Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[vlpate]

"Even if it is, and like I said, that's doubtful, it's the nature of the beast. It's not just that PR can't be eliminated. It's all the OTHER stuff that points to her. It comes back to that whole totality thing. You know, the concept you IDIs have such a damn hard time understanding? "

I don't see this other stuff you are referring to. But I see this. Either way, RDI doom is coming. In this instance, I am not saying it to rub anyone's nose in it. Just as fact. And I wonder how RDI spins it when Beckner proves to you he is looking for an intruder. And Garnett supports it?

Is it gonna be just another bad DA? Another bad cop? It is gonna be interesting for sure.

:ufo:

 

[vlpate]

LOL!:floorlaugh: You never know WHERE I'm gonna strike next!



I'm shaking in my boots, pilgrim!



That line's too long already!



And just where did you hear THAT?

She can't disclose her source...but you must take her word for it. Sound familiar?

 

[vlpate]

You no match for me Dave. You schtick is outdated. And your day is coming. And you guys can never say I didn't point you in the right direction. It is each persons responsibility to decide which information in the public to believe. I know many have been misled but it is not their fault anymore.

Mark Beckner is looking for an intruder that killed JBR. That is a fact.

As per TOS, when you make a statement of fact, and you are asked to source it, you must do so or face disciplinary action.

Please source my bold emphasis on you post. Thanks.

 

[Roy23]

As per TOS, when you make a statement of fact, and you are asked to source it, you must do so or face disciplinary action.

Please source my bold emphasis on you post. Thanks.

So you want to ban me now. And don't tell me what to do. I have already sourced my belief on that based on statement by Mark Beckner and Stan Garnett.

See this kind of post is unfair cause you make statements of fact all the time like Patsy's writing is a match and identical. Or the DNA is useless even though it is in CODIS and contrary to your statement of facts.

I have half of you guys asking for discussion and others who seem to want and RDI love fest. Decide what you want but don't threaten me for every conversation we try to have.

Nevertheless, Read Below



From Mark Beckner's lips.

"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.


"New Task Force
On Feb. 2, Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner held a press conference to announce the formation of a cold case task force made up of veteran law enforcement members from a variety of agencies including the FBI to review evidence and explore theories. Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology.

Garnett, a former Denver prosecutor who has been trying cases for nearly 27 years, won't comment on what Beckner might test. Instead, he remembers where he was the day JonBenét's body was discovered: skiing with his two teenage sons. He says he didn't jump to conclusions then and he won't now. "The evidence," he says, "will define what happens in this case."

 

[freshwater]

"Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology."

To me, that part about advances in linguistics technology is an interesting statement.

 

[Roy23]

"Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology."

To me, that part about advances in linguistics technology is an interesting statement.

I do too. He is saying a whole lot with few words. It is all in how we interpret it.

 

[vlpate]

So you want to ban me now. And don't tell me what to do. I have already sourced my belief on that based on statement by Mark Beckner and Stan Garnett.

See this kind of post is unfair cause you make statements of fact all the time like Patsy's writing is a match and identical. Or the DNA is useless even though it is in CODIS and contrary to your statement of facts.

I have half of you guys asking for discussion and others who seem to want and RDI love fest. Decide what you want but don't threaten me for every conversation we try to have.

Nevertheless, Read Below



From Mark Beckner's lips.

"The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The Boulder Police Department concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The police department has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet. We remain committed to bringing JonBenet's killer to justice. That is, and always will be, our goal.


"New Task Force
On Feb. 2, Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner held a press conference to announce the formation of a cold case task force made up of veteran law enforcement members from a variety of agencies including the FBI to review evidence and explore theories. Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology.

Garnett, a former Denver prosecutor who has been trying cases for nearly 27 years, won't comment on what Beckner might test. Instead, he remembers where he was the day JonBenét's body was discovered: skiing with his two teenage sons. He says he didn't jump to conclusions then and he won't now. "The evidence," he says, "will define what happens in this case."Mark Beckner is looking for an intruder that killed JBR. That is a fact.

I still don't see where Mark Beckner says he is looking for an intruder. Everything he says could very well mean the killer(s) could be a Ramsey - or one of their friends, or Burke. Nothing is mentioned about an intruder.

Please stop misquoting me - I never stated Patsy's handwriting was "identical".

 

[Roy23]

I still don't see where Mark Beckner says he is looking for an intruder. Everything he says could very well mean the killer(s) could be a Ramsey - or one of their friends, or Burke. Nothing is mentioned about an intruder.

Please stop misquoting me - I never stated Patsy's handwriting was "identical".

Match is pretty close to identical. And I don't want to discuss with you anymore. You obviously want and RDI forum with your threats of punishment. MB says DNA is the key. Change your tone with me or go find someone else to call the principal on.

You also said no one excluded Patsy. and I proved that wrong. Either way I am not trying to threaten you with punishment.

I see intruder anything other than someone that we know was not in that house that night. This is important for anyone to know.

 

[Kimster]

I'm getting alerts from this thread. Keep the debates non-personal or they will end.

From this post forward.

 

[Tessa2009]

Very respectfully snipped by me


My apologies first for being late to this conversation, I don't know this case (either of them) like the back of my hand as you all do - but I have a question. If you are likening these two cases together - why would ES abductor murder JBR if he wanted her? Why wasn't ES murdered?

If this has been asked and answered, please point me to which page and I will read it. Thank you in advance.

(I'm sorry, I thought I kept some of the very first post in this thread with my response.....I'm still not used to this site.)

 

[AKWILKS]

Very respectfully snipped by me


My apologies first for being late to this conversation, I don't know this case (either of them) like the back of my hand as you all do - but I have a question. If you are likening these two cases together - why would ES abductor murder JBR if he wanted her? Why wasn't ES murdered?

If this has been asked and answered, please point me to which page and I will read it. Thank you in advance.

(I'm sorry, I thought I kept some of the very first post in this thread with my response.....I'm still not used to this site.)

It is a very good question and one for which I don't have a real good answer. However IMO all the theories why Patsy or John would kill a child they loved also seem weak. The fact is we just don't know what happened that night which went according to plan, what was accident, what was anger or what was chance. There are documented cases of intruders taking and killing children for reasons of unknown motive, and of parents who seemingly loved their kids killing them.

ChrisHope asked a similar question and what follows is the best I could come up with:

Quote:
Posted by Chrishope
Much further up the thread, you had indicated a reluctance to answer hypothetical questions. But I think your theory is incomplete unless you can come up with some plausible explanations of why BDM/WB would do the following -

A) Leave the body in the house where it's likely to be found, thus making it impossible to collect the ransom.

B) If it's a "kidnapping gone bad" what went wrong to foil the original abduction plan?

I realize you can't say definitively what happened that night. I'm just asking you to support your theory with some plausible explanation of why Mitchel would do these things.

AK Wilks: When BDM took Elizabeth Smart, she said she awoke to have a knife pressed against her neck. Had she jumped up or screamed, she might have died.

I can speculate that the ransom note was left either as a real attempt to get money (doubtful but possible, BDM wanted to start a church, and the paper days before said Ramsey had a billion dollar in sales) or as a diversion. BDM took JonBenet to the basement, perhaps to exit through a window perhaps for sex, and then either:

1. She screamed or resisted and he used too much force to silence her, either force on the noose he had prior or force by a blow from an object.

2. Being a sick pedophile, he gave in to his lust to "consumate the marriage" right there, with the added perverse thrill of the parents sleeping upstairs, and got carried away in his sadism, applying to much force on the noose.

There are other scenarios as well. WB states BDM once threw his own child against a bed headboard in anger. I can see BDM or a like pedophile intruder being far more likely to accidentailly, recklessly or intentionally kill JonBenet than Patsy, John or Burke.

It was reported that after losing custody of her kids, WB would walk around with a DOLL that she would dress and care for. Some aspects of the event, like the clothes change, packing a Dr. Seuss book and bedding or giving her pineapple to eat, could have come from this desire to have a child. Also BDM was persuasive in getting compliance from his child victims, through a mix of force, threats and comforts and reassuring talk, and charismatic religious talk.

Chrishope:


@AKWILKS

OK. That's possible.

 

[cynic]

From Mark Beckner's lips.

"The discovery of additional matching DNA ...

"New Task Force
On Feb. 2, Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner held a press conference...

To prevent a further thread hijack here, I'll respond on another hijacked thread:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7092508&postcount=217"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RIP Common Sense[/ame]

 

[Tessa2009]

It is a very good question and one for which I don't have a real good answer. However IMO all the theories why Patsy or John would kill a child they loved also seem weak. The fact is we just don't know what happened that night which went according to plan, what was accident, what was anger or what was chance. There are documented cases of intruders taking and killing children for reasons of unknown motive, and of parents who seemingly loved their kids killing them.

ChrisHope asked a similar question and what follows is the best I could come up with:

Thank you, but all of that just makes me have more questions. Because the RN was pretty much proven to have been written in the house on a pad from the home, why would he chance being caught? Even JR states that if an indturder was in the basement, he/she would have had a hard time because of the clutter. Another, do we know if sexual asphyxiation was part of ESs abuductor's reportioire (sp)? I really wish there was major evidence to say that PR and JR did not murder JB. I honestly do not think they murdered her, as in first degree. Something happened that night, accidentally, and they covered it up. For whatever reason, I have not a clue.

Thank you, very much, for taking the time to answer my question. After 19 pages, I'm sure there is a lot I should read; but it IS alot

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you, but all of that just makes me have more questions. Because the RN was pretty much proven to have been written in the house on a pad from the home, why would he chance being caught? Even JR states that if an indturder was in the basement, he/she would have had a hard time because of the clutter. Another, do we know if sexual asphyxiation was part of ESs abuductor's reportioire (sp)? I really wish there was major evidence to say that PR and JR did not murder JB. I honestly do not think they murdered her, as in first degree. Something happened that night, accidentally, and they covered it up. For whatever reason, I have not a clue.

Thank you, very much, for taking the time to answer my question. After 19 pages, I'm sure there is a lot I should read; but it IS alot

It can be overwhelming. I read here for over a year before i joined. But you can get a very good idea of the case by reading 1 or 2 books, both are fast reads. First, try Steve Thomas's book JonBenet" Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation", Then "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" by Lawrence Schiller.
If you have 2 hours you can get a crash course on the case by renting the DVD "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" made by Lawrence Schiller of his book. It's like a "Cliff's Notes " primer on the case.
The acacndyrose site has a lot of resource information too. It is also less overwhelming than reading every page on here.
If you look there, then watch the DVD of PMPT, you'll see that Schiller was given access to the house to re-create his sets for the movie. Exterior shots were of the actual house, the interior was duplicated exactly, right down to the wallpaper.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Vlpate, this is simply false. Evidence of an intruder includes: open basement window, glass on suitcase, leaves and packing peanuts inside, kitchen door open, no duct tape roll found. None of this is conclusive evidence, but it is evidence indicating an intruder. Not to mention, the unidentified DNA.

John said he saw an open basement window and he closed it. John said he broke the window earlier in the year..if true, that would explain the leaves and the glass on the floor. The glass on the suitcase was picked up off the floor and put there (if I remember correctly), and the suitcase was moved by Fleet White. Not sure what the packing peanuts have to do with an intruder...did he come in a box?

The suitcase would not be of any use to someone leaving through the basement window unless said intruder was a stealth contortionist.

As I said, the evidence isn't conclusive. You're confusing "consistent with but not conclusive" with "refuted." Lots of events that really happen leave behind evidence that can be interpreted in more ways than just the true account. The evidence here shows it's possible someone did enter the home that night, but it's not enough to call it conclusive.

The DNA is not proof of an intruder - it's touch DNA - and if they touched her underwear and her long johns, they probably touched a whole lot of stuff, will you give me that? They would certainly have touched the tape, the rope, the door, the pineapple bowl, the window, the suitcase, the flashlight, the pen, the paper, SOMETHING else. Also, touch DNA is skin cells and you don't just shed a couple in select places....you shed about between 30,000 and 40,000 of them every hour. Protocol dictates a swab is done to anything the perp may have touched during the process of the crime - in the Ramsey case, only her long johns and underwear were tested. Why? They have a boat load of evidence taken from the house - why not test all they can? Or, did they? Maybe they did and the only place they found the cells was on her long johns and underwear....where skin cells could easily have transferred - underwear out of a fresh bag first, and then the long johns.

Then there's the problem of ZERO fingerprints pointing to an intruder. To obtain touch DNA from your intruder, there would have been no gloves - again, what's up with that?

I agree the lack of fingerprints with presence of touch DNA is a problem, but where the touch DNA was found - the longjohns - may provide the answer. It's plausible the killer removed their gloves during the molestation.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Dave,

So, to try to to cover up the murder, she used all these things that are tied to her? Not computing.

What do you mean, "not computing?" What else WAS there to use? It's not like she could go shopping at 1:00 AM on Christmas night! She used what was there.

She would have also left the implements there in plain sight. On the other hand, the duct tape and cord have never been found. This is an inconsistency problem for RDI.

Unless the factory worker worked at the underwear and longjohn factory and had DNA that could withstand laundering, I doubt there would be a match.

Well, that's just it, Smelly Squirrel: most likely the underwear found on JB's body never went through a washing and had never been out of the package until then.

That doesn't explain the match to the long johns, which was my point.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yeah, Lin Wood will live longer in hell than he will enjoying his money. He saw his dad get away with killing his mother and probably the attorney's bill, and said, hell to the yeah!

That's a nasty thing to say.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here's an interesting article on DNA. Based on the under-handed way this case was handled by the powers that be in boulder, and Lin Wood and his crack team of investigators, I wouldn't find it hard to believe the DNA was falsely presented as viable.

You're accusing a lot of people of a crime right there. You have any proof?

Do you have any proof they didn't?

????? When you claim something, it's on you to prove it, not others to disprove it. I think that's a rule at WS as well.

Because nobody can prove who wrote the note and because the DNA could help find the killer. That is everyone's goal, isn't it? Is it good investigative practice to ignore evidence?

You tell me.

It's not.

That's not true. She said she may have touched it, she doesn't remember. If JR's prints aren't on the note, then likely she did touch it. It was moved from the steps when police arrived. Someone touched it.

BEM: That is not true, it was moved from the floor TO the steps after the police arrived.

You know it wasn't moved from the steps, how?

As for who touched the note, Patsy said she didn't touch it early on...then changed her story to "may" have. They "may have" was their pat answer to everything. Or, "I don't recall".

No, she didn't change anything. She was never sure about it.

During his police interview, four months after the murder, John said he picked up the note and spread it on the floor, book-like, to read it. Patsy clearly said John moved the note to the hallway floor to more easily read it - not sure what's easy about a 50 something year old man crouched over a note on the floor when he could have just picked it up. Patsy was still not clear on whether she touched the note during this interview.

I don't see a problem with any of that. Do you have a misapprehension about human memory that it is perfect and exact like a video recorder, especially in high stress situations?

She was sure she did the Miss West Virginia two-step over it though to skip the step it was on and read it.

So?

Of course we know the photograph of where the note was found is not a true representation since it had been moved from the stairs, to the floor, and back to the stairs again. At least this is what the Ramsey's claim - I have my doubts it was ever on the stairs.

So?

Let me try and help...it was midnight and Walmart was closed. Piggly Wiggly may have been open, but they don't carry kidnapper/pedophile/kinky BDSM/stealth intruder kits. She had to make do with what she had.

It doesn't help because it doesn't answer why she didn't hide those materials, as the killer did with the duct tape and cord.

The underwear were fresh out of a package...the underwear were put on first, and then the long johns...therefore transferring the skin cells.

You mean the skin cells transferred from a factory worker to the underwear which were then later transferred to BOTH hands of the killer, including fingernails, and then transferred from the hands to the long johns?

OK, then.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes SS.
MK infers that 'evidence' need not be sensical.
Creative license, opens up a myriad of possibilities.

JR Police Interview 1998 notes:
John Ramsey BDA interview - June 23, 1998 - Forums For Justice

25 MIKE KANE: Okay. Did you ever
0632
1 hear of the book "Day After Tomorrow"?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Doesn't ring a
3 bell.


Review of Day After Tomorrow:
http://www.jandysbooks.com/genfic/dayaftom.html
"Clues are thrown out, but so are many misdirections."

So you believe they purposely left behind contradictory evidence to confuse matters? If so, that would make them master criminals, and geniuses for thinking of it on the spot like that, like they've done it before.

But even if so, it worked because the evidence is indeed confused and you can't prove anything with it.

 

[Junebug99]

The dna in her underwear is thought to be mixed with saliva, the same DNA which is skin cells under nails and on side of long johns, it's the DNA of the killer , and it's obvious.