Mark Beckner’s AMA

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

IMO, I don't see the "sadistic" nature of the crime cancelling out the very strange "run-of-the-house" attitude of the perpetrators. It is the very casual approach to staying in that house hours after the first blow had been struck, walking around, opening drawers, writing a note, and then...like you are doing homework in your own kitchen...starting over and writing another of ridiculous length!

At the time the note was being composed, JB was gravely injured...not in any shape to be bartered away for ransom money. However, if these Laid-back intruders had removed her...she would have been more valuable TO THEM! So the refusal of the crackerjack "foreign faction" to carry out their mission and remove her...becomes another strike against their existence!

Here, supposedly, you have the Delta Force of kidnappers, so cool, to be shuffling about the house, finding blankets...writing notes...HOURS in the house...but they are too dumb to realize that the child DEAD is pretty much worthless to their objective of getting MONEY?

But if the Ramsey's were confronted with the horror that their son...appeared to have killed their daughter...the choice to stage IN the house would seem less risky then driving a corpse around in their car. What if a neighbor saw their car leaving in the wee hours? What if they were caught in a camera somewhere?

And just as there are stories of bold intruders coming into homes and abducting children (though making themselves at home for hours is VERY unique) there are also stories of children who kill children. Siblings who kill siblings. Let's remember that Burke had already hit JB with a golf club once before.

In my humble opinion, Patsy knew that Burke played inappropriately with his sister. I would guess that she thought he would outgrow it...that, as her Mother said, JB was only a "little bit molested." But the abuse had caused JB to begin wetting and defecating in bed ( to keep her abuser away, maybe) THIS is what Patsy may have tried to treat...not the embarrassing problem of sexual abuse in her perfect home.

IMO, when she was confronted with her seemingly dead daughter...she, in her shock, felt she had a living child to save. That's what she tried to do. The staging was done...on what religious people might perceive as the "shell" of JB...her soul having left the body. A "shell" that would feel no pain...so did it really seem "sadistic? " Such a thought would provide emotional distance. Then..Some items of comfort...a favorite nightgown....a blanket.

Instead of asking...what parent could do that to their child...ask what WOULD a parent do to save their ONLY living child? If Patsy believed JB was beyond saving...she only had one more child to save. She was facing the uncertainty of cancer....a shortness of her own time on this earth. She needed to have something! She needed a surviving child perhaps!

But the farce of the kidnapping also saved the Ramsey's social stature. No shame from molestation in the family. Instead, the Jackie Kennedy mourning clothes and the anointed victim status.

Just my thoughts and humble opinion...but these are my guesses from what we know.
 
stmarysmead said:
IMO, I don't see the "sadistic" nature of the crime cancelling out the very strange "run-of-the-house" attitude of the perpetrators. It is the very casual approach to staying in that house hours after the first blow had been struck, walking around, opening drawers, writing a note, and then...like you are doing homework in your own kitchen...starting over and writing another of ridiculous length!

At the time the note was being composed, JB was gravely injured...not in any shape to be bartered away for ransom money. However, if these Laid-back intruders had removed her...she would have been more valuable TO THEM! So the refusal of the crackerjack "foreign faction" to carry out their mission and remove her...becomes another strike against their existence!

Here, supposedly, you have the Delta Force of kidnappers, so cool, to be shuffling about the house, finding blankets...writing notes...HOURS in the house...but they are too dumb to realize that the child DEAD is pretty much worthless to their objective of getting MONEY?

But if the Ramsey's were confronted with the horror that their son...appeared to have killed their daughter...the choice to stage IN the house would seem less risky then driving a corpse around in their car. What if a neighbor saw their car leaving in the wee hours? What if they were caught in a camera somewhere?

And just as there are stories of bold intruders coming into homes and abducting children (though making themselves at home for hours is VERY unique) there are also stories of children who kill children. Siblings who kill siblings. Let's remember that Burke had already hit JB with a golf club once before.

In my humble opinion, Patsy knew that Burke played inappropriately with his sister. I would guess that she thought he would outgrow it...that, as her Mother said, JB was only a "little bit molested." But the abuse had caused JB to begin wetting and defecating in bed ( to keep her abuser away, maybe) THIS is what Patsy may have tried to treat...not the embarrassing problem of sexual abuse in her perfect home.

IMO, when she was confronted with her seemingly dead daughter...she, in her shock, felt she had a living child to save. That's what she tried to do. The staging was done...on what religious people might perceive as the "shell" of JB...her soul having left the body. A "shell" that would feel no pain...so did it really seem "sadistic? " Such a thought would provide emotional distance. Then..Some items of comfort...a favorite nightgown....a blanket.

Instead of asking...what parent could do that to their child...ask what WOULD a parent do to save their ONLY living child? If Patsy believed JB was beyond saving...she only had one more child to save. She was facing the uncertainty of cancer....a shortness of her own time on this earth. She needed to have something! She needed a surviving child perhaps!

But the farce of the kidnapping also saved the Ramsey's social stature. No shame from molestation in the family. Instead, the Jackie Kennedy mourning clothes and the anointed victim status.

Just my thoughts and humble opinion...but these are my guesses from what we know.
Click to expand...

Patsy stated in her June 1998 interview that this happened in the summer of '93 when they were in Charlevoix. JonBenet was hit in the face when she walked behind Burke as he was taking a swing with the golf club. It did not happen like this-

[video=youtube;LBbtpv-Y62Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBbtpv-Y62Y[/video]
 
[–]MarkBeckner 40 points 3 days ago

In Colorado, juveniles under 10 cannot be held criminally liable. There would have been no criminal case against the brother. However, if we assume for this question that he was involved, then we would want to know who helped him cover up the murder? That would be a separate crime and if the parents were involved, they could be charged for not seeking medical attention and for covering up the crime. Same would apply if an intruder helped cover it up.
Click to expand...


It's been my theory for a long time now and it totally explains (IMO) 2 things: the foreign DNA and the MISSING phone records.
Foreign DNA could be relevant or not.If it's relevant it really isn't proof that the unknown person (NOT INTRUDER,foreign DNA doesn't mean it was an INTRUDER but maybe someone known to the family and UNKNOWN to police and us) also KILLED Jonbenet.

I am 90% convinced that someone was called over that night by the (confused and panicked) Ramseys!

And sorry for repeating myself for the 100000 time....do we know whether dr.Beuf provided a DNA sample?what about ex military old friends of JR?
 
Question: If this case could be solved with your gut instinct as evidence, how would it be solved?

Answer: Through a confession


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

finally an answer that tells me everything I wanna know

if the DNA is so important blah blah blah then why not through a match ??? ;)

if he believes RDI then he obviously doesn't believe PDI,she's dead,there can't be no confession,no?

he says he doesn't agree with Kolar's theory which is BDI,no?

guess that leaves us with......
 
icedtea4me said:
Patsy stated in her June 1998 interview that this happened in the summer of '93 when they were in Charlevoix. JonBenet was hit in the face when she walked behind Burke as he was taking a swing with the golf club. It did not happen like this-

[video=youtube;LBbtpv-Y62Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBbtpv-Y62Y[/video]
Click to expand...

The operative phrase for me here is.."Patsy stated." Maybe this was another time that Patsy was "covering." We have only her word as to what happened and how and why. If this whole mystery is about protecting her son, IMO she certainly wasn't going to admit a previous intentional assault.
 
madeleine said:
Question: If this case could be solved with your gut instinct as evidence, how would it be solved?

Answer: Through a confession


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

finally an answer that tells me everything I wanna know

if the DNA is so important blah blah blah then why not through a match ??? ;)

if he believes RDI then he obviously doesn't believe PDI,she's dead,there can't be no confession,no?

he says he doesn't agree with Kolar's theory which is BDI,no?

guess that leaves us with......
Click to expand...

The question was about the case being solved not about a conviction. There is evidence to suggest that all three Ramsey's were being deceptive, so likely they all know what happened. So it is possible that John could confess his role in the crime, and name Patsy as the killer. That would still solve the crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
icedtea4me said:
Patsy stated in her June 1998 interview that this happened in the summer of '93 when they were in Charlevoix. JonBenet was hit in the face when she walked behind Burke as he was taking a swing with the golf club. It did not happen like this-

[video=youtube;LBbtpv-Y62Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBbtpv-Y62Y[/video]
Click to expand...

In her police interview about this she also stated there was a leg injury. If it were accidental, how was she hit twice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
the hypocrisy...... :shame:

Question: Do you agree that this is not a DNA case?
Answer: I certainly wish we could have gone to trial. However, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to overcome when you have some foreign DNA that cannot be explained. If we were to find the source of this trace DNA, we would have an explanation, regardless of which way it pointed. When you are talking about small traces of DNA, there can be several explanations and various ways it could have been transferred. Without identifying who it belongs to, we can only theorize the source of the DNA and how it got there. Without this trace DNA, I believe the prosecutors would have moved forward. It is interesting that apparently the grand jury jurors did not find the DNA reason enough not to find probable cause. Personally, I believe if the source is ever found, we will discover that there is an explanation other than belonging to the murderer. There are others, such as ex-DA Mary Lacy who believe the DNA has to be that of the murderer.




and then..............


http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_27591666/mark-beckner-opens-up-about-jonbenet-ramsey-case

"I tried to be honest and fair," Beckner said, "and I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA (from JonBenet's clothing) is very important. And I'm not involved any more, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation. In my opinion, at this point, that's your suspect.

"The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."
 
madeleine said:
the hypocrisy...... :shame:

Question: Do you agree that this is not a DNA case?
Answer: I certainly wish we could have gone to trial. However, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to overcome when you have some foreign DNA that cannot be explained. If we were to find the source of this trace DNA, we would have an explanation, regardless of which way it pointed. When you are talking about small traces of DNA, there can be several explanations and various ways it could have been transferred. Without identifying who it belongs to, we can only theorize the source of the DNA and how it got there. Without this trace DNA, I believe the prosecutors would have moved forward. It is interesting that apparently the grand jury jurors did not find the DNA reason enough not to find probable cause. Personally, I believe if the source is ever found, we will discover that there is an explanation other than belonging to the murderer. There are others, such as ex-DA Mary Lacy who believe the DNA has to be that of the murderer.




and then..............


http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_27591666/mark-beckner-opens-up-about-jonbenet-ramsey-case

"I tried to be honest and fair," Beckner said, "and I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA (from JonBenet's clothing) is very important. And I'm not involved any more, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation. In my opinion, at this point, that's your suspect.

"The suspect is the donator of that unknown DNA, and until you can prove otherwise, I think that's the way you've got to look at it."
Click to expand...

I think what he was getting at was that with that foreign DNA being present, it would have been difficult to prosecute the Ramseys. He felt that the DNA was explainable, but unless they identified it, there was no way charges would be laid. At one point he even stated that he thought the Ramseys would have been charged if it weren't for that DNA.

I do get the impression that at the beginning of the interview Beckner was a little more forthcoming as to what he thought, but later he started to think that he might run in to some legal problems for what he had said, so he back-pedalled a bit.
 
JeannaT said:
I'm always amazed, also, when intruders are so bold they walk right into a house and steal or kill a child. But, as much as I wouldn't do that, it doesn't stop folks like Shasta Groene's kidnapper, Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper, Polly Klaas' kidnapper, Jessica Lunsford's killer, Danielle Van Dam's killer, I'm getting tired of typing so I'll stop with the inexhaustable list of girls boldly kidnapped by men who just walked in and took what they wanted although many were present in the home, and unaware that it was happening.

Yes, what this killer of JB did is more - to stay in the home so long. But look at the bizarre brutality of the crime? What kind of guy would DO that? One who does that, is who. A guy who is very very into sado masochism. You don't just pick that stuff up overnight or without lots of prior evidence of having SM bondage leanings.

So to suspect that her parents whacked her over the head (or Burke, which is more unbelievable) and then to cover the crime of whacking her over the head they sexually assault her while she's alive and use a Marquis de Sade knot in the garrote used to strangle her, and then stick her in a kind of secret room in the house and call the cops. Call the cops while she is STILL IN THE HOUSE? I mean, what kind of stupid home owner/killer would do that? A stupid one, is who. The Ramseys would know, for sure, that once they reported this precious child missing they would no longer have any way to get her remains out of the house undiscovered.

And in the meanwhile, the mom handwrites the 2.5 page ransom note, leaving MORE than enough evidence of her involvement. How stupid would she be to do that? Patsy was not a stupid woman. It's as hard to fake literacy as it is to fake illiteracy, and the ransom note was not written in her handwriting or with her grasp of the language.

So you're left with a very bold, sadistic killer who got pleasure out of doing this in their very home. Anything else doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Jeanna, there are a number of inaccuracies in your post. First you try to liken this case to the cases of Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaus, etc. Yes these cases had children being snatched from the home while the parents slept, which is believable, but the Ramsey case is much different. The FBI, according to Beckner, stated that there has never been a case of this type EVER! You dismiss the ransom note even though no experts were able to deny that Patsy might have been the author. The handwriting was very similar and the structure of the note was very similar to Patsy's. You try to represent the knot of the garrote as being complicated, but Beckner confirms it was actually very simple, saying anybody could have tied it.

I think that I could probably have overlooked all this if the Ramseys had been even slightly helpful in helping LE solve this case. Instead they hid behind a wall of lawyers, and when they finally sat down with police 5 months later, lied through their teeth. They said they didn't trust LE and were hiring their own investigators to find the killer, but history shows the investigators were hired to dig up dirt on potential witnesses and intimidate them in to keeping quit. Did the Smarts or Mark Klauss do that? To compare the plights of the Smarts and Mr. Klauss to that of John and Patsy is in very poor taste IMO.
 
Yes, there was evidence that would indicate prior sexual abuse.
------------
Answer: Evidence was found that would indicate she was sexually assaulted some time prior to the day of her death.

-------------------------
Answer: Based on evidence of prior damage to her vagina and hymen, experts told us there was evidence of prior abuse.

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

yet his argument is

Question: All the physicians who examined JonBenet's body said she had been sexually violated many times -except the Ramseys doctor! Yet, the sexual motive was rarely mentioned later in the case. Why?

Answer: It just didn't seem to fit the totality of the circumstances. Remember, she was hit on the head first, hard enough to render her unconscious. Then there was the staging of a kidnapping. Why do that if the motive is purely sexual?


UNBELIEVABLE!sorry but I just don't see the logic behind his argument



he rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad.

The broken paintbrush used to simulate sex assault. All these were clues to staging.



so experts confirm that it happened before and you believe that on the night of her murder it was only simulation and staging?WTH?

proves once again how shallow this investigation was,sorry!
 
I think I know what he is trying to say.

If one believes that BR was experimenting sexually with his sister in the time period before the murder, there is the previous abuse. But if he struck her that night, that "crime" may or may not have had any sexual component to it. He may have hit her for all,sorts of reasons.

But knowing that any investigation would turn up sexual abuse, the Ramsey's may have staged the scene to look like a sex crime...when it could just have been a moment of intra-familial rage.

In this theory...they hoped that investigators would imagine some sex pervert entering the house to molest their child. But they also threw in a ransom for good measure. So The perp became a kidnapper/pervert. But, then it was decided to involve a small foreign faction with a grudge against Dad. So the murder becomes sexual, financial, personal, and internationally political...covering all bases.

The theory he is espousing, I believe, is that the crime was covered up by making it look like a sex crime. But the actual motivation for killing JB...the first blow...might have had nothing to do with the previous sexual abuse. A Mr. X can be regularlyabusing his daughter, but shoot her one night for mouthing off....that kind of thing.

Just an opinion.
 
I know that there is evil out there,trust me,but I just find it very hard to believe that a parent would sexually assault his child post mortem with a broken paintbrush and then fashion a garrote with the other half just for the staging....I mean ,in this case,the staging is sicker than the crime itself ,the stager is sicker than the killer....IF all of this was pure staging then it brings me back to what I suspect for some time now...they had outside help,someone who did all this without being emotionally involved....(also see my post on the first page,an outside helper would explain the foreign DNA and the missing phone records...)
 
The two hour lag between the head blow and the strangulation helps explain a lot to me.

This was a long period, IMO, of the Ramseys assessing their options. The staging was not something that they did immediately. It was an act of desperation...a last awful resort...when the decison was finally made to protect their living child.

And he WAS still a child. This was a child who had been , in their mind, doing sexually inappropriate things...but things he would grow out of. As devout Christians, what remained of JB was a shell that felt no pain, she was already in the arms of their Lord. The one who needed protecting was their don.

I think the long period of time between the bludgeoning and the sexual staging of JB is really instructive. I just cannot imagine some sex pervert taking a two hour break in a strangers home.
 
stmarysmead said:
The two hour lag between the head blow and the strangulation helps explain a lot to me.

This was a long period, IMO, of the Ramseys assessing their options. The staging was not something that they did immediately. It was an act of desperation...a last awful resort...when the decison was finally made to protect their living child.

And he WAS still a child. This was a child who had been , in their mind, doing sexually inappropriate things...but things he would grow out of. As devout Christians, what remained of JB was a shell that felt no pain, she was already in the arms of their Lord. The one who needed protecting was their don.

I think the long period of time between the bludgeoning and the sexual staging of JB is really instructive. I just cannot imagine some sex pervert taking a two hour break in a strangers home.
Click to expand...

All conjecture.

The blow could have been immediately upon gathering the child to silence her. It could be that the intruder thought that he had nearly killed her. AT that point Intruder could have thought it was too late to take her out of house considering she would most likely die anyway, He goes down to the basement to find hiding place and then assaults her. Possibly more than once in the process he leaves DNA in her underwear and on her body.

The strangling comes at the end when the intruder is ready to leave. He does not want to take any chances. He leaves her instead of taking her as the note he left says and then sneaks out leaving JBR in the basement.

It is not so cut and clear. Either conjecture works.
 
Yes, I agree...it's all conjecture. Such is the nature of this Board. And I am new here and know there are many here with far superior in depth knowledge.

But weren't there 5 (five) traces of unknown DNA? so do you believe there were 5 (five) members of the "foreign faction" roaming the house for hours that night? Or do you believe that some of those specks of DNA might have come in the manufacturing process...or in some other fashion. Because you can believe in 5 intruders...but if you accept that there were probably LESS than five...than you are conceding that some of the DNA had nothing to do with the crime.

In that case, it's only logical that one concede...that it's possible NONE of the DNA matters.

Because either every speck of DNA is extremely important or...if you can eliminate any...you can eliminate all.

So do you "conjecture" that there were five intruders?
 
stmarysmead said:
Yes, I agree...it's all conjecture. Such is the nature of this Board. And I am new here and know there are many here with far superior in depth knowledge.

But weren't there 5 (five) traces of unknown DNA? so do you believe there were 5 (five) members of the "foreign faction" roaming the house for hours that night? Or do you believe that some of those specks of DNA might have come in the manufacturing process...or in some other fashion. Because you can believe in 5 intruders...but if you accept that there were probably LESS than five...than you are conceding that some of the DNA had nothing to do with the crime.

In that case, it's only logical that one concede...that it's possible NONE of the DNA matters.

Because either every speck of DNA is extremely important or...if you can eliminate any...you can eliminate all.



According to that online interview, the Experts believe the tiny DNA specks are from saliva or sweat. Is there any indication that JB was abused that night with a penis? It's the paintbrush, isn't it?,

So, an intruder breaks in, goes upstairs and hits the child. Carries her downstairs to the maze of a basement. Puts her in a room. Goes back up...finds a pen and pad.
Click to expand...

There was one profile of DNA in her underwear. That is what I am concerned with. That DNA there is the DNA that matters and as Mark Beckner said, Can not be dismissed.

They could have written the note before the R's ever got home that night. They could have stolen a pad and pen early and written it. There are lots of options for the note.
 
Maybe the speck of DNA on her underwear got there the same way the other four DNA specks got on the long johns etc.

How can you rule some DNA out as not important and rule some in? I guess we can all pick and choose in our conjecture...but I'm trying to follow your logic.

Didnt most of the experts believe the DNA was from sweat or saliva? I think the "conjecture" of a majority of experts does trump that of Internet posters. So if it is all sweat or saliva...and you truly believe there is only one intruder...maybe the DNA in the underwear is from some worker in China and the DNA on the sweatpants is the perp.

Or maybe none of it matters.

How, in your conjecture, do you decide which of the 5 samples you want to choose as that of the intruder? A drop of sweat here...a drop of spit there. Five different samples. What makes that one more important? I say this in all sincerity because I'm interested in your line of reasoning.

Why do you just dismiss the other 4 samples as irrelevant. If they can be meaningless, so can the panties...

Why does only one DNA profile "matter?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 734 (members: 83, guests: 651)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
651
Total visitors
734
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,843
Messages
18,193,444
Members
233,593
Latest member
stahoe
Back
Top