In the digital age, where true crime, spirituality, and social media intersect, few cases continue to evoke as much emotion and controversy as the murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey.

Nearly three decades after her death in Boulder, Colorado, the case remains officially unsolved, its unanswered questions fueling documentaries, podcasts, books, and online speculation.

In recent years, a new and increasingly contentious dimension has emerged: paranormal investigations claiming to communicate with the spirit of JonBenét herself.

One such session, broadcast online under the banner of a show called Paranormal Justice, has reignited debate—not about forensic evidence, but about ethics, belief, and the boundaries of true crime storytelling.

The livestream, hosted by self-described paranormal investigator Candace Star, presented what she described as a spirit communication session intended to “reach out” to JonBenét Ramsey.

Using a combination of electronic voice phenomena tools, including a spirit box device, Star attempted to ask questions directly related to the child’s death.

Throughout the session, fragmented sounds, distorted voices, and emotionally charged interpretations were offered in real time, accompanied by visible distress from the host, who repeatedly expressed shock at what she believed she was hearing.

Star framed the session as a continuation of previous paranormal experiments she said she conducted in 2018, claiming consistency between past and present recordings.

According to her commentary, certain words and phrases appeared to align with questions she posed aloud, leading her to describe the experience as unusually intense compared to her prior work.

At several moments, the host paused the session, stating she had never heard her equipment behave in such a way before.

The broadcast ended with her promising to review the audio carefully and return with further analysis.

Clips from the session circulated rapidly on social media platforms, drawing thousands of comments within hours.

Some viewers expressed belief, describing the experience as emotionally overwhelming and compelling.

Others reacted with discomfort or anger, arguing that the use of a murdered child’s name and story for paranormal content crossed an ethical line.

Still others emphasized skepticism, pointing out that spirit box devices are known to produce random snippets of radio noise that can easily be interpreted subjectively, particularly when listeners are primed with specific expectations.

This divide reflects a broader cultural tension surrounding the JonBenét Ramsey case.

For years, the lack of resolution has created a vacuum filled by speculation.

Traditional investigative journalism, constrained by evidence and legal standards, often reaches an impasse when no new facts emerge.

Paranormal content, by contrast, operates under entirely different assumptions—ones rooted in personal belief, intuition, and subjective interpretation rather than verifiable proof.

When these two worlds collide, the result can be deeply polarizing.

Experts in psychology and media studies note that such sessions can be powerfully persuasive, especially when they involve emotionally charged subjects.

The phenomenon known as pareidolia—the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns in random stimuli—plays a significant role in how audiences interpret ambiguous sounds.

When a host reacts strongly, viewers may unconsciously follow those cues, hearing intention where none can be objectively demonstrated.

This does not necessarily imply dishonesty, but it does underscore how easily belief can shape perception.

Ethicists have also weighed in on the growing trend of paranormal investigations tied to real criminal cases.

Critics argue that invoking the voice or spirit of a deceased child risks retraumatizing surviving family members and blurring the line between respectful remembrance and entertainment.

Unlike fictional ghost stories, real cases involve real victims, real grief, and real reputational consequences.

When paranormal narratives imply answers to unresolved crimes, they may unintentionally reinforce unproven theories or public suspicion, even when disclaimers are offered.

Supporters of such content, however, see it differently.

They argue that paranormal investigations provide an alternative outlet for collective grief and a way for people to process injustice when the legal system fails to deliver closure.

For believers, these sessions are not about replacing forensic investigation, but about giving voice—symbolically or spiritually—to victims who were silenced.

In this view, the emotional sincerity of the host matters more than scientific validation.

What complicates matters further is the enduring public fascination with JonBenét Ramsey herself.

Unlike many victims of violent crime, her image—frozen in pageant photographs—has become iconic.

This visibility has made her story both unforgettable and vulnerable to exploitation.

Each new interpretation, whether journalistic, speculative, or paranormal, adds another layer to a narrative already burdened by decades of conjecture.

Law enforcement officials have consistently stated that paranormal evidence has no place in criminal investigation, and there is no indication that such content influences official inquiries.

The Boulder Police Department continues to maintain that the case remains open and that any credible, factual information should be directed through proper legal channels.

No claims made during paranormal broadcasts have been recognized as evidentiary or actionable.

The rise of platforms like YouTube and TikTok has nonetheless changed how audiences engage with true crime.

Viewers are no longer passive consumers; they comment, share, remix, and debate in real time.

This interactivity amplifies both belief and backlash.

In the case of the Paranormal Justice broadcast, reaction videos, critical analyses, and response threads proliferated within days, demonstrating how quickly such content can escape its original context and take on a life of its own.

For Candace Star, the session marked what she described as one of the most emotionally intense moments of her work.

For viewers, it became a litmus test of where they stand on belief, skepticism, and responsibility.

For the broader public, it reopened familiar questions about how society should engage with unresolved tragedies in an era where content creation often rewards emotional extremes.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the broadcast says less about the existence of the paranormal and more about the enduring power of JonBenét Ramsey’s story.

Nearly thirty years on, the case still commands attention, still provokes strong reactions, and still resists closure.

Whether approached through forensic science, investigative journalism, or spiritual belief, it remains a mirror reflecting society’s discomfort with uncertainty.

As true crime continues to evolve across digital spaces, creators and audiences alike face a challenge: how to balance curiosity with compassion, storytelling with responsibility, and belief with restraint.

In the absence of definitive answers, the choices made in how stories are told may matter as much as the stories themselves.