For years I have thought the Ramsey's were probably involved,
and there are facts and evidence which still put them under the umbrella of suspicion.
But there are new facts which can't be denied. The new DNA caused the DA to (prematurely and wrongly IMO) clear John and Burke Ramsey,
and the Boulder PD partially but not completely backed them up. I go with the evidence, and that was a significant factor causing me to change my view. The new DNA evidence is IMO important.
I do think it was WRONG of the DA to "clear" Burke and John Ramsey, however, as we do NOT know for certain the source of the new DNA. It is still possible it came from a playmate of JonBenet's, a lab tech or some other source.
At the time of the murder and for years after, the tabloid media convicted the Ramsey's in the press, often with lies and rumors. Most of the mainstream media followed suit. A Gallup Poll showed of the American's who had an opinion, 88% thought the one or more family members were involved. America found the Ramsey's guilty of being rich, of hiring lawyers right after their daughter's death, of not responding to a murder the way they thougth they would, of evading questions and most of all of over-sexualizing their daughter at young age through paegents. Combine that with a lot of real evidence casting suspicion on them, and most of the public decided they probably did it. There was indeed one track of evidence pointing to someone inside the house, or close to the family, but there was a rush to judgement IMO, because there was also another track of evidence pointing to a possible intruder.
Many parents kill their children. Sometimes they are parents with no prior history of anything to suggest they could do that. Often they are parents with prior criminal histories, prior abuse or neglect of children, drug or alcohol issues, with evidence they viewed their children as a ball and chain preventing them from enjoying life, i.e., perhaps Susan Smith and Casey Anthony.
But here we have well established parents with no criminal record, who seemingly loved their daughter, parents with a lot to lose, no history of drug or alcohol abuse, no record of child abuse or sex abuse, no indication John was a pedophile, no child *advertiser censored* found on computers,
and not one witness who could say they ever saw John or Patsy abuse JonBenet, hit JonBenet, spank her or even yell at her.
Contrast that with the hard evidence pointing to an intruder like male DNA on three spots on two items of clothing, unexplained palm print on the ransom note, unexplained boot print in the basement, unexplained hair and fibers on the body, a suitcase under the window, etc., etc. The sheer horrible brutality of a skull shattered by a blow and a strangulation.
Add to that the interesting MO matches, incredible multiple word and phrase matches and other factors of interest regarding Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, and for me that justifies my personal focus now on BDM and WB as suspects. To try to include or exclude them. But I don't rule anyone out.
The Boulder PD quickly responded to me and they seemed very interested. But I have learned that all you can do is try to make a contact with law enforcement, ask if they want the information, evidence and research you have, and send it to them if they do. You have little ability to affect the speed at which they do things, and most of the things they do they cannot even tell you about. You can send them follow up info, ask questions, get the newspapers and other media involved, and a few other things to try to speed it along. But ultimately they operate at their own speed. They do have new cases all the time, so money and resources for cold case like Zodiac or JonBenet are limited.
A reporter from a major Colorado newspaper is also interested and indicated he would follow up to see what he can find out about efforts to include or exclude BDM/WB as suspects. Since he is on the ground in Colorado, I hope that time permitting he may be able to uncover new evidence on whether or not BDM/WB were ever seen at Boulder area homeless shelters or churches that offer aid to the down and out.
I can't keep the stories straight as to where they went after leaving Idaho, and neither can Barzee. And Mitchell ain't talking. Barzee seems to have said they went to the Mormon site in Missouri, but as Doug pointed out, she remembered no details, or even what it was called or where it was. That is suspect.
Given that they were in Idaho, having been asked where they were going, you would expect they would state their intended destination "The Mormon Garden of Eden in Missouri". Or, where there immediate destination would be - which leaving Idaho and going west to Missouri would be Wyoming, or going southwest would be Utah.
But even setting aside the McKnight testimony about Colorado, we can say that Barzee and Mitchell spent the majority of their travels, and indeed their life, in the "Mountain West", within 2 or 3 days drive of Colorado. They mostly lived in Utah, which is a one day drive to Boulder, Colorado.
If JonBenet was killed by a stranger, as the new DNA evidence seems to indicate is at least possible, we would look for a suspect pool of pedophiles who did home invasion abduction of blonde children from the beds of their homes in wealthy areas in the Mountain West.
That is a small pool. We can make it smaller to include only those who favored striking on holidays and came equipped with duct tape to put over the mouth of the child and cord to bind her. Mitchell is still in this small pool of men.
Now lets make the pool even smaller by saying the requirements include using 12 or more words in the ransom note, such as the ancient and rare "Hence", "particularly", "deviate", "instructions", "southern", "am", etc.
Brian David Mitchell is still in the pool.
I won't say he is alone in that pool, but God help us if there are more than three or four men in that pool!
All I am asking for is that police do what is needed to check DNA, fingerprints, handwriting and fibers and see if Brian David Mitchell can be excluded as the killer of JonBenet Ramsey or if he merits further investigation.
-----------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH SMART
Viti: Thank you. Ms. Smart, Id like to turn your attention to on or about ... withdrawn. Did he ever give you a reason why he chose the 23rd and 24th to kidnap Olivia?
Smart: He talked about the 24th because it was a holiday and he talked about it just being a holiday. They would be not as quick to respond.
Viti: Im sorry, who wouldnt be?
Smart: The public.
[AK = I wonder if Smart misheard him or if BDM meant the "police", or the "public" in general. As Doug Oswell noted, JonBenet was killed on a holiday, Christmas night.]
Viti: What holiday is that, for those who might not know?
Smart: Its the 24th of July. Its a Utah holiday, Pioneer Day.
----- ----- -----
BDM and the ransom note writer also use and spell "POSSESION" with 3 "S" 's, though they leave out a different "S".
BDM and the ransom note writer also use "DIFFICULT", and the word "DEVIATE" to indicate a variance from a plan or idea.
BDM/WB also using words like ADEQUATE, POSSESSIONS, PARTICULARLY, INDIVIDUALS, BEING, INSTRUCTIONS, "am", "southern", DEVIATE, WE REPRESENT, and HENCE, just to name some that also appear in the ransom note.
Barzee Mitchell Journal
"FOR my BURIAL" p. 30; "YE STAND" p. 32; "IN ANY WAY" p. 18; "AS WELL AS" p. 35.
JonBenet Ransom Note
"FOR proper BURIAL" ----- "YOU STAND" ---"IN ANY WAY" ------ "AS WELL AS".
DOUG OSWELL noted the following:
I found a website that contains quite a few exhibits from the Mitchell trial, including samples of Mitchell's writing (still cursive, unfortunately) and transcripts of his first police interrogation:
http://breaking.sltrib.com/mitchell/exhibitslinks.php
A few observations:
(1) As AK pointed out earlier, Mitchell's capital M looks amazingly like the one on the Ramsey "ransom" note. I'm looking at the M in the "letter to Julie" at the site above.
(2) The spacing qualities on all the Mitchell samples are similar if not identical to those on the Ransom note, particularly the running-in of descenders to the line below.
(3) In the interrogation, Mitchell says (part 1, page 5): "You have in your possession The Book of Immanuel
David Isaiah."
(4) In part 1, numerous places, he speaks of having Elizabeth Smart "delivered" to him.
(5) In part 1, page 12, he writes: "Not all laws are righteous, and not all laws come from God. And the Constitution of the United States was founded on righteous principles, and when you read The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, you'll come to understand that this nation has become the most corrupt and evil nation on the face of the earth." I'm thinking of this in reference to the line from the ransom note which reads "We respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves."
(6) When Mitchell strikes out a word he does it with several circular scribbles, as in the ransom note.
(7) He begins the "Book of Immanuel" with the single word "Hearken!" This word, for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same in meaning as "Listen carefully!"
As a general observation based on the interrogation, Mitchell is truly a crafty and cautious criminal. Nothing was going to save him in this case, but he handled himself, I think, only slightly worse than if he had shut up and said nothing at all.
AK WILKS: These are the images referenced by Doug Oswell.
Both the Ransom Note Writer and Brian David Mitchell strike out words by making circular loops.
And both the Ransom Note Writer and Brian David Mitchell do capital "M" 's in a very similar way, with near identical finishing flourishes that come down like a ski slope and become nearly flat.
