JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[msjprincess]

I think the mom or brother accidentally killed Jon Benet (still child abuse) The foreign DNA could easily be explained as part of John Ramsey's cover up suppose they knew they needed DNA to take the suspicion off their family John could have put on gloves gone to the nearest public rest room rubbed the gloves on the men's room toilet came home and touched Jon benet's clothing voila foreign male DNA on her clothing!!!

Why did he go to a public bathroom?

 

[cabanafrau]

Why did he go to a public bathroom?

To get unknown DNA with absolutely no connection to the family. Genius coverup strategy. Extra points for only picking up the one sample.

 

[msjprincess]

To get unknown DNA with absolutely no connection to the family. Genius coverup strategy. Extra points for only picking up the one sample.

Oh yeah makes sense.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Why did he go to a public bathroom?

A public bathroom in the middle of the night in the middle of a wealthy suburbs. On Christmas night. And with all the explosion of media the next day no one remembers seeing him.
Hmmm. No.

 

[LisaR]

Why did he go to a public bathroom?

Silly you! It was so he could find some foreign DNA.

I wonder why John didn't take the flashlight with him to the public bathroom and dispose of it?
I wonder why John didn't run his recently acquired foreign DNA all over the flashlight before leaving it on the counter in their home?

 

[kidshop]

Knowing what we know now about the way the police screwed up this investigation, it is probably a good thing they didn't talk to the police! But were they really not speaking to the police and not cooperating? It is my understanding that they immediately gave blood, hair, and writing samples. That doesn't strike me as people who aren't being cooperative. Did they do a formal sit down interview? No! John says he regrets going on CNN, but the police seemed certain they were the ones who did it as evidenced by the comments some of the investigators are still making today. I can see why they weren't willing to sit for an interrogation. The Ramsey family had the advantage of being rich. They had expensive lawyers who were advising them on what they should do with regard to the police. Most people in these situations don't have the money or knowledge on how to deal with anything when something horrific happens. I wonder how many people with good lawyers sit down for an interrogation unless the person has actually been arrested?

They did not give their statements to police for 4 months and they were given copies of the police reports so they would know what to expect. If this had been you or me, we would have been separated that day and the statements compared. If you have money maybe you can skip this step.

According to Lou Smit there was debris on the floor beneath the window http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

SMIT: That's the window. Now, again, that picture that you see is the first photograph taken of that window after the crime scene technicians got back into the house. Now, later on, I believe that it was noted that this window may have been opened even by John Ramsey and Fleet White. But what that window did show us, when we first seen it, was that entry could have been made there. There was a scuff mark down the wall. There was leaves and debris on the floor, directly below that open window.

And when we looked at photographs of the window well that leads into that window, we've also seen evidence of recent disturbance. There is also foliage under the grate that covers this window well, which would indicate that someone may have opened and shut the grate. There is also disturbance on the windowsill of the middle window only, not the other two windows.

The words say that, but when I saw they video I didn't see anything floor. Perhaps that wasn't shown or it was behind the suitcase. That would be a very significant finding. I did find Lou Smit to be very credible.

You think she was "handled" after being found in ways where DNA was likely to have been transferred to her underwear? Let's logically consider that a moment. That DNA isn't from a family member. Law enforcement and the medical examiner don't touch her or her clothing without gloves, neither do the lab techs.

ETA, as far as the grand jury and the prosecutor subsequently not going forward, you can try someone legally one time for a crime and then double jeopardy attaches. Obviously the prosecutor did not feel they could meet the burden of proof. Also, a grand jury indicting is not the same thing as they thought someone was guilty. The grand jury proceedings are not the same as an actual trial where an accused is afforded due process.

I think transfer dna is easily and readily transferred! It is skin cells or single cells We are all covered with it, and it doesn't necessarily belong to the murderer.

The grand jury voted there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Alex Hunter did not agree.

 

[cabanafrau]

Silly you! It was so he could find some foreign DNA.

I wonder why John didn't take the flashlight with him to the public bathroom and dispose of it?
I wonder why John didn't run his recently acquired foreign DNA all over the flashlight before leaving it on the counter in their home?

Bet he did get rid of the stun gun though.

Wait, there was no stun gun. Idiot should have tossed the train tracks.

 

[cabanafrau]

I think transfer dna is easily and readily transferred! It is skin cells or single cells We are all covered with it, and it doesn't necessarily belong to the murderer.

The grand jury voted there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Alex Hunter did not agree.

Who would have been handling her underwear without gloves after she was found to facilitate the transfer?

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

I think transfer dna is easily and readily transferred! It is skin cells or single cells We are all covered with it, and it doesn't necessarily belong to the murderer.

The grand jury voted there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Alex Hunter did not agree.

There is a saying that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. And there is a reason for that saying.

Like everyone else, I have no idea whodunit. But the least damning piece of evidence against the family is that the grand jury voted to indict them.

 

[Sandy Cross]

I believe the mom or son accidentally killed Jon Benet (still child abuse) suppose John Ramsey knew he needed foreign DNA to throw suspicion off the family John could have put on gloves gone to the nearest male public rest room wiped the toilet seat with the glove went home touched Jon benet's clothes with the glove voila foreign male DNA on Jon benet's clothes....

 

[cabanafrau]

There is a saying that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. And there is a reason for that saying.

Like everyone else, I have no idea whodunit. But the least damning piece of evidence against the family is that the grand jury voted to indict them.

If we go down the road of believing they're more likely to be guilty because the grand jury indicted them we may as well dispense with trying anybody, simply accuse and voila, convict and incarcerate.

 

[msjprincess]

If we go down the road of believing they're more likely to be guilty because the grand jury indicted them we may as well dispense with trying anybody, simply accuse and voila, convict and incarcerate.

Excellent point.

 

[Hikergirl]

I believe the mom or son accidentally killed Jon Benet (still child abuse) suppose John Ramsey knew he needed foreign DNA to throw suspicion off the family John could have put on gloves gone to the nearest male public rest room wiped the toilet seat with the glove went home touched Jon benet's clothes with the glove voila foreign male DNA on Jon benet's clothes....

So you think the theory of DNA belonging to a male at the underwear manufacturing plant is too far fetched?

 

[cabanafrau]

Excellent point.

I think there's a little bit of confusion when people hear the words grand jury and they assume there was a trial where the accused got due process.

 

[Sandy Cross]

Why did he go to a public bathroom?

I meant to get foreign DNA it would have to be a strangers DNA

So you think the theory of DNA belonging to a male at the underwear manufacturing plant is too far fetched?

I don't think its far fetched but they said the same DNA was on the waistband of her leggings it would be strange to have DNA from her underwear be on her waistband

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

I think there's a little bit of confusion when people hear the words grand jury and they assume there was a trial where the accused got due process.

I'm sure there are many people that no idea how the grand jury process works.

 

[Sandy Cross]

Welcome to the DisBoards.
Have you been following this case awhile?

Thank you sooo much !! Yes I have been following from the beginning

 

[cabanafrau]

A public bathroom in the middle of the night in the middle of a wealthy suburbs. On Christmas night. And with all the explosion of media the next day no one remembers seeing him.
Hmmm. No.

He must not have been putting forth his cordial personality when he did it because he knew that would have made him stand out as unusual.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm sure there are many people that no idea how the grand jury process works.

I know I wouldn't want to have my liberty decided solely upon a grand jury proceedings, or for that matter a preliminary exam as is standard in most cases, where a judge decides if there are facts in dispute that would merit a case being bound over for trial.

 

[Sandy Cross]

He must not have been putting forth his cordial personality when he did it because he knew that would have made him stand out as unusual.

I believe you can go to a public bathroom without being noticed especially in a busy place also maybe a spot a pot their everywhere I just believe the DNA was a plant and the whole kidnapping senerio a coverup!! Wow people on here are mean but it's ok I can take it