Would anyone mind answering some questions I have about the case? Ive been reading and searching this site for a month or so now, and I thought it might be quicker to just ask, especially since Im having trouble corroborating certain facts. I am behind on the case and not quite as seasoned as posters here appear to be, so please bear with me. Please don't hesitate to respond if you only know 1 or 2 answers.
I'm your man, friend.
1. One of the Ramseys neighbors said they heard a scream the night of the murder, but then I read that they took it back and that they had never heard any scream. Does anyone know what the truth is? Or why the said this?
Originally, Melody Stanton said she heard a scream, but later said she "heard" the negative energy of JB's death.
2. Was anyone ever apprehended for the large amount of break-ins in the neighborhood before Dec.26th?
Not that I know of.
3. John Ramsey showered right before Patsy found the ransom note. Was the bathroom and shower ever checked for any kind of evidence?
I don't know.
4. Did the Ramseys own or ever see the movies Dirty Harry, Ruthless People?
Possibly. Those movies were on local television in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
5. Does anyone know if John had any knowledge about police procedures regarding crime scenes?
Maybe some rudimentary knowledge, but the crime-scene analysts said that whomever did this had no real knowledge of crime, only what they saw on TV or read in books.
6. Looking at the floor plans and pictures of the Ramsey house in Boulder, wouldn't it be possible for an intruder to have broken in and waited for the family to come home and go to bed without being detected? Would anyone on the 3rd or 4th floor really hear someone sneaking around in the basement?
I have a better question: how could this person have spent all that time in the house and not left any better evidence that what is available?
7. Were The Ramseys or their friends checked before they left the home in Boulder on Boxing Day?
No, and that was one of the major mistakes that were made.
8. Is it really true that the Ramseys phone records were never looked at? How is that possible?
My understanding is, that when the phone records were obtained, one of the DA's men locked them away in a safe, never to be released, saying that they were inadmissable due to how they had been collected and that the Rs' lawyers would crucify the cops and DA's office over it.
9. I heard blood droplets that were unmatched to anyone were found in Jonbenets underwear. Is this true? Wouldnt this prove there was an intruder?
'Fraid not. The blood droplets belonged to JB, not someone else. There was unidentified DNA mixed in, but it was far more degraded than JB's own DNA.
10. I may be wrong, but I thought DNA belonging to an unknown male was found near the very beginning. Some say this DNA does not matter. Why wouldnt it matter?
Because, Matt21, despite the common misconception, DNA is not the end-all, be-all of crime science. For one thing, whether or not DNA is important to a crime depends on the context in which it is found. Henry Lee himself, back in ye olden days of the OJ Simpson trial, said that in
HALF of all cases where DNA is found, it's of no value. And keep in mind, that was back when DNA testing methods were such that the authorities would need a fairly good-sized sample to even perform testing. That's not true anymore. Now, DNA testing methods are so sensitive, they can detect it anywhere, which means that more cases are going to have DNA that does not matter. You don't have to take my word for that, either. Back in 2006, Bill O'Reilly did a piece on this case with a criminologist who worked for the FBI. She said exactly what I just told you, and said that it was going to be a big problem for law enforcement in the coming years because it would allow defense attorneys to create false doubt and it would send investigators down the wrong path.
More specifically, the DNA found on JB was not blood, not semen, not anything else that would give a good sample or would be expected to be found in a crime like this. The reason the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was so important was not just because Simpson's DNA was found, but because it was blood and because he had a fresh cut on his hand. It was a simple matter for the police to conclude that his blood got there because he cut himself accidentally during his frenzied stabbing of the victims. Here, though, you have degraded DNA that was there for God-knows-how-long before the killing. Henry Lee actually took underpants from an unopened pack of panties and tested the crotch areas for human DNA, and he found it in just about everyone. Maybe that tells you something.
Actually, I'll do better than that, Matt21. I'll show you how DNA can be irrelevant. There's a man in prison in Maine right now named Dennis Dechaine. Back in 1988. he was convicted of murdering a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Cherry. He confessed to the murder under no duress, and various circumstantial items of forensic evidence and eyewitnesses supported his admissions. In a move that would foreshadow the Van Dam murder, even while police were searching for Sarah--before they even knew for sure she was dead--Dechaine's lawyer said privately that she was dead and that the cops were looking in the right place. Despite all this, there's a movement to free Dechaine based on DNA on Sarah's fingers that is not his.
While I'm at it, I'll clear up something else. RST claims that the police were playing fast and loose with the DNA, claiming that it was irrelevant while using it to exclude non-Ramsey suspects. This is not true. As ST confirmed in his court deposition, no suspects were ever cleared through DNA alone, and there's a reason for that: DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and even then when there's only one rapist and the victim was not sexually active. In virtually all other cases, DNA can only include suspects, but cannot exclude them.
Put simply, Matt21, the world is absolutely BRISTLING with human DNA. If you knew how much foreign DNA you had on you right now, you'd probably freak out.
11. It was reported Jonbenet had signs of prior vaginal trauma. Then I heard or read that this was untrue. Which is it? How do we know what to believe?
It's true, all right.
12. In the mid 2000s, John and Patsy were on Larry King to which they responded to a female caller who I believe asked them 2 questions. After John responded to the first question (though he dodged the core of it) he lied and said he couldnt hear the perfectly audible second one. Patsy then chimed in defensively, to what ended up being another lie. Here we have both John & Patsy unquestionably lying. Their speech and demeanor doesn't change and also appears to be consistent with other television interviews. If examined, can anything be gained or learned from this? Remember when this aired, how easily they lied?
I ought to remember it! The caller was our own Tricia!
Yes, I believe a good deal can be learned from studying their "performances."
13. I've never read any of the books based on this case. Is there one that is accurate and fair? If you had to recommend only one book, which would it be? And would you please state whether the book recommended shows pictures of Jonbenets crime scene or autopsy...I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM. Thank you.
My recommendation would be very self-serving, Matt.
However, that being said, there are still a few things I havent yet found:
