Aphrodite Jones, JonBenet, and Lou Smit?

Well, I'm glad she did the show, if for no other reason then to keep the case in the news. There was an error when it came to the Christmas tour the year before---not days before---and most likely it was confused with the Christmas party for friends. That's not to say that someone couldn't have been on the tour to case the place, but it seems unlikely to me that they would wait a whole year.

I thought she did a good job in summarizing the unanswered evidence---the questionable hi-tech footprint and the unmatched DNA. The latest sample was good enough to enter into the database. She did talk about the Ramseys as suspects----but there is no motive or any past history to indicate they had the criminal minds to do such an elaborate coverup in a small period of time between the murder and JonBenet was murdered.

She raised questions about Michael Helgoth---and the timing of his "suicide" with Alex Hunter's statement, and the reason for the statement.

I could have done without Karr, but he did become a bit player in the case.

The second footprint was a bit of a surprise.

I would have liked to have heard more from the linguistic guy as far as the movie lines and movie references in the note.


Makai, you know the hi-tec bootprint was Burke's...it was Burke Ramsey who told the Grand Jury he owned a pair of Hi-Tec's with a compass on the shoelaces. Fleet White Jr. also testified saying Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tecs.

As for the other shoeprint...could have been Patsy's...she was in the Wine Cellar Christmas Eve, retrieving Christmas presents.
 
moved this over here from the media links thread

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/42293392#42293392

at 3:40

what 3rd marker of touch dna on the NIGHTGOWN is she talking about?
AJ must be using a term that she has completely misunderstood.
The term marker with respect to DNA is another word for locus, (the plural form would be loci.)
A locus is a region on a chromosome where a particular DNA sequence of interest can be found.
In the field of forensic DNA testing these loci are identified by names such as TPOX, D21S11 etc. Variations in these regions between human beings are called alleles and it is these differences that form the foundation for forensic DNA identification.
A full profile in CODIS consists of 13 markers/loci in addition to the marker for gender (the marker AMEL)

24y661l.jpg


Degraded DNA samples will result in partial profiles, that is, profiles with fewer than 13 markers. The fingernail DNA testing on JonBenet revealed an abysmally low amount of markers, only two on the right hand.

Although it’s possible that AJ’s statement on the Today Show, “they found a third marker of foreign DNA substance on JonBenet’s nightgown,” is meant to indicate that there was at some point a DNA test on a region of JonBenet’s nightgown that once was determined to have 2 markers and further testing revealed a third, I believe it’s extremely doubtful that that is the case.
There was blood found on JonBenet’s nightgown but CBI testing determined that it was JBR’s blood only.
A more plausible explanation is that she misspoke and was trying to say that DNA was found on JBR’s long johns (rather than nightgown) and that the finding there was a third area (not marker) in which unknown DNA was found, (in addition to the panties and the laughable fingernail “evidence.”)
Those that watched the program say that she did not mention the “third marker” when the show aired, which makes it perplexing to see her mention it in an interview promoting the show.
 
If JR wants the world to see this drivel he should fork out the money for a late night infomercial and spin till his heart is content. Shame on Investigation Discovery and Aphrodite Jones for providing a vehicle.
BBM
:clap:
 
moved this over here from the media links thread

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/42293392#42293392

at 3:40

what 3rd marker of touch dna on the NIGHTGOWN is she talking about?


In this interview Ms.Jones also makes the ridiculous claim that JR could not have done it because the he would not have disturbed the crime scene?
How does she figure that one? If he did it wouldn't it make even more sense to disturb the scene?
 
In this interview Ms.Jones also makes the ridiculous claim that JR could not have done it because the he would not have disturbed the crime scene?
How does she figure that one? If he did it wouldn't it make even more sense to disturb the scene?

cici, I've lost count of how many times we've had that conversation around here.

And YES!
 
And when the cops told him to check the house to see if anything is missing/disturbed...who starts in the corner of a basement? Seems weird to me...
 
I wrote her and gave her a piece of my mind. No fact-checking...something a reputable journalist/author would do. All the available information was available online..autopsy report, search warrants, depos, interrogations...

She was pro-Ramsey because she didn't want to get sued, period.

edited to add her e-mail address:

aphrodite.jones@yahoo.com

If AJ represented the segment of population that resides in the factual world, and the Ramsey unification did not sue, then we'd have an admission of sorts.
Has any other MSM tried this approach? ( Other than the tabloids )
 
If AJ represented the segment of population that resides in the factual world, and the Ramsey unification did not sue, then we'd have an admission of sorts.
Has any other MSM tried this approach? ( Other than the tabloids )

Can you specify what you mean in your post? Are you asking about a MSM segment that was factual and didn't lean completely IDI or RDI?
 
In this interview Ms.Jones also makes the ridiculous claim that JR could not have done it because the he would not have disturbed the crime scene?
How does she figure that one? If he did it wouldn't it make even more sense to disturb the scene?


That one just gets to me. The Ramseys knew the police had missed several opportunities to find JonBenet. John was frantically thinking who is going to go downstairs and find his daughter...the dumb cops blew it...I need an excuse to go back down to the basement.
 
I must say that this show was the most one-sided investigation I have ever seen. 90% of those interviewed worked for the Ramseys and they just regurgitated their employers' plaintive screams of innocence.

They complain about how the police jumped to conclusions and then THEY do the same thing by casting allegations against a guy simply because he owned "Hi-Tec" boots and a stun gun. Really? that's all the is needed to accuse someone of murder? And guess what? The guy's DNA didn't match that found on JonBenet!

It was a real joke and revealed absolutely NO new evidence despite its claims.
 
I have found most of the series on the ID channel to be fairly well done. This show was a joke and would have fit better on a tabloid channel. A. Jones tends to take sides in the cases she covers, though. I read one book she wrote, about the Vampire Murders, and she had practically "adopted" the teenage girl whose parents were murdered by her gang of friends...painted her to be such an innocent victim of her evil friends...

I don't know why the channel would want to produce such a one-sided show. So much for credibility.
 
I must say that this show was the most one-sided investigation I have ever seen. 90% of those interviewed worked for the Ramseys and they just regurgitated their employers' plaintive screams of innocence.

They complain about how the police jumped to conclusions and then THEY do the same thing by casting allegations against a guy simply because he owned "Hi-Tec" boots and a stun gun. Really? that's all the is needed to accuse someone of murder? And guess what? The guy's DNA didn't match that found on JonBenet!

It was a real joke and revealed absolutely NO new evidence despite its claims.

Hi Jollyroger!

:welcome4:
 
wow! i didnt know so many think that the ramseys actually did it?!? I have been riding this fence for years now. I saw the special and didnt know it was full of some many errors. I guess i have to do some more research....
 
wow! i didnt know so many think that the ramseys actually did it?!? I have been riding this fence for years now. I saw the special and didnt know it was full of some many errors. I guess i have to do some more research....

I started out not even riding the fence, and was of the opionion that no way a Ramsey could have done this, then the more I researched I got on the fence, now I am off the fence again. IMO all things point to a Ramsey. There is a great wealth of information on here and takes a while to digest all the interviews, autopsy reports, medical analysis, etc. Not to mention the state of affairs going on in Boulder at that time. Worth delving into if you want to put the time and effort into it.
 
Sorry I've been MIA but I became very sick again. On the mend I hope.

Here is the letter I just sent to Aphrodite Jones.

April 4, 2011
Dear Ms. Jones,

My name is Tricia Griffith. I own Websleuths.com and Forums for Justice.org. The other night I watched the Investigation Discovery Channel about the murder of Jonbenet Benet Ramsey, and to say the show was a disappointment is an understatement, mainly because it was filled with outright lies. These lies, cover-ups, and distortions about the Ramsey case have gone on for years, and it’s long overdue to set the record straight. Soon I will be sending out a press release announcing our (Webslueths and Forums for Justice) latest project, which will involve taking a transcript of your show and showing, line by line, how the show:

• misrepresented the evidence;
• suppressed true evidence;
• didn't reveal facts;
• and out-and-out lied.

Your biggest mistake was aligning yourself with Michael Tracey. Forums for
Justice.org and its members prevented the showing of one of his "documentaries" in the U.S. by uncovering one of his most outrageous lies. If you want to know more about how we exposed him, here’s the link to the Michael Tracey Forum: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...play.php?f=249.

I would suggest you start at the top of the page of the Michael Tracey forum and read all the way through; then you will soon realize what a mistake it was for you to have Mr. Tracey as one of your "experts." Also please read an article by Tony Ortega about Michael Tracey. It’s very revealing.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7534

I hope that after you see just how easily we are able to prove your show was wrong on so many levels that you will have the decency to do another show that presents the truth. Until then, I will be telling my 35,000+ members (as well as hundreds of thousands of people who read only at Websleuths and Forums For Justice) about your credibility or lack thereof.

I'm sorry, because at one time I believed you had investigative skills and told the truth. I loved your books. Not anymore. In my opinion based on the sloppy work done on the Ramsey show, you are no longer the least bit credible. In the next few weeks I will reveal to everyone how and why I came to this conclusion.

Sincerely,
Tricia Griffith
Owner/Websleuths.com and Forumsforjustice.org
tgrif@xmission.com
 
Well, I'm glad she did the show, if for no other reason then to keep the case in the news. There was an error when it came to the Christmas tour the year before---not days before---and most likely it was confused with the Christmas party for friends. That's not to say that someone couldn't have been on the tour to case the place, but it seems unlikely to me that they would wait a whole year.

I thought she did a good job in summarizing the unanswered evidence---the questionable hi-tech footprint and the unmatched DNA. The latest sample was good enough to enter into the database. She did talk about the Ramseys as suspects----but there is no motive or any past history to indicate they had the criminal minds to do such an elaborate coverup in a small period of time between the murder and JonBenet was murdered.

She raised questions about Michael Helgoth---and the timing of his "suicide" with Alex Hunter's statement, and the reason for the statement.

I could have done without Karr, but he did become a bit player in the case.

The second footprint was a bit of a surprise.

I would have liked to have heard more from the linguistic guy as far as the movie lines and movie references in the note.

How can one date a foot print? Any of those foot prints could be months old.

Burke did own a pair of Hi Tech Boots.

Logically could you say that Burke was down in that room at some point? Yes, but you would have to also say you cannot tell WHEN he was down there.

If the boot print could be linked back to a stranger who wrote a 2 1/2 page rasnom note that looked like Patsy's writing, fed JonBenet pinapple, wrapped her in her favorite blanket THEN MAYBE the the boot print would mean something.
 
I pray that you recover soon Tricia. I too wrote AJ and gave her the facts about the Hi-Tec bootprint. What an embarassment to her.
 
That one just gets to me. The Ramseys knew the police had missed several opportunities to find JonBenet. John was frantically thinking who is going to go downstairs and find his daughter...the dumb cops blew it...I need an excuse to go back down to the basement.

Toltec, have you ever read the Bonita Papers?
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=139808#post139808"]The Bonita Papers - Forums For Justice[/ame]
excerpt:
In order to give John something to do to keep him from pacing the floor, Det. Arndt told Fleet, “I need your help in keeping John’s mind occupied. Could you ask him to recheck the house top to bottom to see if anything belonging to JonBenet had been taken or left behind?" Fleet, hesitating, responded, “I think it would be better coming from you.” Arndt located John and asked him to assist Fleet on this search. BBM

I have often wondered why FW thought Arndt should be the one to suggest this. Honestly it makes me believe that he was already suspicious and did not want the search to be his idea. Clearly, the R's behavior made at least one of their friends suspicious.
 
Re: MH suicide in Feb 1997:

Nov 22, 2000
Portsmouth Daily Times

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=3877,5129570&dq=mark+beckner&hl=en


Police: Boot no match to JonBenet Ramsey crime-scene print.

"Police Chief Mark Beckner said this week that tests showed that the boots didn't make the partial print found in the basement. DNA tests and interviews with the dead man's friends and family led police to conclude he wasn't involved in the slaying, Beckner said."


More about MH, at pbworks:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682446/Acquaintance-Sexual-Predators



March 26, 2005, possible murder of MH suggested:

CBS JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents
Will New Evidence Lead To A Break In This Murder Case?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

San Augustin adds that the high-tech boots, which they later took into possession, were originally ignored by investigators in Helgoth's home. But they were later discovered by Kenady and passed on to Gray and San Augustin.

San Augustin showed 48 Hours the underside of Helgoth's boot. "On the left is the high tech impression that was made in the area where JonBenet's body was found," says San Augustin. "There's no reason for Helgoth's boot to be in the Ramsey home where JonBenet's body was found."

The investigators turned the boots over to the Boulder police, who now claim their investigation showed they were the wrong size for a match. But they have yet to be turned over to the district attorney for further analysis.

....


Most surprising of all, however, was the nature of Helgoth's suicide. Investigators initially said he died from a bullet to his head. But in fact, Gray says, the fatal shot was nowhere near his head.

"The gun was found on Michael's right and he's right-handed," says Gray. "The bullet hole is on Michael's left and it goes across the body from left to right."

"It became really odd to us that he would then take the gun and bring it around and then try and shoot himself," adds San Augustin. "It doesn't make sense why you would have somebody commit suicide in that manner."

The investigators were left with only one conclusion. Someone killed Helgoth. Why?

"If he's one of two people involved in a major, major-major death of a small girl, what's the best way to eliminate an -- you know, the word getting out that you had any involvement in it?" asks Gray. "You eliminate your partner."
Was Helgoth involved in JonBenet's murder -- and was he killed by a partner for what he knew? In the Ramsey ransom note, there was the mention of "two gentleman who are watching over your daughter."

"If you look at the case real close, you'll see that quite possibly there was more than one person involved," says San Augustin.

But there is one thing investigators are sure of: Helgoth's DNA does not match the DNA profile sitting in the Denver crime lab.

"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

It could mean that if Helgoth was involved, he wasn't alone. And the person who sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet is still out there.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
4,256
Total visitors
4,423

Forum statistics

Threads
593,070
Messages
17,980,870
Members
229,015
Latest member
Alafair
Back
Top