POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
coloradokares
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,391
- Reaction score
- 5
Being a parent is special Being a grandparent is beyond love beyond words and our little Kaylee will get a Birthday Hug from Uncle Super Dave :blowkiss:
angelwngs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 5,038
- Reaction score
- 482
Gladly. :angel: I'll tell them it's from their mom's favorite caped crusader.
Hi all - I'm new to the forum (had some troubles joining which Tricia and chicoliving kindly sorted for me) but I've been reading here for a couple of years. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on this case, like other posters here are, but I have read a fair bit, and I am definitely in the RDI camp. Nothing else makes sense.
When I heard about this new DNA "exonerating" the Ramsey's I couldn't believe it. I just don't see how Lacy could make that leap. Even if the DNA is connected to the crime, all it does is plce an unknown male at the scene. It certainly doesn't prove that John and/or Patsy were not at the scene.
It does make me think about that "slip of the tongue" that John came out with - something along the lines of "There were people running everywhere at 3.00am" or words to that effect. Maybe there were. Put this together with the "missing" phone records and maybe someone helping the Rasmeys redressed JB? Sorry if this has already been rasied - I tried to keep up with the storm of posts but I know I missed some.
And if the Assistant DA (I think) can state "What if Patsy did write the note? It doesn't prove she killed her daughter", then the same logic has to apply here - just because an unknown male redressed JB, doesn't mean he killed her.
Anyway, it's great to finally be able to make these points - woo hoo!
Tina
When I heard about this new DNA "exonerating" the Ramsey's I couldn't believe it. I just don't see how Lacy could make that leap. Even if the DNA is connected to the crime, all it does is plce an unknown male at the scene. It certainly doesn't prove that John and/or Patsy were not at the scene.
It does make me think about that "slip of the tongue" that John came out with - something along the lines of "There were people running everywhere at 3.00am" or words to that effect. Maybe there were. Put this together with the "missing" phone records and maybe someone helping the Rasmeys redressed JB? Sorry if this has already been rasied - I tried to keep up with the storm of posts but I know I missed some.
And if the Assistant DA (I think) can state "What if Patsy did write the note? It doesn't prove she killed her daughter", then the same logic has to apply here - just because an unknown male redressed JB, doesn't mean he killed her.
Anyway, it's great to finally be able to make these points - woo hoo!
Tina
RR,
I am interested in what you think about that. According to Thomas the son in law originated the call to specifically tell him that John said he found the body earlier. I have never heard anything else about it - I would think the Ramseys would have been furious, but his daughter married him and yet this is, imo, an implication that John was not entirely above board.
The whole problem with the intruder theory is that believing it requires relying on the idea that "child killers do crazy things" to explain away a series of actions that do not follow any known behavior pattern for this kind of crime...it would mean that this intruder is off the charts as far as behavior. It also apparently doesn't require the believer to be very particular about figuring out what order things occured in...its irrelevant...all they need to know is that an intruder did it and it can't be explained logically because the intruder was crazy.
While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rules and precedents are used as a guideline for the very good reason that in the majority of cases the perp's actions will fall within these parameters.
Why would the intruder intent on attacking JonBenet write the ransom note in advance while waiting for the family to come home and then leave her body? Or, alternatively, why would the intruder hang around the house after killing his victim to write a ransom note and still leave the body? He's crazy.
Why would the intruder attack her in the house in the first place, instead of abducting her? Oh yeah, he's crazy.
Why would the intruder who brutally attacked and murderered his victim redress her and then put a blanket on her? Again, he's crazy is the only explanation.
Now we are to believe the intruder wore gloves for everything he did except dress/undress his victim. Why? He's crazy. No One Knows.
How did the perp know about the $118K? The intruder theory advocates would say that he either found the info. while hiding in the house or he is someone who knew the family business well enough to know this number but was overlooked by police. I can only say not bloody likely.
This mindset that criminals are all crazy and so nothing they do can be seen to make any sense is pure BS. The FBI knows absolutely that when a victim is covered, arranged and left looking peaceful that it is usually a family member and/or a woman perpetrator. The FBI and LE also know that overwhelmingly when a child is killed and left in the house the killer is a family member. They further know that sex attackers do one of two things...they attack/kill the victim and leave them when they are done, OR they abduct the victim and attack/kill them in a location where they don't fear being caught. What they don't do is combine the two modes of crime and attack their victim in the house, move her around, redress her, put a blanket on her and leave a ransom note.
If the DNA is matched to someone who had opportunity, information and motive to commit this crime then I will admit that this is the exception of all exceptions to every criminal profile ever created.
If the DNA is matched to someone with an alibi who cannot have committed the murder, will those who believe the intruder theory be willing to change their minds?
While there are always exceptions to the rule, the rules and precedents are used as a guideline for the very good reason that in the majority of cases the perp's actions will fall within these parameters.
Why would the intruder intent on attacking JonBenet write the ransom note in advance while waiting for the family to come home and then leave her body? Or, alternatively, why would the intruder hang around the house after killing his victim to write a ransom note and still leave the body? He's crazy.
Why would the intruder attack her in the house in the first place, instead of abducting her? Oh yeah, he's crazy.
Why would the intruder who brutally attacked and murderered his victim redress her and then put a blanket on her? Again, he's crazy is the only explanation.
Now we are to believe the intruder wore gloves for everything he did except dress/undress his victim. Why? He's crazy. No One Knows.
How did the perp know about the $118K? The intruder theory advocates would say that he either found the info. while hiding in the house or he is someone who knew the family business well enough to know this number but was overlooked by police. I can only say not bloody likely.
This mindset that criminals are all crazy and so nothing they do can be seen to make any sense is pure BS. The FBI knows absolutely that when a victim is covered, arranged and left looking peaceful that it is usually a family member and/or a woman perpetrator. The FBI and LE also know that overwhelmingly when a child is killed and left in the house the killer is a family member. They further know that sex attackers do one of two things...they attack/kill the victim and leave them when they are done, OR they abduct the victim and attack/kill them in a location where they don't fear being caught. What they don't do is combine the two modes of crime and attack their victim in the house, move her around, redress her, put a blanket on her and leave a ransom note.
If the DNA is matched to someone who had opportunity, information and motive to commit this crime then I will admit that this is the exception of all exceptions to every criminal profile ever created.
If the DNA is matched to someone with an alibi who cannot have committed the murder, will those who believe the intruder theory be willing to change their minds?
TexMex
Punishment is justice for the unjust.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,615
- Reaction score
- 56
Hi Medea
The problem with the Ramsey did it theory is it requires believing that two otherwise normal, church going, cancer surviving, community involved ,upstanding citizens suddenly kill their beautiful daughter for no reason!
We KNOW child killers do crazy things.....the Ramseys have no history of that.
IMO
Anniegirl
Have you ever thrown a fist full of glitter in the
"A stranger did kill JonBenet, A "stranger" named Patsy Ramsey"
Statistically, children who die by homicide are overwhelmingly killed by a parent not an intruder.
I would also disagree that Patsy Ramsey has no history of doing crazy things, I think her history screams out that she was a total nut job.
People with no criminal record who are upstanding members of the community are convicted every day of horrible crimes that no one would ever have believed them capable of...except the police...who know all about the probabilities and know they have little to do with PR.
TexMex
Punishment is justice for the unjust.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,615
- Reaction score
- 56
Hi Anniegirl
Patsy was her mother who adored the kid. So she kills her on Christmas night
for wetting the bed? Really?
Wonder who's DNA it is on three locations on the victim's body?
There isn't any DNA on the victim's body.
There is DNA from an unknown source on her panties and miniscule amounts of DNA on her leggings. This DNA could have come from transfer, from a prior houseguest or from the killer. Without having the identity, there is no way to tell.
What if the DNA is identified as someone who could not have killed JonBenet?
TexMex
Punishment is justice for the unjust.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,615
- Reaction score
- 56
Well hello to you Medea
Of course I meant her clothing, which was on her BODY.
The DNA from all three spots matches. The odds of that are astronomical.
IMO it was "transferred"---from her killer to JB's clothing. Why else is an unknown males DNA on a dead childs body? A house guest? In her panties and leggings she wore when killed?
Why are the odds astronomical? Transfer DNA is becoming more and more of an issue in criminal cases. Which greatly increases the chance for the guilty to go free and the innocent to be convicted based on wrongly interpreted transfer DNA.
What are the odds the killer who left no fingerprints or any other DNA anywhere in the house or on the ligatures happened to leave DNA on her leggings and underwear? How did this happen?
Mary Lacy doesn't tell us how much DNA was found...how many cells...or what the source for all this DNA is...
Maybe the DNA is that of a crazed killer intruder or maybe not.
magnolia
War Eagle
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2005
- Messages
- 98,517
- Reaction score
- 1,509
I don't believe John Ramsey, a successful entrepreneur, would be so careless and stupid as to become involved with a cover-up that involved his wife writing her own ransom letter.
Who would ever believe a pedophile would be successful in abducting a child from a small trailer.
Who would ever believe he took the child to a nearby trailer in the same park, (100 yds. away)-- held her over the week-end and not only molested and killed her, but buried her right outside the door of the trailer.
Yet, it is difficult to understand the actions of JB's killer.