JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[Robbi]

You have to take the situation into account also.

Our police department is great, but not exactly skilled in murder investigations. They had already totally messed up the crime scene. They had one other murder in town and that was the unsolved murder of Robert Redford's daughter's boyfriend. Not exactly the kind of feel good trust one would have when one's daughter was just murdered. Our police department was more used to making pot busts than anything major like murder.

Ramsey is a smart man. He would have been stupid not to lawyer up. Would you trust your life to Barney Fife, after the first responder had already totally not followed procedure when they were called to the house?

And FWIW, the DA and sheriff's office know exactly who killed her. Our neighbor was one of the investigating officers (a competent team after the first responder debacle) and let that slip at a party. However, unless things change in the future (technology, etc), according to him, they will never, ever be able to arrest let alone prosecute.

One other thing - do you really think that if the DA had so much compelling evidence, enough evidence to write an entire book about, that they wouldn't go ahead and make an arrest?

Especially when the general public, ie: the potential jury pool, reads the book and believes it? That would be a fair indicator that the prosecution might have a better than average chance at a verdict.

Many around here consider the author a whack-a-doodle.

How long ago did the investigator let it slip? Seems like if this was true and the Ramseys were not involved, all of these people would not be writing these books.Ramsey has a team of pitbulls for lawyers. They could issue some sort of cease and desist or demand that the police dept. say they have a suspect and that it isn't one of the Ramsey family. Even people who were very close freinds of the Ramseys suspect them.

I think we all know or have heard of cases where for one reason or another, people have gotten away with murder. Many might consider the author a whack-a doodle but many also think the Ramseys got away with both a murder and a cover up.

 

[goofy!]

How long ago did the investigator let it slip? Seems like if this was true and the Ramseys were not involved, all of these people would not be writing these books.Ramsey has a team of pitbulls for lawyers. They could issue some sort of cease and desist or demand that the police dept. say they have a suspect and that it isn't one of the Ramsey family. Even people who were very close freinds of the Ramseys suspect them.

I think we all know or have heard of cases where for one reason or another, people have gotten away with murder. Many might consider the author a whack-a doodle but many also think the Ramseys got away with both a murder and a cover up.

The DA has already said that the Ramseys were no longer under the umbrella of suspicion.

Lots of books of supposition are written about big cases. Doesn't make them grounded in truth.

You personally know these very close friends of the Ramseys that suspect them? Our neighborhoods shared the same elementary school. Generally, their close friends were fiercely protective of them.

But who knows, maybe it is the Ramseys that the police know about. Or maybe not. It is interesting what things people share when they have had a few too many drinks.

Again, you have to ask your self logically. If there is so much compelling evidence that an entire book can be written about it, then how come there isn't an arrest?

The only logical answer is that the book is based on pulling so called facts out of the air and written to make lots of money.

But it doesn't matter what we believe, only what the DA believes.

Now if they could only find Sid Wells' killer. A little town with two big murders.

 

[lovin'fl]

With all the new shows...Dr Phil coming up and whatnot...anyone have any new thoughts?

 

[BriarfoxinWA]

I watched a show on it last night. It had a lot of the autopsy information and some expert theory that the DNA recently retested points to an individual of hispanic origin. The show basically points to poor police work by the local agency and the push to indict the parents regardless of the evidence to the contrary

 

[lovin'fl]

I saw that show too. I'll just say spin, spin, spin. Touch DNA...puh-hu-lease!

 

[BriarfoxinWA]

I saw that show too. I'll just say spin, spin, spin. Touch DNA...puh-hu-lease!

I agree - it can be spun any way you want. But they did poke some holes in the original theories.

 

[lovin'fl]

The big red flag that cannot be explained...the very detailed ransom letter on their own notepad. Why on God's green earth would any random killer take the time to stop and assault, then kill, then look around for paper and pen and then write a long long ransom letter?

He had the best team money could buy. ALso seems very odd that they were so focused on how wronged they were (wrote a book about that)...not how there was no justice for that sweet child.

 

[Bluestars]

My opinion is that the boy did it and his parents covered it up. I read somewhere that she was found in underwear that was several sizes larger than what she would normally wear. That fact alone (if true, maybe it's not) would make me very skeptical about any DNA found in it.

I read this about the DNA:

1. named Investigators' View. However, "Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."
2. Tom Bennett's View. Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze...

 

[sunshinehighway]

I watched the show and thought it was interesting. I don't know a huge amount about the case. I'm sure the show left a huge amount out but I do think the things it discussed were interesting.
I was somewhat appalled that the police leaked so many false things to the press.
The DNA being found on both the underwear and waistband of her pants makes it harder to dismiss as coming from the manufacturer.
I was always under the impression that the ground was snow covered and there were no footprints which made me convinced it had to be someone in the house. Now I know that wasnt true.
I think the one big thing from the show was the fingernail marks on her neck. If those v are fingernail marks, the police definitely have it wrong. She wasn't hit on the head and knocked unconscious first which basically goes against their whole theory of the murder.

 

[King Schultz]

As I recall, whoever wrote the ransom note knew the exact amount of the fathers bonus.

Kind of narrows it down.

 

[lovin'fl]

They used touch DNA which is where they scrape skin cells from the items. It could have been skin cells from ANY of the very many people who handled her clothing items. I can't believe there was a way to test every single person who handled her items...could have been skin cells left way prior to her murder.

The marks they claim were stun gun marks...sure looked like those toy train tracks that matched up to me. Both sides can claim things for fact to support their viewpoint and claim things unsubstantiated that go against their viewpoint. Even the marks on her neck that might be her fingernail marks (though none of her own skin was under her fingernails, I don't believe).

 

[kidshop]

I only caught the last few minutes of the new show, but the fingernail marks are interesting. What I remember from the book, the things that made me wonder; was the pineapple in her stomach, the ransom note, and that Patsy was dressed in the same clothes as the night before. She got dressed before she found the letter. I have always wondered about that neighbor too. Oh, and Burke was heard on the 911 call, but they said he was sleeping at that time. Did they address any of these things on the new show?
Nothing ever seems to fit just right. My gut says the parents know something.

Poor JonBenet

 

[Teresa Pitman]

The underwear the JonBenet was wearing was too big for her and was taken right out of the package. So the "touch DNA" on it may have been from someone who manufactured it or put it in the package. It could also have rubbed onto her pants while she was being dressed. So that certainly doesn't indicate an outside killer.

To me, the ransom note clinches that it was someone in the family. I just can't believe that a killer would break into the house, kill the child (leaving the body in the basement), then search for a pad of paper and a pen and start writing a three-page ransom note. There was also evidence that there was a previous version of the note that was scrapped part way through and then the killer started over. You're looking a long period of time that this person must have been sitting in the house, lights on, working away on this note which must be the longest ransom note in history, the whole time risking discovery if someone happened to get up in the night to go to the bathroom or get a drink from the fridge. And why? The child was dead in the basement and would surely be found before anyone would pay the ransom money. So there was no point to it.

The only possible reason for that ransom note that I can see was to get the police to search somewhere outside the house, presumably to give the parents a chance to remove and hide the body. When they could see that this plan wasn't going to work, John then went down and "discovered" the body, and went with the new theory of a killer rather than a kidnapper.

I just can't get past that ransom note. To me, it so clearly says "someone in her family did this."

 

[sunshinehighway]

The underwear the JonBenet was wearing was too big for her and was taken right out of the package. So the "touch DNA" on it may have been from someone who manufactured it or put it in the package. It could also have rubbed onto her pants while she was being dressed. So that certainly doesn't indicate an outside killer.

To me, the ransom note clinches that it was someone in the family. I just can't believe that a killer would break into the house, kill the child (leaving the body in the basement), then search for a pad of paper and a pen and start writing a three-page ransom note. There was also evidence that there was a previous version of the note that was scrapped part way through and then the killer started over. You're looking a long period of time that this person must have been sitting in the house, lights on, working away on this note which must be the longest ransom note in history, the whole time risking discovery if someone happened to get up in the night to go to the bathroom or get a drink from the fridge. And why? The child was dead in the basement and would surely be found before anyone would pay the ransom money. So there was no point to it.

The only possible reason for that ransom note that I can see was to get the police to search somewhere outside the house, presumably to give the parents a chance to remove and hide the body. When they could see that this plan wasn't going to work, John then went down and "discovered" the body, and went with the new theory of a killer rather than a kidnapper.

I just can't get past that ransom note. To me, it so clearly says "someone in her family did this."

The ransom note is definitely odd. The thing I wonder is, if it was the parents, why would they have called the police so soon? If it were then I would think the point of the ransom note was to buy time before the body was discovered. The note repeatedly says not to call the police and gives a time frame for the kidnappers to call. If the parents had killed her and written the note, it seems like the purpose would be to have have time to hide the body and an excuse as to why they didn't call the police but they didn't hide the body and called police right away.

One thing from the show on A&E, John went to check the basement because one of the officer there (a woman, detective I think) sent him to do that to keep him busy. I guess for me that makes it less odd than he just did it on his own.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I think that Patsy called the police because she was panicky. I think she wrote the ransom note, with direction from John, but then started to think it might look suspicious if she didn't call the police, so she did. Immediately after, she called some of their friends to come over - another not very logical strategy. I don't think this murder was planned in advance, so they were kind of making up their cover-up as they went along.

 

[cabanafrau]

They used touch DNA which is where they scrape skin cells from the items. It could have been skin cells from ANY of the very many people who handled her clothing items. I can't believe there was a way to test every single person who handled her items...could have been skin cells left way prior to her murder.

The marks they claim were stun gun marks...sure looked like those toy train tracks that matched up to me. Both sides can claim things for fact to support their viewpoint and claim things unsubstantiated that go against their viewpoint. Even the marks on her neck that might be her fingernail marks (though none of her own skin was under her fingernails, I don't believe).

Locard's principle leads people to believe that something like CSI is realistic and at our fingertips. That's simply not true. Skin cells are not scraped from items to test for DNA. Areas of suspicion on an item are swabbed and the swabs are then tested or cuttings of fabric are taken which are then tested for DNA. Scraped skin cells are found under fingernails, which are clipped and tested for DNA -- that's why a deceased victim's hands are bagged until the medical examiner can do the clippings at the post mortem.

It's entirely possible I could walk up to your desk right at this moment, put my hands down on it for a full minute and then walk away without leaving detectable DNA or even legible fingerprints behind. Happens all the time.

IMO a lot of "evidence" in this case has become factual in people's minds because it has passed through rumors, news accounts and books like a large game of telephone until most people assume it's true. I don't believe her parents or brother had anything to do with it. Nor do I believe anyone will be successfully prosecuted absent compelling direct evidence which cannot be impeached, which seems highly unlikely at this juncture. At this point there's not a hope that a case could rise above the burden of proof on indirect or circumstantial evidence alone.

 

[lovin'fl]

Maybe they couldn't risk being seen driving away from house (if they had waited to call police until after removing her body from the home). He did go check the basement at the suggestion from the LE but that was his second search. He and his friend had searched before as well as LE. LE said they didn't go in that room she was found in because they were looking for intruder escape routes and there was an outside the door latch on the door so an intruder could not have gone in that room and latched the door from the other side before escaping a window. The friend did check that room on the first go through but didn't see her in the darkness and could not find a light. Yet John, when he found her, opened the door and immediately found her and screamed.

 

[lovin'fl]

They said in the show last night, the medical examiner, that they scraped the clothing items for skin cells. That was the touch DNA. They said it could be DNA from anyone who touched/handled her items at any time and that every single person who handled had to be tested to rule out.

 

[lovin'fl]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682451/Brief Chronology#Overview

 

[fly girl]

What channel was this show on?

I don't know a lot of details on this case, but I always found it incredibly sad.