POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[LinasK]

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

First of all, there's always first time killings, and I think this death started as an accident. Second, Patsy was in remission, but not a clean bill of health "cancer survivor", third many supposed upstanding citizens have secret dark lives, just look at the BTK killer for example- high ranking in his church! The reason they killed her was to cover up the incestuous sexual abuse taking place in this family. They would have been horrified if the sex abuse was discovered, or if they were charged with manslaughter. They couldn't handle the negative publicity, so they finished her off and contaminated the evidence, and staged it to look like an intruder. Appearances meant everything to this family, moreso than their own flesh and blood daughter!
We do know that Patsy had a history of being crazy with JB pageant outfits and appearances going so far as to dye her whole 6-year-olds head blonde.

 

[LinasK]

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?

Tex, I don't think Patsy adored JB, I think she used her to further her own pageant goals, as a little mini-me clone. I also think it was John who killed her in the process of molesting her, but Patsy did have quite a temper.
How do you innocently explain John's shirt fibers in her panties??? I think that's far more damning than some foreign DNA.

 

[LinasK]

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.
Yet, it is difficult to understand the actions of JB's killer.

Oh yes he would to protect his family's image! Don't underestimate him. Another possibility is that Patsy caught him molesting JB and he had to have her in on the cover-up to protect himself.

 

[Medea]

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 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.

Everything Cuey did fits the profile of the stranger abductor to a T.

He abducted her out of the home immediately.
He took her somewhere he felt safe.
He killed her and hid her body.
All of this occured within a short distance from the home.

Basically the same as Polly Klaus, Carlie Bruscie, Samantha Runion, Danielle Van Damn.

 

[BBB167893]

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!

Tex, you know I got nothing but love for you, brother. But I have to take issue with your description. I don't think it was for "no reason." Check out the "Member's Theories" shortly.

Statistically, children who die by homicide are overwhelmingly killed by a parent not an intruder.

Right.

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.

I have to agree, even thought it kills me inside.

Patsy was her mother who adored the kid.

So she kills her on Christmas night for wetting the bed? Really?

I think that was only one of several contributing factors.

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?

That's the problem, Tex: the more advanced DNA technology gets, the more likely it is to pick up, for lack of a better word, slag. You don't have to take my word for it, either.

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.

I don't think he intended it to go so far.

Tex, I don't think Patsy adored JB, I think she used her to further her own pageant goals, as a little mini-me clone. I also think it was John who killed her in the process of molesting her, but Patsy did have quite a temper.

Sadly, I must agree, to a point. I think there WAS genuine love. It just became so twisted and ugly.

Everything Cuey did fits the profile of the stranger abductor to a T.

He abducted her out of the home immediately.
He took her somewhere he felt safe.
He killed her and hid her body.
All of this occured within a short distance from the home.

Basically the same as Polly Klaus, Carlie Bruscie, Samantha Runion, Danielle Van Dam.

Yeah, it's apples and handgrenades.

 

[Solace]

Tex, you know I got nothing but love for you, brother. But I have to take issue with your description. I don't think it was for "no reason." Check out the "Member's Theories" shortly.



Right.



I have to agree, even thought it kills me inside.





I think that was only one of several contributing factors.



That's the problem, Tex: the more advanced DNA technology gets, the more likely it is to pick up, for lack of a better word, slag. You don't have to take my word for it, either.



I don't think he intended it to go so far.



Sadly, I must agree, to a point. I think there WAS genuine love. It just became so twisted and ugly.



Yeah, it's apples and handgrenades.

I have to agree about John. I think the loss of his first daughter effected him greatly and I can see how his love for JB could become twisted and ugly. It was my son who said that first - that this kind of thing probably happens more than people want to think. He missed his first daughter.

 

[Jayce]

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.

As I have posted on another thread. It is extremely unlikely for the DNA on her leggings to be the result of secondary transfer. Why? Because secondary transfer doesn't leave enough cells to do regular DNA testing (instead they have to do LCN-Low Carbon Number Testing). The had enough cells to do routine testing with the DNA found on the leggings. This means it almost certainly wasn't the result of secondary transfer.

 

[Jayce]

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.

Secondary Transfer DNA is a problem with LCN testing. But they didn't use LCN testing.

Mary Lacy doesn't tell us how much DNA was found...how many cells...

We know that they found enough DNA to do routine testing.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not sure Medea is suggesting it was secondary, but an innocent primary.

As for enough for routine testing, how much is needed for that?

 

[TexMex]

First of all, there's always first time killings, and I think this death started as an accident. Second, Patsy was in remission, but not a clean bill of health "cancer survivor", third many supposed upstanding citizens have secret dark lives, just look at the BTK killer for example- high ranking in his church! The reason they killed her was to cover up the incestuous sexual abuse taking place in this family. They would have been horrified if the sex abuse was discovered, or if they were charged with manslaughter. They couldn't handle the negative publicity, so they finished her off and contaminated the evidence, and staged it to look like an intruder. Appearances meant everything to this family, moreso than their own flesh and blood daughter!
We do know that Patsy had a history of being crazy with JB pageant outfits and appearances going so far as to dye her whole 6-year-olds head blonde.

Hello LinasK,

IMO someone in remission would see themselves as a "survivor", but more importantly having gone into remission from a very very life threatening disease would not freak out if their kid wet the bed. In my experience you tend to see the big picture of life after learning you have cancer and IF you are lucky enough to go into remission you are grateful for every day.

The incest is stretching IMO. Bedwetting and UTI's CAN BE symptoms of this but DO NOT ALWAYS MEAN SEX ABUSE.

The detective Thomas didn't think sex abuse was involved. His theory was bedwetting. There is nothing in either Ramsey's background to indicate they would abuse or had abused any of their children

 

[Medea]

Secondary Transfer DNA is a problem with LCN testing. But they didn't use LCN testing.


We know that they found enough DNA to do routine testing.

Do we? Are you sure? Why does she specifically mention LCN testing if it wasn't used? Why, if routine testing was used, would this not have been found originally, when the panty DNA was found?

 

[BBB167893]

IMO someone in remission would see themselves as a "survivor", but more importantly having gone into remission from a very very life threatening disease would not freak out if their kid wet the bed. In my experience you tend to see the big picture of life after learning you have cancer and IF you are lucky enough to go into remission you are grateful for every day.

I don't know, Tex. Cancer is in my family. I know what it does to you.

The incest is stretching IMO. Bedwetting and UTI's CAN BE symptoms of this but DO NOT ALWAYS MEAN SEX ABUSE

.

True, but there is other stuff that points to it.

The detective Thomas didn't think sex abuse was involved. His theory was bedwetting.

Dr. Richard Krugman told him the vaginal injuries were from physical abuse, not sexual. Not that it didn't happen.

There is nothing in either Ramsey's background to indicate they would abuse or had abused any of their children

SO WHAT?! We don't live in a "Minority Report" world where we can predict what someone might do.

 

[Jayce]

Do we? Are you sure? Why does she specifically mention LCN testing if it wasn't used?

Here is the quote from the people that did the testing...

"While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough that it was processed in the routine way for analysis, Williamson said.

Why, if routine testing was used, would this not have been found originally, when the panty DNA was found?

Because the DNA found on the leggings was not visible to the naked eye. They made an educated guess to where it might be, and scraped for skin cells. They sent it off to a lab specializing in testing "touch DNA" with LCN analysis. But the lab didn't have to do LCN analysis.

 

[robotdog]

i know people that think spanking a dog will teach them to not go the bathroom in the house..........


it might appear that a certain a parent might be "cleaning" a child too roughly
because she is angry about said child wetting the bed

the same child is supposed to be very sophisticated in all of her pagents from hell


cleaning or wiping might be considered physical abuse


doing pagents in skimpy outfits one day and wetting the bed the next

parent could not deal with it

 

[Solace]

Hello LinasK,

IMO someone in remission would see themselves as a "survivor", but more importantly having gone into remission from a very very life threatening disease would not freak out if their kid wet the bed. In my experience you tend to see the big picture of life after learning you have cancer and IF you are lucky enough to go into remission you are grateful for every day.

The incest is stretching IMO. Bedwetting and UTI's CAN BE symptoms of this but DO NOT ALWAYS MEAN SEX ABUSE.

The detective Thomas didn't think sex abuse was involved. His theory was bedwetting. There is nothing in either Ramsey's background to indicate they would abuse or had abused any of their children

Hello Tex,

She had chronic inflammation of the vaginal wall - which means healing over time and this came from somewhere and it did not happen that evening as some would like to believe. Someone inserted something inside her prior to that night and caused this inflammation which then tried to heal.

As far as their history goes, if we are going to judge a person by their history, then we might say they have a history of lying because it is incredible how much they forget and how they slip up - Dr. Henry Lee, as SD posted, they could have been charged with other crimes, maybe not murder, but other crimes. So what other crimes is he talking about?

Fibers from John's sweater were found in JonBenet's crotch.

This is incriminating evidence of more than a loving relationship.

 

[Solace]

Here is the quote from the people that did the testing...

"While the amount of DNA they found was much less than would appear in a stain, there was enough that it was processed in the routine way for analysis, Williamson said.




Because the DNA found on the leggings was not visible to the naked eye. They made an educated guess to where it might be, and scraped for skin cells. They sent it off to a lab specializing in testing "touch DNA" with LCN analysis. But the lab didn't have to do LCN analysis.

They should make an "educated" guess about the garrotte and the rope since fibers from Patsy's jacket were found intertwined in the garrotte - and on her neck. That probably happened when she hugged her. Oh, but wait, they were found on the tape too and that was never on JB when Patsy hugged her. It must be floating evidence.:bang:

 

[BBB167893]

Solace, it's time to get busy with what I'm good at.

Dr. Henry Lee, as SD posted, they could have been charged with other crimes, maybe not murder, but other crimes. So what other crimes is he talking about?

Specifically, he listed obstruction of justice and making false statements to police, among others he didn't specify, saying only, "At least."

 

[Solace]

Solace, it's time to get busy with what I'm good at.



Specifically, he listed obstruction of justice and making false statements to police, among others he didn't specify, saying only, "At least."

HI SD,

My statement was kind of rhetorical. I assumed he meant obstruction of justice. And, imo, that tells me he thinks they are involved.

 

[TexMex]

Hello Tex,


Fibers from John's sweater were found in JonBenet's crotch.

This is incriminating evidence of more than a loving relationship.

Howdy Solace

But John's DNA was not found in her panties. IMO finding fibers from family members in the family home they share is not incriminating. Finding male DNA on a little girl who has been killed...IS.

 

[BBB167893]

IMO finding fibers from family members in the family home they share is not incriminating.

Those two clothing items had never had a chance to be in contact, Tex. They would have had to transfer magically.