So who does Aphrodite Jones think is the killer is?

[joeskidbeck]

I also feel it is very possible that BR had a friend over that night, someone he was bringing on the trip. It isn't a matter of "why would the Rs cover for BR's friend". They CANNOT name BR's friend as the killer, even if he was, because their SON was with him. And under Colorado law, the "friend" can't be named if the accomplice was under 10, no matter what role the "accomplice" played. Even if he just watched.

Larger personal fortunes than this have been unsuccessful at preventing criminal charges. In this case, it has to be a parent protected by Lockheed or a child protected by Colorado law. And that is pretty much that.

It was kinda funny that they cleared BR very quickly when under CO law they didn't have to even mention his name. I believe that's called throwing the dog a bone, with the dog being the public.

 

[Roy23]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Really?

The little of what was left over there, especially after 2001, like to point at Koby for trying to protect the department even after the bungles of the day after Xmas. I mean are we really just gonna blame the DA's office for all the firings, retirements, and lawsuits against their own because of this case. It is called CYA and Koby took the John Douglas playbook and ran behind the percentages and to the media.

Once things got organized since the end of 2001, Beckner started actually pulling stuff out of the evidence closet and sending it for testing. Before the touch DNA testing, they had a pretty good idea they had tons of evidence that never left the closet. But you are not gonna budge are ya? This is why I don't care about depositions, pineapple, coconuts, and stuff like that.

For the record, you once said to me that people have been convicted on less evidence they had on the Ramsey's. You are right. You guys got some circumstancial stuff and it is not crazy to think the people in that house are under the umbrella. But in a case like this, tons of information was collected. Had the police secured the crime scene, this might have been solved in a day or two. We can blame the Ramsey's for the crime scene being cleaned or we can blame the BPD.

 

[BBB167893]

Really?

The little of what was left over there, especially after 2001, like to point at Koby for trying to protect the department even after the bungles of the day after Xmas. I mean are we really just gonna blame the DA's office for all the firings, retirements, and lawsuits against their own because of this case. It is called CYA and Koby took the John Douglas playbook and ran behind the percentages and to the media.

Yes, I know that.

And we SHOULD blame the DA's office for the sins they committed. Or do they get a pass on that?

Once things got organized since the end of 2001, Beckner started actually pulling stuff out of the evidence closet and sending it for testing. Before the touch DNA testing, they had a pretty good idea they had tons of evidence that never left the closet.

I think it started earlier than that. I think that's WHY Lin Wood wanted so badly to get the case away from him!

But you are not gonna budge are ya?

No retreat, and no surrender!

This is why I don't care about depositions, pineapple, coconuts, and stuff like that.

You damn well OUGHT to. Not that I'm surprised, mind you.

For the record, you once said to me that people have been convicted on less evidence they had on the Ramsey's. You are right.

WHOA! Roy, I'm gonna have to lie down! I didn't think the day would EVER come when I'd hear an IDI actually admit that!

You guys got some circumstancial stuff and it is not crazy to think the people in that house are under the umbrella. But in a case like this, tons of information was collected. Had the police secured the crime scene, this might have been solved in a day or two. We can blame the Ramsey's for the crime scene being cleaned or we can blame the BPD.

This case might have been solved in a day or two but for a LOT of things.

 

[Tadpole12]

Don't be confused. I am aware of some of that stuff. And I think some of it is debatable since they had attorney's pulling some of those strings. Those questions are just not as important to me than other stuff. Like all the stuff that has been sent to the FBI for testing. Especially the stuff since 2002. Sometimes you can just know enough stuff about the end of a book that it becomes useless to read the middle. And I am not trying to be a smart alleck.

Heyya Roy.

Intriguing potential, that there could be additional IDI evidence, something reexamined. It is not beyond consideration, IMO.

Roy, what year did you become interested in this case?

 

[Roy23]

Heyya Roy.

Intriguing potential, that there could be additional IDI evidence, something reexamined. It is not beyond consideration, IMO.

Roy, what year did you become interested in this case?

Right after it happened really.

 

[Toltec]

The Stines were the last people to see the Ramseys Christmas night. Is there a suggestion Doug Stine was to accompany Burke on his trip to Charlevoix?

I don't ever recall the Stines ever going to Charlevoix pre-murder. I know the Whites were invited to Charlevoix on more than one occasion.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Stines were the last people to see the Ramseys Christmas night. Is there a suggestion Doug Stine was to accompany Burke on his trip to Charlevoix?

I don't ever recall the Stines ever going to Charlevoix pre-murder. I know the Whites were invited to Charlevoix on more than one occasion.

There is a suggestion, but no proof that this is what was to take place. The reason for the theory is that, suspiciously, the Ss were NOT among those called to the house that morning, considering the two families were close enough for the Ss to uproot their two school-age children from Boulder and sell their Boulder home to follow the Rs to Atlanta. That seems like a major upheaval for a friendship that did not involve being called to the R home the morning of the 26th when others with less "close" friendships were.
SS also behaved in a rabid and sometimes illegal manner in defense of the Rs, going so far as to impersonate a police officer in e-mails. It adds to the suspicion around this case that she was never charged in that CRIME.
Add that to the fact that there was quite a rupture in the friendship that took place after the move to Atlanta and as far as we know, the families no longer speak. That is why there is some suspicion that DS may have been at the R home Christmas night (with the intention of accompanying them on their trip) and that he may have been involved or knows what happened.
Doubt that he was ever questioned, as police apparently had no proof he was there and no legal reason to need to speak to him. I often wonder if his DNA was ever obtained. It would be interesting to see if there was a match to the "rogue male DNA". THIS is why (and there are many other donors that should be checked) you cannot say that the mere presence of the male DNA rules out family involvement. It doesn't. And it never will. It's absence from anywhere BUT two articles of her clothing indicate it may have been left there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. Remember, "touch" DNA is skin cells. DIFFERENT than body fluid DNA. Skin cells are left everywhere, on every surface. It is MUCH easier to transfer them to clothing from hands that touched the clothing. All of us have unrelated skin cells on our hands and clothes from things we touch all day. Money, ATM cards, door knobs, signing credit card purchases with the attached "public" pen, other people, a chair in a restaurant, etc.

 

[Roy23]

There is a suggestion, but no proof that this is what was to take place. The reason for the theory is that, suspiciously, the Ss were NOT among those called to the house that morning, considering the two families were close enough for the Ss to uproot their two school-age children from Boulder and sell their Boulder home to follow the Rs to Atlanta. That seems like a major upheaval for a friendship that did not involve being called to the R home the morning of the 26th when others with less "close" friendships were.
SS also behaved in a rabid and sometimes illegal manner in defense of the Rs, going so far as to impersonate a police officer in e-mails. It adds to the suspicion around this case that she was never charged in that CRIME.
Add that to the fact that there was quite a rupture in the friendship that took place after the move to Atlanta and as far as we know, the families no longer speak. That is why there is some suspicion that DS may have been at the R home Christmas night (with the intention of accompanying them on their trip) and that he may have been involved or knows what happened.
Doubt that he was ever questioned, as police apparently had no proof he was there and no legal reason to need to speak to him. I often wonder if his DNA was ever obtained. It would be interesting to see if there was a match to the "rogue male DNA". THIS is why (and there are many other donors that should be checked) you cannot say that the mere presence of the male DNA rules out family involvement. It doesn't. And it never will. It's absence from anywhere BUT two articles of her clothing indicate it may have been left there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. Remember, "touch" DNA is skin cells. DIFFERENT than body fluid DNA. Skin cells are left everywhere, on every surface. It is MUCH easier to transfer them to clothing from hands that touched the clothing. All of us have unrelated skin cells on our hands and clothes from things we touch all day. Money, ATM cards, door knobs, signing credit card purchases with the attached "public" pen, other people, a chair in a restaurant, etc.

"And it never will. It's absence from anywhere BUT two articles of her clothing indicate it may have been left there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. Remember, "touch" DNA is skin cells. DIFFERENT than body fluid DNA."

I know you have no reason to believe this but I think there was much more DNA found on other items after the panty DNA and prior to the touch DNA. I am almost positive but I can't prove it.

 

[DeeDee249]

"And it never will. It's absence from anywhere BUT two articles of her clothing indicate it may have been left there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. Remember, "touch" DNA is skin cells. DIFFERENT than body fluid DNA."

I know you have no reason to believe this but I think there was much more DNA found on other items after the panty DNA and prior to the touch DNA. I am almost positive but I can't prove it.

You may be right, but until I see it publicly from a LE source, I have no choice but not to believe it. I cannot imagine them making such a big deal out of the DNA and not admitting where else it was found. LE believing in the R guilt would make such a discovery part of the case. Defense lawyers committed to keeping their clients out of jail (different from proving their innocence) would want it public also, since its presence points away from the Rs. There is no reason to have that additional information and not release it unless they cannot for legal reasons. (as in: belongs to someone who was there with an underage person at the time of the crime). And if they know it belongs to someone who was with an underage person at the time then they know who it belongs to..

 

[Roy23]

You may be right, but until I see it publicly from a LE source, I have no choice but not to believe it. I cannot imagine them making such a big deal out of the DNA and not admitting where else it was found. LE believing in the R guilt would make such a discovery part of the case. Defense lawyers committed to keeping their clients out of jail (different from proving their innocence) would want it public also, since its presence points away from the Rs. There is no reason to have that additional information and not release it unless they cannot for legal reasons. (as in: belongs to someone who was there with an underage person at the time of the crime). And if they know it belongs to someone who was with an underage person at the time then they know who it belongs to..

I hear ya. From my understanding they don't know who it belongs to. And they tested a lot of people known to the Ramsey's way way back. Especially ones that were at the Xmas party. It has been pretty tight lipped since 2008 around these parts. I think one of the reasons the BPD started this case over from the beginning is to check for other sources known to the R's back in 96. Well you can just remember I said it when they catch the perp. They are not releasing ANYTHING to the public. They gave all they gonna give to somewhat clear the R's. That is the only reason we know of the TDNA.

 

[Agatha_C]

There is a suggestion, but no proof that this is what was to take place. The reason for the theory is that, suspiciously, the Ss were NOT among those called to the house that morning, considering the two families were close enough for the Ss to uproot their two school-age children from Boulder and sell their Boulder home to follow the Rs to Atlanta. That seems like a major upheaval for a friendship that did not involve being called to the R home the morning of the 26th when others with less "close" friendships were.
SS also behaved in a rabid and sometimes illegal manner in defense of the Rs, going so far as to impersonate a police officer in e-mails. It adds to the suspicion around this case that she was never charged in that CRIME.
Add that to the fact that there was quite a rupture in the friendship that took place after the move to Atlanta and as far as we know, the families no longer speak. That is why there is some suspicion that DS may have been at the R home Christmas night (with the intention of accompanying them on their trip) and that he may have been involved or knows what happened.
Doubt that he was ever questioned, as police apparently had no proof he was there and no legal reason to need to speak to him. I often wonder if his DNA was ever obtained. It would be interesting to see if there was a match to the "rogue male DNA". THIS is why (and there are many other donors that should be checked) you cannot say that the mere presence of the male DNA rules out family involvement. It doesn't. And it never will. It's absence from anywhere BUT two articles of her clothing indicate it may have been left there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. Remember, "touch" DNA is skin cells. DIFFERENT than body fluid DNA. Skin cells are left everywhere, on every surface. It is MUCH easier to transfer them to clothing from hands that touched the clothing. All of us have unrelated skin cells on our hands and clothes from things we touch all day. Money, ATM cards, door knobs, signing credit card purchases with the attached "public" pen, other people, a chair in a restaurant, etc.

DeeDee,

You have had me thinking for quite some time now about a fifth person being in that home and some times I feel there might have been a sixth. Let me explain (Though I still feel in my heart that this is a case of PDI. I cannot rule out the other clues.

If this is a case of BDI, I feel its possible that BR had a friend DS over that night (the fifth person. If this were the case then I feel the accident initially took place in BRs room. Im curious to know what tests were run in that room and what was found and never shared (or erased from public view ergo the pink pj pants). I would bet DS DNA was all over that room. He being slightly older than BR would have been the ring leader of the childish game of Doctor.

Here is something I found interesting from JRs 1998 interview that has my hinky meter running overtime....

9 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, Christmas Eve. We'd
10 given JonBenet a bike; we got Patsy a bike. We
11 were giving Burke a bike but not that year.
12 Anyway, there was a bike that we put in their
13 basement, and I gone over after the kids went to
14 bed to get it to put it under the tree. And Joe
15 went down to the garage and went down to get it
16 and brought it up. I offered to go get it and he
17 said no, he'd go get it himself. I don't know
18 where it specifically was, whether it was actually
19 in his garage or his basement.


Not much farther into the interview JR said this..

15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well JonBenet got a bike.
16 I think Burke got a bike too. It seems like we had
17 three bikes there. JonBenet, I think she got a
18 little doll that was one of these look-a-like
19 dolls that was supposed to look like her. I
20 remember her looking at it and saying, this
21 doesn't look like me.

There was a bike tack in the snow and LE questioned JR about both. Where were the bikes because LS hadnt seen any and then they asked about the track in the snow. Could be DS used that bike as the get away.

PR states in DOI pg 232 that DS was the only other child besides BR and AP to have a mouth swab (not the exact wording. Was she just saying that to remove doubt or did DS really give that swab. If so than why him and nobody else? I have to stop and wonder, what made Mr Stine leave his prominent job with all of its financial security for the future? Why did they follow the Rs and become so aggressive and defensive?

Another thing that is haunting me, is a comment during one of the interviews, where he says " the little kids handed out the presents." Does this mean a big kid was there like JAR? Or am I remembering this wrong and he meant usually the little kids handed out the gifts. Could this have been the sixth or simply the fifth person in the house that night?

Just some thoughts and curious to know what any one else thinks...

 

[wonderllama]

Even from everything Roy seems to be trying to hint at but not confirm, it still sounds like even if he doesn't believe the Ramsey's were the killers of their daughter, they still know what happened.

Isn't that still pretty offensive and obnoxious?
And having said that, it still doesn't justify their complete lack of cooperation.

Roy said earlier something about not concentrating on the last 8 years but what came before it. Well, the Ramsey's didn't cooperate then either.

I have complete contempt for the Ramsey's irrespective of whether Patsy did it, John did it, Burke did it, one of Burke's friends did it or whether some other friend or person known to the family did it because of their utter disregard for justice and their self-preservationist attitude.

Guilty or not, the blame lies fairly and squarely at their feet for this circus still persisting to this day.

 

[Roy23]

Even from everything Roy seems to be trying to hint at but not confirm, it still sounds like even if he doesn't believe the Ramsey's were the killers of their daughter, they still know what happened.

Isn't that still pretty offensive and obnoxious?
And having said that, it still doesn't justify their complete lack of cooperation.

Roy said earlier something about not concentrating on the last 8 years but what came before it. Well, the Ramsey's didn't cooperate then either.

I have complete contempt for the Ramsey's irrespective of whether Patsy did it, John did it, Burke did it, one of Burke's friends did it or whether some other friend or person known to the family did it because of their utter disregard for justice and their self-preservationist attitude.

Guilty or not, the blame lies fairly and squarely at their feet for this circus still persisting to this day.

I don't necessarily think the Ramsey's know what happened or did not cooperate enough. That doesn't think i don't think they handled it perfectly either. The investigators completely blew the crime scene and was leaking their personal opinions to the media. They held their childs dead body as ransom so they lawyered up. Once they hired attorneys, you almost certainly have to follow their advice. I don't expect everyone to agree with that but assuming this happened to them without any knowledge of the crime and the whole world is calling you all the things they were called, put the shoe on the other foot.

I will tell you this. If they had the DNA evidence they had now this case would have never been the media sensation that it turned out to be.

 

[wonderllama]

Whilst I accept the doing what your lawyers say part, I don't accept the evasiveness.

The Ramsey's Lawyers have done a fantastic job at protecting them, but that really makes you ask, why is a fantastic job needed?

And I was also under the impression that, like OJ, this family weren't going to stop until they found the killer of their child. That is where I suspect the rest of us divert from the 'what happened in the last 8 years doesn't matter' theory.

Cos what have they done in the last 8 years to help find their daughter's killer?

 

[Roy23]

Whilst I accept the doing what your lawyers say part, I don't accept the evasiveness.

The Ramsey's Lawyers have done a fantastic job at protecting them, but that really makes you ask, why is a fantastic job needed?

And I was also under the impression that, like OJ, this family weren't going to stop until they found the killer of their child. That is where I suspect the rest of us divert from the 'what happened in the last 8 years doesn't matter' theory.

Cos what have they done in the last 8 years to help find their daughter's killer?

I would imagine that they dont know anymore information concerning there daughters killer than most here. They don't have all the information. You guys are the ones that try and discredit the statement by Beckner that is my signature. I imagine that I may even know more than they do assuming that the case is where it was several years ago. They were cleared and led to believe the investigation is on a different tract. What can they do? Nothing!

And it is still open they could be an accompliss so they are not being informed as of the progress. If they are, then that would absolutely stupid to the nth degree.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have never understood how the parents were able to evade any charges of tampering with evidence or the body. I suppose if they were covering for their son(s) and one of the son(s) were underage, the tampering charges would not happen to protect the underage child.

 

[wonderllama]

Well, we may be the people who discredit the quote Roy, but as I said to you a few days ago, perception is everything.

If there is additional matching DNA, be forthcoming with the information, explain where it is, what form it is in, how this actually does discredit the RDI case.

If those of us who believe the Ramsey's were involved are the thorn in the side of truth being reached in this case, clear us out of the way...prove why we are not justified in our continued questioning!

It's that simple really.
Or is it?

 

[Roy23]

Well, we may be the people who discredit the quote Roy, but as I said to you a few days ago, perception is everything.

If there is additional matching DNA, be forthcoming with the information, explain where it is, what form it is in, how this actually does discredit the RDI case.

If those of us who believe the Ramsey's were involved are the thorn in the side of truth being reached in this case, clear us out of the way...prove why we are not justified in our continued questioning!

It's that simple really.
Or is it?

Its not.

And I could not unequivicably change the RDI movement anyhow from what I read here. The DNA stuff that i am referring to is actually information available on the web. The results are not but the fact that Beckner sent a whole bunch of stuff to the FBI is there and trust me it is real.

I dont need anyone to believe me but you can feel me or not. I care about what I do and want to continue. Last week was a great week. More important one than any in a long time.

RDI's have a different feeling on DNA for the most part. They care more about Pineapple and Spider Web's. I want EVERY case solved. It is my Kryptonite. The Cantu case was textbook but this one haunts me.

 

[wonderllama]

RDI's have a different feeling on DNA for the most part. They care more about Pineapple and Spider Web's. I want EVERY case solved. It is my Kryptonite. The Cantu case was textbook but this one haunts me.

That's a bit unfair and probably offensive Roy.

Cynic has posted a couple of very thorough posts in a different thread detailing exactly why some of us are skeptical as to the relevance and reliability of the DNA evidence.

We may have different feelings about it, but that doesn't mean we disregard it.

Pineapple and spider webs really is a little belittling given on their own they sound like we're not interested in the case, that we don't want it solved.

You know the reason people look at these.
Possible entry point had spider webs on it - to some it may discredit it as being an entry point. Personally, I don't agree as I've seen many spiders building webs at night in preparation for the morning's feast. But doesn't make the point irrelevant.

And unexplained pineapple as you well know IS important. It helps to narrow down the window for the time of death. Something we are ALL interested in doing irrespective of RDI/IDI/I dunno WHO did it. And it's a source of contention with the statements given by the family members - something that goes towards establishing their credibility.

Every bit of evidence is clearly important, RDI don't have the DNA evidence as high as you on their ladder, but you apparently don't have the pineapple or the spider webs as being relevant at all.

 

[Agatha_C]

I don't necessarily think the Ramsey's know what happened or did not cooperate enough. That doesn't think i don't think they handled it perfectly either. The investigators completely blew the crime scene and was leaking their personal opinions to the media. They held their childs dead body as ransom so they lawyered up. Once they hired attorneys, you almost certainly have to follow their advice. I don't expect everyone to agree with that but assuming this happened to them without any knowledge of the crime and the whole world is calling you all the things they were called, put the shoe on the other foot.

I will tell you this. If they had the DNA evidence they had now this case would have never been the media sensation that it turned out to be.

LE believed that the Rs hired MB that very night. JR was questioned at some point (I'll look that up and give a link) about that very thing and his being paid later from funds donated to the once Jonbenet Foundation.