The Big Question

[tumble]

they can sneak out the body. dump it somewhere

Dumping your loved one outside maybe is not so easy. The perp showed great care 'after the fact'. JB was tucked in and wiped down.

 

[MistyM]

was she wiped down after death or after peeing the bed? wasn't there alot of things on her face like saliva and brownish liquid?

 

[Lurker Steve]

they can sneak out the body. dump it somewhere

Dumping your loved one outside maybe is not so easy. The perp showed great care 'after the fact'. JB was tucked in and wiped down.

The great care usually points to the family - or someone else who cares about his victim. I can't see a kidnapper doing it. Someone who was "in love" with her - yes.

But dumping the body is pretty easy. Just drive up the mountains onto a forest service road, hike a little bit, and place her down.

Eeeegah, it's waay too late for me since I'm going hiking early in the morning. See you all later! This is a great board, I like talking with all of you.

 

[Tristan]

LurkerSteve....I didn't mean to be presumptuous in saying that you were
certain of Ramsey innocence.

I just want justice for this little girl, no matter where it leads.

The trouble with this case, is that there are many possible motives
and many inconsistancies due to poor handling of the case early on
by police.

As for the Ramseys not dumping the body, I try to think what I would do if
I were in their situation, and faced with a dead child and a less than savory explanation.....I would consider removing the body from the house, but they may have been extremely concerned about being spotted.
Believe me, it can happen.
Also, one or both may have been totally against leaving their precious daughter out in the cold where she would be subject to the elements and animals, etc.

If I were in their situation, I would have been FREAKING out and trying to keep my composure enough to figure out what to do.
If the Ramseys killed Jonbenet,.....and I believe they did, they had only two
options to consider if they wished to conceal this very fact:
Write the ransom note and remove the body from the house,
or write the ransom note and hide her body in the house.

There are many reasons why they chose the latter.
We will probably never know why Jonbenet was not taken from
the house, but I am 100% certain that whoever made the decision
not to remove her, did it for a VERY good reason.

 

[MistyM]

well yeah, once you remove the body from the scene of the crime. you have to deal with extra evidence. car tires. footprints. gas receipts. security cameras. people seeing you. your own possible fibers and dna at the spot where the body is found. you know what i'm talking about.

 

[tumble]

The great care usually points to the family - or someone else who cares about his victim. I can't see a kidnapper doing it. Someone who was "in love" with her - yes.

But dumping the body is pretty easy. Just drive up the mountains onto a forest service road, hike a little bit, and place her down.

Eeeegah, it's waay too late for me since I'm going hiking early in the morning. See you all later! This is a great board, I like talking with all of you.

I meant it would be very hard emotionally. The RN writer also shows concern about a proper burial. I don't think this perp wanted JB to be lying outside in the wintercold 'unattended'.

 

[Hyatt]

Your kidding. That is ridiculous. That should have been kept confidential, but then maybe it couldn't have been.

Yes, Ruby/Oswald. I thought that before I read your second sentence.

Read somewhere (news.yahoo.com) that John Ramsey is so mad that he might leave the U.S. per L. Wood. Apparently mad at the press. Shouldn't he be mad at all the wrong information feed to the press. Not trying to defend them, but they're not making it up.

Well, he's mad at the press because most legal analysts familiar with the case are now repeating the same things they did 10 years ago and most are NOT taking Karr as a plausible explanation. So, all the old suspicions regarding the Ramseys are now resufacing and he don't like that. Godd grief, what did he expect?

JMO

 

[BBB167893]

"In a ruling March 31, 2003, by U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes on a libel case brought against the Ramseys stemming from their book, Carnes found evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet more persuasive than evidence that her mother might have done so."

None of the evidence the police collected against the Ramseys was PRESENTED at that trial, in case anyone's forgotten. As for the DA agreeing, Michael Kane said that if she came to that conclusion, she hadn't read her own file!

"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."

No, the photo shows that there was no disturbance in the window well.

"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."

It was matched to Patsy, like I said. I went over the broadcast last night.

"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."

The majority of pathologists say this was not a stun gun.

"It always amazes me when the Ramseys or their relatives use the same words that were in the ransom note."

it impressed the linguistic analysts, too.

"well yeah, once you remove the body from the scene of the crime. you have to deal with extra evidence. car tires. footprints. gas receipts. security cameras. people seeing you. your own possible fibers and dna at the spot where the body is found. you know what i'm talking about."

Precisely.

"So, all the old suspicions regarding the Ramseys are now resurfacing and he don't like that. Godd grief, what did he expect?"

No kidding! Pat Browne, a criminal profiler, had this to say:

"If this guy isn't it, I'm with Wendy (Murphy) all the way."

 

[Barbara]

The big question here is not whether or not JMK killed JonBenet - but whether ANY "intruder" could have killed her.
With the facts as we know them in this case - how do they measure up against the current frenzy that seems to "assume" that indeed an intruder could have killed JonBenet.

I think it is important to take a step back here, clear our heads and take an elementary look at the BASIC facts of the case. And with those basic facts, ask ourselves if they could in any way allow for JMK as the perp.

FACTS:

1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
found on their stairs.

2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.

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.

4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
friends house with NO police protection.

5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
home "hidden" in the basement.

6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.

7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.

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.

9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth.

10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
left hand and attempted to be disguised.

11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
come equipped with the note?
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
grab the child and leave?
If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
dead.

12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
driven to commit their crimes for sex.
Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money.
Experts have emphasised this time and again.

13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
and talk to the police.

14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. During the night
he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." That morning and
the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
their every move!

15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
NEVER on behalf of John. Why?

16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense.


It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning.
It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money.
If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
They grab the child and RUN!!!!!

The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.

John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey. :banghead:

You've said it all and as always, EXCELLENT!

Just wanted to say hi after all these years K777Angel

I see you are as strong and intelligent as ever! :blowkiss:

 

[K777angel]

You've said it all and as always, EXCELLENT!

Just wanted to say hi after all these years K777Angel

I see you are as strong and intelligent as ever! :blowkiss:

Thank you so much Barbara - and to all who voiced similar sentiments.

This news brought me back to the forums once again. Haven't been here much.

Am anxiously awaiting the next development in this bizarre and never-ending case!

Hugs to all..... ~Angel~

 

[gaia]

K777angel, let me add my happiness in seeing you return to this forum. Your above post really "nails it"!!


gaia:dance:

 

[K777angel]

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.

OK, two points.

First, zeroing in on one teensy speck of DNA found in her underwear that was SO small they could not even get a FULL profile, - and ignoring the bigger point that that is ALL the "DNA" they found - is well, kind of inept, don't you think? It assumes that because they found the almighty "DNA" to - it's "end of case." Hold on!
WHERE is all the rest of the DNA you should rightfully expect to find then at the crime scene?? With the amount of time the perp spent on that crime!
Where are the foreign fibers?
Where are the foreign fingerprints on, say, the pen cup holder?
The note pad?
The Sharpie pen?
To name just a few items we KNOW the perp handled.
There are none.
Because there was no intruder.

It is just as important in evaluating a crime scene to consider what ISN'T there (and should be) - as what is there.

~Angel~

 

[K777angel]

K777angel, let me add my happiness in seeing you return to this forum. Your above post really "nails it"!!


gaia:dance:

Ahh...You are so kind!! I'm glad to be back! :woohoo: thank you.

 

[tumble]

OK, two points.

First, zeroing in on one teensy speck of DNA found in her underwear that was SO small they could not even get a FULL profile, - and ignoring the bigger point that that is ALL the "DNA" they found - is well, kind of inept, don't you think? It assumes that because they found the almighty "DNA" to - it's "end of case." Hold on!
WHERE is all the rest of the DNA you should rightfully expect to find then at the crime scene?? With the amount of time the perp spent on that crime!
Where are the foreign fibers?
Where are the foreign fingerprints on, say, the pen cup holder?
The note pad?
The Sharpie pen?
To name just a few items we KNOW the perp handled.
There are none.
Because there was no intruder.

It is just as important in evaluating a crime scene to consider what ISN'T there (and should be) - as what is there.

~Angel~

I think it is also important to recognize that JBR's DNA in the blood in which the foreign DNA was found was not that degraded. If they were deposited at the same time they should be of the same quality.

 

[K777angel]

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.

OOps - forgot 2nd point:

Just what did Mary Keenan "review" about this case?
What Judge Carnes wrote? :doh:
Gee. Talk about an "opinion" (and that's ALL it was folks) based on totally one-sided and biased information! (from the suspects' lawyer! good grief!)

What was reported is that Mary Lacy (Keenan) read Judge Carnes' opinion and said, "Hmm... ok, that makes sense."
Did she ever REALLY evaluate every piece of evidence in this case?
Or did she rely instead on the Ramsey's lawyer and those detectives who, all along have been on the "intruder" side?
And just what did THEY present to her?
Biased and incomplete data?
It is very possible.

Something stinks in Boulder.
And it isn't the sewer plant. :sick:

 

[sandraladeda]

I agree, K777. Keenan should hang out here at WS, read all books written on the case, meet all the players, review the police files. She might get a handle on the case.

imo, it was irresponsible of the judge to write this opinion, without fully exploring all the facts of the case. Now there are far too many people who place too much value on this judge's opinion, as though it represents the final word.

imho

 

[RJML]

OK, two points.

First, zeroing in on one teensy speck of DNA found in her underwear that was SO small they could not even get a FULL profile, - and ignoring the bigger point that that is ALL the "DNA" they found - is well, kind of inept, don't you think? It assumes that because they found the almighty "DNA" to - it's "end of case." Hold on!
WHERE is all the rest of the DNA you should rightfully expect to find then at the crime scene?? With the amount of time the perp spent on that crime!
Where are the foreign fibers?
Where are the foreign fingerprints on, say, the pen cup holder?
The note pad?
The Sharpie pen?
To name just a few items we KNOW the perp handled.
There are none.
Because there was no intruder.

It is just as important in evaluating a crime scene to consider what ISN'T there (and should be) - as what is there.

~Angel~

Err, gloves? Would explain the lack of finger prints. Why would you expect fingerprints of someone doing a crime?

As for the dna thing...so because there isn't a lot then that means no intruder? Interesting. There are many cases where they find no dna of the perp so why can't that be the same here?

Listen, I am undecided if I think it was a parent or intruder crime but I think a lot of the evidence people state for the Ramseys doing it is well, silly. Things like fingerprints, fibres, etc of people living inside the house means nothing since well, they live there. If Patsy was wearing her sweater that Xmas day then why wouldn't some fibres be found? If she hugged JB that day then you could logically conclude fibres from a sweater would get on her body, etc. Some say fibres were found on the paintbrush...so? Maybe she was in her basement painting xmas morning or maybe they transfered from JonBenet to the burh or whatever. Even if she didnt, fibres can be in the air and can get onto people as they walk around.

I just don't see how people can be so certain it was Patsy or John. If it was such a simple case pointing to their guilt then obviously they'd have been arrested for it but they haven't so there is OBVIOUSLY something that shows it isn't so simple like some here are trying to imply. They have charged humans for crimes with less evidence than people here claim points to them doing it so again, there is a reason why in 9.5 years they haven't charged them for it.

 

[RJML]

"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."

It was matched to Patsy, like I said. I went over the broadcast last night.

A male's pubic hair was from Patsy Ramsey? Interesting.

 

[dragonfly707]

9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth.

I never really was able to follow the JB case in great detail, and I joined WS when Laci Peterson first went missing so most of my time here was spent in the forums regarding that case.

The above quote really stands out to me, and bothers me greatly as to how exactly were these fibers explained away? In other words why did they not carry more weight in solving the case and a possible arrest? How in the world would fibers from a mother's sweater be intwined in tape or the garotte if the person wearing the sweater was not there?

I also have another question, was it ever released as to what the pages of the note that were thrown in the trash said?

 

[tumble]

I never really was able to follow the JB case in great detail, and I joined WS when Laci Peterson first went missing so most of my time here was spent in the forums regarding that case.

The above quote really stands out to me, and bothers me greatly as to how exactly were these fibers explained away? In other words why did they not carry more weight in solving the case and a possible arrest? How in the world would fibers from a mother's sweater be intwined in tape or the garotte if the person wearing the sweater was not there?

I also have another question, was it ever released as to what the pages of the note that were thrown in the trash said?

Yes, this is one of the strongest evidence, but appearantly not enough for an arrest.

The missing pages from the pad were never located.