Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[Smelly Squirrel]

AK = The Ramsey attacker, who may or may not be Amy's attacker, could have done the same thing while the Ramsey's were at the Christmas Party. Giving him/her plenty of time to write the ransom note, even time to look at Patsy's writing.

DESCRIPTION OF AMY'S ATTACKER

First, she thought she saw blonde hair from underneath a backwards cap. The blonde hair would rule out BDM, unless he dyed it or was wearing a wig.

Other aspects match him. A black "ninja" out fit sounds similar to clothes he wore.

"The victim 'did not recognize the voice of the suspect.' She said the suspect had a "deep voice....his jaw line stood out," his throat was real "thin," and the suspect's face was "very angular."

The mother described the assailant as about 5 feet 7 inches tall, 20 to 30 years old, with blond hair.

She noted that he had an angular, thin face, with a jaw line that "really stood out."

AK - A sketch was done with input by psychic Dorothy Allison. I don't know if other sources were used, but the Ramsey family put out the sketch as a "man who may have been in the Boulder area in December 1996." There were numerous burglaries in the usually low crime area. Also, about a dozen different internet posters noted the sketch had many similarities to the descriptions of the attacker in the Amy case - thin, angular face, strong jaw, pointed chin.

I don't believe in psychics, but this Dorothy Allison said the killer in another case was named "brown" but not spelled like the color. His name was "Browne". I do think some people may have intuitive gifts we don't fully understand. This one of the few cases of a psychic proving useful, I have read hundreds were they were not. But even if we dismiss her, the Ramsey family investigators may have used other sources for the sketch, and coincidence or not, it appears to be similar to Amy's attacker, and Boulder Police never bothered to do a sketch, so its all we have.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-sketchman.htm

August 6, 1995: Colorado Springs Gazette - Tracking Heather's KILLER:

In 1992, Dorothy Allison, a noted New Jersey psychic who has worked with police across the country, called the Friends of Heather Dawn Church Foundation."

`I can tell you the killer's name right now,' "Allison remembered saying. " `His name is Brown.'"But not like the color brown; not spelled that way.

No one is quite sure how the tip was pursued. The name was probably compared with those of everyone connected with the case, Smit said. Then it was forgotten.

"No one got religion. But in November, El Paso County got a new sheriff, John Anderson, a former Colorado Springs police sergeant. Anderson soon hired an old partner, Lou Smit, as head of investigations. Smit, who has a knack for solving old homicide cases, made Heather a top priority again.

Shortly after starting work last January, Smit reviewed Heather's file, a process he calls "messing with a case." He asked his investigators to come up with something new, something that hadn't been tried.

Tom Carney, a crime laboratory technician, immediately thought of the prints. "We knew those fingerprints had to be from the suspect," he said.

A better approach, he figured, would be an exhaustive mailing of quality photos of the prints to every police agency with an Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Like the FBI's system, AFIS compares fingerprint images electronically. AFIS computers aren't interconnected, but each one may contain prints that aren't in the hands of the FBI.

So Carney made 100 sets of photos of the three fingerprints and began sending them to 92 agencies with AFIS. Carney remembered thinking, "If this doesn't work, that's it.

On March 24, someone from the Louisiana prison system called to report a match between the prints from the Church home and prints in its data base. The prints belonged to Robert Charles Browne. He had spent time in Louisiana prisons for various crimes, including auto theft, in the early and mid-1980s. He moved to Colorado in 1987 and, after living at several addresses, settled into a home just down the road from the Church residence.

"Considering all the publicity, detectives figured they'd hear from psychics. Some detectives scoff at psychics; others are skeptical but willing to listen.

"I'm not going to disregard them," said Capt. Lou Smit, now head of investigations for the Sheriff's Office. "Sometimes, psychics come up with things you can't explain. And sometimes they come up with things almost too hard to believe."

This doesn't speak well of Smit's credibility. Psychics are useless for solving cases. The example above is just confirmation bias.

 

[UKGuy]

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.



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,
Anything can be consistent. But no evidence of an intruder is just that, its a Read My Lips lips negative rebuttal!

There is no formal forensic evidence that links with anyone outside of the Ramsey household.

Its an inside job, a staged crime-scene, to hide sexual abuse, thats what has occurred.

Thats what makes the case interesting and why so many people have AHA moments when they convert to RDI.


.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Smelly Squirrel,
Anything can be consistent. But no evidence of an intruder is just that, its a Read My Lips lips negative rebuttal!

No, it's false to say there is no evidence of an intruder.

There is no formal forensic evidence that links with anyone outside of the Ramsey household.

The unidentified DNA does.

Its an inside job, a staged crime-scene, to hide sexual abuse, thats what has occurred.

Thats what makes the case interesting and why so many people have AHA moments when they convert to RDI.

All the RDI arguments I've read here are either outright fallacious or too inconclusive in some way.

 

[runsdeep]

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.

i would like to read more from linda arndt than just her deposition.

 

[UKGuy]

No, it's false to say there is no evidence of an intruder.



The unidentified DNA does.



All the RDI arguments I've read here are either outright fallacious or too inconclusive in some way.

Smelly Squirrel,

No, it's false to say there is no evidence of an intruder.

Who says its false?

The unidentified DNA does.

You drop yourself in it every time! unidentified means nobody outside of the Ramsey household has been linked with this homicide.

All the RDI arguments I've read here are either outright fallacious or too inconclusive in some way.

Really, you have some examples that cannot be refuted? Your opinion is valuable, try not to elevate it beyond common sense, or the rules of logic.




.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Smelly Squirrel,

Who says its false?

The evidence does. I named some earlier in the thread.

You drop yourself in it every time! unidentified means nobody outside of the Ramsey household has been linked with this homicide.

Unnamed does not equal nonexistent.

Really, you have some examples that cannot be refuted? Your opinion is valuable, try not to elevate it beyond common sense, or the rules of logic.

I've been pointing fallacies in your posts. For example, your claims regarding touch DNA are misinformed/fallacious.

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

Once again- There is NO proof the DNA is saliva. NONE. Not only that, even if the donor of the DNA was there at the time of the murder, there is NO proof that person WAS the killer if someone else was also present.
That is part of the problem as to why the case wasn't prosecuted in the first place. Most of LE were pretty sure the Rs were responsible- they just couldn't prove which one.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Once again- There is NO proof the DNA is saliva. NONE.

What do you mean by proof? It's been reported in the news that it's thought to be saliva.

Not only that, even if the donor of the DNA was there at the time of the murder, there is NO proof that person WAS the killer if someone else was also present.

WOW. Good luck with that in court.

 

[UKGuy]

The evidence does. I named some earlier in the thread.



Unnamed does not equal nonexistent.



I've been pointing fallacies in your posts. For example, your claims regarding touch DNA are misinformed/fallacious.

The evidence does. I named some earlier in the thread.

Nonsense , there is no evidence linking anyone!

Unnamed does not equal nonexistent.

mmm. yet another howler, LOL. Your unamed intruder may have become deceased.

I've been pointing fallacies in your posts. For example, your claims regarding touch DNA are misinformed/fallacious.

Really, care to refute them, or do you simply talk the talk?

There is no evidence of anyone outside of the Ramsey household being linked with JonBenet's homicide.



.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Nonsense , there is no evidence linking anyone!

Linking to a named intruder is different than evidence of an intruder.

If you come home one day and find your front door broken in and your TV missing, that is evidence of an intruder even if you can't name the person.
Do you not understand that? Is the bias that strong?

mmm. yet another howler, LOL. Your unamed intruder may have become deceased.

And? That someone may have died later means they didn't do it? You're making no sense.

Really, care to refute them, or do you simply talk the talk?

Refute what exactly? I refuted your misinformation about touch DNA already.

There is no evidence of anyone outside of the Ramsey household being linked with JonBenet's homicide.

Still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

UKGuy, your arguments are desperate and nonsensical. It's hard to tell if you're being serious. Until you come up with something coherent, I won't be responding to you.

 

[marge_rita]

UKGuy has followed AJBAR's murder for a very long time. No need for personal attacks on him.

Besides I agree with him, there is no evidence of anyone outside of that house linked to JBR's murder.

The killer lived in that house.

imo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

AJBAR's murder? Who's AJBAR? Is that an acronym for the Ramsey case?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

UKGuy has followed AJBAR's murder for a very long time. No need for personal attacks on him.

None were made.

Besides I agree with him, there is no evidence of anyone outside of that house linked to JBR's murder.

You're both factually wrong. There is DNA that belonged to no Ramsey on her clothing and body. This has been widely reported. There's no excuse for not knowing this fact, especially for someone following the case a very long time.

 

[UKGuy]

Linking to a named intruder is different than evidence of an intruder.

If you come home one day and find your front door broken in and your TV missing, that is evidence of an intruder even if you can't name the person.
Do you not understand that? Is the bias that strong?



And? That someone may have died later means they didn't do it? You're making no sense.



Refute what exactly? I refuted your misinformation about touch DNA already.



Still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

UKGuy, your arguments are desperate and nonsensical. It's hard to tell if you're being serious. Until you come up with something coherent, I won't be responding to you.

Smelly Squirrel,

Linking to a named intruder is different than evidence of an intruder.

It might be so. Even it was, you have no evidence of an intruder, and that is the point. You cannot , however hard you try, magic up evidence that does not exist!

If you come home one day and find your front door broken in and your TV missing, that is evidence of an intruder even if you can't name the person.
Do you not understand that? Is the bias that strong?

But this example never occurred in the Ramsey homicide so why bother to use it? They never found door a broken in, or a tv missing. They discovered their daughter dead in the basement with no evidence of an intruder available, right down to JonBenet being redressed in size-12's and the wine-cellar door being dutifully latched accordingly! Its not bias its called forensic evidence.

And? That someone may have died later means they didn't do it? You're making no sense.

For your delectation its whats termed an existential argument. That might make more sense?

Refute what exactly? I refuted your misinformation about touch DNA already.

Patently not the case. Otherwise you would have left websleuths to become DA in Boulder. You have refuted precisely nothing.

Still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

I've been on this board a while and seen many come and go, I reckon I'll still be standing when you are long gone. And there will still be no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household!

UKGuy, your arguments are desperate and nonsensical. It's hard to tell if you're being serious. Until you come up with something coherent, I won't be responding to you.

Be my guest. Thats its hard to tell must be a reflection of your cognitive abilities. I will respond to any errors in your posts though , since your rhetoric has no substance.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

What do you mean by proof? It's been reported in the news that it's thought to be saliva.



WOW. Good luck with that in court.

Do you understand that "THOUGHT to be is NOT proof? When they state that it was found to be saliva- that is proof.

 

[DeeDee249]

Linking to a named intruder is different than evidence of an intruder.

If you come home one day and find your front door broken in and your TV missing, that is evidence of an intruder even if you can't name the person.
Do you not understand that? Is the bias that strong?
.

Except nothing was missing from the R house. Not even the "kidnap" victim.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

DeeDee, the point is you don't have to know the identity of an intruder for there to be evidence of an intruder.

 

[UKGuy]

DeeDee, the point is you don't have to know the identity of an intruder for there to be evidence of an intruder.

Smelly Squirrel,
In the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey if you have not located and physically identified some person e.g. using dna matching. Then you have no formal forensic evidence linking with anyone outside of the Ramsey household.


That in plain english means you personally have to know this persons identity before you can make any claims about an intruder!




.

 

[Junebug99]

Smelly Squirrel,
In the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey if you have not located and physically identified some person e.g. using dna matching. Then you have no formal forensic evidence linking with anyone outside of the Ramsey household.


That in plain english means you personally have to know this persons identity before you can make any claims about an intruder!




.

Wth? This is one of the most ridiculous things i've seen regarding this case.
Many crimes today remain unsolved due to no DNA match, they have DNA, they know it belongs to the killer, but they haven't matched it yet, it's hardly a rare occurrence. :banghead:

 

[Roy23]

Except nothing was missing from the R house. Not even the "kidnap" victim.

The tape used to over JBR's mouth and part of the Paintbrush was missing if I understood correctly.