BREAKING NEWS: New DNA Analysis Suggests Family Should NOT Have Been Cleared

[Ambitioned]

Just putting this here (Disclaimer: No I'm not a Paula Woodward fan)

http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/november-2nd-update

 

[kanzz]

Speaking of new evidence and new findings, I have preordered Kolar's book.

Join the Ventus Publishing email list to be the first to purchase the soon-to-be released 20th anniversary edition which covers details surrounding the closely held secret of the 1999 indictments of the parents for their cover up of the circumstances surrounding JonBenét's death. The updated edition provides further analysis of the touch DNA test results used to "exonerate" the family and more.

I'm dying here. Cannot wait.

BBM -
I'll second that! And Thank You - I didn't even know about this!

http://www.ventuspublishing.com/

 

[Ambitioned]

You're welcome!!!

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Ambitioned, thanks for posting that. I haven't had time to look at the reports in detail but it's nice to have them. As far as I can tell from her summary, nothing is being disputed about the DC article except possibly excusing ML by saying she was told it was a "match" by the lab tech? Does anyone who has her book know what she has to say about the DNA and the exoneration? Because she had this info all along and yet she let the Daily Camera and News9 scoop her. Surely if she wrote about this it would have been big news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charliegirl610]

I know FFJ members presented a petition to the governor (Owens?) asking for a special prosecutor but it didn't go anywhere. Lin Wood was salty enough about it to make some pithy remark to a reporter, though, so at least FFJ succeeded in pissing him off! [emoji23]

Sadly, if the criterion for action is new evidence, I don't think this DNA revelation qualifies. It doesn't disprove an intruder, it just disproves IDI's greatest (only?) defense. If anything, Burke's remarks on Dr. Phil merit another police interview with Burke since he's apparently remembering things he never bothered to mention when he was first interviewed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it's not new evidence but many people who were investigated and swabbed for DNA were cleared due to not matching the bogus DNA profile. That said, I would think they'd be back to square one and retesting everything and everyone.moo

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I guess it's not new evidence but many people who were investigated and swabbed for DNA were cleared due to not matching the bogus DNA profile. That said, I would think they'd be back to square one and retesting everything and everyone.moo

Fantastic point! I was thinking about it just as an excuse to re-investigate the Ramseys, but what if they used it as an excuse to re-investigate outside suspects? Since I can't imagine any new developments in IDI-land coming to light, eventually they'd be able to circle the investigation back to the three people in the house. And hopefully conduct new tests like the ones recommended in the CBS special.

It would be extra great if they could forward the case to the CBI or FBI but I don't know the logistics of how that would happen or if it even could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

Here is another site with documents.

Decoding the DNA

but many people who were investigated and swabbed for DNA were cleared due to not matching the bogus DNA profile.

Exactly! I do wish they would retest everything too.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't see that as realistic, since Patsy was happy to fuss over JonBenet and put her in pageants, etc. If a mother was jealous, wouldn't it be more like Cinderella where she was dressed in rags and forced to do household chores? The energy and motivation to enter a young child into pageants doesn't come from jealousy of that child, but pride and more pride. It's an expense as well, what with photography, lessons, hair and makeup and clothing, as well as entry fees and travel (although it seems like JBR only did local pageants).

Well, that's pretty much the standard answer, Heymom, that PR wouldn't have shown her off so much if she'd been jealous. At the time, playing devil's advocate, I said that it was possible that PR didn't get jealous until they both started getting older, when JonBenet started to look more like a miniature teenager than a little girl. But, I am forced to concede that you're probably right. Didn't matter to me one way or the other, really. (I think there were out-of-state pageants, though. Anyone remember? My mind's going!)

I was never comfortable with Steve Thomas' conclusion that PDI. I think the BDI scenarios fit the evidence much better. One main problem is the head wound - I do not believe that the physics of throwing a child against an object would result in the kind of puncture wound to the skull that JonBenet received. The location of the skull puncture is the top rear of her head - how would that even work, physically? I just could never picture it. Even if it were possible, it would take deliberate action such as taking the child's head between your hands and smashing it against something HARD, not an accidental loss of temper and a shoving. Then you have the strangling afterward as well. I'm not saying that parents or step-parents can't do horrendous things to children, but I do not see Patsy Ramsey as that sort of person.

As to how the head wound would work if she were thrown against something, I said in An Angel Betrayed that she went flying headfirst. If Patsy had grabbed her by the back of the collar (or hair) and the waistband of her pants and went to throw her onto the bed and misjudged the force/distance...

In any case, I think PR & JR did what they thought was necessary in the face of an unbelievable tragedy.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[BBB167893]

Just putting this here (Disclaimer: No I'm not a Paula Woodward fan)

http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/november-2nd-update

Damage control.

 

[k-mac]

As to how the head wound would work if she were thrown against something, I said in An Angel Betrayed that she went flying headfirst. If Patsy had grabbed her by the back of the collar (or hair) and the waistband of her pants and went to throw her onto the bed and misjudged the force/distance...

even though i lean toward BDI cannot dismiss your PDI theory either SD!
I think it is completely possible a heat of the moment head injury like JBR s could have resulted from a tired frazzled mother raming her into the bathroom in a rage by the scruff of the neck and a full force blow from collecting the timber doorframe or vanity edge but where it doesnt fit for me in any theory is how did that injury not break the skin???
that is what throws doubt on every scenerio to me. was just a freak blow.:waitasec:

 

[BBB167893]

even though i lean toward BDI cannot dismiss your PDI theory either SD!
I think it is completely possible a heat of the moment head injury like JBR s could have resulted from a tired frazzled mother ramming her into the bathroom in a rage by the scruff of the neck and a full force blow from collecting the timber door frame or vanity edge but where it doesn't fit for me in any theory is how did that injury not break the skin???
that is what throws doubt on every scenario to me. was just a freak blow.:waitasec:

As you say, k-mac, head injuries are the quirkiest injuries you can receive. It's a matter of pure chance. Even so, you raise an interesting point about the door frame or edge of the vanity/ dresser, where the edges would be sharper. But what if the object connected with was a blunt, rounded object?

See what this does for you. Here's the scenario I put forth in the book (which you get to read for free). I must warn you, this is disturbing, to say the very least:

John goes upstairs. Soon, JB is back down.

PATSY: "What do you want now, honey," with a little irritation in her voice.

JB: "I did it again."

PATSY: "Oh, God. Come on."

Up to JB's room.

PATSY: "I dont see anything."

JB: "I didn't go to bed yet."

PATSY: "Can't you do anything I ask?"

JB: "I'm sorry."

PATSY: "Get in there."

Into the bathroom. Patsy cleans her up.

PATSY: "Here, don't tell you're father."

JB: "You and Daddy tell me secrets."

PATSY: "Secrets?"

JB: "Yeah, Daddy tells me to keep secrets."

PATSY: "Like what?"

JB (suddenly sullen): "It wouldn't be a secret then."

PATSY (now more irritated): "Fine."

Patsy becomes rough.

JB: "OW! Mommy, that hurts! Daddy's nicer."

PATSY: "I didn't think your father cleaned you up."

JB: "He doesn't. He calls it our special game."

PATSY's head snaps up. Their eyes meet.

JB (whispering): "I told the secret."

PATSY (in a rage): "YOU ROTTEN LITTLE LIAR!!"

JB (almost in a panic): "I'm sorry, Mommy!"

PATSY: "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget!"

JB tries to run away, but her pants are still around her knees. She tries to pull them up, but trips. As she gets up, Patsy grabs her collar and flings her. She MEANS to toss JB onto the bed face-first and spank the daylights out of her. But she mistimes it and JB goes headfirst like a missile into the bedpost at tremendous speed. It cracks her skull.

Patsy sees JB crumpled on the floor.

PATSY: "That won't work, you little faker. You're in big trouble."

She picks JB up and lays her on the bed. But she's so limp.

PATSY: "I said, cut it out."

Nothing. JB is in shock and doesn't seem to be breathing.

PATSY (anger replaced by worry): "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, you cut that out right now. Baby? (Now panicked): BABY?! PLEASE say something! Oh, GOD, I didn't mean to! No, oh, God, no! Not my baby!"

John comes in.

JOHN: "What the h*** is going on in here?!"

Patsy turns. Her eyes, full of tears and hate. She blitzes him.

PATSY: "YOU B*****D!"

He grabs her wrists. "Are you crazy?!" He sees JB. "What did you do?!"

PATSY: "Me?! You couldn't get it from me, so you took her! And I believed YOU!"

JOHN: "You stupid, crazy *advertiser censored*! I have to save her!"

PATSY: "It's too late now! She's dead!"

JOHN: "NO! That's impossible!" (Keep in mind, John's lost Beth.)

PATSY: "I'll see you rot for this!"

JOHN: "How?! You killed her."

 

[k-mac]

yes i plan to read your book dave look forward to it

i cant come at the unifide front if JR molested her. PR in that case probably would have killed herself in heartbreak or divorced him and took him to the cleaners. even if you think they are holding each other responsible at the end of the day PR would have come up the victim and JR the monster if that all tumbled out. accountablity is uneven.
that brings me back to BDI. its the only conclusion PR and JRs unquestionable togetherness supports.
we all know they werent madly in love?
why the heck didnt this break them?
my parents lost a child.....broke them.
they behaved as equals in this. that is very revealing.
jmho!

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

No revelations here, but I was poking around on the News9 link ambitioned posted and there was a link to this short article they posted about tDNA before the big story broke on the 27th. Kind of interesting:
http://www.9news.com/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/how-touch-dna-cleared-the-ramseys/341826563

This one came after Lacy's Butt Print defense and it has additional comments from Stan Garnett:
http://www.9news.com/news/dna-in-doubt-whats-next-in-jonbent-ramsey-case/344026979

“To read today that the justification for issuing this one was that there was a train heading down the tacks toward the Ramseys is especially confusing because no case was going to be filed against anyone without admissible evidence,” Garnett said in an interview with the Daily Camera’s Charlie Brennan. “And the decision whether there was admissible evidence is my decision, and has been for the entire eight, almost eight years I’ve been district attorney.

“I’ve always felt that there’s not sufficient admissible evidence to file against any person. I continue to feel that way. If my opinion changes we will file charges and talk about it in court. But the existence of an exoneration letter by my predecessor never has made any difference and makes no difference to me now, even if the justification for that letter appears to be changing.”

“I’ve said many times that I thought the exoneration letter was ill-advised and was of no legal consequence, but I always understood it to be based entirely on the DNA and the analysis by Ms. Lacy of the DNA,” Garnett told the Camera. “To read a quote to the effect that it was not based on DNA, but based on the totality of the circumstances is even more puzzling.
Garnett said the Ramsey case – like every case – should be based on a sober examination of all of the evidence that has no room for emotions.

“The ‘train rushing down the tracks’ quote is concerning because the decision to file charges is never an emotional decision by a lawyer or by a prosecutor,” Garnett said. “It’s a deliberate, cautious decision based only on the facts and the evidence, and the reason no charges have been filed in the case is because the facts and the evidence in the case do not support charges, based on the ethical standards that apply to prosecutors in Colorado.

“It has nothing to do with emotion, with exoneration letters, with all the different passions that have whirled around this case, and if charges ever are filed it’s going to be for one reason: That we have sufficient evidence to prove a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt – not because of an emotion, not because of an opinion, not because of trains hurtling down the tracks but because of evidence.”

 

[singularity]

As you say, k-mac, head injuries are the quirkiest injuries you can receive. It's a matter of pure chance. Even so, you raise an interesting point about the door frame or edge of the vanity/ dresser, where the edges would be sharper. But what if the object connected with was a blunt, rounded object?

See what this does for you. Here's the scenario I put forth in the book (which you get to read for free). I must warn you, this is disturbing, to say the very least:


...........

While I knew you were PDI(obviously), I didn't realize you thought it boiled down to Jonbenet 'spilling the beans' to that extent. Not sure I can buy it playing out like that(although you may be right), I do agree that what happened was some sort of domestic dispute that went to the extreme.

They both should have been grilled on their marriage and their history but BPD/DA never even went there. There's an exhange in JOhn's interview that was a red flag that should've been picked up on.

MIKE KANE: How often did you smoke a cigar?

JOHN RAMSEY: I couldn't smoke in the house. And Jonbenet would actually get after me if I smoked or drank a beer. So the only time I would smoke a cigar is if I drove to the airport or
something like that. So, once or twice a week,maybe.

---------

That is a huge reveal. The only reason a child that age would not want their parents drinking is if they associate the drinking of liquor with negative things such as arguing or fighting. If these aren't present, to a child the drink of beer by parents would be no different than a drink of soda. It wouldn't even be on her radar.....yet it was.

Smit and Kane didn't even acknowlege the statement.

 

[Heymom]

While I knew you were PDI(obviously), I didn't realize you thought it boiled down to Jonbenet 'spilling the beans' to that extent. Not sure I can buy it playing out like that(although you may be right), I do agree that what happened was some sort of domestic dispute that went to the extreme.

They both should have been grilled on their marriage and their history but BPD/DA never even went there. There's an exhange in JOhn's interview that was a red flag that should've been picked up on.

MIKE KANE: How often did you smoke a cigar?

JOHN RAMSEY: I couldn't smoke in the house. And Jonbenet would actually get after me if I smoked or drank a beer. So the only time I would smoke a cigar is if I drove to the airport or
something like that. So, once or twice a week,maybe.

---------

That is a huge reveal. The only reason a child that age would not want their parents drinking is if they associate the drinking of liquor with negative things such as arguing or fighting. If these aren't present, to a child the drink of beer by parents would be no different than a drink of soda. It wouldn't even be on her radar.....yet it was.

Smit and Kane didn't even acknowlege the statement.

Not necessarily, sometimes little girls get notions about what their parents should/should not do. Maybe she'd heard talk from her mom about how beer makes you fat, or something from another child about their own parent's drinking. We don't know. Little girls can be Miss Bossy Boots at times, and like little mommies.

 

[PositiveLight]

While I knew you were PDI(obviously), I didn't realize you thought it boiled down to Jonbenet 'spilling the beans' to that extent. Not sure I can buy it playing out like that(although you may be right), I do agree that what happened was some sort of domestic dispute that went to the extreme.

They both should have been grilled on their marriage and their history but BPD/DA never even went there. There's an exhange in JOhn's interview that was a red flag that should've been picked up on.

MIKE KANE: How often did you smoke a cigar?

JOHN RAMSEY: I couldn't smoke in the house. And Jonbenet would actually get after me if I smoked or drank a beer. So the only time I would smoke a cigar is if I drove to the airport or
something like that. So, once or twice a week,maybe.

---------

That is a huge reveal. The only reason a child that age would not want their parents drinking is if they associate the drinking of liquor with negative things such as arguing or fighting. If these aren't present, to a child the drink of beer by parents would be no different than a drink of soda. It wouldn't even be on her radar.....yet it was.

Smit and Kane didn't even acknowlege the statement.

You know, this is new to me that he said that. But when I read this the first thing I thought of was she may associate drinking and the smell of cigars to inappropriate things. Remember the 911 call on the 23rd? There was drinking that night and maybe even cigars. Maybe he also drank on the 25th. I'm a BDI but I've always been open to other ideas.
For a father to be "hen pecked" by his daughter is super strange. So many things keep jumping out at me that this family says that is so out of line yet they are never followed up on by detectives. It's so disgusting!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

That is a huge reveal. The only reason a child that age would not want their parents drinking is if they associate the drinking of liquor with negative things such as arguing or fighting. If these aren't present, to a child the drink of beer by parents would be no different than a drink of soda. It wouldn't even be on her radar.....yet it was.

Smit and Kane didn't even acknowlege the statement.

God only knows what kind of things Patsy drilled into her head. In the interview with Peter Boyles and Linda Wilcox she said JB looked at her coldly and said "Eating McDonalds makes you fat!" I can see Patsy making a huge deal about body image and being fat rather than how unhealthy the food is.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

You know, this is new to me that he said that. But when I read this the first thing I thought of was she may associate drinking and the smell of cigars to inappropriate things. Remember the 911 call on the 23rd? There was drinking that night and maybe even cigars. Maybe he also drank on the 25th. I'm a BDI but I've always been open to other ideas.
For a father to be "hen pecked" by his daughter is super strange. So many things keep jumping out at me that this family says that is so out of line yet they are never followed up on by detectives. It's so disgusting!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Speaking of things about JR/JB's relationship that seem are probably innocuous but seem odd, here's a little story from Judith Phillips that came to mind while reading this discussion:

I saw John with JB alone together once. He was driving her to school and I was there measuing a wall for a photograph that Patsy was interested in buying. There was the normal activity in the house that morning trying to get the kids to school. John offered to give me a lift home. When we got to the Jeep, he pulled back the seat and expected me to climb in the back while he and JB rode in the front. I thought this was somewhat strange, because when an adult rides with me, kids always get in the back.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?6429-JonBenet-CD-on-eBay/page3

 

[buggiegirl]

I guess it's not new evidence but many people who were investigated and swabbed for DNA were cleared due to not matching the bogus DNA profile. That said, I would think they'd be back to square one and retesting everything and everyone.moo

Even IDIs should want that DNA retested in this case. Everyone who was cleared by that is technically back on the table. IMO, if the Ramseys themselves don't push to have things retested it will be incredibly clear that they are guilty. What reason could they possibly have to not ask for a retest? Just don't care who killed her?

 

[HarmonyE.]

I saw John with JB alone together once. He was driving her to school and I was there measuing a wall for a photograph that Patsy was interested in buying. There was the normal activity in the house that morning trying to get the kids to school. John offered to give me a lift home. When we got to the Jeep, he pulled back the seat and expected me to climb in the back while he and JB rode in the front. I thought this was somewhat strange, because when an adult rides with me, kids always get in the back.

That is a little strange. Even back in the early 80's my mother wouldn't let kids under 12 ride in the front seat for safety reasons. A five or six year old belonged belted in the back and even then a booster or safety seat of some sort may have been required for a child that small.

Beyond this, it may speak to John's arrogance. Ramseys, even little ones, in the front. Non-Ramsey adults in the back.