Boulder police take back Ramsey case

[Tadpole12]

re: recidity CM, same link:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:upnNOcSIpAEJ:www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm%3Ffile_uuid%3DD6C7DAFE-1143-DFD0-7E44-C49EDDB3F621%26ext%3Dppt+recidity+rates+incest&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

Packard (2002): 1,621 SO from State of Washington.

Rapists: linear decrease in base rates as a function of age, while extra-familial CM remained at comparatively higher risk for a period ranging from age 25 until the early fifties.


5. Rapists and CM Clear pattern emerged.

• Rapists: the greatest sexual recidivism risk appears to be in the younger age bands, 18 to 24.9 years
• CM: the greatest risk appears to be in the middle age bands, 25 to 39.9 years.

 

[Egoslayer]

John Ramsey was 53 when JonBennet was killed.

 

[cajun]

Not the first print. Weird huh, especially since Patsy and John state that they both had the note in their hands upon discovery of it....

Thanks for that important question!

It just popped in me head earlier. I just didn't remember what was said about finger prints on the 'novella' that was written. Very weird. I don't know how you go about picking up some paper and writing on it and not having any prints on it..so does that mean someone had gloves on?

 

[Tadpole12]

John Ramsey was 53 when JonBennet was killed.

ty for the info. Recidity for someone at that age would be related to arrousabilty. same link.


Hanson (2006): the pattern of decline in base rate with age was not the same for rapists, extrafamilial child molesters, and incest offenders.

• Incest offenders base rate was highest in the youngest age group (31%), dropped sharply to around 10% in the next oldest age cohort (25–29), and continued to drop slowly thereafter to 0% by age 60.

 

[wandering]

The last news report I heard was that they found DNA on the sides of JB's jammie bottoms, the same DNA they found in her panties.

Did they check the DNA of the guy who played Santa? He had a molester record, IIRC.

Didn't a psychic describe a security guard in JR's work building?

So many clues going nowhere.

Poor little darling.

 

[TinaD]

I know I should be happy about this turn of events, and I guess I am, but it just seems to me that most of the evidence points to Patsy not John (by John's design, I believe). For example, the fibers entwined in the knot and under the duct tape, the handwriting, paper and pen. The only physical evidence that I am aware of pointing to John is the shirt fiber found in JB's underwear.

So, can you really see any charges being brought against John? At worst, he could claim that Patsy did it and he knew nothing until later, and then made a split second decision to protect her and Burke - (very sorry Mr Prosecutor, I know it was wrong but they were the only family I had left, surely you can understand......).

 

[JMO8778]

If JR was indeed molesting JB,then he would be what is said to be a 'situational' abuser,and not a pedo,per se.

 

[madeleine]

I know I should be happy about this turn of events, and I guess I am, but it just seems to me that most of the evidence points to Patsy not John (by John's design, I believe). For example, the fibers entwined in the knot and under the duct tape, the handwriting, paper and pen. The only physical evidence that I am aware of pointing to John is the shirt fiber found in JB's underwear.

So, can you really see any charges being brought against John? At worst, he could claim that Patsy did it and he knew nothing until later, and then made a split second decision to protect her and Burke - (very sorry Mr Prosecutor, I know it was wrong but they were the only family I had left, surely you can understand......).

Yeah I thought about that as well.....or if everything points to Patsy in the end(most of it already does) then he could say,well,I didn't know anything,she didn't tell me,not even before she died.

IMO John is safe,even if he did it.....

 

[scandi]

Yeah I thought about that as well.....or if everything points to Patsy in the end(most of it already does) then he could say,well,I didn't know anything,she didn't tell me,not even before she died.

IMO John is safe,even if he did it.....

Hmmmm How would you explain the DNA found in her panties and on her longjohns coming from a woman? If it were from a male there would be a perfect explaination for that, right?

 

[redheadedgal]

The evidence against an Intruder is non-existant unless you are on retainer for John Ramsey.

soooo many people i love and respect are IDI... i cannot convince them otherwise even with describing/showing them the lack of evidence of anyone else being in the house and explaining all the things that point to ramsey guilt. it's infuriating!

 

[RiverRat]

soooo many people i love and respect are IDI... i cannot convince them otherwise even with describing/showing them the lack of evidence of anyone else being in the house and explaining all the things that point to ramsey guilt. it's infuriating!

That is Sad........ you can always hang out with my friends........there's no need to try and convince them, conversations are soo more productive when you are on the same page!

 

[madeleine]

Hmmmm How would you explain the DNA found in her panties and on her longjohns coming from a woman? If it were from a male there would be a perfect explaination for that, right?

I don't remember if both dna samples are male,what I do remember is that they said the one found in her panties is NOT sperm.
And even if both samples are male dna it doesn't mean they belong to the killer.
The dna issues are always confusing me in this case. :banghead:

ETA:http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA Evidence

Male DNA Under Fingernails
Findings. "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22). This is consistent with Internet poster Margoo's screen capture showing a "mix" of DNA only 3 of the 13 DNA samples submitted: #7 Bloodstains from panties; #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.
"Defensive Flesh." Internet poster Mame has asserted that Lou Smit told her there was "defensive flesh" found under JBR's fingernails (his term). Internet poster Evening2 disagrees and believes that "When Lou Smit referred to JonBenet "getting a piece of her killer", he wasn't talking about flesh, just that "his" DNA was there, that's all."


Male DNA in Underwear
Findings
Male DNA Found. "In addition, male DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear that does not match that of any Ramsey and has not yet been sourced. (SMF PP 175, 178; PSMF PP 175, 178.)" (Carnes 2003:22).
No Match Found to Date. "The Boulder Police Department has yet to identify the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene. (SMF P 177; PSMF P 177.)" (Carnes 2003:22).
Saliva? According to Internet poster Margoo, Lin Wood reported in a chat session that the DNA in the underwear "probably" was saliva. Several news sources also have suggested the male DNA was from saliva, including Denver Post, People's Daily Online and Taipei Times

Unnamed Investigators' View. However, "Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture. In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."


---------------

What I wanna know is: Does the dna in the panties match the one found under her fingernails?Are both samples coming from the SAME person??

 

[RiverRat]

Now is as good of time as any to bring back this video clip of John and Patsy performing on Larry King Live as a reminder of how well they played the game.

The Caller is our very own forum owner, Tricia and she doesn't ask a question that she already does not know the answer to.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlC5kSQcSE

Sounds great, right? How generous of Patsy.......until the Truth is revealed:

http://www.gaylordheraldtimes.com/articles/2004/06/01/news/local_news/local_news03.txt

"Patsy asserted the foundation does exist and is still making contributions in JonBenet's name.

"This week, we did present $1,000 worth of scholarships to Mount McSauba Day Camp here in Charlevoix, where JonBenet and Burke both attended day camp," Patsy told Larry King and millions of viewers.

It may be a question of semantics, but the fact is that the Ramseys didn't make a donation to the Camp McSauba scholarship program until Thursday, May 27. Camp McSauba Director Ike Boss said he received a check for $1,000 from the JonBenet Ramsey Children's' Foundation that evening.

Utah resident Tricia Griffith, owner of Forums for Justice.org, later acknowledged she was the caller to the Larry King Live show who questioned the Ramseys about the existence of the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation.

"Officially, the nonprofit JonBenet Foundation is closed, according to the IRS," Griffith said. "But if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to correct it on my Web site."

Griffith said her Web site, forumsforjustice.org, gets one million hits per month, and the hits have been increasing - especially hits from Michigan - since Ramsey declared his candidacy.

Griffith, like many Americans, grew interested in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case a few weeks after the tragic death of the young beauty queen occurred in December, 1996. She acquired the discussion Web site forumsforjustice.org, that deals with crime victims, in 2002.

"There's no tip line, no family Web site, so it's being left up to strangers to keep up with information about JonBenet," Griffith said.

"I would have thought that the Ramseys, being computer savvy, would have a Web site for JonBenet," she added."

 

[Mendara]

I just can't see PR going along with a coverup for a friend of JR's. Unless she was aware of the molestation and looked the other way- and they told her she's be indicted for failing to stop it. It just is too complicated and I think in this case the simplest is still the best theory.

The friend as a molester theory works only if Patsy was not involved nor John - it means the friend of the family came into the house got JBR to come down to the basement, where he molested her and then killed her and HE wrote the note to throw the police and the Ramseys off his trail.

The note is the one thing that confuses me. If a stranger killed JBR why write the note? Why not just flee? Did he write the note before killing her, planning on taking her, but then got sidetracked?

 

[Mendara]

There is NO statute of limitations for murder. It doesn't matter how long it takes to find the killer.

Is the "older man" you are thinking of PR's father? He was supposedly there from before Christmas. But he also "supposedly" left before that day. However, we have no proof, as far as a plane ticket or evidence he boarded a plane, and since the family Christmas photos and videos were "lost" we just can't prove he was there.

WHAT????

 

[BBB167893]

Super Dave,
Is this new look at the case going to have any bearing on your book?

You'd better believe it!

Where are you in production of this tome.

About to ad the final update about the BPD.

And will you be including anything about this new movement into investigation?

YUP!

 

[BBB167893]

I am tempted to believe you, but why hasn't he been a repeat-offender? As most child abusers are.

Actually, Egoslayer, I'm glad you asked that. I actually talk about that at some length in the book. The simple answer is that PEDOPHILE child abusers repeat their offenses. But a SITUATIONAL molester can stop with just one.

I think I'd better elaborate on that:

In the 1800s, an Austrian psychologist named Richard von Krafft-Ebing determined that there were three kinds of people who victimized children sexually. The first kind are pedophiles. In the true sense, this applies to people who have recurring sexual attractions and urges toward children; no one really knows why they do this. I think it's just cross-wiring of the brain. The second kind are situational or surrogate molesters. These are people who are not sexually attracted to children per se, but see a child as a substitute for an adult object of attraction. For example, a woman who molests her son because her husband walked out on her. The third kind are sadistic molesters. These ungodly specimens get a sexual thrill from inflicting pain on their victims, physical and emotional. A sadistic child molester, like a situational molester, does not have any specific attraction to children, but selects them for victimization only because children are easier to terrify and control. The thrill is intensified through this factor.

If JR was indeed molesting JB,then he would be what is said to be a 'situational' abuser,and not a pedo,per se.

That's a much more succint way of saying it!

BTW, a special thanks to Tadpole12 for those very interesting numbers!

I would be careful with the rumors secretsquirrel. We know Lin Wood has this forum scoured regularly.

Feh. I'm not afraid of that creep, OR the killer gerbil on his head!

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Dave, I probably know the least about this case than any poster here as it was 2002 before I found Forumdom.

Don't let it bother ya, scandi! I didn't join my first forum until October 2002! But as you can see, I jumped in with both feet!

I think River Rat has this case down pat as she has studied it inside and out.

RR's one of our best.

I read in an above post that if it were the R's who killed her and covered it up no one will go to jail for this.

Unfortunately, that's probably true.

Is there a statute of limitations on the crime that was committed to where John would be safe from either prosecution or being held accountable?

I'm afraid so. Cover-up charges ran out of time quite a while ago. Besides, even if he were charged, he could do exactly as TinaD says:

So, can you really see any charges being brought against John? At worst, he could claim that Patsy did it and he knew nothing until later, and then made a split second decision to protect her and Burke - (very sorry Mr Prosecutor, I know it was wrong but they were the only family I had left, surely you can understand......).

Patsy can't defend herself. And with lesser charges no longer in the ballpark, it's a walk.

 

[BBB167893]

soooo many people i love and respect are IDI... i cannot convince them otherwise even with describing/showing them the lack of evidence of anyone else being in the house and explaining all the things that point to ramsey guilt. it's infuriating!

Infuriating is not the word for it! Makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Then I realize--that's what I AM doing!

 

[AliVada]

This is good news, I just hope something comes of it.

I want to know about the non existant cell phone records from that night/morning.

I want more information about "touch" dna as it is safe to assume that she was also covered in "touches" from her own family members. This never ruled anoyone out in my opinion in fact my guess is that if really scrutiunized we would find many others as well .......... which darn it - could lead to reasonable doubt as if it is that sensitive would we find traces of old handymen, painters, housekeepers and the like in all of our homes?

A Ramsey did this, it is so unlikely that it happened any other way. I just wish that a conviction could be secured.

Kathy