The Big Question

[LovelyPigeon]

If Fernie left prints on the grass it's because he didn't walk on the sidewalks. The sidewalks were clear. Sidewalks and a patio led to the broken basement window.

Smit, an experienced and thorough homicide detective, studied the crime scene photos, the police reports, etc and concluded that there was no snow on the sidewalks, only patches of snow on the ground, and hence, no footprints left in snow.

 

[tumble]

If Fernie left prints on the grass it's because he didn't walk on the sidewalks. The sidewalks were clear. Sidewalks and a patio led to the broken basement window.

Smit, an experienced and thorough homicide detective, studied the crime scene photos, the police reports, etc and concluded that there was no snow on the sidewalks, only patches of snow on the ground, and hence, no footprints left in snow.

No, no prints on his photos taken 9.00. But even Fernies prints seems not to have been on his photos which were left 8.00, he would have followed them up then woudn't he, experienced and thorough as he was.
Seems those photos doesn't add up to much regarding the state of the snow on the ground on that morning.

 

[absolut_alexis]

I think that it was a family crime, but I do think that ...

3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
of friends to come over. i can accept calling the police. The scores of friends? makes no sense to me.

I would call everyone I knew to come look for her if I thought someone had taken her, to hang signs and do what people do for missing children.

 

[William N]

FWIW, I'm waiting to see what happens with John Karr. Did the Boulder DA's office arrest Karr without checking to see if there was any way for Karr to have been in Colorado on December 25, 1996?

Another point is that an intruder can get in if a residence is not completely locked down with alarms. I recall reading a book by Max Wylie, brother of novelist Philip Wylie, whose daughter Janice was murdered with her roommate in their Manhattan apartment in 1963. This case was called "The Career Girl Murders." Wylie wrote that people have a false sense of security in their own homes and apartments. Intruders cab find their way in even in "safe" neighborhoods.

 

[UKGuy]

But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.

JBean,

No, simply because there is no forensic evidence that supports the theory that an intruder entered the Ramsey household and kiled JonBenet.

You can generate a list of intruder theories that incorporate various motives to explain the current forensic evidence e.g. Lou Smit's sociopathic pedophile who has a fetish for erotic asphyxiation.

But since its evident that the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, then all the intruder theories have to explain this, but all fail to do so.

So it will be interesting to discover at John Karr's trial why he chose size-12 undwear to redress JonBenet, and what he did with her size-6 underwear, the missing piece of the paintbrush handle, and why he forgot to remove the flashlight from the crime-scene, particularly after wiping it clean?


.

 

[JBean]

JBean,

No, simply because there is no forensic evidence that supports the theory that an intruder entered the Ramsey household and kiled JonBenet.

You can generate a list of intruder theories that incorporate various motives to explain the current forensic evidence e.g. Lou Smit's sociopathic pedophile who has a fetish for erotic asphyxiation.

But since its evident that the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, then all the intruder theories have to explain this, but all fail to do so.

So it will be interesting to discover at John Karr's trial why he chose size-12 undwear to redress JonBenet, and what he did with her size-6 underwear, the missing piece of the paintbrush handle, and why he forgot to remove the flashlight from the crime-scene, particularly after wiping it clean?


.

While my jury is still out,thanks for a reasonable answer that wasn't rude at all.

 

[DonSocco]

8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
could not ever get a full profile from it.
With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not.

Reply:
At least some of the DNA found in this case, is "CODIS-certified." This means it is of high enough quality, with enough markers, to be entered into the FBI's national DNA database.
Currently, the national data base, CODIS, requires input of a certain
number of sites on the human genome - 10 sites or more to enter CODIS and 8 sites to enter into State databases.

During the 6 years that the BPD was investigating this case, it NEVER
submitted the DNA to the FBI's national DNA database, nor to any of the state DNA databases. That was simply WRONG. Irresponsible and morally WRONG.

You have to wonder why they made that choice. Were they really trying to set up the parents? It's a question that needs to be asked.

From what I understand, it seems it wasn't so long ago Mary Keenan actually sat down to really review this case and all the BPD decisions and actions - and she was furious. According to my source, the DA went to Police Chief Mark Beckner and told him one way or another, she would have the case. He could do it this way or fight and - that might have been a very ugly scene.

Bottom line is this - - the DNA is good - - it can be very important in this case. And now it will be entered into the data banks - - the new investigative team could be very busy very soon.

 

[JBean]

8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
could not ever get a full profile from it.
With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not.

Reply:
At least some of the DNA found in this case, is "CODIS-certified." This means it is of high enough quality, with enough markers, to be entered into the FBI's national DNA database.
Currently, the national data base, CODIS, requires input of a certain
number of sites on the human genome - 10 sites or more to enter CODIS and 8 sites to enter into State databases.

During the 6 years that the BPD was investigating this case, it NEVER
submitted the DNA to the FBI's national DNA database, nor to any of the state DNA databases. That was simply WRONG. Irresponsible and morally WRONG.

You have to wonder why they made that choice. Were they really trying to set up the parents? It's a question that needs to be asked.

From what I understand, it seems it wasn't so long ago Mary Keenan actually sat down to really review this case and all the BPD decisions and actions - and she was furious. According to my source, the DA went to Police Chief Mark Beckner and told him one way or another, she would have the case. He could do it this way or fight and - that might have been a very ugly scene.

Bottom line is this - - the DNA is good - - it can be very important in this case. And now it will be entered into the data banks - - the new investigative team could be very busy very soon.

Interesting post DS, very interesting.Thank you.

 

[UKGuy]

LovelyPigeon,

From http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4923124,00.html :

The case for an intruder

Smit has long argued that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey. These are the clues he has cited:

• Outdoor footprints: Early in the case, law enforcement leaks said no footprints were seen in snow around the Ramsey house, which seemed to discount the possibility of an intruder. However, Smit examined police photographs taken before 9 a.m., the morning after JonBenet's death that showed much of the perimeter of the house, including walkways, was clear of snow.

• Basement window: Police photographs show an open basement window. The window, hidden from view, would have been a likely point of entry for an intruder. A grate over the window well appeared to have been moved, leaving green foliage caught under its edge. Leaves and debris from the window well were found on the basement floor directly below the open window. There appeared to be less debris next to the central window, which was open, than elsewhere in the window well. Finally, areas of the window appeared to have been wiped clean as if disturbed by someone; a piece of broken glass looked like it had been dislodged; and there was a scuff mark, perhaps from a shoe, below the window.
There is more than one window in the Ramsey household, plus door keys were lying about outdoors under stones etc

• Debris in the wine cellar: Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the basement wine cellar, where JonBenet's body was found. They included foam peanut packing material, an autumn leaf and a footprint.
but none have been linked to an intruder

• DNA evidence: Foreign DNA - but not Ramsey family DNA - was found on JonBenet's body, both under her fingernails and in her underwear.
The source of the dna is an open question

• The suitcase: A hard-sided suitcase was discovered below the open window. The killer, figuring it was safe to go out the way he came in, may have used it to boost himself up. John Ramsey said the suitcase was not in that area of the basement before, suggesting that someone moved it there. In addition, if the suitcase had been under the window for a long time, dust and debris would have collected on it. But little was there.
I believe Fleet White moved the suitcase?

• Hair and fibers: Many significant hairs and fibers associated with the crime don't belong to John or Patsy. A hair, possibly a pubic hair, from a Caucasian male was found on the blanket covering JonBenet. The hair doesn't match John Ramsey. Light brown, cotton fibers were found on wood shards of the broken paintbrush, the duct tape, the nylon cord and on JonBenet's body.
I believe the pubic hair was matched to JAR, or was it his semen? Many people are alleged to have slept in the bed

• The stun gun: Marks on JonBenet's back and face matched those caused by a stun gun. The marks were not on her face the previous evening, according to photos of her opening Christmas presents. Her parents didn't own a stun gun.
They can aslo be matched to many other blunt objects e.g. rings, buttons, pebbles etc, the idea of a stun-gun is mere speculation.

• Unidentified footprints: There were unidentified footprints in the mold on the wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints. One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but didn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and didn't match any shoes found in the house. Another print belonged to a Hi-Tec boot, which also does not match any shoes owned by the family.
Could have arrived there by any of the workmen who had previously worked on the house, taking a walk around.

• Ransom note: The letter made frequent allusions to death and violence. It threatened "immediate execution" of JonBenet. There were four consecutive threats ending with "she dies." There's a reference to calling between 8 and 10 "tomorrow morning." To Smit, this suggested the letter was written before midnight, before JonBenet's killing.
If the ransom note was fake, then the author may have deliberately misrepresented the chronology, to suit a bedtime abduction?

• The killer took something away: Because none of the cord or tape was found in the home, and no stun gun was ever recovered, Smit thinks the killer must have taken any unused cord and tape, plus the stun gun, with him when he left.
The killer also left a wiped flashlight behind, but removed JonBenet's size-6 underwear, and possibly took the missing piece of the paintbrush handle too, whilst forgetting to redress JonBenet in her Barbie-Gown, and remove her blankets!

.

 

[UKGuy]

While my jury is still out,thanks for a reasonable answer that wasn't rude at all.

JBean,

No problem, why bother insulting people, this will just make them angry and unreasonable, much better they have a clear mind, and let the facts speak for themselves.


.

 

[JBean]

JBean,

No problem, why bother insulting people, this will just make them angry and unreasonable, much better they have a clear mind, and let the facts speak for themselves.


.

Amen.

 

[txsvicki]

It always amazes me when the Ramseys or their relatives use the same words that were in the ransom note. Pam Paugh was calling Karr this "gentleman" during her interview the other day. To me, that is such a strange thing to say after the word "gentlemen" was used in the ransom note. Those words would be imprinted on my brain and I don't think I'd ever use the words victory, gentlemen, pineapple themes, etc. again.

 

[narlacat]

Patsy went one better than actually saying the word pineapple, she decorated with pineapple wallpaper in her new house, after JBR's death!

Pam is always quoting stuff out of that note, she did it just recently when Patsy died, 'she has her victory now' or something like that.

Strange family those Paugh's.

 

[Tristan]

K777Angel....EXCELLENT POST!

I feel exactly as you do, and I have always wondered why the Ramseys
have sued for slander against Burke and Patsy, but not John.

The Ramseys are 100% guilty, and there is one very true statement that
has been spoken by John Karr, "This case is not what it seems."

 

[Lurker Steve]

K777Angel....EXCELLENT POST!

I feel exactly as you do, and I have always wondered why the Ramseys
have sued for slander against Burke and Patsy, but not John.

I may be mistaken, but weren't they the ones most often accused of being the culprit?

Also, there may be a sense of chivalry at work - "attack me if you must, but hands off the wife and kids." I know lots of husbands/fathers who think like this. Heck, if one person said *advertiser censored* about me and another about my GF, I'd go after the person who spoke badly about my GF. No doubt.

This isn't proof of how JR thinks. Rather, it's meant to demonstrate that we're all different, and JR reacting a different way doesn't necessarily indicate guilt.

 

[newtv]

But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.

sure can-its like a job..if you want to fire someone all u have to do is follow them around and make notes of their mistakes..we all go thru our day making mistakes..as soon as u are on a hit list-they will just make sure yours are recorded and more so that what you do is interpreted in the worst light-pretty soon u are fired with cause.
anyone can produce a list, hence those investigators that made their list in favor of an intruder theory and those who made it in favor of an inside..its really that simple.
So based on our life experience, the way we interpret information, our prejudices, our biases, our values, scuence if we have it, facts, fiction, etc. we choose a side.
I really dont think there is anything anyone will ever do to change a persons mind-in fact, a video tape sent by God to earth saying the killer wasnt the ramseys wouldnt convince those who have that bias..if God sent me a tape of them doing it- I would then say they are guilty..but the other way around-no way- it will never matter.

 

[JBean]

sure can-its like a job..if you want to fire someone all u have to do is follow them around and make notes of their mistakes..we all go thru our day making mistakes..as soon as u are on a hit list-they will just make sure yours are recorded and more so that what you do is interpreted in the worst light-pretty soon u are fired with cause.
anyone can produce a list, hence those investigators that made their list in favor of an intruder theory and those who made it in favor of an inside..its really that simple.
So based on our life experience, the way we interpret information, our prejudices, our biases, our values, scuence if we have it, facts, fiction, etc. we choose a side.
I really dont think there is anything anyone will ever do to change a persons mind-in fact, a video tape sent by God to earth saying the killer wasnt the ramseys wouldnt convince those who have that bias..if God sent me a tape of them doing it- I would then say they are guilty..but the other way around-no way- it will never matter.

HI new. you are on a "post roll" tonight. Lots of good ones.

 

[Tristan]

LurkerSteve....good point about the notion that John may have been more protective of his family, thereby not suing on his own behalf.
That is, of course, speculation, as is my theory that John is in this up
to his neck.

I'm curious....what is your primary reason for being absolutely certain that
the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder of Jonbenet?

 

[Nova]

I think that it was a family crime, but I do think that ...

3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
of friends to come over. i can accept calling the police. The scores of friends? makes no sense to me.

I would call everyone I knew to come look for her if I thought someone had taken her, to hang signs and do what people do for missing children.

I'm sure you would call everyone if your child merely disappeared. But if you found a ransom note?

And would you make those calls instantly, without taking more than a minute or two to consider the ramifications of ignoring the warnings in the note?

I find that hard to believe.

(BTW, were any of the actions you list (look for the missing child, hang signs, etc., actually undertaken by the Rs' friends that morning?)

 

[Lurker Steve]

LurkerSteve....good point about the notion that John may have been more protective of his family, thereby not suing on his own behalf.
That is, of course, speculation, as is my theory that John is in this up
to his neck.

I'm curious....what is your primary reason for being absolutely certain that
the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder of Jonbenet?

Who says I am?

I'm looking for good evidence one way or another. What I'm trying to do is take some of the evidence, take a look at it, and say "hmm, this could point both ways. It's not really evidence."

For instance - take the ransom note. The handwriting analysis indicates that it could be PR. HOWEVER, some say that they'd follow the instructions and not call the cops. In this case, not calling the police is to the Ramsey's advantage - they can sneak out the body. dump it somewhere, clean up a bit, and then call the cops when "the kidnappers never called."