Premeditated murder by an Intruder

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Lacy Wood said:
(snip)

There are undoubtably other scenarios. I personally hope one shows up exonerating the family, but you can't rule them out on a clean past or religious factors. Every existing offender had a first time and how many times have we heard about the Sunday School teacher or even preacher who blew away his wife?

Ted Bundy got away with nearly 'perfect' murders for quite some time and was almost ruled out of the suspect pool because he was a law student with no criminal history.

Please understand I am not saying the killer of JonBenet was a serial killer. Rather, I am saying crimes are committed in which very little forensic evidence is discovered and when such forensic evidence is found, it doesn't stand up and shout the name of the person.

You are correct in stating every offender has a first offense, but generally there is some record of such; unruliness in school: temper tantrums; harming children or animals, etc. In other words, there is a behavioral history leading up to the first offense.

As for Sunday school teachers and preachers who blew away their wives--look to their history. Not just behavioral, but also financial, social, work related, a personal disappointment, drug or alcohol problem, or mental illness. Those people whom others believe 'simply snap' have had onging difficulties in some area of their life and if LE looks, they will find it.

Why didn't the killer take the body with him? Unless he was into necrophilia, why would he want to burden himself with disposing of a corpse?

Rainsong
 
Rainsong said:
And when he found her, the very first thing he did was to remove the duct tape. If he 'knew' and accepted she was dead, why would he do so? Removing the duct tape was not going alter the fact of her death.

Rainsong[/QUOTE

I just think it was a strange thing for John to say. He must have known she was dead after carrying her up the stairs the way he did....If rigor mortis hadnt set in and she wasnt stiff and her arms werent stuck up above her head, it might be possible that he didnt realise but the way things were I'm not sure how he could have missed it.
I think their behaviour that morning,in general was strange.
* They totally ignored the RN and rang everyone they could including their friends, their doctor and their priest.
*They looked in on Burke but didnt even search his room.
*They rang the pilot and arranged to leave the state asap.
*They let Burke go with Fleet to the White's house and didnt collect him until hours later.
 
Your statement of the lack of evil "backgrounds" for the family is indeed a statistical factor to be considered. Statistics are on your side if you look at all crime. But "statistics" is the worst thing going for the family. In fact, your insistence on a statistical view would come down to how many very young children turn up abused and dead in a home with family present but the family not involved? Very, very, few. If you go farther and throw in the number of families that resist talking with the police, you "statistically" could pretty much wrap up the case. It is not valid to pick only the statistics that support you and ignore other. But I mention this factor only to discuss your (Rainsong) statement. I am personally aware of the differences between statisical inferences emergent over an aggregate and the distinction from probabilies in the dynamic of a specific situation. The JonBenet case has circumstances that should cause us to throw out the statistical norms...It fits no mold.

Your suggesting only a necrophiliac intruder would take the body ignores the fact that she was a live child when it began. You are reaching to escape the issue of why a pedophile would not have taken the very much alive little girl. And why abuse her in the most dangerous possible environment? Was she killed immediately? If so, the hypothetical intruder did in fact molest a dead girl, if not, he had already escaped detection and could have left with her. And remember the actual statement I made above, that an intruder had a lot to gain and little to lose by removing a body that possibly has evidence against him. That is an example of a factor integral to this case and, if statistics did exist, it would be interesting to see how many perpetrators molest and kill in an occupied house and leave the girl behind . I think most would follow the unfortunate recent case of Jennifer Lunsford.
 
Rainsong said:
And when he found her, the very first thing he did was to remove the duct tape. If he 'knew' and accepted she was dead, why would he do so? Removing the duct tape was not going alter the fact of her death.

Rainsong


No, but it would clearly explain his fingerprints, etc being found on that tape---especially fibers from Patsy R.
 
Lacy Wood said:
Your statement of the lack of evil "backgrounds" for the family is indeed a statistical factor to be considered. Statistics are on your side if you look at all crime. But "statistics" is the worst thing going for the family. In fact, your insistence on a statistical view would come down to how many very young children turn up abused and dead in a home with family present but the family not involved? Very, very, few. If you go farther and throw in the number of families that resist talking with the police, you "statistically" could pretty much wrap up the case. It is not valid to pick only the statistics that support you and ignore other. But I mention this factor only to discuss your (Rainsong) statement. I am personally aware of the differences between statisical inferences emergent over an aggregate and the distinction from probabilies in the dynamic of a specific situation. The JonBenet case has circumstances that should cause us to throw out the statistical norms...It fits no mold.

Your suggesting only a necrophiliac intruder would take the body ignores the fact that she was a live child when it began. You are reaching to escape the issue of why a pedophile would not have taken the very much alive little girl. And why abuse her in the most dangerous possible environment? Was she killed immediately? If so, the hypothetical intruder did in fact molest a dead girl, if not, he had already escaped detection and could have left with her. And remember the actual statement I made above, that an intruder had a lot to gain and little to lose by removing a body that possibly has evidence against him. That is an example of a factor integral to this case and, if statistics did exist, it would be interesting to see how many perpetrators molest and kill in an occupied house and leave the girl behind . I think most would follow the unfortunate recent case of Jennifer Lunsford.

I had an in-depth response ready to post and did one more search of raped/murdered/bedroom and ended up being inundated with pop-up *advertiser censored* sites.

So, I'll now truncate my replies.

Humans are not merely numbers to be compiled into stats. They are highly individual--as are crimes. While stats can be a guide, they should not be the bottom line of any investigation, but if one goes by stats, the majority of children found dead in their homes are killed by family/immediate circle. Normally what one sees in such cases--in all familial cases of homicide--is some type of destructive history in the family dynamic. In JonBenet's case, there is none.

A few cases where the victims were killed, left in the home and the family not involved:

Stephanie Crowe
Lashenna “Jo Jo” Moore
Unnamed victim http://www.icanet.org/public/News/10111998 teen murdered.htm
Vanessa Villa
Shandra Whitehead--her alleged killer was cleared on DNA, 11months after he died on Death Row from cancer and spending 14 years behind bars

Why weren't these victims removed from the homes by their assailants? Five different killers, five diffrerent reasons.

The only difference between the rapes and murders of these victims and JonBenet's is the lack of a 'ransom' note. A note left behind in handwriting other than that belonging to the parents, John Ramsey having been eliminated and Patsy Ramsey nearly excluded.

Discussion of the choices the Ramseys made in reference to their cooperation with the BPD are moot. They made the choices based on their individual circumstances, not on someone else's circumstances and on the advice of a friend who also happened to be an attorney.

Yes, JonBenet was alive when the assault began. So were the victims I listed above, yet they were not removed from their homes either. The risk of carrying a dead or abducted child out of the home is great, particularly in a dense residential area as opposed to the rural area where Jessica Lunsford was taken. What better way to dispose of the body than to tuck it away inside the home and leave a misleading note behind?

Such an action would buy the perpetrator substantial tiime to get away, establish an alibi, cover his tracks.

Rainsong
 
But not enough time if the family had actually LOOKED all over the house. Not enough time of the PD had actually LOOKED all over the house.

ALso, this offender went so far as to leave a ransom note behind to help him getaway? Did he not realize that the body would have the most evidence in a murder? Did he not realize that there are handwriting analysts out there?

As far as the risk involved taking a child out of the house is concerned, you are right there. But this was Christmas night--the middle of the night. Not very much risk involved if you put her in a suitcase, or a bag, or just taped her mouth shut and tied her up.

There are too many elements of this crime that point to a highly organized offender to just slip up on such BIG things such as a ransom note. For instance, why was it 3 pages? Why not just say, I have your daughter, I will call you?" That leaves LESS chance of a trace---the more you leave behind at a crime scene the more the police have to work with it.
 
Rainsong said:
Yes, JonBenet was alive when the assault began. So were the victims I listed above, yet they were not removed from their homes either.
Rainsong
Nor were any of their bodies hidden within the home and none of these crimes had an accompanying fake 2 1/2 page hand written ransom note written with the parents own pen and on a pad of their own paper either.

Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death and left in her bed. Her body was not hidden. No fake ransom note was found. Her killer is schitzophrenic.

Lashenna “Jo Jo” Moore was raped and smothered. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. The man who killed her was her grandmother's boyfriend. http://www.officer.com/news/IBS/wral/news-2203746.html

Your "unknown victim" (who isn't unknown at all) was found in murdered in her home. She had been raped and her body also was not hidden. No fake ransom note was found. She was 18 and had been getting threats prior to her murder.

Vanessa Villa was raped and murdered in her own home. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. 20 years later they caught her killer based on DNA froom semen collected from the body. http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4404162/detail.html

Shandra Whitehead was raped and murdered in her home. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. DNA from semen collected was how they proved Smith was not involved. Family however WAS involved...her mother's cousin was the perp.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/etc/synopsis.html

JonBenet was not raped in the traditional sense, her body was hidden and a fake 2 1/2 page ransom note was left. No semen was collected from her body and the DNA that has been collected could be cross contamination due to sloppy autopsy proceedures.
I wish they had samples of the prior corpse John Meyer used his fingernail clippers on to compare to the microscopic incomplete DNA strand found "under" JB's finger nails (after being clipped) and shed off into the blood as well in the panties.
 
Seeker said:
Nor were any of their bodies hidden within the home and none of these crimes had an accompanying fake 2 1/2 page hand written ransom note written with the parents own pen and on a pad of their own paper either.

Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death and left in her bed. Her body was not hidden. No fake ransom note was found. Her killer is schitzophrenic.

Lashenna “Jo Jo” Moore was raped and smothered. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. The man who killed her was her grandmother's boyfriend. http://www.officer.com/news/IBS/wral/news-2203746.html

Your "unknown victim" (who isn't unknown at all) was found in murdered in her home. She had been raped and her body also was not hidden. No fake ransom note was found. She was 18 and had been getting threats prior to her murder.

Vanessa Villa was raped and murdered in her own home. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. 20 years later they caught her killer based on DNA froom semen collected from the body. http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4404162/detail.html

Shandra Whitehead was raped and murdered in her home. Her body was not hidden and no fake ransom note was found. DNA from semen collected was how they proved Smith was not involved. Family however WAS involved...her mother's cousin was the perp.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/etc/synopsis.html

JonBenet was not raped in the traditional sense, her body was hidden and a fake 2 1/2 page ransom note was left. No semen was collected from her body and the DNA that has been collected could be cross contamination due to sloppy autopsy proceedures.
I wish they had samples of the prior corpse John Meyer used his fingernail clippers on to compare to the microscopic incomplete DNA strand found "under" JB's finger nails (after being clipped) and shed off into the blood as well in the panties.

Listing of the victims in my previous post was never meant to be a duplication of the same crime as was perpetrated against JonBenet but validation that other victims have been killed within their own homes by perpetrators not in the immediate family and frequently with other family members in the home. Some have asked why JonBenet was not removed from the home. The listing of victims should show not every perpetrator removes his victim from their surroundings, nothing more.

No two crimes are ever exactly the same, not even when committed by the same person. There are other cases where the victim, generally adult women, have been raped, murdered and stuffed into closets within their own homes. Hiding bodies within the victim's home is not new nor rare.

In a previous post I noted that the ransom note was the one piece of evidence which sets JonBenet's murder apart from so many other child murders. I agree it is a fake ransom note, but the question remains, written by whom?

Rape:

"Many definitions of rape/sexual assault have been offered by a variety of sources--some credible, some questionable.

State laws generally define rape as vaginal, anal, or oral penetration involving force or threat of force. Nicholas Groth in Men Who Rape defines rape as "some form of sexual intercourse against the will of the victim or by threat of bodily injury". Other literary sources define rape as "any form of forced sexual contact". Perhaps the most accurate definition of rape is found in the dictionary. Webster's dictionary also defines rape as the crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse, however, the dictionary also describes rape as "the act of seizing or carrying off: abduction, violation"." Source: http://www.rapecrisisonline.com/articles.htm

By any of those definitions, JonBenet was raped.

"The foreign DNA that had been found under JonBenet's fingernails was extremely weak and possibly contaminated. The contamination could have taken place at any time after the material was first log=dged under the child's nails and until her body was placed on the floor near the Christmas tree. Although it was highly unlikely, the contamination could even have taken place during the autopsy. The clippers used to cut JonBenet's fingernails may not have been properly sterilized." Schiller

"It was also possible that the substance found was not correctly preserved before the DNA was extracted for testing." Schiller

Given the extreme care John Meyer took in performing JonBenet's autopsy, the likelihood of contaminated clippers being used by him is doubtful.

Rainsong
 
Rainsong said:
Listing of the victims in my previous post was never meant to be a duplication of the same crime as was perpetrated against JonBenet but validation that other victims have been killed within their own homes by perpetrators not in the immediate family and frequently with other family members in the home. Some have asked why JonBenet was not removed from the home. The listing of victims should show not every perpetrator removes his victim from their surroundings, nothing more.

No two crimes are ever exactly the same, not even when committed by the same person. There are other cases where the victim, generally adult women, have been raped, murdered and stuffed into closets within their own homes. Hiding bodies within the victim's home is not new nor rare.

In a previous post I noted that the ransom note was the one piece of evidence which sets JonBenet's murder apart from so many other child murders. I agree it is a fake ransom note, but the question remains, written by whom?

Rape:

"Many definitions of rape/sexual assault have been offered by a variety of sources--some credible, some questionable.

State laws generally define rape as vaginal, anal, or oral penetration involving force or threat of force. Nicholas Groth in Men Who Rape defines rape as "some form of sexual intercourse against the will of the victim or by threat of bodily injury". Other literary sources define rape as "any form of forced sexual contact". Perhaps the most accurate definition of rape is found in the dictionary. Webster's dictionary also defines rape as the crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse, however, the dictionary also describes rape as "the act of seizing or carrying off: abduction, violation"." Source: http://www.rapecrisisonline.com/articles.htm

By any of those definitions, JonBenet was raped.

"The foreign DNA that had been found under JonBenet's fingernails was extremely weak and possibly contaminated. The contamination could have taken place at any time after the material was first log=dged under the child's nails and until her body was placed on the floor near the Christmas tree. Although it was highly unlikely, the contamination could even have taken place during the autopsy. The clippers used to cut JonBenet's fingernails may not have been properly sterilized." Schiller

"It was also possible that the substance found was not correctly preserved before the DNA was extracted for testing." Schiller

Given the extreme care John Meyer took in performing JonBenet's autopsy, the likelihood of contaminated clippers being used by him is doubtful.

Rainsong
John Meyer did a sloppy job. Please feel free to research the fact that he did use unclean clippers and that he did not use a different set of clippers for each nail as he should have done.
 
Seeker said:
John Meyer did a sloppy job. Please feel free to research the fact that he did use unclean clippers and that he did not use a different set of clippers for each nail as he should have done.

Cite a reference, please. All I've found is Brady's rantings about Pam Paugh and the excerpts from PMPT. I believe there may be something from Thomas' book, but I have not annotated it as I have PMPT.

Thank you.

Rainsong
 
Rainsong said:
Cite a reference, please. All I've found is Brady's rantings about Pam Paugh and the excerpts from PMPT. I believe there may be something from Thomas' book, but I have not annotated it as I have PMPT.

Thank you.

Rainsong
Ask jameson or keep googling. She posted about this very fact on the BNF.
 
Rainsong said:
Cite a reference, please. All I've found is Brady's rantings about Pam Paugh and the excerpts from PMPT. I believe there may be something from Thomas' book, but I have not annotated it as I have PMPT.

Thank you.

Rainsong

It's in Steve Thomas book....page 42

When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects.


WHAAAAAT???
 
Good to see you Toltec!

BTW John Meyer was also critisized by his very own peers on national television when this info came out. I was shocked to hear this since I hadn't read ST book and didn't have satelite tv at the time. Then I checked out the discussion forums and saw jameson saying that yes it was true that the clippers weren't sterile.
 
We're suppose to leave the posters out of it....right?
However, I wish posts wouldn't show doubletalk and backpeddal when confronted with facts that show statements made to be in error.

This was posted about necrophile's "who prolong the torture of their victims to enjoy their pain." which is a completely false statement.
 
Toltec said:
It's in Steve Thomas book....page 42

When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects.


WHAAAAAT???
Why do the clippers need to be sterile? I can understand free of contamination from prior use but sterile? The corpse doesn't need to be protected from germs. Also, to quote Dr. Richard Saferstein in Forensic Serology: "Scrape the undersurface of the nails with a dull object over a piece of clean paper to collect debris. Use separate paper..for each hand." He doesn't say each finger needs to be scraped separately.
 
When they say sterile I think they mean free of any bacteria as to keep any forensic evidence from being contaminated.
Not as in protecting the corpse from germs in general.
 
I'm not sure. Baden uses tap water to moisten his rape kit DNA collection swabs, so "sterile" and bacteria contamination can't be critical. My feeling is this is another of ST's questionable statements. It reads one way but the truth is something else. i.e.

1. Perhaps using the same clippers on all fingers isn't uncommon or improper.
2. Perhaps "sterile" clippers aren't necessary.
3. Perhaps the same clippers are often used in different autopsies but ST neglects to mention they are cleaned of all contamination in between.

If you can scrape the nails with a non-sterile instrument why should the clippers be sterile? You've already contaminated them with the scraper.
 
Toltec said:
It's in Steve Thomas book....page 42

When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects.


WHAAAAAT???

I see no difficulty with using the same pair of clippers for various corpses--providing they are thoroughly cleaned after each use. There should also be no problem with using the same clippers for each hand. Given Thomas' less than sterling knowledge of the case as shown in his deposition, and the care with which Dr. Meyer took with the rest of the autopsy, I cannot put much credence into this quote.

I do, however, thank you for pointing me toward the source.

Rainsong
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
2,846
Total visitors
2,997

Forum statistics

Threads
599,910
Messages
18,101,391
Members
230,954
Latest member
SnootWolf02
Back
Top