The murder of JonBenét Ramsey remains one of the most haunting unsolved cases in American history. But what if the world’s most famous fictional detective had been on the case? In this compelling thought experiment, we imagine how Sherlock Holmes, with his meticulous logic and legendary attention to detail, would have navigated the evidence, the ransom note, and the contradictions that still baffle investigators today.
HOW SHERLOCK HOLMES
MIGHT HAVE APPROACHED INVESTIGATING
THE JONBENÉT RAMSEY CASE
The murder of JonBenét Ramsey in 1996 remains one of the most perplexing unsolved cases in modern American criminal history. The combination of a wealthy, high-profile family, a suspicious ransom note, a chaotic crime scene, and contradictory behaviors from those involved has fueled decades of speculation. While real-world investigators have struggled to bring the case to resolution, it is intriguing to imagine how the world’s most famous fictional detective—Sherlock Holmes—might have approached this mystery. Based on Holmes’s methodology as outlined in the stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, we can reasonably speculate on the steps Holmes would likely have taken to investigate the JonBenét Ramsey case.
Holmes’ first priority would undoubtedly have been to secure the Ramsey house, ensuring that no one—neither police officers, family members, nor friends—contaminated the scene. One of the real-life failures of the original investigation was the mishandling of the crime scene, which became crowded and compromised crucial evidence. Holmes, known for his meticulous attention to detail, would have insisted on preserving the physical environment exactly as it was found.
Holmes’ observational skills would have come to the forefront as he combed through the house for the smallest inconsistencies. He would have paid careful attention to entry points, signs of forced entry (or the lack thereof), and the placement of objects. The oddity of the ransom note being written inside the house—a fact that disturbed real-life detectives—would not have escaped Holmes’ notice. He would have likely identified this detail as a key to unlocking the case.
The lengthy, handwritten ransom note found in the Ramsey home would have fascinated Holmes. Unlike some modern investigators who initially believed it to be a deliberate misdirection, Holmes would have subjected the note to rigorous analysis. He would have examined not just the handwriting but the linguistic patterns, phrasing, and cultural references contained within the note.
Holmes famously cultivated specialized knowledge, and he would likely have drawn on studies of ransom communications to assess whether the note fit the typical profile of a kidnapping or whether it was an intentional fabrication. He would have found the peculiar length, tone, and specific monetary demand ($118,000—the same as John Ramsey’s recent bonus) highly significant.
Holmes would have likely concluded early that the ransom note was staged and that the time it would have taken to write such a document inside the house pointed toward someone with unimpeded access.
Holmes’ analytical mind would have constructed a precise timeline of the Ramsey family’s activities on the night of the murder. He would have rigorously cross-checked each family member’s statements with physical evidence, phone records, and the statements of friends and neighbors.
Holmes often emphasized eliminating the impossible. If he found that an intruder scenario required too many improbabilities—entering unnoticed, composing a lengthy note without interruption, and escaping without leaving solid evidence—he would logically have begun to focus on those within the home.
One of Holmes’ great strengths was his ability to remain emotionally detached from his subjects, regardless of their wealth, status, or emotional displays. In the Ramsey case, many investigators struggled with cognitive biases—either too quickly assuming the family’s guilt or too readily dismissing it based on social standing.
Holmes would have approached the Ramseys with complete objectivity, neither vilifying nor exonerating them without evidence. He would have interrogated their behaviors carefully—not just what they said, but what they did not say. Their movements, inconsistencies, and reactions would have provided Holmes with additional data points. For example, the early reluctance of the Ramseys to fully cooperate with police interviews might have raised questions for Holmes, though he would not have taken such behavior as evidence of guilt on its own.
Holmes’ reliance on physical evidence would have been uncompromising. He would have carefully examined the garrote used in the murder, the partially consumed pineapple (which JonBenét had eaten shortly before her death), and the location of her body in the basement. Holmes would likely have been particularly interested in the microscopic details—fibers, footprints, DNA traces—although, in the 1890s, his tools were more limited than modern forensics. However, as a man always ahead of his time, it is reasonable to assume Holmes would have eagerly employed contemporary DNA technology.
Holmes’ expertise would have allowed him to discern whether signs of a struggle, the condition of JonBenét’s clothing, and the position of her body were consistent with an intruder theory or staged by someone familiar with the house.
While Holmes was not a modern criminal profiler, his deep understanding of human nature often allowed him to intuit the psychological underpinnings of a crime. He would have considered what sort of person would have committed such a crime in such a peculiar way—a staged kidnapping with sexual elements but no ransom attempt actually pursued.
Holmes would likely have speculated that the crime was not committed by an opportunistic intruder but rather by someone within the immediate orbit of the family, perhaps involving a moment of anger, panic, or unintended harm, followed by a clumsy attempt to misdirect investigators.
While Conan Doyle’s stories rarely leave Holmes stymied, it is possible that, like the real-world investigators, Holmes might not have been able to produce irrefutable proof in this case due to the badly compromised crime scene and conflicting forensic evidence. However, Holmes’ methodology would almost certainly have led him to deduce that the most likely solution lay within the household.
His famous maxim would have applied: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Holmes might have concluded that an external intruder scenario was impossible based on the evidence—or lack thereof—and that only those with familiarity with the house, the family’s routines, and unguarded access could have staged the events as they unfolded.
Holmes would not have been satisfied with the ambiguous and unresolved status of the case. He would have persisted, perhaps uncovering psychological cracks, hidden motives, or overlooked physical evidence that could have shed final light on the tragedy.
The JonBenét Ramsey case is one of the most infamous unsolved crimes of the modern era, its notoriety amplified by police missteps, media sensationalism, and enduring uncertainty. Sherlock Holmes, with his detached rationality, relentless pursuit of the smallest clues, and insistence on objective deduction, might have offered the best chance of unraveling the mystery. Though we can only speculate how he would have ultimately resolved the case, his investigative principles—thoroughness, logic, specialized knowledge, and fearless confrontation of uncomfortable truths—remain a gold standard for detectives seeking justice in even the most confounding cases.
Grab your copy today… 52 Weeks 52 Sherlock Holmes Novels
 | A guest post by
|