The Big Question

[K777angel]

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.

Most criminals who are so bold as to even enter a home (not to mention on Christmas) - do NOT spend that much time there! They get in quickly, do what they came to do and then get the **ll out.
It isn't simply the notion that someone else was there - it is the lengthy amount of time they would have been there. This constitutes a different scenario than the "cases" you suggest where there was little or not forensic evidence left behind.

Yes of course the Ramseys' hair or fibers would be expected all around as they lived there.
The potentially incriminating thing about it is that Patsy claims to have never gone down in that basement that day.
Yet - her sweater fibers were found not only entwined in the knots in the cord around JonBenet's neck, but also on the sticky side of the duct tape that was placed on her mouth.
John ripped that duct tape off and left it lying there on the blanket.
While it "could" be explained away as just possibly being transfer evidence, it is yet one more thing that points suspiciously in Patsy's direction as having involvement in the crime and or staging.

Again, it is not one piece of evidence you look at in a crime, it is the totallity of all the evidence put together.

Why was a Ramsey never indicted?
Simple.
You cannot charge someone with a crime when you know they were involved but do not know just WHO did WHAT.
To this day.
Keep in mind that there is always the possibility that the killing of JonBenet might not have involved JUST activity in the house alone that night.
A few years ago Alex Hunter was on Geraldo and said something very interesting.
Geraldo asked Hunter a question that prompted Hunter to respond with: "Well there is "some" evidence of intruder, but all we are looking at is NOT in the home! It is much more complicated than that."

And - of course he emphasized over and over that the Ramseys were NOT excluded as suspects.

And keep in mind too, that what is called evidence of "intruder" might simply mean just artifacts at the scene they cannot account for.
Same as if you went through your house right now with a fine tooth comb.
You would come up with odd artifacts that you could not explain too.
Doesn't mean someone sinister snuck in your home and put them there.
Could have been anyone - or anything - that innocently found it's way into your home legitimately.
Same at the Ramsey home.
(*For instance the "hi-tech" boot print. Not only do POLICE wear this brand and it could have very likely been put there by one of them, but turns out that reports state that Burke Ramsey did indeed own a pair. In spite of claims his parents made to the contrary. But not the first time they denied what turned out to be something true.)

 

[Nuisanceposter]

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

Obviously it wasn't male, and it wasn't a pubic hair - it was an ancillary hair, like from your arm - or, more specifically, Patsy's. Steve Thomas talks about it in his book.

 

[close_enough]

I'm waiting for this "equally compelling list" of facts that point to an intruder.

won't be much of a 'list', imo.....

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I'm really curious what that list would be - anyone up for compiling it? I'm a PDI myself, but I'll admit the DNA has made me wonder. So far DNA is the only argument for an intruder I know of. Maybe the discrepancy as to whether doors/windows were locked or not...

Other than that, what are the compelling things that indicate an intruder was the killer?

 

[Hannah yo]

I think you guys are forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty."

K777 I love how you know the most about this case but I have watched it on the news and even better on Closing arguments with Nancy Grace and I just dont see a motive for the mother. I was looking at the cases that had to do with Mothers killing their kids and its very unlikey for a mother to kill just one kid, it usually ends up in the killing of all her kids, cause by insanity like we saw with Andrea yates and the woman who killed her 3 boys on mothers day.

But then again John Mark Karr had very many holes in his confession. Like the fact that he said the 2 abrasions on her body where from him using a taser gun, when the autopsy report said they were from her clothes or buttons on her close. Then he goes on to say he drugged her, and again the autopsy said nothing about drugs in her system.

I could be wrong. I'm only 15 and I'd like to grow up and take a career in the police force. Dont be to hard on me haha.

 

[narlacat]

Hi Hannah

Good luck with the career!

Some people indeed think Pats wasn't playing with a full deck, I kinda agree.

 

[Hannah yo]

Haha Thank you.

I do to in a way, but I just dont see her motive. I'll be keeping up with this case though and I'm sure more then one of us will be proved wrong some day. But as old as this case is, I dont see it going very far.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Haha Thank you.

I do to in a way, but I just dont see her motive. I'll be keeping up with this case though and I'm sure more then one of us will be proved wrong some day. But as old as this case is, I dont see it going very far.

Personally, I don't care about why. It's the means and opportunity that's important.

 

[narlacat]

The motive is not always apparent.

 

[Linda7NJ]

More importantly, a motive doesn't need to be established for a conviction....



But in this case, IMO it's too late anyway, she died

 

[Hannah yo]

But thats the first thing you look for is suspects and then when you have them you look for motive. Its the way I've seen them do their jobs.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Hannahyo,legally one does not need a motive for any sort of conviction--but,on a more practical sense,a motive is desireable--Remember that there is no such thing as a "motiveless" crime--Every crime has a motive,no matter how stupid and inexplicable it may appear to the average person

 

[Hannah yo]

your exactly right. I am reading a story that has to do with the Beliefe that Patsy Ramsey did kill Jonbenet.



http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

 

[K777angel]

I think you guys are forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty."

K777 I love how you know the most about this case but I have watched it on the news and even better on Closing arguments with Nancy Grace and I just dont see a motive for the mother. I was looking at the cases that had to do with Mothers killing their kids and its very unlikey for a mother to kill just one kid, it usually ends up in the killing of all her kids, cause by insanity like we saw with Andrea yates and the woman who killed her 3 boys on mothers day.

But then again John Mark Karr had very many holes in his confession. Like the fact that he said the 2 abrasions on her body where from him using a taser gun, when the autopsy report said they were from her clothes or buttons on her close. Then he goes on to say he drugged her, and again the autopsy said nothing about drugs in her system.

I could be wrong. I'm only 15 and I'd like to grow up and take a career in the police force. Dont be to hard on me haha.

Thank you Hannah!

One thing I'd like to point out is that not everyone thinks that Patsy was the one who killed JonBenet. There are those who suspect that maybe Burke was the one who lashed out at his sister and mortally wounded her and his parents covered it up and staged the crime scene to look like an intruder did it. They botched it if that was their intent. Long term anyway. But it was short term they were mainly focused on. (The next morning after they called the police)
Anyway, it is true - you do not 'have' to prove a motive for a crime. You only have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they are the one who in fact committed the crime.

Also, while not the norm, there are parents who suddenly "snap", lash out at their child and sometimes kill them. There is a name for that particular phenomena but it escapes me right now. I have read about it and have seen experts on tv talk of it.
Basically, the parent is so absolutey mortified that they did it - that some actually go into a type of permanent denial where they actually do not BELIEVE they did it and honestly think someone else did.
Some have said that OJ Simpson may have suffered from that for a time. Who knows.
But it does happen.
And there IS a name for it.
I will try and look that up and post it when I find it. (Tomorrow after some much needed SLEEP!

~Angel~

 

[hoppyfrog]

(*For instance the "hi-tech" boot print. Not only do POLICE wear this brand and it could have very likely been put there by one of them, but turns out that reports state that Burke Ramsey did indeed own a pair. In spite of claims his parents made to the contrary. But not the first time they denied what turned out to be something true.)

It bothers me that so much is made of The R's saying Burke did not own "Hi-Tec" brand boots/shoes. Good grief! I don't know all the brands of shoes my kids own, and they don't own that many. (Not as much money in our home as in the R home!)

I'm a full-time parent and deovted to my kids. But remember their shoe brands?? Last week I took kids #2 and #3 shoe shopping. I know we bought Brooks running shoes for #2, but I was sure the previous pair were Nike. Nope, in the store I noticed they were Adidas. I know that #3 was currently wearing Sketchers, but for the life of me I can't remember what we bought last week to use as gym shoes for the upcoming school year.

Anyone else think too much is made of the R's not know what brand(s) Burke had?

Hoppy, truly curious

 

[narlacat]

Well, add to that all the other things they couldn't remember and it becomes a bit sus.

 

[scandi]

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

The missing pages from the pad were never located.

Dr Lee said with affirmity yesterday there were two practice pages in addition to the 3 page note.
Scandi

 

[tumble]

Dr Lee said with affirmity yesterday there were two practice pages in addition to the 3 page note.
Scandi

Yes, but one of those practice pages where not actually found but ink from that page had leaked to the page after it.

You can see a description of the pad here.

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello Angel,

Question for you... Just thinking out loud and you have obviously studied this case... Perhaps you can comment on some thoughts...

IF, let's say, a family member were responsible for JBRs death (perhaps an accident or a result of some anger that occurred), I'm thinking of the autopsy report... I've reviewed only a few photos of this little ones damaged body...

So, IF it was a family member, what did they do originally to set off the need to stage a crime? JBR was obviously alive at the time of the ligature, as there are bruisings and marks that make that obvious (i.e. her heart was beating at the time.) From what I understand, there was only a relatively small amount of brain hemorrhage, which would lead one to believe that the blow to the head occurred just shortly before the heart stopped beating.

And then...reading in the autopsy report... I'm really curious about this sad note: "Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa."

Did this type of congestion occur due to a "stimulation" of the area (prior to death), or is this type of congestion consistent with asphyxiation?

But back to the point... IF this was an accidental or anger produced incident, what caused someone to figure that a murder needed to be staged? If, first, someone banged her on the head (or caused her to fall and bang her head), she was almost assuredly still breathing and had her heart beating prior to a staged ligature. That ligature would have had to be placed quite quickly after the bang on the head, it seems...or it seems there would be more bleeding in the brain.

If, at first, there was an accident or a stroke of anger that caused a head bang, it seems very likely JBR would have gone unconcious. There was no laceration it seems, so however her head got banged, it doesn't seem possible that someone looking at the head would have seen the huge fracture to the skull (to say, oh dear, we better finish her off.) If this occurred prior to the ligature, whoever had her at the time (if they had a brain), would have noticed she was still breathing - and if they checked, her heart was still beating. The staging of a ligature would have had to be done very quickly afterwards to show the bruising that it did without a long time for the brain to continue bleeding.

Point being, if this was an accident (the head bang)...it seems 911 would have been called because, although she might have been unconcious, she was still breathing and her heart was still beating.

But if it wasn't the head bang...then what might have driven someone to move forward with murder? Could it have been a molestation, causing the congestion, then the child screamed and got banged on the head to shut her up? After the head bang...perhaps things had gone too far, so a quick staging with the ligature had to be done? But...it had to be done really quickly, based on the little amount of bleeding in the brain, and it just seems like a staging would have taken more "thinking time" (i.e. what to do at this point.)

Hmmmm.... How did this all come down? If it wasn't the head bang that caused a move forward to a staging, then what was it? Was the child's neck and spine x-rayed? Is it possible she was pushed down stairs and was unconcious? But were there any injuries indicating this? IF she was unconcious, perhaps they thought...this has to be staged, but why if she was still breathing and her heart was beating, why not call for help?

Nope...I don't get this... Even if there was an accident (or an intentional blow to the head to knock her out), someone put that ligature on a child who was breathing and had a heart beat.

What is the most credible theory that you have heard Angel?

W

 

[Trino]

If Karr took JB downstairs by saying her parents wanted her, would a 6 year old really have remained quiet through all of this? Would she have voluntarily gone to the lower level? If Karr forced her, did he tape her mouth before they went to the basement? How did Karr remove his fingerprints from duct tape? Ever try to tear duct tape with gloves on?