusions of the Aerospace report misleads viewers about the purity of their own analysis by not addressing the significant risk of confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories – a factor in the vast majority of wrongful conviction cases. Witness identification, recall of memories, evidence collection and analysis and forensic testing can all result in misleading or false results if precautions are not taken to prevent it. At the very least, the risk that confirmation bias can lead to selective hearing should be considered when weighing the significance of Clemente and Richards’ analysis of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call.

Instead, viewers were subjected to their herculean efforts to isolate, amplify and translate this supposed bit of muffled dialogue as if it was just as brand new to them. And then they presented their conclusions as proof that the Ramseys had lied, and used Burke’s alleged presence as an excuse to add him to their suspect list.

Dismissing the DNA evidence entirely Some of the forensic scientists and experts Clemente and Richards assembled for their investigative team, including forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz and forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee, offered some interesting and credible assessments of the physical evidence. For example, Dr. Lee did a demonstration that showed how a blow from a flashlight found on the Ramseys’ kitchen counter could have caused JonBenét’s skull fracture. And both Dr. Lee and Dr. Spitz disagreed with Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy’s decision to exonerate the Ramseys in 2008 based on new DNA tests which revealed the presence of unidentified male DNA from a single source on both JonBenét’s underwear and leggings. Dr. Lee explained how touch DNA is so easily transferred that it can show up on a brand new pair of underwear straight out of its sealed packaging, so his belief that the presence of unidentified male DNA on a little girl’s underwear could have come from a factory worker was convincing.

However, just because the DNA is not proof of an intruder or proof of the Ramseys’ innocence doesn’t mean the touch DNA is completely useless either, as Dr. Lee claimed. Regardless of how CBS regards its investigation, this is still an unsolved murder, no one in the Ramsey family has been proven guilty in a court of law and the intruder theory has not been conclusively ruled out. The absence of proof is not proof of anything.

While touch DNA is easily transferred, there are still scenarios in which a specific DNA match would be regarded as extremely suspicious and should be pursued further. What if the DNA suddenly matched a child molester who had never worked in a factory that manufactured little girls’ underwear and had no reason to have ever come into contact with JonBenét, her new underwear or any of her other belongings that the DNA might have transferred from? Touch DNA alone is not a reason to convict, but it shouldn’t be ignored as an investigatory lead. Dr. Lee’s bizarre conclusion essentially invalidated the usefulness of touch DNA in all criminal cases.

Overselling linguistic forensics and behavioral analysis as conclusive Time and time again, Clemente, Richards, former FBI “linguistic profiler” James Fitzgerald and former FBI statement analyst Stan Burke, reached certain conclusions based on highly subjective analysis of the vocal inflections, body language, pronoun use, linguistic phrasing and human behavior exhibited by the Ramseys during the investigation. Everything from Patsy Ramsey referring to herself as “the mother” in the 911 call, to John Ramsey’s decision to pick up his dead daughter’s body, to the “appropriateness” of Burke Ramsey’s response to her death was scrutinized through the lens of the investigators’ “expertise.”

The Case of never made it clear that these areas of forensic science and behavioral analysis are viewed by the courts with varying degrees of acceptability and reliability, and with very good reason. Human behavior and language is not one-size-fits-all, especially with the introduction of trauma. Jim Clemente voicing his opinion that Burke didn’t respond or emote “appropriately” seems irresponsible, especially when presented as evidence of guilt.

The admissibility of linguistic forensics and behavioral analysis testimony is subject to a set of standards that may limit its scope or forbid it entirely in a court of law. In criminal cases, these methods are more likely to be used to eliminate potential suspects – not presented as proof of someone’s guilt. 

Alas, the social media response to The Case of has been flooded with comments about how Burke is “weird” and “a total psychopath” who is “obviously guilty.” For Clemente and his team to stoke that mentality without any caveats has repercussions that go beyond this case. Human beings are naturally inclined towards relying on their emotions and intuition, so expert testimony and evidence that is informed by subjective assessments of what is and isn’t normal behavior can be incredibly convincing.

Moreover, Clemente and Richards presented themselves and their team of investigators as infallible, their expertise as inarguable and their opinions as indisputable facts. More than once, they made unproven, disputed or misleading statements without providing further evidence, like the claim that John Ramsey disappeared for an hour and a half the morning of the murder – in actuality, he was in his study and the Boulder police just didn’t notice. They also rushed to disprove alternate theories. After one attempt to get through a replica model of the basement window, Clemente and Richards concluded there could not have been an intruder because the spider web in the corner was “destroyed” and the real spider web in the Ramseys basement window was undisturbed.

Yet when laying out their theory for Burke Ramsey as the killer, these experts literally made up a story about Burke killing JonBenét (on accident or in anger, but probably unintentionally) by hitting her in the head with a flashlight because she took a piece of his pineapple. The proof? JonBenét had undigested pineapple in her stomach. Even if this theory had been proven back in 1996, at age nine, Burke would have been too young to be legally prosecuted in Colorado, and he certainly couldn’t be held responsible for any horrendous cover-up instigated by his parents. To unleash a witch hunt on him now without rock solid proof of guilt is a cruel ratings ploy.

CBS included a disclaimer at the end of their closing credits which acknowledged that the “opinions and conclusions … about how [the crime] may have occurred represent just some of the a number of possible scenarios,” and encouraged viewers to “reach their own conclusions.” This bare minimum of legal cover may be just enough to protect CBS from John Ramsey’s inevitable lawsuit – as his attorney Lin Wood has already suggested is in the works – but it likely went unnoticed by viewers. The repercussions of depending on such controversial evidence go beyond this case, as jury members (the majority of which are not educated in the law) are often asked to weigh similar evidence and testimony when deciding guilt or innocence. The Case of oversold the same flawed methodology that has manipulated juries and resulted in countless wrongful convictions, coupled it with cherry-picked evidence and an extreme case of tunnel vision in order to finger a nine-year-old for a 20-year-old cold murder. That’s disturbing and irresponsible, no matter who killed JonBenét Ramsey.

CBS investigators allege that it was Burke, JonBenét’s older brother, who murdered her. Watch here.

x

[redrabbitspod]

Today (Aug 6) JonBenét Ramsey would have turned 30. It’s horrible and such a shame her death never received any justice despite it being so obvious - the brother did it and the parents covered it up and nobody can convince me otherwise.

Congratulations on solving the case. -A

[austin-lockhart]

What do you regret most?

“That JonBenét Patricia Ramsey never saw justice.” 

[termytheantisocialbutterfly]

Kind of really sick of the "JonBenét Ramsey's brother killed her" stuff. Like, first of all, just because a 9yrold maybe could doesn't mean that he did and, second of all, if you're continuing to parade this theory around after he's been ruled out by DNA evidence found on her pants and in her underwear then I hate to break it to you but you're the police officer everyone hates because he cares more about a simple answer than justice.

[christianpraiseteam]

Raped and Left for Dead at 8, Texas Woman Details How She Found Her Attacker 20 Years Later

It took nearly 20 years to find Schuett's attacker

By Karen Mizoguchi

March 11, 2017 03:58 PM

Each product we feature has been independently selected and reviewed by our editorial team. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.

FB

Tweet

More

At age 8 in 1990, Jennifer Schuett was kidnapped from her bedroom window by an unknown man who raped her, slashed her throat from ear to ear with a pocket knife, and left for dead in a field near Dickinson, Texas.

The next day, Schuett was found by children playing hide-and-seek in the field. Unable to speak, she scribbled notes to help the police’s investigation to find her attacker.

It wasn’t until over 19 years later, in October 2009, that police located and arrested Dennis Earl Bradford for the kidnapping, rape and attempted murder of Schuett.

Now in 2017, the survivor, 35, is sharing her lifelong journey for justice in an interview with CBS’ 48 Hours Live to Tell: Afraid of the Dark that will air on Saturday.

• Pick up PEOPLE’s special edition True Crime Stories: Cases That Shocked America, on sale now, for the latest on Casey Anthony, JonBenét Ramsey and more.

“I remember writing down … just every little detail that I could remember, everything that I thought would help in finding him,” Schuett told 48 Hours. “I just remember remembering his name. And so I wrote, ‘He said his name was Dinnese [Dennis].’ ”

jennifer-schuett-sized

In her very-detailed police notes, the 8-year-old wrote everything from what she was wearing to her attacker’s physical appearance and a map showing where he took her.

“He said he was an undercover cop. Big gun. He said I don’t have my gun or badge right now,” young Jennifer wrote in one of her notes, while in another she detailed: “He choked me 4 times as hard as he could yes in the car.”

But in May 2010, Schuett was “robbed” of the possibility to face Bradford, 40, in court after he was found hanged in his jail cell in what evidently was a suicide while awaiting his sentence. At the time, Schuett told the Associated Press that she was “shocked and disappointed” and felt “as though I was robbed of that opportunity” to confront him.

Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Click here to get breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases in the True Crime Newsletter.

“I can say that I feel very blessed and grateful that I was able to find out who attacked me all of those years ago, and that he was arrested last year, and taken off of the streets so that he couldn’t harm anyone else,” Schuett wrote on her website.

48 Hours Live to Tell: Afraid of the Dark airs Saturday at 10 p.m. ET/PT on CBS.