Ramsey’s Indicted In JonBenet’s Murder In 1999- DA Alex Hunter Refused To Prosecute
According to a new report exclusive by the Daily Camera- Both John and Patsy Ramsey were indicted by a grand jury in 1999 for child abuse leading to her death- but prosecutor Alex Hunter refused to sign the indictment because he did not feel there was sufficient evidence to secure a prosecution against either parent.
The report lays to the rest years of lingering rumors that although the grand jury which was suspended more than once while hearing the Ramsey case was never polled.
In July 2008 then Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, publicly exonerated the Ramsey’s in an open letter after Touch DNA testing proved the suspect in Jon Benet’s assault and murder was an unrelated male whose profile matched DNA in a blood stain within the child’s underwear.
… The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. … To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. … We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. …
In 2001 John and Patsy Ramsey also passed a polygraph examination given by Dr. Ed Gelb and corroborated via quality control analysis Cleve Baxter.
Patsy Ramsey died in 2006 after over a decade of battling ovarian cancer.
In his book, The Other Side of Suffering, John Ramsey believes his daughter’s murderer was someone the family came into contact with either at a Holiday gathering or at a pageant appearance shortly before her murder on Christmas Day.
JonBenet’s murder remains unsolved.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
258 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Blink,
It is through your insistence that Patsy and John were not involved in the murder of Jon Benet that I have finally, today, agreed to accept that truth.
I also release the conviction that they opened the door to evil.
Evil is.
As far as the evidence leads that I am aware of, and I admit I have not written specifically on this case and my experience in it- I do not believe that the Ramsey’s were involved.
Evil is- is the truest statement WG. Regardless of who ultimately assaulted this baby and murdered her- it was evil in it’s core and I believe.
B
Give Alex Hunter a medal. Those parents would have been hung, and they were all but. It seems on these child murder or abduction cases, the parents are blamed if the perp does not leave behind enough evidence. Touch DNA tells the real story here. Makes me wonder how many others are falsley accused of harming their children, for lack of a better answer. No answer should not always convict the family, but it turns to circumstantial evidence, ie. “If not them, than who?” Maybe the stats are off.
I saw this on CNN.
Is this really new news?
Yes, no confirmation that the jury actually voted to indict and Hunter refused until this report.
B
It’s so sad that she died before being publicly exonerated. I’m so glad the DA wouldn’t sign the indictment.
I just have to say that I would LOVE to hear your analysis of this case, Blink!
TY Angellica,
B
The Grand jury was convened and they did their duty, as hard as it was- they voted to indict both parents.
It was the job of the Prosecutor to sign the indictment, along with the jury foreman.
It was this prosecutors job to do his duty and sign & by doing so- alert all of Colorado that the grand jury had voted to indict.
Regardless if he believed it was a winnable case or not is NOT the point.
The Grand Jury heard the evidence and they felt it was enough.
They listened to testimony for a year…and their findings fell on deaf ears because the case was thought to be unwinnable.
The case was unwinnable from the time The Ramseys called 911 and when those LE officers arrived on scene-the scene which was never secured or processed appropriately.
The scene of kidnapping done by a “small *foreign* faction”
Foreign, that one word alone should have been enough for LE to immediately call in the FBI for assistance.
It was an unwinnable case regardless if the grand jury was to hear evidence against the members of this faction or if it was to hear evidence against the Ramseys …
It was an unwinnable case from moment one on-
-when LE told John & company to go looking through the house- it was unwinnable when the Ramseys were allowed to take items from the home- it was unwinnable
when their friends were allowed to visit and move about freely- when they were allowed to clean up– it was unwinnable from the moment the Ramseys were allowed to be questioned together- days later- and on and on.
So for this Prosecutor to say that there wasnt enough evidence- is bogus-
There was plenty of evidence the Grand Jury heard it and ruled on it- -but unfortunately it was all compromised- either by poor LE policy or ineptitude- or by The Ramseys themselves, inadvertently or NOT-
-
AJMO
Peace
2bcont
Okay but what does this mean in the big scheme of things? They found an unknown male’s DNA on her underwear, correct? They still don’t know who did it, right?
They have a profile of an unknown male they believe may be a suspect, that’s it.
B
Kind of scarey how much his new wife looks like JBR.
Blink you wrote ** by me
In July 2008 then Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, publicly exonerated the Ramsey’s in an open letter after Touch DNA testing *proved the suspect in Jon Benet’s assault and murder was an unrelated male whose profile matched DNA in a blood stain within the child’s underwear.*
—
This DNA profile which was recovered through touch DNA is NOT proof that this profile belonged to the perpetrator.
It only proves this DNA wasnt from The Ramseys-
It proves someone MAY have handled those clothes at some point, but not when or who. In fact it doesnt even prove conclusively it wasnt one of the Ramseys, as this foreign DNA could have been transferred from their fingernails or their clothes or their home- even Jon Benet herself.
The source for the DNA is unknown we dont know how it got there or by whom
It cant be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have come directly from a perp- nor can it be proven that the DNA source was anywhere near these items or Jon Benet that day that night for that matter.
IIRC there was more than 1 area where this profile was found-
It was found on the waist band of Jon Benets long johns and it was found on the waist band of her underwear along with an area on the undies-
It could have been left by someone using the facilities in the Ramsey home and from Jon Benet picking up the DNA source herself from the floor- where all little people rest there clothes while they are going pottie… or elsewhere..
IRT These undies these were first said to NOT be Jon Benets as they were size 12 and JB wore size 6- they were bought as a present for another child.
Later Patsy said Jon Benet could have wanted them or did want them- and she relented… she at first denied putting Jon Benet in these undies IIRC
The longjohns-
Patsy was never really positive about the long johns or the pink nightie found next to Jon Benet-
snipped-
TT: Okay, how about JonBenet. What kind of pajamas was she wearing?
PR: She was wearing, that day, she was wearing pink little kind of insulated underwear sort of . . .
TT: Tops and bottoms.
PR: Tops and bottoms, you know.
TT: Okay. Take you back how to open presents between seven, 7:30, what did you guys do after you open the presents up.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she didn’t wear it that
7 night because she had her — she had the long underwear
8 pants and her little white shirt. And the night before
9 on Christmas Eve night she wore the pink little
10 (inaudible) that was under her pillow. You saw that.
11 And before that I don’t remember. But neither of those
12 two nights she wore that.
Cont’d
19 PATSY RAMSEY: She did not wear it
20 Christmas night, you know.
21 THOMAS HANEY: So when you put her
22 to bed, on Christmas night, do you recall, would
23 that or could that have been in the bed?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: It could have been
25 under the pillow or something, you know.
…
I understand that touch DNA was found – the profile does not come from a family member- this sadly does not exonerate the Ramseys i wish it did
We dont know who came in contact with Jon Benet or those clothes we cant say if they handled previously- if they were clean or not- or kept on her bed or not and Jon Benet was said to have been lying down on the basement floor- she laid on the parlor floor.. she was carried and covered- well whose to say this DNA wasnt something from the home from a worker or a friend
IMO we cant say that this touch DNA definitely points to the perp or exonerates the Ramseys…when it may in fact point to contamination from other sources
even possibly the MEs office -
snipped:
JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place.
further snipped;
Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
–
–So we can not say with 100% certainty that possible cross contamination does not exist which may answer the whys of this touch DNA.
I do not know who killed Jon Benet. I do not know if the Ramseys are innocent and unjustly persecuted nor can I say that there is definitely a child predator out there free relishing in Jon benets murder & laughing at the hell the Ramseys have went through
There is evidence pointing to both scenarios IMO
as you wrote;
JonBenet’s murder remains unsolved.
AJMO
peace
Mom3.0-
I agree that this evidence on it’s own is subject to proper evaluation and presentation in court.
That said, all three profiles match each other, one of which is co-mingled with the child’s blood, all three separate areas and only the 2 areas on the pj bottoms (long johns) are touch DNA- they are ALL nuclear based results. Without a subject to attach it to, it sits, but in my mind, this is highly compelling evidence that the Ramsey’s were not involved. Prior to studying the case at length, I believed it possible and even likely this was a domestic crime. I had a significant debate this past summer in a lecture that ended with an FBI consultant hired to review a piece of evidence conceding he got it wrong. That was an additional turning point for me.
I will be the first to admit that the very reason I do not profile my analysis of this case is because it seems to me people that have followed this case are so absurdly fixated in their opinions one way or another it just does not even matter any longer. Nothing I present is going to move anyone’s cheese or progress the case, imo. That is in no way directed at you Mom3.0- I believe you to be very open to proper evaluation.
B
This is a crime that will never be solved because of poor police work and an incompentent county justice system.
And the inability to acknowledge same, agreed.
B
Ahh But Blink it does matter
A little girl is dead- murdered-
All of the parents and all of the children of Colorado are still wondering who did it?
They are still stuck back in 1996 wondering if they were led to believe two innocent parents murdered their child and were let off due to prestige and good lawyering- Or if an unknown brutal child killer was/is on the loose and left to walk free because a police force had tunnel vision and was desperately trying to remain out of the limelight because their embarrassment and ineptitude was too great to overcome…
Were they hell bent on not moving to look at anyoneelse because of the mistakes made?
If so it is not only the Ramseys that lived in Limbo but all of Colorado that were/are held hostage by the Powers that be -over the Embarrassment of the “Keystone Cops” and all the higher ups including that prosecutor and his team
It matters Blink nomatter whether or not your profile piece can steer the fixated and their beliefs.
Thats been the problem all along- it seems this case has been plagued with each and every person working on this case, in all facets -forming an opinion and steering this case based upon their fixations- or their eagerness to be done with it and move on…
Hey but at this point what does it really matter IT MATTERS?
People like Macy who IMO should have NEVER apologized and exonerated anyone in this case- as that is NEVER a Prosecutors job and certainly not over ambiguous evidence
This type of shenanigan only serves to hurt the Ramseys more in the long run – it hurts the cause of Justice
The case suffers because of these misteps.
It matters Blink, the same way that your coverage of Stevie Mike and Chris’ murder matters.
Your coverage of that case led to so many more people becoming aware- aware of the case…. of your thoughts, of others thoughts, of the mistakes, of the evidence or lack there of – aware of our justice system, aware of the lives and horrible death of three little boys, aware of the longstanding aftermath.
You furthered the cause of justice Blink regardless if you steered a persons long held opinion or not.
Fixated Opinions dont matter Blink- the sharing of all opinions matter, the discussion, the reasoning, the analysis- the facts uncovered matter
It matters Blink.
AJMO
Peace
Ok My friend. Your points are sound and well received. I will put it back in the funnel for scheduling.
B
Didn’t Alex Hunter make some throwaway remark about how a he could get an indictment on “a ham sandwich”?
Blink I never thought the Ramsey’s did this. When John Mark Karr raised his ugly head and involved himself in this sad story of a beautiful little girl’s murder I did do some extra reading about this case. The strange suicide of Michael Helgoth has always made me think he did have something to do with it or knew something about it, JMHO. I have never been able to dismiss JMK as another suspect and it has always bothered me that he was floating around Oregon and Washington when dear Kyron went missing.
That individual is crazy dangerous.
B
Thank you.
I look forward to reading your analysis sometime in the future.
The press said the parents’ indictment was for child abuse, not murder.
The juror said they felt the parents could have done something preventative.
The child abuse statutes of the date of occurrance would have been very specific, &
an abuse case usually requires an affirmative act with objective evidence (as opposed
to parental neglect). One would have to know the grand jury’s specific indictment and then
compare it to the statute it rested on to evaluate Hunter’s refusal to sign the indictment.
blink,
a woman near me is missing and i was wondering if you were following her case. Her name is Sarah Majoras. I think she might have fallen into the river instead of foul play but just wondering if you had an opinion if you knew about it.
I was in the process of writing:
http://blinkoncrime.com/2013/01/29/missing-lambertville-woman-sarah-majoras-linked-to-unsolved-2000-death-of-friend/
I am in the minority here, I think the Ramseys are guilty. In my opinion, Patsy caused her death, and John helped in the cover-up. When your child is missing or dead, you assist law enforcement, you take their polygraph, not shop for privite, even if you are “fat-cats”. Her word, not mine. Patsy already has her judgement, if she was guilty, and John has gone from his beauty queen wife,to his beauty queen daughter, now to a beauty queen costume designer wife. He definitely has a type.
Read the interviews with the jurors, one said evidence introduced, was much different than what was heard on the news.
You make a good point. I don’t know what discretion his office had, if any. Is it not the DA’s office that seeks the indictment? Why would the DA office seek, and then refuse to pursue? Were they fishing? Did he learn something from the proceedings that changed his mind?
Mom3.0 says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:10 pm
snip>
The Grand jury was convened and they did their duty, as hard as it was- they voted to indict both parents.
It was the job of the Prosecutor to sign the indictment, along with the jury foreman.
The lesson that should be learned from this crime is parents need to be exceedingly careful about who they allow into their circle of friends and who they expose to their children.
Pastsy Ramsey was promoting the beauty of her child by exposing her to groups of people whom she did not know anything about. It was a perfect setup for a predator to find a victim.
trying to post this again as it isnt taking- i removed the links
If its a duplicate just disregard thanks
Rob thanks for sharing – i have not made up my mind I shift day to day
Rose says:
January 29, 2013 at 11:03 am
Hey rose thanks for weighing in- here are my thoughts FWTW
You wrote;
The press said the parents’ indictment was for child abuse, not murder.
Actually Rose, according to the link Blink provided:
the Grand Jury voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse RESULTING in death in CONNECTION with the events of Christmas night 1996..
Child abuse resulting in death, when charged as “knowingly or recklessly,” is a Class II felony that carries a potential sentence of four to 48 years in prison. The statute of limitations on that charge in Colorado is three years from the date of the crime.
You wrote:
The juror said they felt the parents could have done something preventative.
Yes they did and according to their ruling they felt it went further then neglect-
and still another said:
“I think I did believe that they would get more evidence and figure out who did it.”
Thats sad because according to Det thomas resignation letter, AH had no intention of finding or giving more evidence to the grand jury nor did he ever seem to really want an indictment;
snipped:
The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district attorney’s office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case….
further snipped;
The Boulder Police Department took a handful of detectives days after the murder, and handed us this case. As one of those five primary detectives, we tackled it for a year and a half. We conducted an exhaustive investigation, followed the evidence where it led us, and were faithfully and professionally committed to this case. Although not perfect, cases rarely are. During eighteen months on the Ramsey investigation, my colleagues and I worked the case night and day, and in spite of tied hands. On June 1-2, 1998, we crunched thirty thousand pages of investigation to its essence, and put our cards on the table, delivering the case in a formal presentation to the district attorney’s office. We stood confident in our work. Very shortly thereafter, though, the detectives who know this case better than anyone were advised by the district attorney’s office that we would not be participating as grand jury advisory witnesses.
The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we expected to “solve” this case when the district attorney’s office was crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally, facilitating the escape of justice.
end snip
—
Well unfortunately when and if a crime is committed by more than 1 person it is hard to determine which person carries more of the blame- that decision should have been left up to a jury to ponder-
Figuring out after all the evidence was presented which if any Ramsey was guilty and to what degree.
You wrote;
The child abuse statutes of the date of occurrance would have been very specific, &
an abuse case usually requires an affirmative act with objective evidence (as opposed
to parental neglect). One would have to know the grand jury’s specific indictment and then
compare it to the statute it rested on to evaluate Hunter’s refusal to sign the indictment.
–Perhaps rose I am sure there are many legalities that I do not understand but what I can understand is after hearing the evidence the grand jury voted to indict both Ramsey-of Child abuse resulting in Jon Benets death
You know what AH said that day?
snipped-
Hunter announces that his team doesn’t think it has “sufficient evidence to warrant filing of charges.”
and later in his book despite what the grand jury thought he wrote:
“I never saw anything in this investigation that indicated to me they were bad people,” he said. “There was no history of abuse, nothing to support (that) this wasn’t a loved child, in the evidence that I saw.”
Well Golly gee perhaps Alex hunter should have saved the tax payers money and the Jury members time and energy…
and just opted to be the Judge jury and exonerator in chief- because HE never saw any evidence that supported this- yet it seems the Grand Jury did, as well as that team of Det who were prevented from being part of the grand jury advisory witnesses.
as erose said (thanks erose for reading and commenting)
Why would the DA office seek, and then refuse to pursue? Were they fishing? Did he learn something from the proceedings that changed his mind?–
What is the point of a grand jury if you have decided from the get go that there is insufficient evidence and that “There was no history of abuse, nothing to support (that) this wasn’t a loved child, in the evidence that I saw.”
As if child abuse resulting in death must come from deranged deprived evil parents who never loved and cared for that child-
As if the abuse had to be ongoing and sustained and not perpetrated that night and only that night- due to stress- due to lack of sleep due to whatever.
–Alex Hunter should have signed the indictment as was his duty by law- and then he should have moved to dismiss or moved to prosecute-
Whichever he chose he wouldnt be hiding behind the grand jury and the Ramseys would have been better off —
either they would have been exonerated early on- through AH refusal to move forward or they could have faced the charges head on in court- and the public would have been able to hear the evidence, hear the witnesses under oath, we would know the evidence and we would have deduced much of the “evidence” presented against them in the press was wrong..
Instead we are still wondering whats true whats not and who is gonna write another book to profit of this dead baby next?
and sadly witnesses have died and
STILL
the murder remains unsolved.
I respect your opinion which seems to be that Hunter did what was best in not signing the document I just happen to disagree
AJMO
Mom3.0,
Your post about the cause of justice and how much it matters is really beautiful. I loved it.
Agreed. She is a good egg that Mom3.0.
B
I always suspected the Santa guy next door.
He was excluded by DNA
B
thank you Mom 3.0 for education and insight.
I have no opinion on whether Hunter should’ve signed the indictment.
To form an opinion I would want to hear from a Colorado licensed DA
experienced in child abuse litigation as to whether the Ramsey’s actions or
failures to act the night of the murder, immediately preceding it, fit in the
4 corners of the statute in effect at that time.
I always suspected the Santa guy next door.
He was excluded by DNA
B
I’m glad to hear that, because I suspected him, but I didn’t want it to be him. Was he cleared on touch DNA?
I read Mom3.0′s post about touch DNA, so I did a little reading on it. I hadn’t ever heard of touch DNA until reading this article. Blink, what do you think of it generally?
I think it is groundbreaking and reliable- but chain of custody is always a factor.
B
I think the only true piece of evidence left in this case that can solve the mystery is the ransom note. Whoever wrote the ransom note is responsible or complicit, of that there is no doubt. Patsy Ramsey could not be ruled out as the author. The ransom note was written on paper from Patsy`s pad using one of her pens. This is strong evidence from the crime scene. There is evidence JonBenet was being sexually abused over a period of time, according to experts who testified before the grand jury.
Somebody gained entry to the Ramsey home, navigated their way to JonBenets room undetected, abducted her, wrote a three page ransom note and then proceeded to murder the child in the house. This theory, while not impossible, sounds ridiculous.
When the first responding officers arrived at the house they observed and took note of what thr parents were wearing. Patsy Ramsey had woken that morning, put on her make up and then dressed in THE SAME CLOTHES SHE WORE ON CHRISTMAS DAY. For a former beauty Queen to do this sounds bizarre, isn`t image everything to these people? I bet she had quite the wardrobe too. She never went to bed on Christmas night, that`s why she was still wearing those clothes. She wrote that ransom note and she knows what happened to JonBenet.
Does John Ramsey?
There was never evidence of sexual assault whatsoever. There WAS evidence of a little girl who got a UTI and was restricted from bubble baths for a while.
I could respectfully address each issue you proffered, but as I intend to to write on the case eventually, I will simply say ignoring the physical evidence that clearly points to an unrelated male offender is not part of a critical thinking stream. Still a fan of Liam whether we agree or not
B
looking forward to reading more of your thoughts on this case. So sad!
@Liam, Why leave a note at all? Too incriminating, surely she was aware of handwriting analysis. It is possible if there was an intruder, that note was written while the Ramsey’s were out celebrating, giving plenty of time. Someone perhaps familiar with PR’s penmanship, or a quick study with a house full of documents.
As for the clothes, the Ramseys were boarding a private plane that day. Her clothes from the holiday party the night before were probably put on early that evening. Chances are those fancy duds weren’t worth sending to the dry cleaners until she got a few more hours out of them, especially on a plane trip with the family, then change clothes in the new location. (I would do that.)
I never heard the GJ evidence, so I don’t know what happened, but I’m not willing to go to guilt based on a note and her attire. IIRC, they did not say PR wrote the note, only that they could not exclude her. The new DNA evidence is certainly to the Ramsey’s favor, and they had other credible people believe they were not involved. You might be right, but I’ve never been able to be sure.
I’m sure there are cases where the suspect gets away with murder, but these high profile cases that never seem to go away make me wonder if the reason they keep coming back like a boomerang, or go unsolved, is because we don’t have it right yet.
Amen erose. No, we surely do not.
B
rob says:
January 29, 2013 at 12:52 pm
I am in the minority here, I think the Ramseys are guilty (snipped)
_______________________________________________________
Count me in as well Rob! The “War and Peace” ransom note was the red flag for me. As I delved further into JonBenet’s case, it just presented more and more red flags to me pointing to someone(s) in her immediate family.
Regarding the DNA exonerating the Ramsey’s, I don’t believe this is true.
Over the years, as more technology became available, they found six unique and unidentified genetic profiles, FIVE MALE profiles and ONE FEMALE profile.
It is beyond any stretch of my common sense to think there was SIX people in the Ramsey home that night, all leaving their DNA on JonBenet while assaulting and murdering her!
The following DNA information is from James Kolar’s (investigator with Boulder district attorney’s office) book, “Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped Jonbenet?”
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.
In addition to JonBenet’s profile, scrapings from the left fingernails revealed unidentified MALE #1
The right fingernails indicated that two further unique profiles were present, unidentified MALE #2, and a unique unknown FEMALE #1 profile. (JonBenet could not be excluded as a contributor)
The waistband, seams, and crotch of panties (Distal Stain 007-2) CODIS all matched and produced the profile that has been entered into the CODIS database, unidentified MALE #3 (Strength/weakness of profile: 10 markers). These profiles were determined through typical STR DNA testing.
Touch DNA (TDNA) testing revealed one matching profile and a further two unique profiles, both male:
TDNA on the waistband of leggings matching DS 007-2 male #3
TDNA on the wrist bindings – MALE #4 (Strength/weakness of profile: 6 markers)
TDNA on the “garrote” – MALE #5 (Strength/weakness of profile: 7 markers)
(Also, TDNA on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét was identified as belonging to Burke and Patsy.)
A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile. All DNA profiles in this case are partial profiles.
CONCLUSIONS by Mr. Kolar: (pg. 305, “Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped Jonbenet”)
Leberge (scientist who conducted tests) indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.
I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét. The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
As a recent attendee of a presentation regarding same via my membership with AAFS- I am going to disagree with this assessment. You have male #3 intermixed in a blood stain of the decedant- that evidence alone would be enough to file a John Doe indictment/warrant- this exactly what I am talking about in terms of
What investigator says “there may be a plausible explanation”- there either is or isn’t- and I submit their is by it’s submission as an unsub into CODIS in the first place.
I am also going to tell you that a former FBI director tasked with analyzing the ransome note openly admitted to me personally he got that wrong in light of this evidence.
Science is neutral. It is a fact to say that Male #3 is a suspect in the assault and murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It is a fact to say her parents are not.
I will say I don’t think it was particularly prudent to publically release the 3-way hit of Male suspect #3 although I understood the moral reasons for it. I feel it should have been divulged to the Ramsey family privately and with their agreement of confidentiality of case sensitive information.
I do agree that the crime scene and autopsy forensic evidence needs to be evaluated as a whole.
Something I learned from a very respected and dear colleague of mine a few years ago- one has to be willing to scrap an entire theory based on new evidence and start completely over or you have no business in criminal investigative analysis- your ego won’t allow you to be impartial.
B
(snipped)
Everywhere you go you probably leave your DNA. This is one of the main differences between DNA and fingerprints; DNA can be transferred from you to someone else and from that someone to somewhere else where you may have never been. Most contacts between people and objects are expected to result in the transfer of cells, and hence DNA, from one to the other and vice versa.
http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf
My take away re the DNA in JonBenet’s case is that it proves nothing, one way or another. Her family’s DNA is expected, six unidentified DNA profiles can be there via a perp and/or a sneeze, cough, etc.
So I go back to the other evidence, as James Kolar says, “physical, behavioral and statement evidence…”
To play devil’s advocate, Liam, it’s hard to judge whether someone’s behavior is odd or not without knowing their normal routine. We don’t know Patsy’s normal morning routine… more specifically, a normal morning routine for a weekend/holiday when there was no rush to be anywhere by a specific time (as opposed to a weekday). We also don’t know, do we, exactly what make-up Patsy was wearing that day. Was it simply mascara, blush, and lipstick? That would take a mere minute to apply, especially considering that as a former pageant contestant Patsy probably had plenty of experience applying make-up. Based on the lack of context available, it’s hard to say whether Patsy’s behavior was odd or totally normal and expected.
Perhaps Patsy always woke up and “put on her face” before going downstairs for breakfast or to wake up the kids.
Maybe she was in her bathrobe or nightgown when she realized that JonBenet was missing and after calling 911 ran upstairs and grabbed the most convenient outfit she had– the one from the previous day– to put on before LE/strangers arrived at her home. This concept seems predictable and I would even say “normal”– as normal as normal could be– in an emergency of this kind.
And perhaps it wasn’t until after they had called 911 that Patsy ran upstairs and put on some basic make-up to look presentable. Some women (myself included…and believe me, I do NOT wear a lot of make-up) absolutely do not like to go out of the house or see others without having some make-up on their face– and this can take seconds to apply. Many women will also swipe on lipstick and nothing else in an emergency, to look presentable. To men, women who don’t wear make-up, or people looking to judge, wearing lipstick alone could be interpreted as the same as if she herself had put on full make-up for a pageant.
Lastly, putting on yesterday’s outfit (which was already assembled and may have been very nice since it was worn for the Christmas holiday) and putting on some make-up make have made Patsy feel as she were “presentable” and, in turn, made her feel more calm, reassured, or in control during a very scary and completely out-of-control situation.
All of these reasons could plausibly explain the choice of clothing and make-up worn by Patsy on that awful day.
Blink wrote: There was never evidence of sexual assault whatsoever. There WAS evidence of a little girl who got a UTI and was restricted from bubble baths for a while.
(snipped)
In his book, Kolar writes about disagreements over whether JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her murder. Her pediatrician has said in media reports that the frequency of JonBenet’s visits—police reports at the time said she had visited 27 times in the last three years of her life—wasn’t “excessive.” He said he had seen no signs of sexual abuse and “had no suspicion of it.” In Kolar’s book, he says he reviewed transcripts of police intervews with at least five physicians and forensic pathologists from around the country who were shown photographs of injuries taken from JonBenet’s autopsy report. Their conclusion, writes Kolar, was that JonBenet had been “subjected to sexual intrusion” some time before her death, and that “digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html
_____________________________________
(Blink wrote):Science is neutral. It is a fact to say that Male #3 is a suspect in the assault and murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It is a fact to say her parents are not.
My response: As I said, Male #3 could be a perp OR his DNA was transferred via another person, cough, sneeze, etc. Why is Male #1,2,4,and 5 and Female #1 DNA present? My point is that the DNA results (including John’s, Patsy’s and Burke’s DNA) is inconclusive. (Unless and until the unidentified DNAs are matched with a person(s), which would open the investigation further.)
Secondly, I don’t believe we know for a fact that the current DA, Stan Garrett, in Boulder does not consider the Ramseys as possible suspects.
The following is a snipped transcript from a radio interview of Stan Garrett that was posted on Youtube but is no longer available, so I can’t provide a link. FWIW:
Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy’s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you’re not bound by that, you’re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I’ve always said about Mary Lacy’s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I’ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence…
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it’s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn’t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn’t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
…
Craig Silverman: I’d say the headline out of our show, is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.
Kate- I do know for a fact that the Ramsey’s are not suspects in this case- call Garnett and ask him yourself.
You are using the book of a detective who has a biased view- period. The assault you reference is relative to findings at autopsy- we know she was assaulted- and the blood from that assault contains the same DNA profile on both sides of her long johns which were removed. Her OWN physician is what is the basis for findings about evidence of sexual assault prior to her death- and there simply isn’t any.
The physical evidence from the DNA testing locations and within a wound suffered by the victim, and contains ONLY the profiles from JBR and Male #3 is not secondary transfer.
The other profiles would need to be tested against exemplars of people that she may have come into contact with- and I don’t know that they have not, but I DO know they were not submitted to CODIS.
By definition, submitting an unsub profile to CODIS as a suspect defines that individual as a suspect based on the information provided to LE to have it qualify in the first place.
You are not going to win the argument on this evidence with me Kate- there is much to debate in this case, but you are not going to get an expert from Bode ( I know because I sat in on it) to bend on it’s finding or interpretive quality as it related to this crime.
The theory this was an accident made to look like a murder is ludicrous- not trying to offend anyone, but that is the reality.
B
Joan T- Thank you for reading and for your kindness you too Blink
the chain of custody- and chance of cross contamination is too great IMO- Jon benet was fount in the cellar- in a room with presents presents that were giftwrapped and handled by any # of people- The wrapping was torn open – Patsy said she was checking to see stuff- maybe Jon Benet was too- and perhaps the DNA came from this area-
Rose- thank you for clarifying- and you are correct- we dont know the specifics or the exact legalities at this point-
I guess I am coming at it ethically from the point of the signing of the indictment- it IMO was his duty to sign it acknowledge it and then choose openly to prosecute or not
Liam-
Hi
I hear what you are saying and there have been days I have thought exactly like you and I cant fault you for thinking any of it- I eagerly await Blinks piece but for now I will share my initial thoughts on the letter when I read it in its entirety for the very first time-
It reads as if a teenager or young adult or stunted adult wrote it- someone who could have fit through the window or may have been easily befriended by Burke or Jon Benet
a
person whose gravitas is such that they felt fine being in the kitchen searching for the pen and the pad and who threw away his first attempts at writing style absentmindly in a waste basket
- a teen a young adult /stunted adult who is disguising his writing style-
a person who likes to watch movies and or read books of crime/kidnapping espionage James bond etc- a person teen who likes? Once liked to write short stories such as this or dialog and prides himself on his wit and vocabulary- his reading comprehension scores etc— but not so much on his spelling- a person who might think he spelled words like business and possession correctly as- bussiness/posession but either took the time to use a dictionary for attache adequate etc or had previously looked up these words for a short story or had read these words again and again in one of his books and committed them to memory- as well as the overall mood of such letters or dialog found in such genre…
A person who reread his finished product and much like the nerd in Breakfast club- thought his work was a master piece but could not “see”all of his mistakes but caught a few( < not) etc but not so for "Listening" to a letter or changing pronouns we us my –or careless spelling mistakes for when he proofread it his mind saw it as correct…kind of like we all make mistakes in grammar and spelling here nomatter if we proofread because we keep seeing what we wanted to write but not necessarily what is written- kind of like we all write but often interchange words as if we are "speaking" ie having said this…no should be "having wrote this"…etc "listen carefully" instead of pay attention
–Just another way of looking at it that may not = Patsy Ramsey.
AJMO
peace
Strongly agree, and reminder that there was evidence more than one attempt at this letter was found.
B
I wonder if the ransome note pen and paper had touch DNA from male # 3 on it.
@ Kate, your posts make a lot of sense. This DNA evidence is certainly not enough to clear any Ramsey of involvement. Unless the source of the DNA is identified then no such claims can be made. Somebody gave JonBenet pineapple the night she was murdered,the parents have stated it wasn`t them. Three sets of fingerprints were found on the bowl which contained the pineapple, JonBenet, Burke and Patsy. Nothing was brought into the home by the supposed intruder to help them in the kidnapping. They felt comfortable enough to write a three page ransom note, feed JonBenet pineapple and then murder her in the house. Where is the evidence of an intruder? Will somebody please spell it out for me because for 17 years now I have not heard one piece of credible evidence to support this theory.
Pediatric medical experts that the Boulder Police Department brought into this case, swear, via affidavit, that JonBenet had been subjected to prior vaginal trauma. That is fact.
I believe Patsy is responsible for the death of JonBenet and that it was not intentional. There is more evidence pointing to somebody in the home than there is pointing to an intruder.
Blink you know I still love you too x
Liam- your facts are just off my friend. In fairness, I have not written my analysis on this case and I do not intend to for the short term so we are all going to have to agree to disagree for now and maybe later, lol.
B
This case has haunted me since it happened. I, too, am of the opinion the Ramseys were in some way complicit in little JonBenet’s death.
I’ve read some of touch DNA, and while revolutionizing, it also seems transferrence could occur from a casual encounter. So few cells necessary for testing. Granted, I’m not privy to where or how the DNA samples were taken, but it does seem possible contamination could have occurred. So many people trampled through the house.
The ransom note, the amount of the ransom, and the fact JonBenet was murdered and hidden in her home just throw up red flags. Of course, so do the Ramseys’ unusual (IMHO) behavior and the very creepy “beauty queen” pics of JonBenet. I admit a strong bias toward children being made up and asked to perform in such a sexualized way.
I’d love to know more about JonBenet’s frequent UTIs, bed wetting, and if she had wet her bed the night she died.
I’d also be interested in discovering AH’s reasons for not going to trial. Why present to a GJ, obtain an indictment, then refuse to prosecute?
Kudos mom3.0! You’re spot on. JonBenet’s case does indeed matter still. I’m very open to hearing more facts on the case and hope Blink will continue probing.
Blink wrote: Her OWN physician is what is the basis for findings about evidence of sexual assault prior to her death- and there simply isn’t any.
______________
Another opinion:
According to Dr. Cyril Wecht, in his book “Mortal Evidence: The Forensics Behind Nine Shocking Cases” pg.54 and 55:
(snipped)
During his microscopic examination of thin tissue samples taken from internal membranes of the vagina, the coroner, Meyer, found vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.
In the world of forensic pathology, chronic means at least forty-eight to seventy-two hours old. Theres no fudging that time frame, which meant the injury didn’t happen around the time of Jonbenet’s death. It didn’t even happen hours before she died. The damage was inflicted DAYS before.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iZ4SfpW5Er4C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=vaginal+mucosa+showed+focal+interstitial+chronic+inflammation&source=bl&ots=NKmNvj6GIT&sig=7I53qrbbzjHESVDYx27nT80kJFY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A3MJUevdKZSE8QT0zYHYDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=vaginal%20mucosa%20showed%20focal%20interstitial%20chronic%20inflammation&f=false
Also, I do know of little girls who aren’t diagnosed as sexual assault victims by their pediatricians.
Dr. Wecht read a partial and REDACTED autopsy excerpt from the Globe, lol. As I said, I feel I am doing an injustice to quibble over hearsay and biased information. If we are going to quibble it will be on my complete findings.
I agree that sometimes young girls are victims of un-diagnosed sexual abuse, unfortunately.
However, I am talking specifically about Jon Benet.
B
the brother did it.
totally obvious.
politics made sense … the family already suffered enough.
OMG no offense cosmo but that is ridiculous.
See what I mean?
B
Blink wrote: You are using the book of a detective who has a biased view- period.
___
The Boulder DA hired Kolar to reexamine ALL the evidence acquired in the Jonbenet case and give recommendations/analysis etc. Since he was privy to evidence none of us have seen, experts, FBI, lab, and pathologists analysis’ etc., I do give weight to his conclusions.
One man’s bias could be another man’s reasoned conclusion.
___________________________________________________________________
Blink wrote: The physical evidence from the DNA testing locations and within a wound suffered by the victim, and contains ONLY the profiles from JBR and Male #3 is not secondary transfer.
_____
Within what wound? My understanding is that the blood spot w/ DNA was on her panties, not on her genitals or in her vagina.
____________________________________________________
Blink wrote: The other profiles would need to be tested against exemplars of people that she may have come into contact with- and I don’t know that they have not, but I DO know they were not submitted to CODIS.
___
My understanding is that they did not have the required minimum markers mandated by CODIS (a full profile has 13 markers – CODIS requires at least 10 makers.
_
wound=blood source. Let me just say this- you are mistaken that other assets have not seen non-public evidence in this case. There is no book to sell if the Ramsey’s are innocent and nobody can identify the suspect or suspects.
B
Blink wrote: You are not going to win the argument on this evidence with me Kate- there is much to debate in this case, but you are not going to get an expert from Bode ( I know because I sat in on it) to bend on it’s finding or interpretive quality as it related to this crime.
____________
My intention is not to win a debate/argument with you Blink..it just happens to be my point of view (based on my research of this case) that we don’t have concrete evidence to make sweeping statements (e.g. JonBenet was never sexually assaulted prior to her murder).
Kate, there is no evidence whatsoever that she was sexually abused prior to her murder, and that information comes directly from her pediatrician who treated her 27 times in 3 years. The sweeping statements come in when one speculates she was. It is meritless.
My point is absent the evidence, it cannot be considered to prove theory.
There is simply no dispute that Jon Benet’s assault and murder were sexually motivated by the offender. That concept is so incongruent with the parents that is how the whole “made to look like a murder” concept comes in.
I realize people have strong opinions on this, but as I said, I studied this case framework under some of the best criminal profiling pioneers in the country with specificity and that in no way makes me right, or they for that matter, but it does make me want to focus solely on the verifiable facts of the case, not the interpretations from an investigator selling a book.
B
People feel so strongly about the Ramseys one way or the other. I agree that there are some strange things that point to them, but the DNA evidence points to a UID’d male. I respect all opinions here but I don’t see such a fancy scenario of the Ramsey’s being involved with the UID’d male. At the time of the murder, there were plenty of weirdos and RSO’s floating around Boulder. I believe it was a few months after the JonBenet murder a guy climbed thru a window and either assaulted or attempted to assault a girl who was asleep in her room. I do think the note was very strange too-the way it was written and the vocab that was used was similar to how PR wrote. So many weird things. I just hope this case is solved someday, and I would love to hear Blink’s run down.
People really want to bend the facts to suit the idea that the parents are guilty. Again, Boulder had plenty of unsavory types that could have done something like this. What surprises me is that the DNA cannot be matched to anyone, not any current RSO’s, criminals, etc.
What I meant was I admit a strong bias AGAINST the practice of children being made up and asked to perform in such a sexualized way.
Blink said: (snipped) Kate, there is no evidence whatsoever that she was sexually abused prior to her murder, and that information comes directly from her pediatrician who treated her 27 times in 3 years.
I agree that sometimes young girls are victims of un-diagnosed sexual abuse, unfortunately.
However, I am talking specifically about Jon Benet.
B
____
So was I. All I can say is that there is obviously different expert views on this subject, IMO it can not be said unequivocally she was not abused outside of her murder. That was my problem with your assertion that her pediatrician said she wasn’t… so that’s that!
I know from my own experience (no experts!) of pediatricians not diagnosing sexual abuse. JonBenet’s doctor could be right or he could be wrong, just as Dr. Wecht(see post above), the coroner and other experts could be right or wrong.
___________________________________________
Blink said: I realize people have strong opinions on this, but as I said, I studied this case framework under some of the best criminal profiling pioneers in the country with specificity and that in no way makes me right, or they for that matter, but it does make me want to focus solely on the verifiable facts of the case, not the interpretations from an investigator selling a book.
_________
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I have admiration for profilers and would consider their opinions as well but to just dismiss the DA office’s cold case investigator who examined all the evidence, statements, experts opinions etc.etc. in this case is just baffling. He presented his conclusions based on the totality of evidence, behavior, statements,etc. After all, I am interested in any person’s interpretations that have seen and studied ALL the evidence.
Lou Smitt was hired to do the same as I recall- very different outcome- I am glad to hear you are open.
Presenting your conclusions for a a job you are tasked with by your office and then publishing a book for profit is not doing much for his credibility. However, I will agree to read it before I publish on this case.
B
Who gave JonBenet the pineapple and more importantly who would JonBenet feel comfortable with in her own home to eat pineapple with? This evidence points away from a stranger/intruder and both the Ramseys deny giving JonBenet pineapple. JonBenet had eaten pineapple close to the time of death as there was undigested pieces of pineapple found at autopsy. This is uncontaminated, undisputed evidence.
I think there was disgust at the Ramseys for the way they paraded their daughter and the public wanted them to be guilty. To think an intruder to somebodys home on Christmas night could be so bold and unbelievably evil is simply incomprehensible to a lot of people.
I look forward to hearing what you have to present on this case and hope that someday the truth will be revealed.
Liam, heart ya, you don’t want to be throwing around the terms uncontaminated and undisputed- trust me, lol.
Jon Benet ate pineapple. She was 6. She could open a refrigerator and it could have been in there previously- the prints could have been artifact, and I am pretty sure the suspect wore gloves in the first place. She could have awakened, went downstairs ( although I do not believe this) ate some pineapple and went back to bed prior to anything happening.
One thing I am sure of is that if this perp fed that child pineapple in her own kitchen in the middle of the night on “Christmas”- her own prophetic words came true and that special Christmas visit was expected and she had no reason to question why that person was in the home (prior contact).
Here is actually an example of how if Patsy was guilty, it is more than likely she would have adapted the story to fit the “pineapple”. She never did and would not bend on it- regardless.
I agree on the rest of your thoughts, and to John Ramsey’s credit, he denounced the whole pageant thing and woefully lamented that he had not been firmer with Patsy that it was not a good idea.
My personal feelings on the issue are that sexualizing children, and make no mistake, dressing them like adults and smearing them with makeup and fake tans, etc, is sexually attractive to pedophiles, and possibly other sexual deviant disorders, is tantamount to child abuse.
One word: Honey Booboo.
Who thinks that is going to end well?
B
This is a case that has been near and dear to my heart for many years because of the gross miscarriage of justice from the beginning. Often when tragedy happens to the wealthy many are quick to place unfair judgement and blame on the parents/ family. Many are jealous of those who are well off and eager to see them fall.
I have for years thought this perp gained access to this beautiful and beloved little girl through manipulating his way into the home on a catering crew or similar. Patsy was a generous welcoming lady who opened their lovely home to others for various parties and charity events. This perp targeted this gorgeous little girl and likely was hiding in the basement after their last catered party waiting to give himself what he considered the ultimate Christmas gift – in his sick sick mind.
This was a smart sicko who is still out there and has not been caught /jailed/ matched in CODIS . The Ramseys adored and cherished this precious girl. They were fabulous parents to her. Shame on the Boulder Police department for not knowing earlier that Jon Benet’s family was completely innocent. There have been a few heroes along the way. Sadly this is an example of police departments not knowing that the wealthy almost always “lawyer up” quickly no matter what. They misread SO much as the world of wealth and privilege was out of the realm of their comprehension. They added the worst possible insult to injury here. This case CAN be solved!
Blink, please dig a little deeper into the calendar of parties that were hosted at the Ramsey home as well as meetings and large civic gatherings held here in the months, weeks, and days before Jon Benet’s sexual assault and murder. Your clues lie here- I’ve always been convinced of this. The smart perp figured out how to get in the house- it wasn’t that hard for him- and he waited in the basement until the family slept to snatch his Christmas gift.
He was either on a catering crew or pretended to be or he joined a club or organization specifically to have access to Jon Benet. Please, please solve this crime as a tribute to Patsy and all good moms who adore their beautiful baby girls. God bless the Ramseys. They deserve for the truth to be known.
I totally agree with Blinks personal feelings regarding a parent doing this to a child. This is IMO a parent that wanted to re-live what she thought to be a great time via her beautiful child.
This is what I wanted to imply in my post #19. Blink just said it better.
I should add that I do not think Patsy realized the danger, and culturally for her it held different esteem.
Of course it was about the pride she had for her beautiful child and sharing it with her- I get that. I just don’t understand or relate to it personally.
When strangers would come up to my baby girl in her stroller and tell her how beautiful she was, I taught her to say thank you, but I would whisper in her ear that she was beautiful, but more than that she was smart and most importantly she was kind.
Of course one day we were in a store and a nice lady came over and was telling Blinkette how lovely and well behaved she was and she responded “yes, but I am also very smart and very kind on top of that.”
Not the message I had intended but such is the way.
Yep, it’s been like that since, lol.
That said, I am a daughter whose Mother refused to buy us those play vacuums and ironing boards and ovens- my Mother said she was not going to promote a stereotype at that age and our imaginations were better suited for reading and singing. I reminded her of that as we progressed to teens and was required to do chores. I then did more
Professionally- I do not understand if me, or some other qualified analyst tells you that sexualizing your child is sexually stimulating to a sexual deviant who may act on it- and it is ignored for their own personal gratification (whatever that may be) does not resonate- I want to scream.
Young girls should not be taught that their identity is about 3 people sitting at a table scoring their worth while the family eats hamburger helper so she can buy a show dress. That is ludicrous.
Sorry for the soap box and nothing against hamburger helper. When I was young and my family was one of meager means at the time, it was the only thing my Mom trusted My Dad to make on the weekend.
B
Kate and Blink thanks for sharing differing points of view – very informative exchange of ideas
Pale Rider thanks and I agree with much of what you have said.
Liam hi me again- just so you know I am not picking on you I just find you are at the same mindset I have been a # of times during my following of this case.
If I may I will try to help you see why I and so many are still in middle in deciding who killed Jon Benet..
You wrote:
Somebody gave JonBenet pineapple the night she was murdered,the parents have stated it wasn`t them.
—
This is an assumption that someone gave Jon Benet the pineapple-
as blink said Jon Benet was 6 and she was quite bright and like most little girls was very independant and capble of venturing down to the kitchen and fixing herself a snack- is it possible someone gave it to her? sure, but it is also possible she got it herself while waiting for someone or was surprised by someone there.
(per the possible scream)
You wrote:
Three sets of fingerprints were found on the bowl which contained the pineapple, JonBenet, Burke and Patsy.
Yes there were- ( what is strange to me is patsy denied the bowl or the spoon was theirs) but anyway IMO it is not unusual for a bowl to have a mothers prints- and we know why Jon Benets prints were there-
as for Burkes there are several scenarios that could account for his prints-
One being he was in the room for a time either alone or with Jon Benet- (wouldnt necessarily mean he was aware of what was to come or had already happened..)
My first question would be- in what cabinet were the bowls kept- were there dishes in the dish washer in the sink?
Did Jon Benet or the perp take the bowl and the spoon and the glass(for tea) from an easy accessible place like the sink where it had been previously touched by Burke or patsy-
were bowls in the fridge holding other food stuffs- (in the fridge where little boys and moms would tend to touch)–did the perp eat what was in the bowl prior and then refill it with pineapple and milk for Jon Benet–
hey and how about that milk and that tea… were prints taken from the carton from the tea canister?
You wrote:
Nothing was brought into the home by the supposed intruder to help them in the kidnapping.
not that we know of- who says it was ever supposed to be a kidnapping? For all we know it was supposed to be a joke or a burglary or a sick chance to molest but maybe not kill a little girl- or maybe it was to kill and the molesting came after..and we cant say if he brought gloves- or God forbid a camera or other more gruesome items.
You:
They felt comfortable enough to write a three page ransom note,
yes they did and they felt comfortable enough to make practice notes too- but really just because he may have wanted to make the Ramseys think this was a kidnapping or he was getting off on just writing the note to torment them and laugh at police does not mean it took a long time or alot of thought to write the note..in fact it could have been written quite quickly- as the mistakes I mentioned before seem to indicate- (proofreading which was done)- usually if you come back after a moment and reread you will find the mistakes it seems to me- he read it once thought it was perfect then left…
you wrote-feed JonBenet pineapple and then murder her in the house.
Again we can not say if anyone fed Jon Benet the pineapple And as for the murdering in the house-
I am not convinced that he intended to murder her and i am not convinced that he intended to kidnap her either. it seems to me he intended on being undiscovered in the home for a time with jon benet… & that he felt comfortable in the home and going around finding different items -
and he was aware of certain family infomation- John Ramseys name – his bonus his southern roots. This says to me this person knew them or at least knew the children or Jon Benet- or this person knew these things through someone who actually did know them – not necessarily that the perp had to be a ramsey or someone in the inner circle so to speak-
Who delivered the newspaper- who mowed there lawn- shoveled their walk raked leaves etc?
You wrote:
Where is the evidence of an intruder?
Who said it definitely HAS to be an INTRUDER- this person could have been invited in by jon Benet- or could have gained access through an open door- technically an intruder but no forced entry.
You
Will somebody please spell it out for me because for 17 years now I have not heard one piece of credible evidence to support this theory.
Iwould try but I am not convinced either- as i said there is evidence to support a couple of scenarios..
Liam you wrote in an earlier post;
Somebody gained entry to the Ramsey home, navigated their way to JonBenets room undetected, abducted her,
– We cant say if he navigated his way to her bedroom- we cant say that he abducted her–
we can say at some point he encountered Jon Benet – we cant tell if the initial meeting was at the front door in the kitchen or elsewhere- it may be that Jon Benet led him thru the house we just cant say…
You wrote:
Pediatric medical experts that the Boulder Police Department brought into this case, swear, via affidavit, that JonBenet had been subjected to prior vaginal trauma. That is fact.
Liam they did say this but little girls can receive trauma to their vaginas through innocent means- and they can break their hymens and more through innocent means-
Some rode horses- Some did gymnastics-
I had a friend that was riding her brothers bike and slipped off-
I had a friend who tried to climb a tree and smacked herself on a branch.. I knew of another who kicked by her little sister…see what I mean?
With urinary tract infections – it sometimes burns when you pee the area is bothersome- little John Benet could have hurt herself due to the discomfort of reoccurring UTI
You wrote:
I believe Patsy is responsible for the death of JonBenet and that it was not intentional.
I believe this too some days and i too have thought about John and Burke in the same light before (I dont think youre crazy cosmo just stuck )
You:
and There is more evidence pointing to somebody in the home than there is pointing to an intruder.
Liam I agree it WAS someone in the home not nt necessarily an “intruder” but that doesnt have to mean that it was a Ramsey. The evidence could point to them because it was their home and their child and the scene was not preserved that doesnt necessarily mean they did it
AJMO
Peace
MysteryObsessed – Hi I like your name and I agree with youre thinking..at least today i do LOL
Aunt Annie interesting points of view-
Black Pearl- according to patsy this was not her routine but all good thoughts-
TGF Pale rider and Blinkand all others who mentioned the pageants I tend to agree
i do not think this was a good thing for all the reasons mentioned — When i think how much of this little girls life was spent dying her hair, fixing teeth, curling hair dressing up taking pics traveling standing performing I am sad-
Is it childabuse perhaps
but i do understand with patsy’s background this was a legacy thing to share wth her daughter a bonding experience.. i can see how patsy thought it was okay.
what I dont understand is the other costumes the “sexy” witch and Marily Monroe? No way- no how-
AJMO
Who writes a long ransom letter(while in the home), then leaves the victim in the home? Why did the friend who went to search the house with John, when he found the body, beg the governor to appoint an independant prosecutor to the case? Who gets up, finds their child missing, and puts on any clothes or make-up? I would have been running all over the house, yard and town, in my gown and bare feet, looking for my child.
I don’t discount that maybe the son, cracked her in the head with the large heavy flashlight found in the kitchen, and then Patsy panicked, and staged this unbelievable cover-up. It’s the only justifible reason I can think of, is to save the other child. It’s not like accidents don’t happen every day. Call 911, tell what happened, and move on.
Children don’t go to prison for accidents.