The DNA

[Zman]

capps,

The penetration of JonBenet's vagina could have been by almost anything, including a penis. Theories on what it was should not be restricted to a finger or a paint brush handle.

Page 56 in PMPT: "Meyer had told Arndt and Trujillo that JonBenet had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration -- DIGITAL OR OTHERWISE (my emphasis). In his opinion she'd sustained some kind of genital trauma that could be consistent with sexual contact."

BlueCrab

If a woman kicks a man between the legs causing him great pain does that count as "sexual contact"?
Is there any sexual gratification?

 

[BlueCrab]

If a woman kicks a man between the legs causing him great pain does that count as "sexual contact"?
Is there any sexual gratification?

Zman,

If a male purposely penetrates a female's vagina with anything, then he is likely receiving sexual gratification of some kind or he wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

[simplesimon]

BC IF the DNA was found to be that of an underage male, would LE be justified in saying unknown DNA to protect the child?

 

[BlueCrab]

BC IF the DNA was found to be that of an underage male, would LE be justified in saying unknown DNA to protect the child?

simplesimon,

If the DNA was identified as belonging to an underage, unprosecutable boy, IMO the cops would be justified in lying in order to protect the identity of the child and to not violate the Colorado Children's Code.

In such instances in Colorado the distict attorney (Alex Hunter) would have had full authority to dispose of the case in any way he deemed appropriate. This could involve anything from incarceration in a special facility to outpatient psychiatric treatment.

There's a good possibility this is exactly what's been going on.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

simplesimon,



There's a good possibility this is exactly what's been going on.

BlueCrab

There's zero possibility this is what's going on. BR was and is cleared by LE.

 

[BlueCrab]

There's zero possibility this is what's going on. BR was and is cleared by LE.

HOTYH,

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in Boulder. Please show me the source of any official document that uses the word "cleared" in regard to Burke. But I'll save you the trouble of looking; there aren't any. Only the Ramsey camp and an uninformed media use that term with respect to Burke. JAR and Melinda were officially cleared, but Burke has never been cleared.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in Boulder. Please show me the source of any official document that uses the word "cleared" in regard to Burke. But I'll save you the trouble of looking; there aren't any. Only the Ramsey camp and an uninformed media use that term with respect to Burke. JAR and Melinda were officially cleared, but Burke has never been cleared.

BlueCrab

I assume BR is cleared since he's not now and has never been a suspect. If you think he's being considered a suspect, where's your source. The burden of proof is on you.

The term 'umbrella of suspicion' wasn't applied to BR.

Besides, BR didn't have the mental or physical ability to carry out this crime or to even be part of it.

 

[BlueCrab]

I assume BR is cleared since he's not now and has never been a suspect.

HOTYH,

Well, your assumption is wrong. Burke has never been cleared.

With respect to Burke never being a "suspect", there's nothing unusual about that since NO ONE has ever been an official suspect in this case, not even John or Patsy. They're all "witnesses" or "under the umbrella of suspicion" according to Boulder LE. It's a play on words that Hunter used to make it appear that Burke has been "cleared" without actually using the word cleared in his statement. The naive media fell for Hunter's tricky wording.

Burke is not cleared in the killing of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

 

[Zman]

HOTYH,

Well, your assumption is wrong. Burke has never been cleared.

With respect to Burke never being a "suspect", there's nothing unusual about that since NO ONE has ever been an official suspect in this case, not even John or Patsy. They're all "witnesses" or "under the umbrella of suspicion" according to Boulder LE. It's a play on words that Hunter used to make it appear that Burke has been "cleared" without actually using the word cleared in his statement. The naive media fell for Hunter's tricky wording.

Burke is not cleared in the killing of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

Well so what BC.
What difference does it make who as been cleared by these Keystone Cops?
They botched the case from the very start. I have no faith in anyone they say is cleared.

 

[Linda7NJ]

EDITED
Besides, BR didn't have the mental or physical ability to carry out this crime or to even be part of it.

You are underestimating the capability of 9 year old boys.

In my former profession, I seen many very young boys, some as young as seven torture, maim, sexually assault and yes even sodomize younger victims through cohesion, threats and often times sadistic violence. I assure you there are MANY 9 year olds capable. Sadly.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are underestimating the capability of 9 year old boys.

In my former profession, I seen many very young boys, some as young as seven torture, maim, sexually assault and yes even sodomize younger victims through cohesion, threats and often times sadistic violence. I assure you there are MANY 9 year olds capable. Sadly.

You're not seriously suggesting a 9 year old did this, are you? I might suggest taking another look at what this is:

• Breaking the paintbrush.
• Tieing the garrote.
• Inflicting ligature injuries to JBR.
• Writing the JBR ransom note.

I assure you, a 9 year old didn't write the note, or have a successful go at construction and effective use of the garrote on the first try.

There was enough information available to the public to rule out BDI way back when the ransom note was published.

 

[BlueCrab]

You're not seriously suggesting a 9 year old did this, are you? I might suggest taking another look at what this is:

• Breaking the paintbrush.
• Tieing the garrote.
• Inflicting ligature injuries to JBR.
• Writing the JBR ransom note.

I assure you, a 9 year old didn't write the note, or have a successful go at construction and effective use of the garrote on the first try.

There was enough information available to the public to rule out BDI way back when the ransom note was published.

HOTYH,

I've brought up a lot of boys, and I assure you that an almost 10-year-old boy can do all of the things you list above. However, there's evidence that an older male could have also been involved in this crime, as an accomplice, and some or maybe even all of the things you list above could be the product of this accomplice.

BlueCrab

 

[CCKP]

HOTYH,

I've brought up a lot of boys, and I assure you that an almost 10-year-old boy can do all of the things you list above. However, there's evidence that an older male could have also been involved in this crime, as an accomplice, and some or maybe even all of the things you list above could be the product of this accomplice.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

I have been reading your posts and must say that they are very informative and clearly, you know your facts in this case. As I said, I have been following your posts and know what your theory is on the perp. However, there is something I have been wondering about and hope you can clarify it for me.

I think its a forgone conclusion that the parents are covering up for someone/some reason. If it was BR who committed the murder, why would they need to cover that up since he was 9 years old at the time? From what I understand about Colorado Law, he wouldn't have been charged and again, from my understanding, the most he would have recieved would have been counselling/pyschotherapy? I just can't figure out why they would go to the lenghts of this elaborate cover up in this instance.

Thank you greatly.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think its a forgone conclusion that the parents are covering up for someone/some reason. If it was BR who committed the murder, why would they need to cover that up since he was 9 years old at the time? From what I understand about Colorado Law, he wouldn't have been charged and again, from my understanding, the most he would have recieved would have been counselling/pyschotherapy? I just can't figure out why they would go to the lenghts of this elaborate cover up in this instance.

CCKP,

Thank you for your question. IMO the answer as to why the Ramseys are covering up, even though neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet, has to have another Ramsey family member as its foundation. They wouldn't be covering up for a non-Ramsey. This leaves Burke and JAR as the candidates, with a non-Ramsey as a possible accomplice. But Burke was nine at the time of the murder and cannot be charged, so you ask why the coverup if BDI?

Here's some of my thoughts, listed in preference of what I think was the most likely reason for the coverup:

1. Embarrassment. The device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was not a garrote. It was a ligature device used in erotic asphyxiation, a sexual masturbation technique that accidentally kills up to 1,000 people a year in the U.S., almost all of them young people (but none on record as young as six). The families of EA victims often try to coverup the cause of death by staging the scene to look like suicide, or murder, or some other cause of death in order to deflect embarrassment and perceived ridicule from social and business sources.

2. An accomplice. If Burke was involved, but there were one or two non-Ramsey accomplices also involved, then the Ramseys could have chosen to do what they considered the honorable thing to do at the time -- protect the identities of the accomplices, especially if they were very young.

3. Familial incest. The Ramseys could have been involved in familial incest, perhaps even involving non-Ramsey participants, and the staging and coverup was necessary to keep the investigation pointed away from the family as long as possible, and hopefully indefinitely.

BlueCrab

 

[Linda7NJ]

You're not seriously suggesting a 9 year old did this, are you? I might suggest taking another look at what this is:

• Breaking the paintbrush.
• Tieing the garrote.
• Inflicting ligature injuries to JBR.
• Writing the JBR ransom note.

I assure you, a 9 year old didn't write the note, or have a successful go at construction and effective use of the garrote on the first try.

There was enough information available to the public to rule out BDI way back when the ransom note was published.

I believe he could have done all of the above, but for some reason I don't believe he wrote the note, his mother did imo

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe he could have done all of the above, but for some reason I don't believe he wrote the note, his mother did imo

Your claim that BR has the capability is based on your other claim that many 9 year olds have this capability.

Presuming your latter claim is right, how are you able to project the capability of many other 9 year olds onto BR? Arbitrarily or with reason?

 

[sissi]

Why pick Burke as your suspect, when surely there are clouds of suspicion over many other , far more sinister appearing, characters? Is it because you believe there were "no footprints in the snow"? Wasn't this the first LE lie that led us first to believe no one entered that house , leaving us with the "big three" to ponder as killers? So what did they do to get rid of the "other , older ,boy", slip him on a bike and tell him not to put his feet down until he cleared the area??..or could he have left by the cleared walkways as any other "intruder" could have left? Who left the shoe print? Wasn't there another ...a Sas..shoeprint found, along with more than one of the hi-tecs? Was there a "kneel" mark outside the grated window?
After the contacts of Jonbenet were dna tested , there continues to remain foreign dna under the nails of both of her hands and in her panties. DNA that has not been sourced. This is a significant finding!
Have we been following the news the last few years? Killers and molesters DO go into the homes of their victims and take them from their beds. Do they write ransom notes, not usually, however, this was Boulder where one's intellect is always in competition to out do another's. Games and winning..taking what you want, it seems very much "age four'ish", but is that not about the age where the sociopath stops "some level " of development?
I refer to it as the " MINE" time, something you try to get your three or four year old past, yet recognise that in some adults , Bundy, Duncan, and so many more , they never got "past" it.

 

[angelnsb]

I found this this morning,
This boy was just 13
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0810/chokinggame_cnn.html

 

[BlueCrab]

Why pick Burke as your suspect, when surely there are clouds of suspicion over many other , far more sinister appearing, characters? Is it because you believe there were "no footprints in the snow"? Wasn't this the first LE lie that led us first to believe no one entered that house , leaving us with the "big three" to ponder as killers? So what did they do to get rid of the "other , older ,boy", slip him on a bike and tell him not to put his feet down until he cleared the area??..or could he have left by the cleared walkways as any other "intruder" could have left? Who left the shoe print? Wasn't there another ...a Sas..shoeprint found, along with more than one of the hi-tecs? Was there a "kneel" mark outside the grated window?
After the contacts of Jonbenet were dna tested , there continues to remain foreign dna under the nails of both of her hands and in her panties. DNA that has not been sourced. This is a significant finding!
Have we been following the news the last few years? Killers and molesters DO go into the homes of their victims and take them from their beds. Do they write ransom notes, not usually, however, this was Boulder where one's intellect is always in competition to out do another's. Games and winning..taking what you want, it seems very much "age four'ish", but is that not about the age where the sociopath stops "some level " of development?
I refer to it as the " MINE" time, something you try to get your three or four year old past, yet recognise that in some adults , Bundy, Duncan, and so many more , they never got "past" it.

sissi,

There's a lot of reasons to pick Burke as a suspect in the killing of JonBenet. Here's just a few of them:

o Burke has never been officially cleared by Boulder authorities, even though his surviving siblings (JAR and Melinda) have been.

o The Ramseys lied about Burke's whereabouts during the 911 call, obviously trying to distance him from the crime scene. Why lie during a murder investigation if you're innocent?

o The Ramseys also lied about Burke not owning Hi-Tec boots, the logo of which was imprinted in the mold on the wine cellar floor, one foot away from JonBenet's body.

o There was no intruder; there was no evidence of a break-in; and there were no footprints in the snow when the cops arrived at the scene at 6:00 A.M., meaning one of the three people still alive in the house that morning, but trapped in the house by the snow because of the footprints it would have left in the snow, had likely killed JonBenet.

o Handwriting experts could not eliminate Burke as the writer of the ransom note.

o The bowl of pineapple with Burke's fingerprints on it placed Burke downstairs in the middle of the night with JonBenet about one hour before she died. Other evidence also placed Burke at the breakfast room table with JonBenet at that time.

o John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor (DNA, handwriting, and lie detector), leaving Burke as the only one of three survivors in the house that night without clear exculpatory evidence.

o The autopsy revealed chronic injuries to the vagina that had to have been inflicted prior to the night of the murder; and these injuries were likely the result of digital or juvenile penile penetration and inflicted at the same 7 o'clock position as the acute injuries -- suggesting the same person caused the chronic and the acute injuries and therefore that person had to have had the opportunity to get to JonBenet on any day of the week, such as a family member.

o JonBenet's body was cleaned up and re-dressed in an attempt to disguise the sexual aspects of the crime, but the perp put size 12/14 panties on little petite size 6 JonBenet, something John and Patsy would have known better than to do, but a young boy likely wouldn't.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

I found this this morning,
This boy was just 13
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0810/chokinggame_cnn.html

angelnsb,

Perhaps the saddest part of that story is what was left out by the writer. Most "choking games" involve much more than just the choking aspects; they involve masturbation.

Autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) is a masturbation technique performed solo by the subject to enhance his or her orgasm by temporarily shutting down air to the lungs when masturbating alone.

Erotic asphyxiation (EA) is a masturbation technique performed on the subject by a partner to enhance the orgasm of the subject. The tightness of the apparatus used in choking the subject (usually a padded rope) is fully controlled by the partner.

The device found wrapped around JonBenet's neck was designed for AEA and EA.

BlueCrab