20/20 Special - The List: Who Killed Jonbenet? on 15 Jan 2021

[fr brown]

Bode tested additional areas on the crotch of the panties and found only JonBenet’s profile. And remember the DNA found in the panties was a bodily fluid whereas on the longJohns it was skin cells. If there was no intruder then the blood drops would not have contained the profile of an unknown male, the electropherogram would have looked just like the additional tests they did on the panties.

ETA the electropherograms of Bode testing of the panties and the longJohns. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/130877799/20080108-dnaPeakDiagrams.pdf

And then there's this from Suzanna Ryan's "Trace DNA Analysis: If Your DNA Is On It Did You Really Touch It?" (2016):

“Touch DNA samples cannot be serologically tested to determine their biological source. So, unlike the blood found on a bloody knife or the saliva found on a bite mark, while forensic scientists can determine if DNA is present and sometimes determine who that DNA matches, they cannot determine if it is blood, semen, saliva, skin cells, mucous, sweat, vaginal fluid, and so on if it is submitted as a ‘Touch DNA’ swab."

Your next sentence, "If there was no intruder...," doesn't make much sense to me. Blood on top of "saliva"; blood mingled with "saliva" are, I would imagine, going to be much the same thing when they're scooped up on a swab. It's not like they took micro slices off the top of the blood drop. They probably applied some kind of solvent to it to lift it, if only distilled water.

 

[UKGuy]

Bode tested additional areas on the crotch of the panties and found only JonBenet’s profile. And remember the DNA found in the panties was a bodily fluid whereas on the longJohns it was skin cells. If there was no intruder then the blood drops would not have contained the profile of an unknown male, the electropherogram would have looked just like the additional tests they did on the panties.

ETA the electropherograms of Bode testing of the panties and the longJohns. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/130877799/20080108-dnaPeakDiagrams.pdf

searchinGirl,

If there was no intruder then the blood drops would not have contained the profile of an unknown male, the electropherogram would have looked just like the additional tests they did on the panties.

Nah, you got it the wrong way round. You can have a non-ramsey dna deposit and no intruder because the non-ramsey dna deposit has arrived on JonBenet via cross-transfer.

Also where does the unknown male come from?

furthermore you say :

And remember the DNA found in the panties was a bodily fluid

So can you please identify the bodily fluid and cite a source for the lab test?

.

 

[searchinGirl]

And then there's this from Suzanna Ryan's "Trace DNA Analysis: If Your DNA Is On It Did You Really Touch It?" (2016):

“Touch DNA samples cannot be serologically tested to determine their biological source. So, unlike the blood found on a bloody knife or the saliva found on a bite mark, while forensic scientists can determine if DNA is present and sometimes determine who that DNA matches, they cannot determine if it is blood, semen, saliva, skin cells, mucous, sweat, vaginal fluid, and so on if it is submitted as a ‘Touch DNA’ swab."

Your next sentence, "If there was no intruder...," doesn't make much sense to me. Blood on top of "saliva"; blood mingled with "saliva" are, I would imagine, going to be much the same thing when they're scooped up on a swab. It's not like they took micro slices off the top of the blood drop. They probably applied some kind of solvent to it to lift it, if only distilled water.

Co-mingled was the the terminology used for the mixed sample. But the point I’m making is the peak diagram for the xtra cuttings from the panties has only JBs profile. The peak diagram from the exterior right waistband of the longJohns, the touch DNA, shows both JBs profile and the additional alleles that ended up being accounted for by the UM1 profile in CODIS. They look like this side-by-side.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/142831863/PantiesLongJohnsPeak-2.pdf

After Bode performed these initial tests they requested and secured the UM1 sample from the Denver Police Lab and once received, they were able to confirm the results were a most likely match.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/142831863/PantiesLongJohnsPeak-2.pdf

 

[searchinGirl]

searchinGirl,

Nah, you got it the wrong way round. You can have a non-ramsey dna deposit and no intruder because the non-ramsey dna deposit has arrived on JonBenet via cross-transfer.

It is simply untrue. Please see below

Also where does the unknown male come from?

I believe it was early on in the investigation, the CBI labeled the profile as Unidentified Male 1. I will look for a source document but it is just a label.

furthermore you say :
So can you please identify the bodily fluid and cite a source for the lab test?

Aside from Kolar stating this in his book:

Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva."

Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? . Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition. ​

Andy Horita, DA Investigator, makes the following entry in his multi-entry memorandum that documents the Bode Testing from the beginning of November 2007 to June 2008. Obtained through a Colorado Open Records Act request...

5/21/08
On 5/21/08, at approximately 0933hours, I spoke with Williamson about the serological source of the touch DNA profile she developed from the exterior right and left sides of the white long johns worn by the victim. She stated that the scraping technique she used avoided any area of staining. She did not attempt to determine the serological source of the samples, but did not believe that the source was saliva.

Williamson did not believe that the DNA profiles from the exterior right and left portions of the victim's long johns and the profile from the inside of the crotch of the underwear were both deposited via contamination from the autopsy table.

She noted that she believed the serological source of the DNA profile developed from the underwear was "probably saliva."

pg 13, http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/128162457/20071101-HoritaLongMemo.pdf
​

Seems like all these questions have been answered before.

 

[UKGuy]

It is simply untrue. Please see below



I believe it was early on in the investigation, the CBI labeled the profile as Unidentified Male 1. I will look for a source document but it is just a label.



Aside from Kolar stating this in his book:

Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva."

Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? . Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition. ​

Andy Horita, DA Investigator, makes the following entry in his multi-entry memorandum that documents the Bode Testing from the beginning of November 2007 to June 2008. Obtained through a Colorado Open Records Act request...

5/21/08
On 5/21/08, at approximately 0933hours, I spoke with Williamson about the serological source of the touch DNA profile she developed from the exterior right and left sides of the white long johns worn by the victim. She stated that the scraping technique she used avoided any area of staining. She did not attempt to determine the serological source of the samples, but did not believe that the source was saliva.

Williamson did not believe that the DNA profiles from the exterior right and left portions of the victim's long johns and the profile from the inside of the crotch of the underwear were both deposited via contamination from the autopsy table.

She noted that she believed the serological source of the DNA profile developed from the underwear was "probably saliva."

pg 13, http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/128162457/20071101-HoritaLongMemo.pdf
​

Seems like all these questions have been answered before.

searchinGirl,

Seems like all these questions have been answered before.

Exactly why I'm asking you for references.

I believe it was early on in the investigation, the CBI labeled the profile as Unidentified Male 1. I will look for a source document but it is just a label.

Sure it's just a label, but it excludes nearly fifty percent of the population. Which means there is no evidence to underpin the gender of the non-ramsey dna.

Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva

So its just a suggestion not a match? There are different variants of amylase which can arise from different sources.

So amylase can be found in saliva, blood or urine. So in theory there is nothing to prevent JonBenet visiting a toilet, e.g. White's Christmas Party and have her underwear touching the floor thus depositing urine containing amylase, e.g. non-ramsey dna.

Note the CBI's initial result is only for the presence of amylase not any particular variant.

Which still means the dna may have arrived on JonBenet via cross-transfer. e.g. Salivary drip by some bored technician fetching, storing the underwear, reuse of unclean intruments, ... the list goes on.

Like I said, there is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household!

.

 

[searchinGirl]

searchinGirl,

Exactly why I'm asking you for references.


Sure it's just a label, but it excludes nearly fifty percent of the population. Which means there is no evidence to underpin the gender of the non-ramsey dna.


So its just a suggestion not a match? There are different variants of amylase which can arise from different sources.

So amylase can be found in saliva, blood or urine. So in theory there is nothing to prevent JonBenet visiting a toilet, e.g. White's Christmas Party and have her underwear touching the floor thus depositing urine containing amylase, e.g. non-ramsey dna.

Note the CBI's initial result is only for the presence of amylase not any particular variant.

Which still means the dna may have arrived on JonBenet via cross-transfer. e.g. Salivary drip by some bored technician fetching, storing the underwear, reuse of unclean intruments, ... the list goes on.

Like I said, there is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household!

.

Nonsense. I gave you references. I quoted experts. I showed you peak diagrams of the killer. Believe what you want but don’t call it logic or science. Why not give the Ramseys a chance to get the truth out? If it was your life, would you hope for anything less?

 

[searchinGirl]

For a profile to be in CODIS, NDIS say it “must belong to the putative perpetrator” and a forensic unknown profile is classified as “crime scene evidence”. Learn the facts about crime solving with DNA evidence:

CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet — FBI

 

[fr brown]

As I understand it, additional items are being DNA tested. My major concern would be if wider testing would simply spread the taint of suspicion to yet more innocent people, rather than bring resolution. Arguments for more, or a different kind of, testing should be brought to people who can do something about it.

We know about the case of the homeless black-out alcoholic whose DNA ended up under the fingernails of a murder victim 10 miles away. The vector in that case turned out to be a paramedic who had had contact with the homeless guy a few hours before. (They still aren't sure how his DNA got under the victim's fingernails.) Fortunately, the homeless guy had been admitted to the hospital that night and thus had a rock-solid alibi--once discovered. If his attorney had been less thorough or if the contact had been the previous day, the homeless guy would still be in jail for murder. How DNA Transfer Nearly Convicted an Innocent Man of Murder

From that same article:

"A 2016 study by Gill, the British forensic researcher, found DNA on three-quarters of crime scene tools he tested, including cameras, measuring tapes, and gloves. Those items can pick up DNA at one scene and move it to the next.

Once it arrives in the lab, the risk continues: One set of researchers found stray DNA in even the cleanest parts of their lab."

From what I've read, one shouldn't over-interpret the meaning of minute amounts of DNA. The stuff gets around.

 

[UKGuy]

Nonsense. I gave you references. I quoted experts. I showed you peak diagrams of the killer. Believe what you want but don’t call it logic or science. Why not give the Ramseys a chance to get the truth out? If it was your life, would you hope for anything less?

searchinGirl,
You have to demonstrate its nonsense.

Your references are a suggestion that the presumed body fluid was saliva based on a color from a lab test. Yet we know amaylase has variants.

The gender label of male is an assumption that fits the presumed IDI theory.

Regardless of the science involved there are no actual matches or definitive lab results, just presumed conclusions.

All we have is degraded dna, from which anything can be construed.

Hopefully from the further testing all these unknowns can be resolved.

I like it to be that we knew it was a male and the amylase was alpha then barring cross transfer we can all speculate what it was doing in a clean on pair of JonBenet's underwear.

.

 

[UKGuy]

As I understand it, additional items are being DNA tested. My major concern would be if wider testing would simply spread the taint of suspicion to yet more innocent people, rather than bring resolution. Arguments for more, or a different kind of, testing should be brought to people who can do something about it.

We know about the case of the homeless black-out alcoholic whose DNA ended up under the fingernails of a murder victim 10 miles away. The vector in that case turned out to be a paramedic who had had contact with the homeless guy a few hours before. (They still aren't sure how his DNA got under the victim's fingernails.) Fortunately, the homeless guy had been admitted to the hospital that night and thus had a rock-solid alibi--once discovered. If his attorney had been less thorough or if the contact had been the previous day, the homeless guy would still be in jail for murder. How DNA Transfer Nearly Convicted an Innocent Man of Murder

From that same article:

"A 2016 study by Gill, the British forensic researcher, found DNA on three-quarters of crime scene tools he tested, including cameras, measuring tapes, and gloves. Those items can pick up DNA at one scene and move it to the next.

Once it arrives in the lab, the risk continues: One set of researchers found stray DNA in even the cleanest parts of their lab."

From what I've read, one shouldn't over-interpret the meaning of minute amounts of DNA. The stuff gets around.

fr brown,
Yes the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology had similar issues when it was analysing ancient dna, the dna somehow escaped to places it should not be.

This was despite the Max Planck Institute having clean room facilities where you undress and dress into a white boiler suit then you move into a clean room from there into the work environment.

They were estimating crazy dates for some samples and eventually tracked it down to cross-contamination either by airborne cell transfer or unwitting human agency.

Basically the cells can just float about in the air and land wherever.

.

 

[fr brown]

So it's saliva. So what? I just flossed my teeth so I have saliva on my fingertips along with dead skin cells. (Those ones in the back are hard.)

 

[UKGuy]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

searchinGirl
Sure I saw Y chromosome listed. Then its not a guess is it, i.e. is it a label or not?

Its from a mixed sample that we know is degraded, and the amylase reference is iffy, unlike say this:

JonBenet Autopsy Report, Excerpt

Vaginal Mucosa:
A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringement foreign material

...

That word birefringement signals to me that a lab test returned a result and that Coroner Meyer knows exactly what the nature of the foreign material is.

I do not get this from the reference to the amylase and a red light indicating the presence of amylase, it might be but there is no confirmation of a match, so its contentious.

As you might be aware the Bloomingdale size-12 underwear JonBenet was found wearing was likely part of her being redressed. i.e. unlikely to have played any role in the assault phase, so finding amylase in a pair of clean, out of the box, pants does not seem to be consistent with any IDI theory.

Unless the Intruder was salivating as JonBenet was being wiped down and redressed. A scenario many people find ridiculous, considering JonBenet was left in the wine-cellar, so why bother with all the cleanup and clean underwear?

So if we run with your theory: we have a male depositing saliva on JonBenet, what do you think happened?

.

 

[searchinGirl]

searchinGirl,
You have to demonstrate its nonsense.

OK I will and expand upon my answer <modsnip>

Your references are a suggestion that the presumed body fluid was saliva based on a color from a lab test. Yet we know amaylase has variants.

Kolar was the one who said it flashed blue and that was him quoting LaBerge. If you think either man meant it as a mere suggestion, then this is one of the issues that was addressed several times in the CORAFiles in Horita's Long Memo:
Prior to testing:

The analysts discussed the different serological tests that could be used to test for different
biological material and noted that fluid sources were generally more DNA-rich than non-fluid
sources. Williamson asked about the specific test that was used by the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation to screen for the presence of amylase, a protein commonly found in saliva. The
testing method used would determine the best course of action with respect to subsequent "touch
DNA" testing. In one method, an adhesive screen is placed over the substrate. If such a method
were used, touch DNA testing would not have a high likelihood of success.
On 12/3/07, at approximately 1339 hours, I reached the Colorado Bureau of lnvestigation
Laboratory Agent in Charge, Ron Arndt, and spoke with him via speakerphone. Arndt stated that
the CBI lab was in the process of evaluating the use of either the Identifiler kit, or a similar kit
made by a different manufacturer, Promega Corporation's PowerPlex 16 kit. At that point, Arndt
had not determined which kit is "better." I asked Arndt to describe the serological testing
methods in place at his lab around 1997. He stated that cuttings would have been taken of
clothing that tested presumptively positive for saliva, semen, or other fluids. When asked, he
stated that his lab would not have used the Phadebas test kit, which would have obliterated any
touch DNA.
pg. 2, http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/128162457/20071101-HoritaLongMemo.pdf​

Post Testing:

On 5/21/08, at approximately 0933hours, I spoke with Williamson about the serological source
of the touch DNA profile she developed from the exterior right and left sides of the white long
johns worn by the victim. She stated that the scraping technique she used avoided any area of
.J staining. She did not attempt to determine the serological source of the samples, but did not
believe that the source was saliva. Williamson did not believe that the DNA profiles from the
exterior right and left portions of the victim's long johns and the profile from the inside of the .
crotch of the underwear were both deposited via contamination from the autopsy table.
She noted that she believed the serological source of the DNA profile developed from the
underwear was "probably saliva."
pg. 2, http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/128162457/20071101-HoritaLongMemo.pdf​

Expert opinions are known to be valid and true.

The gender label of male is an assumption that fits the presumed IDI theory.

Somehow this statement seems a bit disingenuous to me. Nonetheless ...

Table One also contains an "unknown male 1" profile deduced by the Denver PO and submitted to
Bode by the Boulder County District Attorney's Office December 3, 2007 via a PowerPoint slide
and June 19,2008 via a Specimen Detail Report.
Pg1, Bode Lab Report 6-20-2008 http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/130877817/20080620-BodeReport.pdf​

And as I mentioned before, the Y allele result of testing shows up in the 6-20 Bode lab report.

Regardless of the science involved there are no actual matches or definitive lab results, just presumed conclusions.

No. I don't think so. The quantitative biometric that is a standard calculation of probabilistic genotyping, and noted on pg 1 of said report, it is the way to read the lab report. Or, you can look at this peak diagram and see it...

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/142831863/PantiesLongJohnsPeak-2.pdf​

<modsnip: Not an approved source.>

All we have is degraded dna, from which anything can be construed.

Nope.

Hopefully from the further testing all these unknowns can be resolved.

These issues have been resolved.

I like it to be that we knew it was a male and the amylase was alpha then barring cross transfer we can all speculate what it was doing in a clean on pair of JonBenet's underwear.

The time has come.

 

[searchinGirl]

So if we run with your theory: we have a male depositing saliva on JonBenet, what do you think happened?

I think the killer assaulted her with the tip end of the paintbrush that was lubricated with the saliva in his mouth. The tip of the paintbrush wounded JonBenet and deposited the birefringent inside her. After the panties were put on her, she bled some drops onto them, blood and saliva. The tip of the paintbrush is missing.

 

[887sMtreme]

their names were cleared in 2008....

I assume you’re referring to DA Mary Lacy’s 2009 statement exonerating all the Ramseys. There is great controversy ab0ut that, including amongst detectives and other law enforcement people, prosecutors et al., many (if not most) of whom did not feel the evidence backed up what Lacy chose to tell the public.

 

[Occams Razor]

Just now discovering this atrocity of journalism. lol

It's clear these stories that cater to the Rams do so for one purpose: to get access to the family so they'll have new interviews, photos & footage for their shows. I'm seeing pics of Jonbenet I hadn't seen before as well as the new interview with John Andrew (who we haven't seen ANYWHERE since the '90s, right?). The family only agrees to appear if they'll be portrayed positively and therein lies the conundrum. There's also the fear of lawsuits if they go against them since they sue everyone who gets within a mile of the truth.

There are tons of journalists and news programs that go soft on politicians for the same reason (i.e. FOX News/conservatives; MSNBC/liberals; The Young Turks/progressives) and it's disgusting. Makes it very hard to get unbiased reporting. I knew as soon as we saw the podcast hosts were related to Lou Smit it was a wash.

 

[BoldBear]

i am asking again.....

how would anyone’s saliva, other than an assailant, be found INSIDE the panties of a 5 year old child...panties she was still wearing?

how many people do you let put their napkins, hands, down the pants of your child?

You just assumed that someone put their hands down a little girl's panties. We're talking about underwear that was too big for JBR. We don't know if the DNA came into contact with the panties before they had ever been worn and we don't know if there was sexual abuse. It's been suggested but hasn't been proven. Anyone who could be interviewed in a child sexual abuse case wouldn't be interviewed in that way for JBR's murder investigation. The detectives didn't have that liberty and no one would discuss it.

Sexual abuse is one theory for the murder, but it is not the only one.

the difference between “touch” DNA as would be described in collecting evidence from the ransom note, or the garot....is NOT the same DNA that was recovered from INSIDE that child’s underwear! That wasn’t touch DNA; it was a bodily fluid sample, a sample that generated, as was stated in numerous programs a FULL DNA profile. DNA that DID NOT match ANY Ramsey family member.

also, as I said previously....the “bodily fluids” sample has NOT been identified as saliva, saliva alone, semen, semen alone, or a mixture...it is identified as bodily fluids and “foreign DNA, NOT related to ANY Ramsey family member”.

Before DNA, semen samples were identified as semen samples. DNA semen samples are identified as such. I have never read that any seamen samples were identified on JBR. This would have made this specifically a sexual crime. It has not been identified as such. There are theories about this being as sexual preditor or a family member trying to cover up sexual abuse, but no specific evidence no one has ever released information that seamen was present.

also, the ideas about JBR being a victim of repeated sexual assaults....the autopsy of the child notes an INTACT hymen; meaning she had not been a victim of any prior penetrating sexual intercourse.

Penetrating sexual intercourse? No. There's the possibility of the insertion of a digit (a finger), but not full penetration. What have you read that makes you believe that this is a case of full penile penetration? Even the digit is a possibility, but not proven. Even though it's one possibility, don't confuse sexual abuse with full penile penetration. (I feel sick for even talking about this, but the details of the autopsy must be a part of the investigation too. We also need to examine the opinion of experts.) Don't confuse what sexual abuse actually is. The line is the sexual gratification of the abuser.

again, as hard as the Bolder PD tried to hang this on the Ramsey family: if there were evidence of prior sexual abuse; and if the bodily fluids in her underwear had been DNA matched to JR or PR....they would have buried both of them UNDER the jail.

Did you just say that if the parents of a child sneeze on their child's underwear then they'll be in jail? There are all sorts of ways for a family's DNA to get upon one another. DNA being found on a murdered family member doesn't put you in jail. You need to have that be something like blood or seamen. Then you need a good set of circumstances. Snot doesn't count because you live with that person. There must be some assisting evidence.

there was also no mention by any previous interviews of law enforcement, grand jurors, or documents that mention ANY evidence of prior, or ongoing sexual abuse of that child.

Read the books. Investigators couldn't investigate sexual abuse and the murder investigation and have the media and the reporters hanging over their heads all at the same time. Many witnesses clammed-up from advice from the Ramey's investigative/detective team. (I'm not saying this was sexual or anything else, but pressure was put on witnesses not to talk whether directly implied or mistakenly implied.) For that reason, a sexual abuse investigation couldn't be done (especially since the child couldn't be used as a witness and the child's doctor did not do a vaginal inspection for sexual abuse even when the child came in for repeated issues for infections. Her wiping was often blamed for the problem and her doctor failed to investigate further but claimed he would never turn her medical records over--Got it?)[/QUOTE]

I just don’t understand why people continue to imply that this is a motive.

This is only one motive. Intruder, Patsy, John, Burke. Nothing's been proven. Sexual is only one of many theories. Why are you focused on only one theory?

 

[searchinGirl]

I assume you’re referring to DA Mary Lacy’s 2009 statement exonerating all the Ramseys. There is great controversy ab0ut that, including amongst detectives and other law enforcement people, prosecutors et al., many (if not most) of whom did not feel the evidence backed up what Lacy chose to tell the public.

Another blogger was able to obtain through a Colorado Open Records Request a set of documents that outlines the communication and testing that the Boulder DA procured through Bode Labs.
JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia / CORAfiles Index

I presume when you speak of many people who don’t think the dna evidence amounts to much, that you are talking about the DNA in Doubt article wherein they completely ignored the standard biometric that quantifies the match of the samples on the longJohns to the profile developed by DPD and entered into CODIS. There were other tests done at Bode that better fit what was portrayed as meaningless by the Daily Camera. It doesn’t ring true with the two samples on the exterior of the waistband of the white longJohns.

 

[BoldBear]

KISS. Keep It Simple. I have always wanted to know if the lights were on in the house all night, or if it was dark. I have never really seen this answered. Because that would be very telling to me.

The Ramseys kept the light on in JBR's bathroom normally. They kept the light on in the mudroom illuminating the back hallway and part of the kitchen. They kept a light on inside of the sunroom; although, I can't confirm if it was the light inside of the sunroom or just outdoors of the sunroom (complementing the sidewalk light). There was an outdoor light in the back yard as far as I've learned. They also had the Christmas lights on along the pathway leading to the house (which would have illuminated a little bit of the living room and very little of the sunroom [if that light was out].) The sunroom light was out the night JB was murdered (a mystery). They had Christmas lights on in the back den on the 1st floor. There were enough lights for the kids and the parents to navigate the home at night. BTW: the basement lights were left on the day JBR was kidnapped/murdered.

There have been several theories, and we don't have enough information to really have a conclusion. In the end, the real problem was the Keystone cops of Boulder, CO. They did not secure the scene. They let PR and JR tell them what to do. The fact that JR took control so immediately, is unusual to me.

I'd love to get into the details of the Boulder police. They only wanted to record the telephone for the kidnapping. No other recordings were made to confirm the police's story of what was said. They left the 'B' team for that Christmas. This was the only Boulder homicide that year.

My conclusion was that the best places to commit murder that year were uncharted places in Alaska and the front doorstep of the Boulder police department. Even if you got caught and committed the murder at the entry of the Boulder Police Department, Monty Hall would have pleaded your murder case down to having your videos returned to BlockBuster with no one tracking your ankle bracelet.

 

[BoldBear]

...I know he said he set the alarm...

They never set the alarm. JB set off the alarm one day in the mudroom just outside of the garage. It was noisy loud. They hated it and thought it was too loud for the neighbors. They didn't set the alarm and got into a habit of never setting it.